Language in Education, Mission and Development in Africa:

Appeals for Local Tongues and Local Contexts

By Jim Harries - October 2006 (Copyright applies)

To be published in Mission Ezine of Redcliffe College, Gloucester, UK.

Negative outcomes arising from the use of European languages by African people in African contexts are perhaps the least visible to the Europeans themselves. To them, all seems well, their languages are the best thing that ever happened to Africa, and because they are the ones paying the bills, things continue as they are. Many African people on the ground know no different having been born and bred on the same system, so fill gaps in understanding from the magical background of their own culture. Life goes on and the power of international languages grows, but what damage is being done in the process? More precisely, what progress that might have been made is not being made? To what extent are language policies making it impossible for people to take responsibility for their own lives?

This article raises logical questions as to the desirability, practicality, morality and sustainability of such use of European languages in Sub-Saharan Africa. What are the implications for the African Continent of continuing to (supposedly) self govern on the basis of that which is not locally rooted? What is actually happening when cultures and legal systems are transported en-masse from point X and dumped wholesale onto country Y?

Short as it is, this article can only survey the issues. But the author's message is clear, the current rate of linguistic globalisation, added to the colonial foundation on which African nations are already founded, is handicapping the building of stable productive African societies. Urgent action is advocated to transfer genuine self-responsibility to African governance, to churches, to NGOs and political rule as a whole.

1. Cross-Cultural Self-Deception and its Outcome

Cognition is a prerequisite for communication to lead to understanding. Inference determines the way in which this happens, i.e. how a stimulus will be understood as having meaning. That is, words do not of themselves carrying meaning. They evoke meaning through their peculiar impact on someone's cognition and context. (Sperber 1995:2)

That this process of cognition is largely subconscious is evident; because we do not need to overtly 'think about it'. That is, when someone speaks to me, it seems as if meaning is encoded in their words. This apparent ability of words at carrying meaning can be very convincing, and so very deceptive. Whether it be through long habituation, or whether it is innate I do not know. But my mind tells me that words carry meanings.  [1]

Differences between people of different cultures and worldviews are reflected (or contained) in the complex cognitive stimulus-response mechanisms of the mind. The cognition systems of people of the same 'culture' (loosely defined) share many similarities, thus enabling them to understand one another sufficiently for many practical purposes. The more distant the cultures of origin of the communicators concerned, the less alike are their inferential cognitive networks.

Recognising the tendency of the mind to self deception is key in comprehending what goes on in 'cross-cultural communication'. To some extent consciously, but even more subconsciously, the mind works to make sense of whatever stimuli it receives. (My mind will automatically correct and make sense of something that seems wrong. Someone telling me 'I have come tomorrow to help you' I correct as meaning 'I will come'. If someone tells a cook that the toasted wickens are overdone then the cook will assume the person to have meant roast chickens, and so on.) One result of this is that translation of the words of people of a very different way of life (culture) into a familiar language, will give an impression of understanding of the whats, whys and hows of their lives, whether correct or not.  [2] This impression gains currency with the passing of time as the complexity of linkages in the mind accommodate what was foreign. The undermining of such supposedly orderly relationship is known as culture shock.

Unfortunately, because of the deception mentioned above, a person's use of their innate stimuli-responses in attempting to comprehend what is foreign, has limited accuracy. Because there is, I suggest, an instinctive or at least very deeply ingrained tendency for the human mind to expect to be functioning in only one culture and not cross-culturally the mind domesticates the foreign. (Venuti 1998:5)

There is no objective map of the mind's stimulus / response combinations. Unlike a landscape with predictable physical features that can be ascertained / perceived from a distance, even by different people simultaneously, the cognitive landscape of stimuli-responses resembles a four dimensional multi-textured multi-coloured jungle!

The complexity of this pattern is such as to be beyond human capabilities of accurate description, rather as it would be impossible to describe a three dimensional scene if restricted to the language of only two dimensions (e.g. up, down, left and right). We do not know with electrons, physicists tell us, what they are, what they look like, or exactly where they are, but we know that they exist because of the impact (charge) that they have. Examining our own minds is more difficult than examining electrons, because whereas electrons are 'out there', we are our minds and there is no vantage point other than from within them.

