 

‘ ‘ l
. .
h». .m
5 >2 .1
.ruﬁgé.
Arrﬁdn...» 3 .
5.. 4 .1 on”.

3...... .
K¢.I?tdf:£.

p. .5
I3.

.. r}

5%., #1.

3 n4.

5. i... z
r ‘1

hr x , é
a .u: {Hui

i I .
ill 7 l l
$3..th
u.pxmma..as . 3
0......9‘
n M
,.
a...
amtmuwuﬂﬁmm. ‘
Shandy!!! b.
. "a 4.51. .1
3234:“ Eggmmgm
aﬁﬁa. an... gm... ammw
, g1"... .. , r.
. . A. Law.
‘ 3.3.

! §
.. -
it a: .

, I £12.}

p .3 5.135%. ... .2. .u. .z.
s .. I ISIS .
19133306.; I? I i
3.2! I L. x 4:...
.31 2331.; . L

.Tr... 2.... ; Luhm
.25.: :.. . a s
, ‘ .ol.‘ 9 ‘13 r
. 4 . ‘ . K 24
a: r. .
. § . 1 ‘ a:

*hunixtu-ﬂ' sally.

. ,
.
.3 .{9
:Oh I! .15
1:"...qu a
ﬁﬁni .

«an»
EzL-v:
5...

x35 .1
.54.; 2.x. ‘

at“?

 

Ii .1?! r

;.
3‘5»
.333. . ‘u no
.41235, A‘ . A. .‘...:C.f. 4” n
9.3.1.?! .. «13.x...
:3. .x... v.57: 1..
‘0 he; .
ni- 17 D ‘
8.....O‘tvlin. ‘
1:3»? -
822:. 1199,
9...": .!\§..‘ . t

 

3.3.3.1 .
‘ 2:3,...nw...
'1 Q. Iii. S I.
VF‘é.i Vt: Ii!

if. 1--

 

.1 . .. x
.2 uﬂdpﬁ:
i K ,I) .l

 

lllllllllllUllllllllllllllllllllllllilHlllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 02106 173

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Languages of Use by the South African
National Government

presented by

Nkhelebeni Edward Phaswana

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in English

WWW

Major professor

 

Date 5" 33‘0’0

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

ULULUUC
£621 02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11100 W.“

 

LANGUAGES OF USE BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

By

Nkhelebeni Edward Phaswana

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English
2000

 

ABSTRACT

LANGUAGES OF USE BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
By

Nkhelebeni Edward Phaswana

This is a sociolinguistic study which seeks to investigate the extent to
which South Africa’s eleven ofﬁcial languages are used by the national
government in carrying out its national duties. A secondary, related purpose of
this study is to analyze the implications of the national government’s language
use.

To explore the language or languages used by the South African national
government and the implications thereof, the study places the South African
language policy within its socio-historical context from the Seventeenth to the
Twentieth Century. The new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
adopted on the 8th of May 1996, and amended on the 11th of October 1996 by the
Constitutional Assembly, recognizes all the eleven major languages spoken in
South Africa as national ofﬁcial languages. These languages are Afrikaans,
English, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele,
isiXhosa and isiZulu. Although during the apartheid era, only Afrikaans and
English were used as ofﬁcial languages, the nine indigenous languages have
been accorded an ofﬁcial status by the new democratic South African

government.

Both the interim and the new Constitutions demand that the indigenous
African languages, whose use was historically diminished by the previous
government (apartheid government), should be promoted and their status
elevated. It is therefore the purpose of this study to investigate whether or not the
Constitutional demands with respect to the new language policy are carried out
by the new government.

Three methods were used in collecting data for this study. ln-depth
interviews were conducted with Members of the South African Parliament,
systematic observation was done in both portfolio committee rooms and at the
National Assembly, and primary sources such as speeches delivered by
Members of Parliament, bills, acts, newsletters, HANSARD document, annual
reports etc., were used in examining the extent to which the national government
afﬁrms what the language policy of the Constitution requires.

