During our 13^th meeting on the 21^st of November, we focussed on the following article:

ARTICLE: Olagbaju, O.O. and Senghore, A., 2022. Question of Equivalence in Translation: Analysis of the Mandinka-English Translated Transcripts of TRRC Witnesses in the Gambia. Studies in Literature and Language, 25(1), pp.38-44. [you can download it below]

Attendees (+15): mixture of interpreters from The Gambia and other countries, (Africanist) linguists, educators, etc.

Alieu Touray who worked as part of the Research and Investigation Unit of the TRRC was our guest facilitator. The meeting was organised around two questions (see below).

1. In which contexts do people typically need to interpret (verbally on the spot) in The Gambia? Who does interpreting apart from professional interpreters?

To start with, several people emphasised that most people do not speak English in The Gambia, that illiteracy is still high and that therefore the issue of interpretation is important (for the TRRC but not only). Then attendees attempted to define interpretation. Some suggested that ‘interpreters are meant to bridge the gap between speakers and non-speakers of a language, so interpreters are essential’, that ‘interpreting is about allowing the other party understand what has been said’, etc. All definitions put emphasis on the important role played by interpreters in The Gambia in a wide range of communicative situations. Some underscored that interpreting is not only a ‘linguistic’ interaction but also ‘sociolinguistic’ one.

About interpretation during the TRRC, it was emphasised that it was particularly important because it allowed the Gambian public to be included in discussions which they might otherwise been excluded form and that therefore supported access to an important part of the history of The Gambia. Witnesses were always asked which language they wanted to give their testimony in during the TRRC. Someone alluded to the difficulties caused when people who could have used use a local language chose nevertheless to use English when their command of English was not adequate for the interpreters to follow. Such cases sometimes gave way to interesting discussions, e.g. laughter among audience members present during the hearing, people mocked the witnesses online. 

There is a wide range of contexts in which interpreters are needed, e.g. interactions in healthcare contexts, naming ceremonies, president’s current tour of the country were. Attendees emphasised that interpreters in those situations are not usually professional interpreters. They are community members who know the languages being used and are called upon to serve as interpreters.

Interpretation in the courts was deemed to be different from the other kinds of contexts in which interpretation happens due to the official nature of the proceedings, but also the fact that such interpreting contexts often involves speakers who do not speak Gambian languages. This applies, for example, to many of the judges who come from Nigeria or Ghana. Attendees highlighted that without interpretation the language barrier in courts in such that cases would need to be adjourned as they would not understand what the witness is saying and vice versa unless an interpreter is present. Few judges were said to be Gambian, e.g. the five judges who were appointed recently were Nigerian and Ghanaian.

An interpreter talked about dialect variation and the fact, for example, Olof in the Gambia and Olof in Senegal are not similar and that it can sometimes be difficult for interpreters to understand what is said. Another attendee asked how great the variation in people’s usage of Olof and Mandinka is and how interpreters deal with variation but we did not have time to fully explore this question.

We also had very interesting insights from Gambian Sign Language interpreters (GSL). The Gambian Association for the Deaf was reported to conduct classes for people interested in sign language. Many sign interpreters in The Gambia were said to have been trained by Daren Townsend (based in the UK). During the TRRC, two GSL interpreters were involved. Regarding challenges with GSL interpretation, we learnt that interpreters use the Gambian Sign Language grammar to assist them when necessary. It was emphasised that no official curriculum for teaching deaf children in schools in The Gambia.

Dialect variation in GSL was evoked, e.g. the different ways in which GSL is used on the West Coast region in comparison to the Kanifing municipality. The differences were said to be slight but that nonetheless GSL interpreters needed to be sensitised beforehand when such differences applied.

It was also evoked that the level of education of a deaf person has a significant impact on the sign language they use with people who have ‘not been to school’ using the ‘local sign language’, while people who have learnt the conventional way use GSL. We discussed the implications of this for interpreters, e.g. the need for the GSL interpreter to be accompanied by someone who knows the local sign language as well as GSL if the need to interpret for someone who hasn’t gone to school.

2. Many interpreters have received little/no training, what strategies have they used to self-train and how could these be built upon to develop training, e.g. could it be possible to develop a joint online glossary of minority language equivalents for the key terms?

An interpreter shared they didn’t receive training but with the ‘big words’ they’d jot it down, look the words up or also sometimes they would ask for clarification from the people in the court. Reading was also presented as another strategy they used to support them in developing a glossary of law terms. Another interpreter shared they were sent for induction for two months, then after they were posted at Banjul’ main headquarters. They emphasised interpretation is, however, difficult in that you have to develop your own way of doing it, your own strategies. The ability of some lawyers, if they use a word which they see interpreters don’t understand, to ‘break it down’ was also mentioned as useful tool for learning. Having a pen and paper at all times to jot words down was presented as quasi compulsory for interpreters.

