Why is Portuguese such a successful colonial language?

[verdastelo]

According to the Observatory of the Portuguese Language, 70% of people in Mozambique and 72% of people in Angola speak Portuguese. That’s a big number, comparable to Hindi-Urdu’s popularity in India (~62% in the 2011 census) and Mandarin in China (80.72% in 2019). Both languages are local to their countries with a history of use as a lingua franca going back at least 500 years. In comparison, colonial languages are still the preserve of a minority elite in South Asia and Africa. A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019 found that only 6% of Indians spoke English. French probably doesn’t fare better in many Francophone countries. If the Observatory of the Portuguese Language data is correct, then what do you think explains the success of Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique?

[DaveAgain]

A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019 found that only 6% of Indians spoke English.

George Orwell and Roald Dahl both mentioned being expected/required to learn the local language by their employers when in Burma and Tanzania.

After independence from Britain I believe the government of Sri Lanka made an effort to reduce the use of English in the areas where its use was established.

Perhaps its the inverse of these that explains Portuguese success in Angloa and Brasil? The post-Empire governments didn't oppose the use of Portuguese, and Empire era culture had not been to use local languages.

[reineke]

The Portuguese were the first in and the last out (~1500-1975). Angola and Mozambique each have around 46 local languages. India also has many languages but many of these have numerous speakers and established literary traditions. The colonial era didn't start in most of Africa until mid 1800s.

[DaveAgain]

The Portuguese were the first in and the last out (~1500-1975). Angola and Mozambique each have around 46 local languages. India also has many languages but many of these have numerous speakers and established literary traditions. The colonial era didn't start in most of Africa until mid 1800s.

Welcome back Reineke!

[alaart]

In case of Brazil, it had to do with Napoleon conquering Portugal and the royal court + personal and everybody important emigrating to Brazil in a huge wave to escape, which gave the language a boost. Actually before Portuguese another local language was the common lingua franca and was used by missionaries, eventually it died out over the centuries.

[verdastelo]

After independence from Britain I believe the government of Sri Lanka made an effort to reduce the use of English in the areas where its use was established.

Perhaps its the inverse of these that explains Portuguese success in Angloa and Brasil? The post-Empire governments didn't oppose the use of Portuguese, and Empire era culture had not been to use local languages.

India never discouraged the use of English, despite all the slogans ant Remove English movements. Our legal system remains in Victorian English. All our higher education is exclusively in English; all Indian languages are practically prohibited from colleges and universities. High-paying jobs are in English. There are a trillion reasons to be fluent in English in India. Yet, 94% of the population remains clueless. One of my own acquaintances, born in 1994, couldn't differentiate a lowercase 'b' from a 'd'. He could read in Punjabi, but even the Roman letters for him were a nightmare.

The Portuguese were the first in and the last out (~1500-1975). Angola and Mozambique each have around 46 local languages. India also has many languages but many of these have numerous speakers and established literary traditions. The colonial era didn't start in most of Africa until mid 1800s.

The duration of occupation is probably a factor. Duration explains why German and Italian failed to put down roots in Namibia and Ethiopia. But it fails to explain why Dutch has almost vanished from Indonesia. There must be other factors. I'm trying to identify them.

Recently, I read a Wikipedia article about the Angolan Civil War and how it accelerated the spread of Portuguese. People from multiple tribes sought refuge in cities where Portuguese emerged as the lingua franca. It sounds plausible, but I'm not convinced.

There is a higher probability of a Portuguese-based pidgin being born, than everyone learning standard Portuguese. Nigeria comes to mind. Unlike India, where Hindi-Urdu is a dominant lingua franca, Nigeria doesn't have one. A pidgin developed there, which can become an official language of that country in future. BBC already broadcasts in Pidgin.

In case of Brazil, it had to do with Napoleon conquering Portugal and the royal court + personal and everybody important emigrating to Brazil in a huge wave to escape, which gave the language a boost.

Brazil's case is different. Almost all the Brazilians speak Portuguese at home, just as many Americans and Canadians speak English at home. That's not the case in India and Nigeria, where probably 0.0001% of people speak English as their first language. Brazil can be compared with Argentina or Mexico or the US or Quebec. A fair comparison can be between Angola and Mozambique for Portuguese, Senegal and Algeria for French, and India and Nigeria for English.

[tarvos]

The duration of occupation is probably a factor. Duration explains why German and Italian failed to put down roots in Namibia and Ethiopia. But it fails to explain why Dutch has almost vanished from Indonesia. There must be other factors. I'm trying to identify them.

Only the elite ever spoke Dutch, the Dutch didn't force the Indonesian/Malay population to speak Dutch. Instead, they let most people speak Malay/Indonesian (in order to keep Dutch as a type of secret language). Only the higher rank people spoke Dutch. The Dutch were less intent on cultural assimilation and more on trade/money.

[golyplot]

Welcome back Reineke!