Translation (between cultures), explaining one kind of four dimensional jungle to another, is fraught with impediments. We do not know what the 'foreign' is, but only the impact that it has on us. Part of that impact will be on our subconscious, which is beyond our understanding never mind explanation. When someone explains what s/he felt or experienced in response to the foreign s/he is in effect, I suggest, drawing on an unfathomable depth of their person that is closely linked to the cognitive subconscious.

(I take Hombone as the name of a European country, and Ndere as the name of an African country.) A person moving from Hombone to Ndere will have impression Z of Ndere. While Z may resemble the impression of another person visiting Ndere from Hombone, it must be realised that Z is not by any means equal to what Ndere actually is, and neither can it ever be. Hence, a person from Ndere moving to Hombone or from anywhere else to Ndere cannot be expected to reproduce or even necessarily recognise or understand Z (a Hombone person's description of Ndere)! A person from Ndere may be able to offer only very limited help to someone from Hombone in their understanding of Ndere, that is Z, if the person from Ndere is not familiar with Z (the Hombone person's implicit understanding of Ndere)! The explanation of Ndere by a person from Hombone (i.e. Z) may be as foreign to someone from Ndere as would be the Hombone person's explanation of country D, E or even F or G, i.e. different cultures altogether!

As a result the notion that a native of a country such as Ndere (i.e. an African country) that is foreign to a particular people such as those of Hombone (i.e. a European country) is going to be particularly effective at enhancing the understanding by someone from Hombone of Ndere, i.e. Z, may be misguided. In the same way as a description of a view of a mountain is aided by someone sharing the same view, (or a similar view) and not by someone in a cabin on the mountain, looking as they are the other way from the mountain. The reverse also applies. In terms of relations between the West and Africa, this means that the person who can most 'helpfully' tell the West about Africa is likely to be a Westerner, and vice versa!

This can also be explained the other way around. The view of a country / culture and context such as Ndere will be different between a resident of Ndere called Mr. Ndere and a non-resident of Ndere called Mr. Hombone resident of Hombone. Mr. Hombone will invariably be struck by the differences between Hombone and Ndere, which the resident of Ndere (assuming he has no or limited familiarity with Hombone) will not even be aware of. Mr. Hombone will, in the course of living in Ndere, initially not know how the language use of Ndere's residents interacts with their culture. Instead he will have to assume that the language of the Ndere is used in interaction with the culture of Hombone. (No other alternative is available to him/her.) That which will help Mr. Hombone to know how Mr. Ndere uses the Ndere language in relation to Ndere culture, is knowledge of Ndere language and culture. In so far as Ndere language will be learned without a knowledge of Ndere culture, it can very easily be miss-learned.

The use of an international language does not resolve this issue, as the same language must be learned in the context of a culture. If language L is common to Hombone culture and Ndere culture, then members of the Hombone culture will know how to use L in Hombone's way and members of Ndere culture will know to use L in Ndere's way. Hombone's and Ndere's cultures are likely to be relatively close if the use of L arises because people have a common origin, such as English used in America and Australia, and Kiswahili used in both Kenya and Tanzania. Understanding difficulties will be more serious between unrelated cultures that use the same language, such as African as against European cultures that use English. The use of a common language can conceal rather than reveal differences.

The implications of this should be becoming clear. That is, that teachings and governance in order to take account of local conditions and avoid making cultural blunders, should be of local origin.

The reasons for this not happening these days is that half of the equation is ignored. That is, it is falsely assumed that a person from the country of Ndere (i.e. an African country) will be the most effective in guiding Hombone's people (of European origin) as to how to operate in Ndere. This even though the person from Hombone falls far short of knowing what people of Ndere want to do and how and why. The answer to the question of how to help Mr. Hombone operate in Ndere's culture that I am suggesting is not that the advice of Mr. Ndere not be sought, but for it to be realised that it must be sought in the context of (or at least with a close knowledge of) Ndere's culture using Ndere's language.