Training was said not to be available, with some interpreters saying ‘You, the interpreter, will struggle with your colleagues and establish themselves’, ‘Interpreting in court can be very challenging’, etc. These underscored how difficult the absence of training was for practicing court interpreters. Training ideas mentioned included the possibility to have internships at the court. Access to technology which could help interpreters was said to also be worth considering.

One of the attendees with experience of researching interpreting in a church in The Gambia shared that there was a strong element of training among the interpreters who had developed between themselves ways of expressing in the target Gambian language. This was referred to as ‘cognitive apprenticeship’ and was deemed to be difficult for court interpreters since they would not usually work in the same courtroom. Opportunities for discussion regarding interpreting choices among church interpreters were also alluded to. This led some to suggest that discussion platforms for court interpreters might be helpful to promote the kind of cognitive apprenticeship alluded to with reference to church interpreters.

The possibility for Gambia College to develop short courses in interpreting and translation were considered to be a potentially useful first step while waiting for more full-fledged courses.

Bearing in mind the ongoing challenges the country has faced in supporting literacy in Gambian languages, the writing of legal terms in Gambian languages as well as English was deemed to be a desirable endeavour, with all interpreters pulling forces to share their knowledge so as to develop a database of these terms. 

Related to this, it was suggested that a problem with interpreting in The Gambia is the absence of schools or centres where Gambians can learn to become interpreters. It was therefore suggested that a curriculum for interpreters to learn how to write the Gambian languages they know is necessary. Uncle Mussa Manneh (veteran journalist and interpreter) and Aunty Ida Jobe (Olof interpreter) were mentioned as the kind of people who could support the development of bespoke training for interpreters in The Gambia. It was also suggested that the National Language Programme of CREDD would also be open to developing such courses.

Some attendees emphasised that the article we had to read had certain methodological issues, but that it was nonetheless useful in bringing to the fore an important topic for those interested in language matters in The Gambia. We concluded the discussion by asking what the best way of evaluating translation and interpretation might be.

The main ideas which emerged from the discussion in our WhatsApp group before our ‘live’ meeting was that there were three main areas of challenge for interpreters: proficiency in English (general English and English for specific purposes), literacy in the Gambian languages and training in interpreting and translation. Suggested solutions included: two-day training in interpreting in the court The Gambia (e.g. with sessions on: how the court system works; standards of professional integrity as an interpreter, the meaning of legal terms used), development of dictionaries and education in the minority languages, courses in interpreting and translation outside The Gambia. Articles shared include:

• Akpaca, S.M., 2022. Presentation of a Translators’ Training Programme Focusing on Economics and Law.
• Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A., 1998. Constructing cultures: Essays on literary translation (Vol. 11). Multilingual Matters.
• Karlik, J., 2010. Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance. Interpreting, 12(2), pp.160-185.
• Mikkelson, H., 1999. Relay interpreting: A solution for languages of limited diffusion?. The Translator, 5(2), pp.361-380.
• Ngué Um, E., 2020. Had Ferdinand de Saussure spoken Wolof or Basaa…, the discipline of linguistics would have fared differently. Language, Culture and Society, 2(1), pp.107-115.

A warm thank you to all the attendees and our guest facilitator Alieu Touray.

In this reading group meeting we focussed on the following article:

READING: Sherris, A., & Peyton, J.K. (2023). The power of multiliteracy in The Gambia and Ghana. In A.C. Hager-M’Boua & F. Jaumont (Eds.), A bilingual revolution for Africa. New York, NY: TBR Books. [You can download the article below]

This meeting was based on the discussion of a book chapter that Joy Peyton wrote with Ari Sherris about a project to promote and develop multilingualism and multiliteracy in The Gambia and Ghana. One of the reasons that we wanted Joy to present her work is because of her significant role (with Carolyn Adger) in developing materials for national language literacy lessons in The Gambia.

The Gambia Read Program: During the presentation, Joy emphasized that the Gambia Read program was developed by the MoBSE, in collaboration with the World Bank and the Global Partnership for Education. The program ran between 2008 to 2013, and the main goal was to develop materials in students’ mother tongues. The idea was to engage them in confidently speaking and reading their mother tongue(s) both individually and in groups. The seven most widely spoken national languages (to various extents) were chosen. These are: Jola, Mandinka, Manjaku, Olof, Pulaar, Seereer and Sarahule. Other languages were not part of this initiative, as they are either spoken only as a second language or not spoken widely at all.

Curriculum Development: The team working on the Gambia Read project comprised different experts from different languages and backgrounds, and Momodou Jeng (director of national language program) was the principal education officer. The project focused on grades 1 to 3 and its purpose was to review and update the curriculum and develop national language literacy lessons in all seven national languages and English for these grades. As part of this project, they also developed books for these grades (using Bloom software), which were later distributed to different schools in The Gambia.

Joy highlighted the challenges of writing books for grade 1 students, as most of these students had not yet learned or did not have a clear understanding of the letters. However, there was a need to figure out what words to be used for their understanding.