Yeah, I did a double take when I saw that and had to check the date. Usually when I see a post by Reineke, it means that the thread is several years old and just got necro'd or something.

[PeterMollenburg]

Welcome back Reineke!

Yeah, I did a double take when I saw that and had to check the date. Usually when I see a post by Reineke, it means that the thread is several years old and just got necro'd or something.

Likewise!

According to the Observatory of the Portuguese Language, 70% of people in Mozambique and 72% of people in Angola speak Portuguese.

A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019 found that only 6% of Indians spoke English.

I'm not disputing figures necessarily, but I wonder what constitutes a 'speaker' of Portuguese in these countries as per Observatory of the Portuguese Language and what constitutes 'speaking English' as per A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019. The parameters of what is deemed a Portuguese or English speaker by these two separate sources could be vastly different. May not be too. I can't be bothered looking into it, but don't necessarily accept these numbers as reliable at face value.

French probably doesn’t fare better in many Francophone countries.

Probably not, and it has all but disappeared, as you likely know from a handful of places too (eg Vietnam). Conversely, it's growth in some countries is pretty decent and only English beats French in the number of countries in which it is an official language. While this does not mean that 100% of the population of these countries speak French, there are also countries/regions where a good deal of the population speak French and it doesn't make the list of countries in which it's official (60% of Algerians - not an official language, 97% of those from New Caledonia - not seen in other countries statistics as is an outer region of France, 95% of French Polynesia - again part of France). French may have a prosperous future yet... or it might fall flat. Even if its growth comes to a standstill, it still has a considerable presence throughout the world (Europe, Quebec, Pacific Islands, some African countries unlikely to disappear anytime soon).

The Portuguese were the first in and the last out (~1500-1975). Angola and Mozambique each have around 46 local languages. India also has many languages but many of these have numerous speakers and established literary traditions. The colonial era didn't start in most of Africa until mid 1800s.

@verdastelo. French Africa was only recently colonised. We have until another 300 years to have the same amount of time that Portuguese had to see if French disappears or grows considerably. Okay, that would give us a similar time frame, but admittedly the conditions (era in terms of technology, globalisation etc) are simply not comparable, so it's all speculation that will amount to nothing for a long time after we're gone.

The duration of occupation is probably a factor. Duration explains why German and Italian failed to put down roots in Namibia and Ethiopia. But it fails to explain why Dutch has almost vanished from Indonesia. There must be other factors. I'm trying to identify them.

Only the elite ever spoke Dutch, the Dutch didn't force the Indonesian/Malay population to speak Dutch. Instead, they let most people speak Malay/Indonesian (in order to keep Dutch as a type of secret language). Only the higher rank people spoke Dutch. The Dutch were less intent on cultural assimilation and more on trade/money.

This is interesting information. Thanks, tarvos. I suggest we set about convincing all Indonesians to speak Dutch from here on. Give it a year or two and we'll put Dutch in the top 10 languages of numbers of speakers. You're not busy are you Tarvos? I've not got much to do

[verdastelo]

According to the Observatory of the Portuguese Language, 70% of people in Mozambique and 72% of people in Angola speak Portuguese.

A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019 found that only 6% of Indians spoke English.

I'm not disputing figures necessarily, but I wonder what constitutes a 'speaker' of Portuguese in these countries as per Observatory of the Portuguese Language and what constitutes 'speaking English' as per A Lok-Foundation Survey in 2019. The parameters of what is deemed a Portuguese or English speaker by these two separate sources could be vastly different. May not be too. I can't be bothered looking into it, but don't necessarily accept these numbers as reliable at face value.

Even if I assume a lax definition (A1) for both languages, the difference is still huge. My experience has been that outside of Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and a couple of other cities, you will be hard-pressed to find people who can respond to "How are you?" In my experience, even at this elementary level, an absolute majority of Indians don't speak English.

In my old company, the owner (who is an American) asked me to gauge the vocabulary of all the 100 employees. I simply asked everyone report their Test Your Vocab score. That was 6-7 years ago. Only three people scored more than 10,000. The manager who was an Australian citizen, another manager who read a lot, and me. No one else crossed the threshold of 7000 words. The most common score was between 4000 and 5000. The test, unscientific it may be, was conducted in an IT company serving customers in the US. By definition, the employees ought to be better at English than the average Indian. I have worked in a few other companies and it's always the same story. Aside from a few exceptions, most employees tend to be high B1 or low B2. And these are the people who studied their entire lives in English-medium schools, colleges, and universities.

That's the reason the Angolan numbers shocked me. Probably someone who is learning Portuguese and has interacted with Angolans and Mozambicans can attest to the accuracy of the data.

PS. Before anyone points out the Indian immigrants and their English, I want to say that they tend to be the crème de la crème. In the first place, you ought to have money and the brains to study in the US. They are smart people. The US is a welcoming society. Win-win for both.