The most natural and helpful way to assist these learning processes is for Mr. Hombone and Mr. Ndere to have different languages. Hence Mr. Hombone's understanding of Ndere will develop in Hombone's language, while Mr. Ndere's understanding of Hombone will develop in Ndere's language. Those who will most helpfully add to Mr. Hombone's knowledge of Mr. Ndere are people of Hombone's country who are closely exposed to the language and culture of Ndere, and so also those who will most helpfully add to Mr. Ndere's knowledge of Hombone's people are the people of Ndere who are closely exposed to the language and culture of Hombone.

In other words, it is vitally important for workers from Hombone (representing the wealthy nations) interested in doing mission or promoting development in Ndere (African nations) to do so in the language of Ndere only after having learned it in the context of the culture of Ndere.

2. Grasping a Foreign Culture, Take Two

Cross-cultural communication is in today's world of shrinking boundaries more and more important inside and outside of the church. I would here like to describe the nature of such communication in what to me is a simple but very helpful way, and from that description proceed to consider the practical possibilities of it occurring.

The practical way in which cross-cultural communication causes difficulties, I suggest, arises from differences in nuanced meanings and implicatures  [3] of words used. This applies even if (and this is the case that I consider here for the sake of simplicity) one language, let's say English, is being used by both (or all) parties. I illustrate translation differences that I am referring to through Table 1 below.

Table 1. Implicatures of English usage in East Africa as against in the UK

English term	Implicature in the UK	Implicature in the East Africa
Rain	Bad	Good
Fat (person)	Bad	Good
Pension	Good	Bad
Courting	Good	Bad
Tree	Scenic object	Firewood
Paraffin lamp	Rare object	Common object
Table	Ordinary item	New, relatively rare item
Bread	Staple diet	Luxury diet
Shoes	Keep feet warm	Required to look modern
Wedding	Ceremony to initiate life together	Ceremony performed for stable couples
Water	Comes from tap	Comes from spring or stream
Chicken	Meat bought frozen	Sleeps in our sitting room

That the above may be generalisations I think does not detract from their validity. If someone considers my examples to be 'wrong', I nevertheless ask them to bear with me in considering implications that are illustrated by them. In addition to having different implicatures as above, the meanings themselves of some words can be different in Englishes in different parts of the globe. An example is 'courting', where the same word is in East Africa often used to describe a process of preparation for marriage that is vastly different to the one practiced in Western countries such as the UK.

It is possible for people, as presumably the readers of this article, to gain some understanding and appreciation of the above differences. Description of such differences has been the bread and butter of traveler's tales, anthropological accounts and ethnographies for decades, if not centuries.

The question I would however like to ask is: how easy is it for someone to have all such differences in mind in the course of cross-cultural conversation, planning, decision making and discussion? That is, does my having a knowledge that such differences exist enable me to make plans regarding the lives of a foreign (to me) people in which I can truly take account of many (or all) of the ways in which they use language, even if the language is English? Or will I in directing my mental activities in other directions (such as planning or conversation etc.) return to a default understanding of language, that is likely to be rooted in the kinds of implicatures familiar to my own people?

In other words: even though I may be able to appreciate the educational value of having information such as that in Table 1 above available, will I realistically be able to learn sufficiently the implicatures of the breadth of a second (and even third or fourth) living vocabulary/culture/context so as to be able to intelligently engage in communication with or about a foreign people? How is such a set of implicatures effectively learned? Surely it is only through a long-term exposure to a people by living closely with them? That is assuming it is possible at all.

Another question that arises is, once having understood the importance of being able to grasp the implicatures as well as 'meanings' of words so as to be able to effectively use them in a foreign culture, is it most helpful that the language to be used with that culture be the same international language, or is the learning of a foreign language advantageous in that such will provide a separation in the mind between meanings and implicatures of 'equivalent' words?

But does all the above really matter? Is it not sufficient to communicate internationally in a language in which meanings and implicatures simply approximate? Is lack of attention to such detail important? I suggest that it is important, and that it is vital that we consider depths of language use, and not assume language to be merely a crude tool for engaging in surface-level interactions.