Below were some of the challenges they face in using these books in schools:

1. Printing of the books
2. Getting the books to different schools in The Gambia
3. Having storage for the books in the schools
4. The time allocated for the teaching of the national language
5. Teachers’ knowledge and skills with teaching the national language

In response to these challenges, the World Bank recommended that there should be a plan and a structure for continuing to develop materials in the national languages. Regarding the levelled readers, they suggested that these should be evaluated. They also acknowledged that this can be difficult because of the financial and administrative challenges, even if the key stakeholders support it.

A warm thank you to all attendees.

In this reading group meeting we focussed on the following article:

READING: Graham Tucker, J.M., 2014. Building capacity for Gambian researchers (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology). [click link below to download]

Attendees: 12+ people from various backgrounds.

We were interested to explore how Gambian scholars conduct research into language and multilingualism in The Gambia and we therefore invited Dr. Jules Mansaly and Fakeba Kujabi, two lecturers from the University of The Gambia, to facilitate the meeting. The discussion was organised around three questions:

1. What kind of questions are those interested in conducting research in the field of languages and multilingualism of the Gambia should ask?
2. How important are these for Gambian society, research, students, etc.?
3. Which hurdles do scholars in the Gambia interest in this field of research face and how can these be overcome?

Jules Mansaly briefly introduced himself, which was useful since we learnt, for example, that he comes from the Casamance region of Senegal and therefore has a first-hand experience of multilingualism. It was also useful to hear about his experience of working with Gambian university students, particularly int terms of dissertation supervision. He gave us a few examples of research topics explored by past and current students at UTG:

• “Code-switching among students at the Gambia College”
• “Code-switching in teaching and learning”
• “The effect of code alternation in teaching and learning English language and second language classroom”

Other research questions which could be explored by students were also suggested, e.g.:

• What are the most commonly spoken languages in the Gambia?
• What are the linguistic challenges faced by Gambian speakers of minority languages?
• What strategies have been developed to help Gambians become multilingual?
• How do Gambian language policies and practices shape language use and identity?
• How does the Gambian education system promote multilingualism?

This led another participant to attempt combining some of these questions:

• How can “natural” Gambian multilingualism be drawn upon (linguistic resources) to add new languages?

Language ideologies in the Gambia, borrowings in local languages, interpretation and other topics were also brought up as worth studying. Regarding the topic of interpretation, the richness of interpreting practices in The Gambia was discussed.

One of the major obstacles said to face those conducting research at UTG was the challenges of gathering data. The limited time available to Gambian scholars as well as the practical challenges in collecting language-related data were notably discussed.

To conclude, solutions to issues related to the research training of students was discussed. It was taunted as a fundamental issue at UTG.

A warm thank you to all attendees.

This reading group meeting focused on the following article:

READING Brock-Utne, B., 2014. Language of instruction in Africa-the most important and least appreciated issue. International Journal of Educational Development in Africa, 1(1), pp.4-18.

We discussed at length which language(s) should be used as the language of instruction. Overall, the use of English, particularly during early stages of schooling, was considered to be inadequate for most Gambian children who have no or extremely limited proficiency in this foreign language. Some suggested that two of the national languages, namely Mandinka and Olof, could be used as languages of instruction since the majority of the population can speak these two languages. However, one of the participants suggested that Pulaar should be added to this list since there were a sizeable proportion of Gambians who do not speak either Mandinka or Olof. The use of other national languages was also discussed in reference to positions according to which all children should have access to education in the language they know best.

Regarding the use of national languages as languages of instruction, one of the participants suggested that it might be challenging and would take time before such policy be implemented fully. Awareness raising, if national languages were to be used as a language of instruction was presented as being critical for the success of such initiatives. This was linked to the challenges faced by the implementers of the early parallel biliteracy programme (literacy lessons in English and a national language are supposed to be available to all Grade 1 to Grade 3 children in The Gambia since 2015). Indeed, many teachers have found the teaching of the national language literacy lessons challenging because, for example, of parents’ limited awareness of the importance of teaching national languages. Other challenges such as lack of resources and issues with training were also mentioned and it was considered that lessons could be learnt form this programme if it was decided that national languages should be used as languages of instruction.

The launch of Language in The Gambia Forum was with Hon. Sidia Sana Jatta on 4^th October 2022 with a talk entitled ‘Status and teaching of the national languages during and after the colonial rule in the Gambia’.

Dr Seraphin Kamden from the School of Oriental and African Studies was the facilitator of the meeting.

