Language Policy and Identity in Mauritania. El Hacen Moulaye Ahmed
transliteration of personal and place names from Arabic and sometimes from French into English follows the official convention in Mauritania and most of literature. Concerning personal names, in contrast with the convention in Mauritania, Mauritanians are listed by their last names. The term “ould,” which means son of, is considered part of the name in Mauritania; thus, most writers include it when they write their names. As such, the term is added to the last name whenever it was found, and both of them are considered the last name of the author.
We used also a simplified version of the Library of Congress Arabic transcription system with the following exception. That is, diacritics in Arabic words and names are avoided. For instance, instead of referring to “ayn” by (’), it was spelled as “aa.” In addition, the Arabic definite article “al” is included as part of the term that includes it in original entry.
Language and identity have been twin souls alongside history or even before history. “This is why Rousseau leaves unresolved the problem of ‘which was the more necessary, society already formed to invent languages or languages already invented to form society?’” Thus, the social nature of the human being is intimately tied up with human linguistic ability (Fiala, 2002, p. 38). The inseparable relationship between language and identity led some linguists to neglect the other components of identity (e.g., culture, age, and religion) and declare that “the entire phenomenon of identity can be understood as a linguistic one” (Joseph, 2004, p. 12). Such intertwined relationship is characterized by fulfilled promises, mutual interests, and common needs. On the one hand, a human being has social interests and needs; accordingly, the identity of the individual as well as the state is formed and maintained through language. This is because language is “man’s way of communicating with his fellow man and it is language alone which separates him from the lower animals” (Crystal & Crystal, 2000, p. 3). On the other hand, Abley (2003) argued that language is nurtured and kept alive by verbal practices besides written transcripts (pp. 38–39).
In the context of the intertwined relation between language and identity, the coexistence between multilingual communities and their agreements over the language policy have created many problems for many countries that have multicultural diversity, for a state has to decide which language(s) should be selected and adopted as the official language(s), and some groups tend to refuse such policy and thus stage their protests. Indeed, Bretton (1976) argued “[i]t is clear why blood is drawn over language in certain situations: language is the key, or the set of keys, needed to unlock the gates of access to survival kits – employment, advancement, social security, physical security” (p. 444). In this regard, Weinstein (1983) stated that “[d]isagreement over the official language of a country and the medium of instruction in schools (which can be a disagreement about who shall participate in power, wealth, and prestige) is a source of conflict between ethnic groups [and] regions” (p. 15). Realistically speaking, loyalty to the state does not always override all other competing loyalties. For instance, Emerson (1959) stated that “[f]amily, tribe, locality, religion, conscience, economic interest, and a host of other appeals may at any given time and place prevail over national allegiance for particular individuals or groups” (p. 97).
Likewise, Thomason, among several other researchers, took for granted that “conflict is inherent in all multilingual settings” (2001, p. 34). One can remark that Thomason’s statement might be inadequate and adequate. In other words, while he might be right to underscore the persistence of conflicts over language policy in multilingual states, Thomason’s argument overlooks the fact that not all multilingual settings are the same. Indeed, even though France, among many other European countries, hosts many multilingual communities, the state was able to assimilate fully non-French speakers and thus had French language as a cornerstone of French identity. Other multilingual and multicultural countries, however, such as Algeria, if not all African countries, have been unable to fuse their population linguistically and thus tensions over language policy remained bubbling under the surface. Several reasons were given to the pervasiveness of the confrontations. According to Bngbose, African countries have failed to solve the problem of language conflict, and this is because of “avoidance, vagueness, arbitrariness, fluctuation and declaration without implementation” (Bngbose cited in Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1995, p. 335).
Indeed, in modern-day Mauritania, officially the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, tensions over the language policy and identity are a case in point. Before zeroing in on such tension, it is imperative to mention that Mauritania represents a fascinating historical and contemporary multilingual and multicultural setting. It is composed of two main ethnic communities, Arab and African, that speak five languages, Arabic, Hassaniya, Pulaar, Wolof, and Soninke. The Arab community is labeled in Mauritania as the Bedan and speaks Arabic and Hassaniya. The term is defined in due time, and it is used throughout the study. Pulaar, Wolof, and Soninke are mother tongues of the African community, which is also called Kwr. The term does not have negative connotation as its definition later shows. As such, it is used throughout the present study instead of the derogatory phrase “Black” African. On related note, it should be emphasized also that the term “Berber” is not used in the study because it might have a pejorative meaning. Alternatively, the terms “Imazighen” (sg. Amazigh) and Tamazight are used to refer respectively to people and language. Tensions between the two ethnic groups have been frying ever since the inception of independence. The ethnic groups coexisted peacefully before the coming of the French colonizer in political systems known as emirates and tribes. As such, language was not an issue. The French assembled the two ethnic groups in one political territory in the sense of nation-state system and introduced their language to the people. The Kwr welcomed the French language and culture, whereas the Bedan rebuffed them.
Since the departure of the colonizer, language policy has been considered as the main reason behind the ethnic tensions in the state and thus the postponement of the establishment of, to use Simpson’s words, “an over-arching sense of belonging and loyalty to a collective ‘national’ whole” (2008, p. 2). When Mauritania became an “ex-colonial power” in 1960, the government followed the Moroccan steps in its attempts to move the state beyond its French colonial legacy through implementing Arabization policy, yet the Kwr ardently opposed such move, for they regarded Arabic implementation as a peril to their identities. They called instead for the use of French language, which they see as the solo guarantee of their identities. The Bedan, however, insisted that since they represented the overwhelming majority of the population, their language, Arabic, should be implemented in education as well as administration. As a result, protests, deadly clashes and heated debates over language policy characterized the postindependence period in Mauritania. We, thereby, seek to investigate the issue of language policy and identity in Mauritania. As such, we traced the past and witnessed the present Mauritanian’s identities and language policies, which the people of the state have been exposed to. An attempt also was made in order to unearth the Mauritanians’ language policy preference and the relationship, if any, between their identities and their language policy preference.
The rationale of selecting the topic of the study is neither an arbitrary effort nor an intellectual luxury. In contrast, it is a response to several interrelated factors. Generally speaking, language policy and identity is one of the most commonly discussed topics across disciplines because many problems in the modern-day world are caused directly or indirectly by them as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, to the best of this researcher’s knowledge, there is not even one single piece of work that has addressed the issue of language policy and identity in Mauritania. There is one short article, Pettigrew’s “Colonizing the Mahadra: Language, Identity, and Power in Mauritania under French Control” (2007), which as the title shows discusses the French attempt to colonize mahadra (traditional school) and thus introduces French language to Mauritanians in the colonial era. The other very few works were composed in Arabic and French and were devoted either to language policy (e.g., Queffélec & Ould Zein’s Actualités Linguistiques Francophones: Le Français en Mauritanie, 1997) or the history of the Mauritanian people (Mohamed Mahmud’s Conflict of Values in Mauritania, 2013). As such, the present study seeks to build the first body of literature on the issue of language policy and identity in Mauritania and thus fills a crucial gap. Such a gap