Many examples could be drawn even from the above small Table. A European text saying that a 'fat man came' is not implying (as it would in East Africa) that he is happy and successful, but that he can't control his eating habits. Not having a pension may not in Europe imply that one has chosen to spend all one's income in culturally appropriate ways on the extended family as it might in Africa, (Maranz 2001:16) but more likely that one has not used sufficient foresight.  [4] "He lit a paraffin lamp" is an everyday statement in places not connected to mains electricity, but conjures up very different thoughts where people are accustomed to operating with electricity. Such implicatures that are bread and butter to normal communication are, I suggest, vitally important and a failure to grasp them results in many respects in communication failure.

My suggestion on the basis of the above is that any cross-cultural communication at any depth (and human beings tend to like to communicate at depth) requires both a deep knowledge by at least one part of the culture of the 'other', plus an ability to keep two language categories (those of the two cultures concerned) separate in the mind so as to be able to communicate using one of the two categories. (Mazrui 1993)

I suggest also that such language understanding as is required cannot be learned either in a classroom or through professional contact over short periods. The human mind's ability at self deception (see above) is too great for that. It requires a long-term vulnerable exposure to the daily life of the 'other' people. I suggest also that such different understandings of words are best achieved when the language in question is different. That is, that it is helpful to have language barriers in places where there are cultural barriers so as to prevent texts (of all sorts including written and oral) that make little sense from one culture swamping another in an un-translated (i.e. not transformed so as to be appropriate) form.

The above, if correct, has important implications. I suggest that the cultures of many people within the Western world are sufficiently similar to be able to benefit through communication using a common international language such as English. But also that the differences between so-called 'Western' and 'Non-Western' cultures are sufficiently great for their sharing in communication via international Western languages such as English without translation (from Western English to say African English or Arabic English) to be more harmful than helpful in the long term.

I suggest rather that a translation process is a helpful (vital) middle-process, and that this translation should be done by people with great expertise and a high level of exposure to both cultures. Translation on the basis of word for word conversion, or even dynamic equivalence is insufficient. This translation needs to take account of pragmatics so as to translate implicatures, such as recent translation models based on relevance theory. (Gutt 1991)

I suggest that it is in the long term more helpful to translate between different languages (for example from English to Kiswahili) than between the same language (for example between American English and East African English).

I suggest that what is at stake in the current globalising world is great. Failure to attend to the above concerns is going to severely handicap the functional abilities of non-Western societies who are 'under attack' by Western tongues. This may lead to the disastrous collapse of whole societies. Or the invention (or perpetuation) of racial boundaries leading towards a global 'caste system', perhaps akin to that known to exist in Hinduism today. Or at the very least the rise of fundamentalisms that are linked to the preservation of distinct aspects of 'threatened' cultures that have come to be misunderstood by powerful neighbours. Already it certainly leads to widespread corruption.

3. Cultures that are not 'Pristine'

One failure, in my opinion, of many missiological writers (and that of others who attempt to make in-depth descriptions of peoples in the non-Western world) is that of not realising that the 'errors' of previous generations of missionaries (colonialists / development workers) have already had a lasting impact. In 99% of the African 'mission field' one is not converting people from pure 'animism' into Christianity, but neither is one assisting (in whatever way) 'normal' Christians of the type we have 'at home'.

In addition to the foundational impact resulting from their own culture of origin, the contours of Christianity in Africa have also been profoundly influenced by the particular strategies of previous generations of Western missionaries. Hence we are no longer in a situation of preventing people from becoming dependent on and misunderstanding the West. They are already dependent, and have already misunderstood (the West, as the West has misunderstood them).

Amongst the important questions that should now be asked is how to correct gross misunderstandings that have already occurred. This, I suggest, may be more and not less difficult than the original missionary task!

