View the H-Africa Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Africa's December 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Africa's December 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Africa home page.
I too have had to deal with both thorny issues (i.e.: politically correct designations and official spelling) while publishing on Senegal. I think most on this list can agree that "Pulaar" is the correct designation of the language. This seems to be how it is designated in the language itself, and it is reasonably close to the various other linguistic and ethnic designations found in the literature: Pula, Fula, Fulani, Fulbe, Peul, etc. Those who speak the language, at least in the Senegal-Guinea-Mali area, are currently called "Halpulaaren" in the academic literature, but this seems to be fairly recent (1970s? 1980s?). Yet, in Senegal itself there is consensus that, among the Halpulaaren, the "Toucouleur" of the Senegal River valley are distinct from the "Peul" of the Ferlo, Fuladu and Casamance regions. While both groups speak the same language, they have distinct histories, traditions, economies, identities, etc. This raises the issue of the conformity of ethnic and linguistic designations. The two do not always coincide. In another Senegalese case, the Lebu, though speakers of Olof, are considered distinct from the Wolof. The official Wolof spelling Douglas Thomas refers to ("ceddo" instead of "tieddo") was imposed by the Senegalese government in the early 1970s, but it is ignored by virtually everyone in the country, including government officials. This spelling seems to be respected only by foreign academics, and their publishers. I was asked to abide by the official spelling the very first time I submitted an article to an academic journal, and I have continued to use it in publications ever since. Meanwhile, Senegalese scholars who publish in France feel no obligation to use it, and most do not. I believe that the official spelling unnecessarily isolates academic work from the reality it is supposed to represent, yet I continue to use it because of its official status, and because no modern dictionary of the language uses the unofficial, though normative, spelling. I hope that Don Osborn, the initiator of this thread, is correct. Maybe a less self-consciously politically correct solution will arise through the interplay of scholars, publishers, and the reality of social usage. Are there any sociolinguists on the list who would care to comment on this? In the meantime, I fear the issue will still be subject of discussion on this list twenty or thirty years from now.
|