Results of this study indicate that the South African government is
becoming monolingual, and English is being entrenched as the only ofﬁcial
language in Parliament. All the speeches and deliberations made in the various
portfolio committee rooms are conducted in English. Although in the National
Assembly speeches and addresses could be made in any one of the eleven
ofﬁcial languages, all the speeches in languages other than English are
translated into English in the HANSARD document.

African languages and Afrikaans are marginalized in Parliament. The
study concludes that there won’t be proper democracy and empowerment of the

South African masses, if their languages are sidelined.

Copyright by
Nkhelebeni Edward Phaswana
2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Geneva Smitherrnan (Dr. “6”), my committee
chairperson. Without her tremendous support, encouragement and insightful
suggestions this work would not have been completed. Nga a lalame mutana u
vhuye u shulwe nga vhutoko (Literal translation: She must live until such time
that her back is polished with cow dung (long live!)).

I am grateful for the scholarly comments, criticism and meticulous scrutiny
of my work by my dissertation and Ph.D. committee members, Drs. Susan Gass,
David Plank and Denise Troutman. Their expertise and assistance were beyond
measure.

I must also thank my family for enduring all the suffering that they went
through in my absence. U kondelela hu beba dakalo (Literal translation:
Perseverance gives birth to joyl).

I would also like to thank my sponsorship, United States Agency for
International Development (USAlD) mission in South Africa and Africa-America
Institute (AAI) in New York, for their constant ﬁnancial support throughout this
study. I am also thankful to Education Policy Unit (EPU) at the University of Natal
for awarding me a pre-dissertation research fellowship in 1998. I thank Venda
University of Science and Technology for partly sponsoring my ﬁeld research in
Cape Town in 1999. My thanks are due to the National Research Foundation
(NRF) for awarding me an Ad-hoc research grant for my ﬁeld research. Also, I
thank the Department of English and the School of Arts and Letters at Michigan

State University for awarding me the Graduate Ofﬁce Fellowship.

Above everything and all, I thank the Almighty God for His grace and love

through which my work was accomplished.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
A Socio—historical Background of the South African
Language Policy .................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ...................................................... 22
Purpose of the Study ............................................................ 25
Research Questions ............................................................. 26
Research Hypotheses ........................................................... 27
Research Methodology ......................................................... 27
Signiﬁcance of the Study ....................................................... 28
Organization of the Study ....................................................... 30
Deﬁnition of Terms ............................................................... 31
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................... 37
Introduction ........................................................................ 37
The Language Clauses in the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa ........................................................................ 39
Attitudes towards African Languages ........................................ 52
Language Attitudes as Discussed in the South African
LANGTAG (1996) Reports .......................................... 69
At National Level ....................................................... 69
At Provincial Level ..................................................... 70
At Local Government Level .......................................... 7O
Grassroots Attitudes towards Language Equality .......................... 71
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND DATA GATHERING
PROCEDURES .................................................................... 75
Unstructured Interview Style ................................................... 75
Interviewees ........................................................................ 78
Description of the Sample ...................................................... 80
Data Gathering Procedure ...................................................... 81
Interviews ................................................................ 81
Written Records ...................................................... 82
Secondary Sources .................................................. 82
Systematic Observation ........................................... 83
Problems Encountered in the Fieldwork ..................................... 84

vii

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............. 86

Data Collected through ln-depth Interviews .................................. 86
Languages Used in Domains of the Political Apparatus: the Mismatch

between Constitutional Demands and Parliamentary Practice .......... 87

Personal Reﬂections and Critique .............................................. 97
Obstacles in the Promotion and Elevation of the Status of African

Languages .......................................................................... 107
Affordability ............................................................. 107
Attitudes towards African Languages ........................... 112
African Languages and Corpus Planning ...................... 113
Problem of Mindset ................................................... 118

Personal Reﬂections and Critique ............................................ 120

The Government’s Efforts to Achieve the Constitutional Demands 131
Encouraging Multilingualism and National Unity ............... 131
To Promote and Develop African Languages .................. 133