The obvious approach to take to a prior imbalance is to redress it. If someone has been having too much F and not enough G, then we would normally say it is time that they be given more G and less F. The actual response being widely expressed on the 'mission field' today though, it seems to me, is that because someone has already got used to having too much F, his supply of it should be further increased to meet the growing appetite. If it is prosperity teaching that people have had too much of, then what should the response be? Should it be that the rate of provision of prosperity be stepped up? This seems to be what is happening in East Africa, and presumably also much further afield today.

I have already argued above that consulting the 'target' people themselves will not be sufficient to provide guidance to the development and missionary agenda. It seems that they are these days being over relied upon. Amongst the reasons for this is the fear of non-Africans (Europeans) of sharing too closely in ways of life taken as being of poverty, ill health, and even mortal danger on the African continent.

As a consequence 'missionary' activity is a pulling of people from the African way of life into a European way of life, even when on the African person's home territory. (For example, mission stations are outposts of Western activity, and this is often where the Westerner likes to engage with the African.) This is a situation that needs urgent attention, for African people (as others in the world) to have education and assistance to live their lives in a way that fits with how they live! The only way that I am aware of to effectively achieve this as a Westerner is to be vulnerable to African people and to reach them in their own languages.

More recent communications occurring on the basis of prior experience of relationship reminds us of the kinds of tensions that arise in families as against meetings of strangers. While relationship can deepen love, it can also breed bitterness, suspicion, distrust and even hatred. Family disputes are known to be complex and difficult for outsiders to assist. Hence nurturing of intra-family relationships takes much more time and wisdom that those with workmates, the person who drives the bus that takes you to town, your neighbour who you greet over the fence and so on. As asking family members 'what do you want' and giving it to them is often far from adequate to nurture good relationship, the same applies increasingly in the globalising world.

This is the situation that needs urgent attention. Yes of course the African people will ask for 'more money'. Who wouldn't? In fact, offering it is putting them into a trap.  [5] They have learned from experience that European people anyway have no patience to learn their language and culture. Is anyone prepared to prove them wrong on that score?

4. English, the False Prophet

A new missionary (or development worker) coming to Africa is quickly faced with a difficult language question. In many Anglophone countries on the continent, people find they can 'get by with English', so few see the importance of learning an additional tongue. What are the consequences of this decision to 'get by' spread over thousands of foreign workers, and many decades?

Personally speaking, if I share of my experience amongst the Luo people   [6] and my fluency in Dholuo (the language of the Luo people), it is extremely debilitating. That is, it makes it impossible for me to interact 'normally' with Luo people in Luoland, except for the few who already know me well. Wherever I mix in different social settings I am surrounded by whisperings of 'he knows Dholuo', groans, laughter and other expressions of amazement over my familiarity with this 'tribal' language. The Luo people are surprised, taken aback, and even shocked, to find a white man who is fluent in their vernacular.

I may be the only white person in Kenya (?) who is the exception to the Luo peoples underlying understanding that "White men are ignorant." I mean - how can one be considered intelligent (in the colloquial sense of that term) if one does not understand a people's language? I am sorry, but this does cut both ways. As on my being brought up in the UK, we considered anyone who did not know English as backward, so also with Dholuo in Luoland. The motion that 'whites are ignorant' being almost constantly perpetuated (every time a White visitor comes to Luoland, which is rather frequently) means that people's initial assessment of my likely 'intelligence' is 'very low'. I can get talked down to like a child, and people will not expect me to understand their real issues. I suppose you could say that the Luo take me as primitive.

This is an interesting turn of circumstances. Whatever term or turn of phrase the Luo use for primitive (perhaps jamwa), they can use it with impunity, because Dholuo is not an international language. (Not being an international language, its use does not have to be sensitive to how other people who are not of the same ethnicity will understand it.) Here is just one of many reasons why the Luo people are much freer to use their own language in place of English. (English is carefully hedged because many people of many different cultures are capable of reading it and therefore of misunderstanding it.)

Something is wrong when after 100 years of colonialism there is (perhaps) no other Westerner who is a fluent speaker of Dholuo in Kenya, despite this being a language of 3 million plus people! This while at the same time the English speaking Western world is an enormously powerful influence in the life of every Luo person today. This means that while British / American rooted international policies have almost entirely taken over much of the lives of the Luo people, there is no one able to intelligently comment on their impact. What does this say of efforts to overcome racism?

