Language Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 313–332 | Cite as

Micro declared language policy or not?: language- policy-like statements in the rules of procedure of the Rwandan Parliament

  • Joseph GafarangaEmail author
  • Cyprien Niyomugabo
  • Valentin Uwizeyimana
Original Paper


An invitation to integrate macro and micro level analyses has been extended to researchers as this integration is felt to be the way forward for language policy research (Ricento, Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on english, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2000). In turn, the notion of ‘micro’ in language policy has been specified as referring either to micro language policy or to micro implementation of macro policies (Baldauf and Richard, Current Issues in Language Planning, 7:147–170, 2006). Drawing on Baldauf’s ideas, this paper intends to contribute to Ricento’s call by means of a case study. The case study we will report is based in the sociolinguistic context of Rwanda. In Rwanda, a macro language policy has been stated in the country’s constitution. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 2003 (Special Issue)), Kinyarwanda is the national language and Kinyarwanda, French and English are the country’s official languages (Art. 5). On the other hand, an institution in this context, namely the Rwandan Parliament, has published, as part of its rules of procedure, a number of statements regarding language choice. Therefore, in the paper, we ask whether these statements can be described as a case of the micro implementation of the macro policy or whether they can be described as constituting a separate policy, a micro “declared policy” (Shohamy, Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches, Routledge, London, 2006). To answer this question, a close textual analysis of the relevant documents (Johnson, Language Policy, 8:139–159, 2009) is conducted, focusing on the relationship between the three official languages. The analysis reveals that, in the Constitution, Kinyarwanda is seen as the dominant official language while the other languages can be seen as auxiliary languages. In the statements regarding language choice at the Rwandan Parliament, on the other hand, the three languages are seen as equal. Based on this observation, it is suggested that the Parliament’s statements be seen as constituting a separate policy, a micro declared language policy.


Language policy Language planning Declared language policy Micro language policy National language Official language 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Research at the Rwandan Parliament was supported by funding from the Nuffield Foundation (SGS/36299). We would like to express our gratitude to them. We also acknowledge the welcome and cooperation we obtained from the leadership of the Rwandan Parliament, deputies, senators and all members of staff.


  1. Anthonissen, C. (2010). Managing linguistic diversity in a South African HIV/AIDS day clinic. In B. Meyer & B. Apfelbaun (Eds.), Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business settings (pp. 107–140). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Baldauf, R. B. Jr & Richard, B. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamgbose, A. (1991). Language and the nation: The language question in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blackledge, A. (2008). Language ecology and language ideology. In A. Creese & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (2d ed., Vol. 9, pp. 27–40). Heildberg: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonacina, F. (2010). A conversation analytic approach to practiced language policies: The example of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France. School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, The University of Edinburgh: Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  9. Chua, S. K. C., & Baldauf Jr., R. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
  10. Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (2003).Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, December 2003 (Special Issue).Google Scholar
  11. Dusabimana, C. (2012). Icyifuzo cya Mugesera cyongeye guterwa utwatsi, azaburana mu Kinyarwanda. Igihe, 28-04-2012.Google Scholar
  12. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gafaranga, J. (2001). Linguistic identity in talk-in-interaction: Order in bilingual conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1901–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatos, A. (2006). Community-level approaches in language planning: The case of Hungarian in Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. King, K., Fogle, L., & Longan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2007). Strategic ambiguity as a discourse practice: The role of keywords in the discourse on ‘sustainable’ biotechnology. Discourse Studies, 9, 3–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loi Fondamentale (1996). Journal Officiel de la République Rwandaise, vol 3, 3–6 (18-01-1996).Google Scholar
  20. Lüdi, G., Höchle, K., & Yanaprasart, P. (2010). Plurilingual practices in multilingual work places. In B. Meyer & B. Apfelbaum (Eds.), Multilingualism at work: from policies to practices in public, medical and business settings (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Woodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp14–31) London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Mugisha, M. (2012). Abantu miriyoni 40 bavuga ururimi rw’ikinyarwanda mu (21/02/2012).
  23. Muhirwa, O. (2012). Kuki imbuga za internat za leta zanditse mu ndimi z’amahanga?Igihe, 10-01-2012.Google Scholar
  24. Nekvipil, J., & Nekula, M. (2006). On language management in multilingual companies in the Czeck Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nkurunziza, F. (2011). Indimi z’amashi n’igihavu zasimbuwe n’ (accessed 7-11-2011).
  26. Organic law No 02/2005 of 18/02/
  27. Organic law No 06/2006 of 15/02/2006 (as amended as 01/204/OL of 25/02/2011). Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, No 13 of 28/03/2011.Google Scholar
  28. Papageorgiou, I. (2012). When language policy and pedagogy conflict: Pupils’ and educators’‘practiced language policies’ in an English-medium kindergarten classroom in Greece. School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, The University of Edinburgh: Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  29. Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory: Context, issues and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 1–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pillar, I. (2001). Private language planning: The best of both worlds. Sociolingüistica, 2, 61–80.Google Scholar
  31. Plaut, M (2008). Rwanda opts for English. BBC News/World/Africa, 10/10/2008.Google Scholar
  32. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 9–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Richard, B., & Baldauf Jr., (2005). Language planning and policy research: An overview. In E. Henkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 957–970.Google Scholar
  34. Rubin, J. (1984). Bilingual education and language planning. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), Language planning and language education (pp. 4–16). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Samuelson, L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingualism and power in Rwanda. Language Policy, 9, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, A. (2008). Introduction. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national idenity in Africa (pp. 1–25). Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Spolsky, B. (2001). Language in Israel: Policy, practice and ideology. In J. E. Alatis & A. Hui Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics (pp. 164–174). Washington, D C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spolsky, B., & Lambert, R. D. (2006). Models of language planning and policy. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics (Vol. 6, pp. 561–575). Elsevier: Oxford.Google Scholar
  43. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology and language policy. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1–42). Benjamins: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how?. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Torras, M. C., & Gafaranga, J. (2002). Social identities and language alternation in non-formal institutional talk: Service encounters in Barcelona. Language in Society, 31, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Mayer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications, 63–94.Google Scholar
  47. Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2011). Language in political institutions of multilingual states and the European Union. In B. Kortmsnn & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe (pp. 625–641). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  48. Wodak, R., Krzyzanowski, M., & Forchtner, B. (2012). The interplay of language ideologies and contextual cues in multilingual interactions: Language choice and code-switching in European Union institutions. Language in Society, 41, 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Gafaranga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cyprien Niyomugabo
    • 2
  • Valentin Uwizeyimana
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language ScienceThe University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK
  2. 2.Kigali Institute of EducationKigaliRwanda
  3. 3.INATEKKibungoRwanda

Personalised recommendations