Sidia Sana Jatta opened the discussion by expressing his thoughts on how national languages could be better integrated in all aspects of Gambian society, lamenting on the continued invisibility of national languages in prestigious domains such as the media.  Concerning the topic of which language to use as a language of instruction, he recalled that The Gambia has been using English as its only language of instruction since its Independence. He clearly explained why this situation was deplorable. During the discussion where he was asked to expand on the some of the points covered during his talk, he explained why he felt that his experience of being taught in Mandinka for two years (the experiment lasted only two years) while he was a primary school child (during the colonial period) had had a long-lasting positive impact on his learning abilities.  The first language he ever learned was Mandinka, one of the languages of his home, and he explained how it shaped him as a learner. After being kept out of school for two years, he still outperformed his peers in his new English medium school.

During the discussions, we learnt about Sidia Sana Jatta’s role in the development of the orthography of Mandinka, but also Pulaar and Olof in the late 70s. This programme had to be aborted after two years due to lack of government support, e.g. the materials his team developed as part of this programme had all to be written by hand which was not sustainable.

Sidia Sana Jatta also brought to our attention a variety of settings where the (absence of) use of national languages is noticeable, e.g. Gambians who cannot speak English are denied access to many high ranking public government positions.

Dr Seraphin Kamdem’s many questions also allowed Sidia Sana Jatta to discuss the connection between the continued pressure on national language and politics. For him, a lack of political will is largely responsible, for example, for the current English as a language of instruction policy which de facto prevents many children form accessing learning.

It was interesting to hear the views of representatives of Curriculum, who stressed that national languages should be used as the languages of instruction, while also expressing their disappointment with politicians and intellectuals for not taking a serious commitment to embracing national languages in the Gambian education system.

In conclusion, Sidia Sana Jatta presented the scarcity of reading materials in the national languages as a critical issue. Developing such materials, according to him, would help people to understand better their own language. He also expressed that more people should be doing research into the languages of The Gambia and therefore more support for those interested in conducting research in those areas should be given.

A warm thank you to all those who attended.

For our ninth meeting on Tuesday 6 September 5.00-6.30pm Gambian Time, we had asked our attendees to read a few excerpts from—as far as we know—the only academic research article on the topic of Gambian language use in healthcare settings. This article was:

ARTICLE: Kayode, O.S., Ibitoye, B. and Olanrewaju, M.K., 2013. Roles of Local Languages on Effective Public Healthcare Delivery in the Gambia: Implications for Psychological Assessment. Texila International Journal of Public Health [you can download at the top of this page; the excerpts we asked attendees to focus on can be found on the meeting page).

Around a dozen people attended the meeting and we had a mixture of healthcare professionals and academics from The Gambia and beyond. Liz Jacobs (Vice President for Research, MaineHealth) and Allison Squires (in absentia, Research Associate Professor, Dept. of General Internal Medicine, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University) had agreed to support our meeting due to their expertise in language issues in multilingual health settings. They shared with us some useful resources you might want to consult (see end of the summary). 

The meeting focused on the four questions below:

1. When is English used in healthcare settings? When are Gambian/local languages used in healthcare settings?

2. p. 2. The authors talk about ‘local language discordant encounters’. How do such kinds of encounters manifest in The Gambia? See below for a definition of language discordant encounters: “Language-discordant encounters occur when patients and healthcare providers speak different first languages, which may manifest as differences in proficiency and experience and therefore hinder the ability to communicate nuances critical for understanding [7]. Language concordance is a particularly important foundation to gain trust, optimize health outcomes and advance health equity in diverse patient populations.” The above quote is from: Molina, R.L. and Kasper, J., 2019. The power of language-concordant care: a call to action for medical schools. BMC medical education, 19(1), pp.1-5.

3. Research shows that using a language patients understand/local languages boosts patient satisfaction, improves the rate of compliance with medical instruction and therefore health improvements, reduces anxiety for the patient, etc. and reduces cost. What are the barriers to local language healthcare provision in The Gambia?

4. How could local language communication in healthcare settings be improved? (See recommendations in the article)

Our discussions highlighted a few important points regarding the language situation in healthcare settings in The Gambia. 

First, it was highlighted by several health practitioners (including a registered practicing nurse in The Gambia) that spoken interactions between patients and health practitioners mostly happened in Gambian languages, particularly the two languages of wider communication of The Gambia: Olof and Mandinka. In keeping with conversations we have had in other reading group meetings, we were reminded that many Gambians speak Olof and/or Mandinka fluently. The strategies used by practitioners to determine which language to speak with their patients were discussed at length.  We notably honed in on specific strategies they use to determine what might be patients’ first language. Some practitioners shared that if they have access to it, they use the surname of patients (and other indicators too such as what they might wear) to determine patients’ ethnic origin and therefore the language they might be able to speak. Others waited to see which language patients would use when they initiate the conversation (after exchanging the common Muslim greetings in Arabic). 

Second (and related to our first point), English was said to be used in spoken interactions in health settings in a relatively small number of circumstances such as instances when patients may not be Gambian and therefore would be unable to speak the aforementioned languages of wider communication and when healthcare practitioners might be posted to areas in The Gambia where they don’t speak the local languages. The specific case of Cuban health practitioners who came to The Gambia in the noughties and could not speak Gambian languages (and at times could not speak English either) was also taunted as an example of communication challenges in healthcare settings in The Gambia. However, it was also emphasised that anything which had to do with writing in healthcare contexts would be done exclusively in English since Gambian languages are not commonly read and written. 