Hang on, I can hear people thinking, what about the Luo people themselves, and the international research community that surely has people operating in Luoland? To begin with the Luo people themselves, careful thought should make it clear that one cannot rely on the expressed views (especially in the foreign (to them) language of English) of the victims of an intervention to guide its continuity. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you." How can someone refuse money on which their whole extended family has become grossly dependent? How can the West hope to begin to understand African uses of English in the first place, rooted as they are in a very different and little understood culture?

Much of the same critique (only outlined in summary form here) can be applied to short-term researchers from Western universities and institutions. They misunderstand, and then share their misunderstandings and limited insights with others in the West who often believe them.

A brief reference to India may not be out of place. The movement of Aryan people (of the same stock as Western Europeans) in early history to India resulted in the caste system.  [7] We are heading towards a similar circumstance in Africa. Severe marginalisation and oppression of the Luo language (and many others in Africa) is denying people groups the means (briefly, self understanding) with which to progress. Instead, their own languages through being totally ignored in the formal sector of life and economy, while remaining the foundation for all the important social parts of peoples lives, are stuck in a time-warp. The more the West forces its presence into all comes of Africa, the more the people's own development can be hindered as a result.

'Hang on a minute' I can hear my reader objecting 'the whole point is that an international language will enable development.' So indeed the theory seems to run, although this kind of development is very much one of 'dependence', usually on charity. Visionaries imagine an African continent in decades ahead being divided into English, French and Portuguese sections, with local languages pretty much forgotten. Here, I suggest, the attempt to do this is seriously debilitating millions of people. Another problem with English for use in Africa is quite simple, it doesn't belong to Africa. Perhaps it could belong, if a big wall was put up to keep Westerners out! Recent trends in international relations are moving in the opposite direction.

This means that (constant!) attempts at indigenising English, are as constantly being thwarted. African uses of English are marked as 'wrong' in the formal educational and governance system in a country such as Kenya. But, whether through ignorance or frustration African countries, far from putting up a fight, are figuratively speaking rushing into the jaws of the lion. That is, throughout much of Africa, the standard for English being given is British or American. Hence African issues, conditions and problems are ignored, while African people are making guesses and building elaborate structures in their ether in order to attempt to line-up their English with so called 'international' standards. Not only has the African person's own language got struck in a prior eon, but the language that they are forced to use through official orientation and ever increasing links to the West, cannot be their own.

Trying to use someone else's language in their way in trying to explain things your way is intellectual suicide. Too much of this is found in African universities and education and the wider society below them. It is sad. The connection between language and the 'real' world that native English speakers so value is to pot. English words are said to mean Luo things. 'Lying' is just the norm, like the only way to get by. Corruption is a normal part of life. The spreading of this mantle of Western hegemony spells disaster for the African people, who are at the same time silenced through their own dependence.

The solution to this looming disaster is at once simple and difficult. Advice for the Westerner who wants to intervene to help the people is this. DEPOWER YOURSELF (i.e. be poor) and USE THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE REACHING! Those wanting to perpetuate cognitive incoherence by promoting the use of European languages in Africa should be aware of the disaster that looms on the horizon.  [8]

5. Implications for the Interpretation of Scripture

Having re-evaluated many of the interpretational processes going on between Western and non-Western nations, particularly in Africa, we are left to consider the implications for Biblical interpretation and with it the belief of Christians and the running of the church.

Kuhn (2001) made an observation regarding the self-understanding of African founded churches. It is widely appreciated that these are churches that have rooted their beliefs in local language interpretations of the Scriptures. There is a popular view that these churches have made a conscious decision to move away from Biblical orthodoxy to accommodate aspects of their own culture. But, I suggest along with Kuhn (2001:89-90) that this view is, at least in most cases, incorrect. On the contrary, these churches (AICs or African Indigenous Churches) see themselves as following genuine orthodoxy, but now interpreted through their own languages as they read it in their own Scriptures. The singular beliefs and practices of these churches frequently arise from their being true to the language used in their translation of the Scriptures.

