Language, Ethnicity and Conflict: Applying Linguistic Measure to Prevent Ethnic Violence in Middle Belt Nigeria

in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This research highlights the efficacy of community-based language planning initiatives in ethnic conflict and violence prevention. As a threshold which elucidates how linguistic measures can help to prevent inter-ethnic violence, the research illustrates that where ethnic safeguarding reaches the extremity of violence, language issues are found to have covert but very strong causal roles as manifested in the ethnic violent conflicts affecting Nigeria’s Middle-Belt including the Berom/Afizere/Anaguta versus Hausa/Fulani; Taroh versus Hausa/Fulani (Plateau State); Tiv versus Etulo (Benue State); Tiv versus Jukun (Benue and Taraba States); and Jukun versus Kuteb (Taraba State). Paired t-test values set at a confidence interval of 95 per cent indicate that the statistical mean differences (1.60 in Tiv/Jukun and 9.60 in the Jos area) are close to the true difference occurrences in the randomly sampled populations. More significant are the two tailed P values of 0.5895 (Tiv/Jukun) showing low bilingualism; and 0.3477 (Jos area) depicting more acute bilingualism decline associated with the ethnic violence. The research then considers the application of linguistic measures vital to prevent ethnic violence. In particular, critiqued aspects of the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales (EGIDS) are recommended to ethnic communities, voluntary organisations and governments for implementation in dealing with violent conflicts.

Sections

References

6

Gbor, supra note 2.

8

Dislange and Leger, supra note 3.

16

Lewis, supra note 12

21

Dasgupta, supra note 20.

22

R. Baldauf, ‘Language Planning and Policy: Recent Trends, Future Directions’, American Association of Applied Linguistics (2004) p. 6.

24

Fishman, supra note 13.

39

May, supra note 36.

44

Ioratim-Uba, supra note 33

46

Fakuade, supra note 5.

54

Ioratim-Uba, supra note 33.

55

Fishman, supra note 13.

57

Miango, supra note 52, p. 5.

58

Giles, Bourhis and Taylor, supra note 29.

59

Ioratim-Uba, supra note 33, p. 439.

60

Fakuade, supra note 46.

63

Baldauf, supra note 23, p. 241.

66

Ouane and Glanz, supra note 28, p. 34.

71

Lewis, supra note 25.

73

Lewis and Simons, supra note 27.

74

Fishman, 1999, supra note 66.

76

Lewis, supra note 25.

77

Lewis and Simons, supra note 27.

79

Sallabank, supra note 67, quoting R. Baldauf, ‘“Unplanned” Language Policy and Planning’, 14 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1993) pp 82–89.

83

Wiley Online Library, supra note 18.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4 4 2
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0