Third, the fact that most healthcare practitioners can only speak one of the two languages of wider communication—Olof and Mandinka—was presented as one of the key challenges, especially when they are posted in areas where their language is not spoken. This was said to be frequent in the Upper River Region of The Gambia (The Gambia is divided into 6 administrative regions based on their position relative to The Gambia River). 

Fourth, in language discordant situations, i.e. situations where the patients and health practitioners do not speak the same language(s), we discussed two important topics which time did not allow us to fully explore: (i) the use of community interpreters (e.g. adults or children in the patient’s family) and (ii) healthcare practitioners’ ad hoc learning of the languages of communities they might be posted in. The latter point echoed discussions we had in previous meetings where we discussed teachers being posted in communities they do not speak the language and learning by themselves the local language(s) by immersing themselves in these communities. 

Liz Jacobs concluded the meeting by emphasising that the kinds of communication discussed during the meeting were universal. Drawing on their experience of working in a wide range of geopolitical South and African contexts, they expressed their satisfaction that many encounters in healthcare contexts in The Gambia were language concordant, i.e. patients and healthcare practitioners are often able to communicate in a language they fully understand. However, they also reminded us that there are many things which can be done to support healthcare contexts such as The Gambia’s, where the language of spoken and written interactions isn’t the same. Ensuing conversations included discussions around opportunities for in-service or pre-service health practitioners to participate in training in medical interpreting and/or attend language courses to learn the two languages of wider communication and other Gambian languages. 

Resources recommended by Allison Squires and Liz Jacobs:

US National Council for Interpreting in Health Care: www.ncihc.org. They have excellent training resources and many of their webinars are recorded. 

Hull, M. (2016). Medical language proficiency: A discussion of interprofessional language competencies and potential for patient risk. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 54, 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.02.015   

mac Donnacha, J. (2000). An Integrated Language Planning Model. Language Problems & Language Planning, 24(1), 11–35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621497 

Please email clyde.ancarno@kcl.ac.uk if you can’t access the articles above.

READING Mitsch, J. 2016. Bordering on National Language Varieties: Political and linguistic borders in the Wolof of Senegal and The Gambia. (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). [download here] We had to read p. ii-iv (the abstract) and p. 66-72 (section 3.5). You will find out about what linguists have to say about Gambian and Senegalese Wolof and much more.

As the dissertation is based on Wolof spoken in Senegal and The Gambia, we made sure to invite Wolof speakers to share their experiences so they could give us insights into the varieties of Wolof they speak. This made our discussion insightful and fascinating. The meeting started at 5pm.  

The dissertation focusses on the way Wolof speakers’ ideologies, and sociolinguistic variation help shape a political border.  

Due to some of the participants having no prior experience of linguistics, Clyde, one of the co-organisers, explained some of the terms used by the author: 

1. She clarified that when the author is talking about ‘language ideologies’, it’s simply referring to the beliefs or feelings about languages as used in their social world. For example, beliefs about certain languages being good or bad, romantic, ugly etc. Are not based on facts. 

2. In broad terms, what the author means by ‘language practices’ is how language is written, read and spoken. 

3. ‘Sociolinguistic variation’ is about different ways in which a language is spoken. This can depend on where the person comes from, whether the person is a male or female. 

4. Sociolinguistic is about the study of language and society. It looks at language policy, accent, dialect, language and gender, etc.  

After a brief explanation of the above terms, Clyde posted a series of questions for our discussion: 

Q1) On page 66 of the article, ‘Wolof is a language without a standard variety, in the sense that there is no prestigious variety and very few people are aware of national orthographies, so its written form is limited’. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Standard is to be understood as ‘good/correct/prestigious’ here.   

Q2. Is Senegalese Wolof superior? 

Q3. p. 94: Which elements of the ‘context’ in which Wolof is used is Saloum affects the extent to which the way they speak conforms with the table below?   

The first question addressed the standard variation. This was an intense debate between various participants regarding which variety of Wolof is standard. The participants were able to make that critical analysis of their thought and experiences with a lot of compelling arguments. One of the participants argued that there is no standard variety of Wolof language. He was not sure what criteria people used to be able to determine the standard Wolof variety. From his point of view, all regional varieties of Wolof are equal.  

Another participant asserted that there is a standard Wolof variety: the Fanafana variety. He considered the Fanafana Wolof speakers as a different variety from those other Wolof speakers in the urban Kombo and Senegal. However, it was argued that for many the words of Fanafanas are difficult to understand. He further emphasized that during his teaching in Kaur senior secondary school, there were a lot of Fanafana communities in that region and the speakers of this variety sound different when compared to other Wolof speakers in the urban area. 