In saying this I am implying various things:

   1. The need for a language to be Christianised in the course of time as it comes to be used in Christian ways. (Tshianda 2005:46)

   2. The importance of Christian tradition in guiding a new church. I am hence differing with the idealist Protestant belief of sola scriptura and suggesting that following the Bible without having a historical church to learn from is an inadequate basis for the Christian faith.

   3. Following on from the above, the importance of having Christian education and debate occur in the language of a people, so as to enable the language and its use to develop in Christian ways. (See also Harries 2006.) If this fails to happen a church will continue either to be foreign or unorthodox in the true sense, in order to be true to the language that it uses.

What is foreign in a church can take on a 'godly' character. The sound of Latin has for Centuries reminded people in the Roman Catholic church of the holiness of God. In the same way nowadays English as language of international relations and the Christian church, has taken on a divine character for many in Africa and presumably elsewhere around the globe. Much that is culturally European, the wearing of shoes and clothes in general, formal education, clerical garb and the drinking of tea, are being interpreted as Christian activities or rituals. This is an embarrassment for a member of the original culture, who finds that processes perhaps of rational foundation in their culture of origin having become religious rituals in another. It can certainly make it difficult for the foreign visitor to feel at home in the new foreign but all too familiar set up!

It is extremely difficult for natives, especially of poorer countries of the world, to get a sufficient grasp of English to be able to use it at a formal or an international level. This severely limits their capabilities of interacting with their wider community, and therefore leads to idleness and thoughtlessness. (The only way is simply to allow others to do things for you.) The English that dominates their lives remains out of reach. It is easier to just accept what some foreigner has said than to try and correct them just to be mocked for your lack of linguistic acumen. It is especially difficult to be inventive and innovative in a language that you barely understand. This difficulty of course becomes exaggerated if the owners of the language, who are particularly likely to find fault, enter the proximity. The use of a language such as English in Africa has a stultifying effect and encourages laziness in the church and in life in general.

Christian teaching (i.e. words) as other teaching, does not easily move across cultural and linguistic barriers and remain intact. Invariably such movement transforms it. It is in effect impossible to know just what will 'come out in the wash'! What may be highly orthodox or commendable teaching at the point of origin may be something quite different when assimilated at its 'foreign' destination. The way to ensure that teaching 'strikes home', is to move the teacher with the teaching! That is, the only way to effectively transfer the orthodoxy of Christianity from one culture to another, is to have the person who is familiar with this orthodoxy in the culture of origin become as familiar as possible with the target culture. This is why missionaries (and development workers) must learn the language of the people they are reaching, and be immersed in their culture.

Summary and Conclusion

The way that the human mind responds to stimuli so as to produce meaning or understanding is here shown to be such as to result in deception in crossing cultures. That is, the mind instinctively corrects 'abnormalities' in stimuli arising from foreign cultures so as to fit its familiar scenery, rather as it can instinctively correct 'wrong grammar'. This kind of self-deception that results in the foreign appearing familiar is one reason why the close governance or control of a people by those foreign to them is often unhelpful.

The same difficulty arises if we consider language use across cultures in terms of implicatures instead of only meaning. Examples given illustrate that the implicatures of words with the same meaning can be vastly different between cultures. Implicatures being central to communication, or even the sole objective of communication, shows that familiarity with language (meanings) may not enable someone to either communicate meaningfully or understand clearly. A case is again made for caution in cross-cultural communication, and for the advisability of language barriers corresponding to cultural gaps.

Increasing rates of globalisation resulting in few, if any, cultures being 'untouched' by 'the West', means in turn that the people's response to the West will be affected by their prior experience of it. This frequently being an experience of dependence has many implications that certainly reduce the options for straightforward honesty in communication with them. Simply asking 'what do you want' being often far from wise means that the prerogative is on the side of the one intervening to draw sufficiently closely to situations (cultures) so as to have adequate understanding to guide his / her intervention.