Personal Reﬂections and Critique ............................................. 136

Harmonization of Nguni and Sotho Languages ............................ 142

Personal Reﬂections and Critique .............................................. 143
Data Obtained through Written Reports, Speeches, Newsletters,

Acts and Bills, HANSARD Document and Agenda and Minutes ...... 144
Governmental/Departmental Annual Reports ................... 144
Speeches by the Government Officials ........................... 150
Acts and Bills ............................................................ 152
The HANSARD Documents ......................................... 153
Newsletters .............................................................. 154
Agenda and Minutes of Meetings ................................. 155

Personal Reﬂections and Critique ............................................. 155

Data Obtained through Systematic Observation ........................... 160

Personal Reﬂections and Critique .............................................. 162

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER

RESEARCH ........................................................................ 165
Summary of the Study .............................................................. 165
Conclusions ........................................................................... 172
Recommendations .................................................................. 177
Implications for Further Research ............................................... 183
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Excerpts from Interviews ......................................... 184
Appendix B: Letters to the Interviewees and UCRIHS Approval

Leﬂer .................................................................................... 216

viii

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 222

Secondary Sources ................................................................. 222
Primary Sources ..................................................................... 233

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE A ......................................................................................... 21

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAI: Africa-America Institute

ACDP: African Christian Democratic Party

ANC: African National Congress

ATASA: African Teachers’ Association of South Africa
CASAS: Center for Advanced Studies in African Society
COSATU: Congress of South African Trade Union
CSAIC: Concerned South African Indian Citizens
CSD: Centre for Science Development

DP: Democratic Party

ELA: English Language Amendment

ELTIC: English Language Teaching Information Centre
EPU: Education Policy Unit

FF: Freedom Front

GNU: Government of National Unity

GRA: Genootskap Regte Afrikaners

IFP: Inkatha Freedom Party

LANGTAG: Language Plan Task Group

LASU: Linguistics Association for SADC Universities
MP: Member of Parliament

NCOP: National Council of Provinces

NGO: Non Government Organization

NLP: National Language Project

NNP: New National Party

NP: National Party

NRF: National Research Foundation

NUL: National University of Lesotho

OAU: Organization of African Unity

PAC: Pan African Congress

PANSALB: Pan South African Language Board
PRAESA: Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa
RDP: Reconstruction and Development Programme
READ: Read, Educate and Develop

SABC: South African Broadcasting Corporation
SACP: South African Communist Party

SADC: Southern African Development Community
SAPA: South African Press Association

SOWETO: Southwest Township

SWAPO: South West African People’s Organization
TBVC: Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei
UB: University of Botswana

UCT: University of Cape Town

UDW: University of Durban-Westville

UN: University of Namibia

UN: United Nations

UNIN: United Nations Institute for Namibia
UNISA: University of South Africa
UNITRA: University of Transkei

US: University of Swaziland

U.S: United States

U.S.A: United States of America

USAID: United States Agency for International Development
UWC: University of the Western Cape

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
After nearly half a century of apartheid rule in which only English and
Afrikaans were ofﬁcial languages, the Republic of South Africa adopted a new
democratic Constitution that provides for eleven ofﬁcial languages. Clause 6 of

the Constitution stipulates:

(1) The ofﬁcial languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana,
siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa
and isiZulu.

(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the
indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and
positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these
languages.

(3a) The national government and provincial governments may use any
particular ofﬁcial languages for the purposes of government, taking
into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and
the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a
whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and
each provincial government must use at least two ofﬁcial languages.

(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and

preferences of their residents.

(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative
and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of ofﬁcial
languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2),
all ofﬁcial languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated
equitably.