During the discussion, it was further clarified that Fanafanas are recognized to be a set of people who live in rural areas. Therefore, the variety of Wolof they speak is not influenced as much by other European languages such as English and French. Some suggested that people who come from the village speak a more authentic variety of Wolof than those in the urban area. 

One of the participants, a Fanafana speaker, acknowledged that the Fanafanas speak more original versions of the Wolof language. He later emphasized that they can speak a series of sentences without encompassing any foreign words which is common practice among other speakers Wolof speakers in The Gambia and Senegal. He also alluded to the fact that Fanafana Wolof speakers can understand speakers of other varieties of Wolof more easily than they can understand Fanafana Wolof speakers. Therefore, he regarded the Fanafana dialect as the most prestigious. 

The meeting further highlighted that the concept of Fanafana Wolof being unadulterated is relative; however, this is due to its unadulterated status (not influenced by the colonial language) that some people admire the dialect. It was argued that most Fanafana speakers change their dialect when they move to the urban area and the majority of its speakers feel shy to be heard speaking the dialect in public with other Wolof speakers. This led us to wonder why, if the Fanafana variety of Wolof is so prestigious, speakers tend to disassociate with it when faced with other Wolof speakers in urban areas? 

Q2) Our second focussed on the alleged superiority of the Senegalese Wolof. Some recalled that Senegalese Wolof is used in a wide range of domains in Senegalese society, including Parliament, the media, entertainment etc. People who attended the meeting seemed to agree that the Senegalese Wolof has a great influence in The Gambia due to the greater number of Senegalese in our urban area and also their Ndaga Music. 

The meeting also highlighted that the Senegalese Wolof comprises many French words and that many of its speakers often cannot speak without including French words. This trend also applies to the Wolof spoken by the Gambians, although with more focus on English words.  

Q3) The final question explore phonological variation between Gambian and Senegalese Wolof. We spent some time reading the words and discussing how they would be pronounced, whether we felt there were differences as suggested in the reading. We discovered that the answers were far from being straightforward. We also needed the help of our Wolof speakers regarding some of the translations from Wolof to English, e.g. the writer seemed to have translated a ‘house’ as (cherr) instead of (nack). 

The meeting came to an end at 6.30pm.  

The reading was taken from Melissa Marong’s Ph.D thesis, entitled “Gambian English: Syntactic Features of a West African Variety of the English Language”. In the work, Marong attempts to outline the syntactic features of Gambian English and discuss these features alongside other West African varieties of the English language. 

The meeting started at 17:00hrs GMT, on Tuesday 7^th June 2022. In her opening remarks, Dr Clyde Ancarno, on behalf of the three co-organizers (Momodou Lamin Demba and Lamin O. Ceesay are the other two co-organisers) emphasized that the reading group is open to the general public (i.e. one does not have to be a linguist to participate). She added that there is plenty of room for research in both indigenous and exogenous languages in The Gambia. She expressed her delight working with teachers whom she described as responsive and up to the task.  

The meeting took a thematic approach. We focussed on addressing the following questions: 

1. How many varieties of Gambian English can you think of (or expect to be present in The Gambia if you’re not familiar with English in The Gambia)? E.g. Gambian English spoken in Gambian pop music, English spoken by College students, English written in newspapers or spoken by broadcasters. Region-based Gambian Englishes. 

2. How frequently do you use or do you hear others use the present or past continuous instead of the present simple or past simple?  

3. Are there marked differences in the way speakers from different ethnic groups speak English? Are there differences in the way people from different regions of The Gambia speak English? 

In addressing the first question concerning the varieties of Gambian English, it was discussed that different varieties of English exist in The Gambia. It was observed that the English used in the courts and legal documents, for example, differs widely from the English used on the radio, television and newspapers, or the English used on the streets, in pop music, and also different from the English sometimes used in the service barracks and stations. However, people also stressed that not much is know about the exact features of these varieties of Gambian English. 

On how frequently users of Gambian English substitute the simple present and simple past with present continuous and past continuous, we concluded that it was commonplace to come across such constructions in contemporary Gambian English but that this was restricted to certain circles where knowledge of the rules seems to be the factor responsible for people using such expressions. The researcher’s choice of participants was discussed (i.e. the education background of most participants was low) hence, and it was argued that the author’s findings might be due to participants’ limited knowledge of English rather than a characteristic of the syntax of Gambian English. 

On whether marked differences exist in ethnic and regional Englishes in The Gambia, some of us clarified that whereas ethnicity-related differences may exist in Gambian English at the phonological level, regional variations are almost non-existent. Yet, it was agreed that where these variations seemingly occur, they are dictated by the high presence of a particular ethnic group whose phonology has influence on that particular community’s spoken English.  