English invariably being accompanied by money in its spread around the globe, can give the misleading impression that the impact of the language is that of the wealth that accompanies it. In fact, wherever English appropriates power in a non-English community (especially a poorer community) it condemns non (or non-fluent) English speakers to increasing ignorance over things that are vital for their own lives. The spread of English making it in turn more difficult for native English speakers to discover 'what is really going on' adds to the recipe for disaster that should be evident to thinking people. Vulnerability and language learning should be the starting points for cross-cultural intervention.

The language difficulties explained above are found to be as or even more pertinent for the missionary task of planting and nurturing churches. The church should be heading the field in ensuring the vulnerability and linguistic prowess of her servants in cross-cultural service.

In conclusion, I trust that this article has laid out a clear case for intervention outside of the West by Westerners, for whatever purpose but especially in church and evangelism, to be conducted in non-Western languages, and with sufficient vulnerability.

Bibliography

GUTT, ERNST-AUGUST,
    1991, Translation and Relevance: cognition and context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Incorporated

GUTT, ERNST-AUGUST,
    2006, Time spent in discussion with Ernst-August Gutt at the Bible Translation and Literacy Conference Centre, Ruiru, Nairobi on 31st August 2006 from 10.00am to 12.30am.

HARRIES, JIM,
    2006. 'The Name of God in Africa and related contemporary theological, development and linguistic concerns.' www.jim-mission.org.uk/articles (accessed 30.10.06)

KUHN, MARKO,
    2001, 'From African Consciousness to Subconscious Inculturation: a study into African independent churches (AICs) in Nyanza/Kenya.' Diplomarbeit, University of Frieburg, 2001, (PDF) http://www.comboni.de/angebote/buecherstube/aics_in_nyanza.pdf (accessed 27.08.05)

MARANZ, DAVID,
    2001, African Friends and Money Matters: observations from Africa. Dallas: SIL International

MAZRUI, ALAMIN,
    1993, 'Language and the Quest for Liberation' in Africa: The Legacy of Frantz Fanon (page numbers not known) Third World Quarterly, 1993, Vol. 14, Issue 2

SPERBER, DAN, and WILSON, DEIDRE,
    1995, Relevance: communication and cognition (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell

TSHIANDA, JOSE'E NGALULU,
    2005, 'Quest for Theological Lexicons in African Languages.' 40-54 In: Loba-Mkole, Jean-Claude, and Wendland, Ernst R., (eds.) 2005, Interacting with Scriptures in Africa. Nairobi: Acton Publishers

VENUTI, LAWRENCE,
    1998, The Scandals of Translation: towards an ethics of difference. London: Routledge

WALLBANK, T. WALTER,
    1958. A Short History of India and Pakistan. An abridged edition of India in the New Era, completely revised and up-to-date. New York: New American Library

YULE, GEORGE,
    1996, The Study of Language (second edition). Cambridge Low Price editions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Endnotes

[1] This 'code model' of meaning has, according to Sperber and Wilson, been extent at least since the time of Aristotle. It is widely believed to date. (Sperber 1995:2)  Return to article

[2] Readers will assume language to have 'cohesion' and 'coherence.' (Yule 1996:140-141)  Return to article

[3] I.e. meanings that are implied in the use of a particular word in a particular context.  Return to article

[4] Maranz points out the importance amongst African people of meeting immediate needs, thus suggesting that savings such as for a pension are immoral.  Return to article

[5] This is clearly recognised in Western societies themselves where many people fall into the trap of taking credit that they end up not being able to repay.  Return to article

[6] Of Western Kenya.  Return to article

[7] Wallbank (1958:27) indicates that the caste system in India has "certain commendable features" especially as it helped "many [immigrants / invaders] with various levels of culture to live together." Unlike Wallbank tells us in Europe where "backward peoples were either exterminated or enslaved" (1958:27-28). Which way is Africa heading?  Return to article

[8] Note that the above is not necessarily advocating the saving of every ethnic language on the continent of Africa. I believe that regional languages such as Kiswahili can be used and promoted to great advantage.  Return to article