Literacy

[Ian Maddieson]

This is a very interesting topic, and it raised some questions that seem
very worth while thinking about for linguists.

I can find nothing (at least easily) on the UNESCO web site defining what they
consider "literacy" to be:
- it means ability to both read and write but at what level?
- does it mean ability to read/write your native language(s) or just 
some language?
Hence it is difficult to know what their counts might mean (let alone
whether they reliably relate in any way to the property intended to 
be measured).

Obviously, literacy is a very gradient skill which can range from being able to
decode a few written symbols, to full ability to rapidly read and 
write multiple
languages.  Similarly with the concept of "written language" - at this date the
majority of the world's spoken languages have one or more established 
orthographies,
but the usage varies from languages the majority of whose speakers have
some literacy, to those where the written form is only known to a few with
special knowledge. And some not insignificant number have no
established writing system at all, although in some of these certain
individuals may have developed a way to write based on familiarity
with written traditions they come in to contact with. This would be like
the situation that Frank Seidel mentions in Muslim areas of West Africa,
where some familiarity with Arabic written tradition can be adapted
to write local languages in the absence of a standard writing system.

I am sure that the figure Frans cites as the number of illiterate
adults according to UNESCO makes no distinction between "written"
and "unwritten" languages. Also it makes no distinction between
literacy in the individual's native language(s) versus in a national or
local vehicular language.  It surely does not attempt to account
for signed languages - as far as I am aware no everyday system
is in use anywhere for writing any signed language, although
academic notation systems exist. However, many Deaf persons
in countries with high literacy levels are literate in a written
version of a local spoken language (for them, a second language,
but not so different in principle from speakers of minor spoken
languages whose literacy is in a locally dominant language).

I wouldn't deny that being literate is useful in many circumstances,
but I think we should not make the mistake of confusing being
literate with being knowledgeable. It seems very likely that modern
technologies will rapidly diminish the importance of written
communication in the next generation or two, with sound and
graphical representations taking over many of the functions
now played by writing. And many cultures have never fully
abandoned oral transfer of learning.

Ian
-- 


Ian Maddieson
Department of Linguistics
MSC 03-2130
Humanities Bldg. 526
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM  87131-1196