Two other phenomena were discussed. The first (which remains contested) is the ability of people of Fula ethnic extraction being better at learning other languages, English included. Two of the participants supported this view although there has not been any formal conclusion on the claim. The second issue that came up during the meeting was the closeness of Gambian English to Sierra Leonean English. A number of factors were identified for tis closeness. One of these was that the Gambia and Sierra Leone share a common colonial past. In addition, both countries shared civil servants because the colonial governor in Sierra Leone was overseeing both colonies then. The issue of higher education, as many Gambians before and after independence studied in colleges and universities in Sierra Leone, was also evoked. Gambians either continued to work there upon finishing or came home to join the ranks. Another factor was that since the civil war broke out in Sierra Leone, many families from Sierra Leone relocated to The Gambia. The regular employment available to many such people was teaching and this saw the involvement of many Sierra Leoneans teaching various subjects in Gambian schools, hence the smooth integration of Sierra Leonean English into The Gambia’s education system. 

The meeting ended with a reminder that the next meeting will be held on 5^th July, 2022 at 17:00hrs GMT (details to be shared later). 

The reading was: Peter, L., Wolf, H.G. and Bobda, A.S., 2003. An account of distinctive phonetic and lexical features of Gambian English. English world-wide, 24(1), pp.43-61. 

We received a few apologies (busy start of term for many of us!) and the staff of the University of The Gambia was also still on strike at the time of the meeting. As we were fewer than usual, we were able to introduce ourselves to the rest of the group. The range of expertise and experiences in the room was impressive: multilingualism, language in education policy, Manjago, Gambian literature, teaching…

We started by exploring what was said about the suggestion in the article that English is not used for interethnic dialogue. Based on a series of real-life examples from participants, we established that this is largely true apart from a few specific domains where people’s level of proficiency in English allows them to use English rather than a Gambian language in interethnic communication should they want to. This applied to academia in particular (English is the official language of instruction throughout education in The Gambia).  

The topic of proficiency in English was also broached. Most Gambians were said to be unable to speak English. This was linked to the broader issue of literacy in the country. Gambian languages were reported to be used ‘for everything unless it’s official’. Official situations involving people unable to speak English led us to explore in great depth language brokering in The Gambia, some of which breath-taking! For example, the case children as young as 3 years old translating for their parents was mentioned. Children from certain areas were painted as being highly skilled multilinguals speaking several languages from a young age (e.g. in Brikama the urban Kombo area of The Gambia). On the whole, ‘bringing someone with you if you can’t speak English’ seemed a largely accepted and recognised practice. Some singularities of the Gambian English-speaking context, however, were also noted, e.g. the fact that ‘some people who have not been educated speak better English than people who’ve gone through grade 12’, or the rote learning of a small range of fixed phrases among children, etc. particularly to interact with tourist and ask them, for example, for sweets or footballs. What counts as ‘speaking English’ was therefore dissected.  

Interpretation in The Gambia more generally was also discussed. Interpretation in churches (e.g. see Karlik on interpreting in the Manjaku churches of The Gambia HERE), in medical settings as well as other settings was there talks about. It was noted that to date very little has been written about interpreting in Africa.  

Our discussions around the topic of comprehensibility of English were also insightful. The important fact that certain English varieties are not comprehensible to some people who have learnt English as an additional language was talked about. This led us to ask questions such as: Which English variety is the most comprehensible in The Gambia? What model of English is most relevant to The Gambia? What is the purpose of speaking in English in The Gambia (e.g. communicating in The Gambia only) and what does this entail for English language teaching? To be understood at a local level was said to be the most important goal of communication in English and British English was presented as the variety meant to be spoken in The Gambia. Concerning ELT, enabling learners to be fluent in a range of Englishes was deemed to be desirable and ways to achieve this were discussed, notably through exposing learners to a range of English varieties.  

We also learnt about the interferences of specific Gambian languages in English language production. For example, Mandinkas (largest ethnic group in The Gambia) tend to replace the sound /g/ by /k/ because it doesn’t exist in their language.  

To conclude, and this was an excellent link to our next session on the topic of language in education in The Gambia, the World Bank July 2021 report: Loud and clear: Effective Language of Instruction Policies For Learning was alluded to because of its commitment to ‘teaching children in a language they understand’. We noted that the World Bank was a significant education donor in The Gambia.    

The reading was: Lawson, S. and Jaworski, A., 2007. Shopping and chatting: Reports of tourist–host interaction in the Gambia. Multilingua 26.

We had around a dozen participants again. Our conversation was delightfully lively and probably best accounted for by the series of questions below which we explored. 

Does the article allow us to get insights into the nuances of tourist-host interactions in The Gambia?

Participants acknowledged that the aims of the article were clearly stated at the start and that as such it fulfilled what it set out to do. Nevertheless, ways in which this research could be supplemented were discussed at length. The absence of analysis of naturally occurring data was posited as a possible limitation of the study. However, the diaries were also said to avoid the issue of the Observer’s Paradox (term coined by William Labov), i.e. it was suggested that if the interactions between hosts and tourists had been recorded, the hosts would have most likely adjusted the way they speak. While the limited time dedicated to the data collection (one week apparently) was acknowledged, some of us suggested that more/a different kind of data would have allowed to:

• account for the impact of the age of the tourists on the interactions;
• contribute a less coy account of how hosts verbally sought sexual relationships; 
• focus less on ‘bumsters’ and more on other kinds of hosts, e.g. drivers, National Centre for Arts and Culture (NCAC) workers, etc. involved in the tourism industry;
• share a more detailed/accurate account of the range of languages involved in tourist-host interactions (e.g. Swedish, German, Gambian languages) and the levels of proficiency in English in particular.

Who are the so called ‘bumsters’ and what are the issues with this term?

We had a fascinating debate around the term ‘bumster’. It highlighted the importance of labelling in research and other endeavours. It was felt, for example, that the term possibly carried negative connotations which are primarily fed by (i) the tourism industry itself which warns tourists coming to The Gambia against interacting with the so called ‘bumsters’ and (ii) the government’s continued discourse around reducing their number, which the article echoes when it talks about strides taken by the Gambia Tourism Authority to control their growing numbers. Overall, a wide range of other issues/topics were discussed in relation to the term ‘bumster’, it was notably suggested that it:

• refers to people found in tourist attractions in The Gambia (e.g. beach) who engage with tourists for the purpose of achieving an economic transaction (these greatly vary, hence the difficulty in saying who a ‘bumster’ is); 
• fails to account for the variety of people ‘doing bumsting’ in The Gambia (it was suggested that women and children can be labelled as such); 
• doesn’t reflect the reasons why these local entrepreneurs, etc. become involved in the tourism industry, namely to provide for themselves and their families;
• is a rather non-discriminatory/vague term. In that regard, participants raised the issue of who does the labelling and why, of how intentional someone’s ‘bumsting’ needed to be for them to be labelled a ‘bumster’, the processes of otherisation underpinning the calling of some and not others ‘bumsters’, etc. 

We seemed to agree that the term was loaded and that, for the purpose of research at least, other more objective terms such as ‘local entrepreneurs, beach vendors, etc.’ were probably better suited, unless the participants define themselves as ‘bumsters’.

Is the word ‘toubab’ offensive?

As might be expected, and bearing in mind the power imbalance between ‘toubabs’ and ‘bumsters’, we also discussed the term ‘toubab’. Although we started by translating ‘toubab’ (equivalent terms are found throughout sub-Saharan and North Africa) by ‘white’, we rapidly recalled that a more accurate translation would be ‘from Europe or the West’ and/or ‘fair in complexion’. It was emphasised by one of us that ‘fair in complexion’ in The Gambia might include people who may be labelled as ‘brown’ or ‘black’ in other countries. An anecdote was shared regarding a Gambian woman returning to The Gambia after some time in Europe and who, because of her ‘fair complexion’, was called ‘toubab’. Another anecdote was built on the premise that children calling out foreign visitors ‘toubab’ was offensive. This was compared to how offensive calling people in The Gambia ‘black’ would be. Regarding the latter, it was noted that ‘toubab’ was used respectfully by children who are merely repeating what they have been taught to say to foreign visitors they might encounter. Without explicitly saying so, we therefore had a lengthy discussion around the pragmatics of ‘toubab’ as it is used in The Gambia.  We largely focused on what the speakers intended to mean and how it was interpreted by the hearers. Please note that pragmatics is typically defined as an area of linguistics concerned with the study of what people mean-locution, how it is interpreted-illocution and what impact it might have on our surrounding-perlocution. Also of relevance to pragmatics was our observation that the mismatch between Gambian children’s intended meaning when using the word ‘toubab’ and the interpretation of the word by tourists pointed to the topic of intercultural communication breakdowns in tourist-host interactions in The Gambia. 

Sadly, we did not have time to discuss the migration of this term, e.g. as ‘babtou’ instead of ‘toubab’ in Banlieue French which incorporates elements of French verlan, a type of backward slang (e.g. the order of syllables is changed), which has been in use in the banlieues and urban lower classes of French society for the past 60 years or so.  

How insightful was the representation of tourist-host interactions in The Gambia in the article?

Towards the end of the meeting, and drawing on all the insights gained from the discussions summarised above, it was concluded that the ‘toubabs’ were responsible for the reification of the notion of ‘bumster’. In other words, we came to conclude that the term ‘bumster’ was the byproduct of the tourist gaze. This, some convincingly argued, meant that we needed to be mindful of whose vision of the world we were engaging with when conducting research. Tourists were said to deserve attention for what they are, namely social actors for whom only a superficial, fixed interpretation of the world they encounter while on holidays is possible. As such, those interested in doing research involving tourists, for example, were encouraged to carefully consider this and whether terms such as ‘bumsters’, etc. were acceptable descriptions of their research participants.