(5a) A Pan South African Language Board established by national
legislation must promote and create conditions for the development
and use of:

(i) all ofﬁcial languages;

(ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and

(iii) sign language; and

(b) promote and ensure respect for:

(i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa,
including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil,
Telegu and Urdu; and

(ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious
purposes in South Africa. (pp.4-5)

Now, six years after the drafting of the Constitution, the question arises as to the
success of the eleven language policy. This sociolinguistic study seeks to
investigate the extent to which South Africa’s eleven ofﬁcial languages are used
by the national government in carrying out its national duties. A secondary,
related purpose of this study is to analyze the implications of the national
government’s language use. As a backdrop for understanding the crisis around
and preoccupation with the language question, South African language policy
must be located within its socio-historical context, from the Seventeenth to the

Twentieth Century.

A SOClO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
LANGUAGE POLICY

In the history of South Africa, language was an integral part of apartheid.
Thus the language question became part and parcel of the struggle for
democracy and liberation in South Africa. McLean (1992) in discussing how
language was used as a tool for divide and rule policy in South Africa, pointed
out:

the basis on which black people have been stripped of their

South African citizenship and forcibly removed to bantustans has

been their ethnic identity, of which language has often been the only

index. (p.152)
The recorded language history of South Africa dates as far back as the mid-
Seventeenth century when Jan van Riebeeck arrived at the Cape with his crew.

He encountered the indigenous population, which consisted of two main groups:

the Khoikhoi, or the Hottentots, and the San people. The languages spoken by

 

(‘3

I.”

(I)

(K)

these indigenous African people sounded like “the clucking of turkeys” to the ears
of the Dutch settlers (Alexander, 1989; Maartens, 1998). Despite van Riebeeck’s
racist Eurocentricism, history shows that the languages of the Khoe and San
peoples dates back several centuries prior to van Riebeeck’s invasion.

Maartens (1998) records that in the early years the Dutch language had
no direct inﬂuence on the two indigenous languages, i.e. Khoikhoi and San
languages. Instead of the settlers learning and studying the indigenous
languages for communication and business, interpreters were used where trade,
and later, missionaries, required direct contact with the indigenous people. The
interpreters happened to be indigenous people who over the years acquired
some Dutch or English knowledge. Portuguese and Malay-Portuguese each
became the lingua franca in 1658 among the slaves who were brought to the
Cape from countries such as Angola, Madagascar, Bengal, Guinea, and later,
mainly from South East Asia. To counteract the use of each of these two
languages as lingua franca, before the end of 1658 the Dutch East India
Company decreed that only Dutch should be used. Maartens (1998, p.26) noted
that this decree constituted the ﬁrst language policy of South Africa.

Dutch became an ofﬁcial language and consequently, the Khoikhoi, the
San people and slaves employed by the settlers had no choice but to speak the
language of their masters. Even among themselves, Dutch was used as the
medium of communication. The slave-master communication and the slave-slave
communication contributed to the emergence of what is today called Afrikaans in

South Africa. Alexander (1989) and Brown (1992), in discussing how Afrikaans

came into being as a language in South Africa, conﬁrm that Afrikaans was born
in the Western Cape as the language of trade, education and social intercourse
between white and non-white. Its early form, as they indicate, was spoken as a
lingua franca by most of the inhabitants in the Cape by the end of the 17th
century. Although Afrikaans, or what was known as the “Cape patois” or “kitchen
Dutch,” was regarded as inappropriate for educational discourse, as Moodie
(1980, p.40) points out, Afrikaans and Dutch (Hollands) co-existed such that by
the end of 1795, most of the Khoikhoi and slaves were part of an Afrikaans-
Hollands language community.

The English occupied the Cape in 1795 for the ﬁrst time, but it was not
until the second British occupation of the Cape in 1806 that the British policy of
Anglicization was implemented. Because of the Anglicization policy, English
became the language in the Cape Colony while the indigenous languages,
together with Afrikaans, were relegated to an inferior status.

Maartens (1998, p.26) points out that in 1853 English was made the
exclusive language of Parliament. Dutch and Afrikaans were used in the church
and in the family, respectively. Because of the rise of Afrikaner nationalism
during this period the Genootskap Regte Afrikaners (GRA) movement was
formed in 1875. It was because of the role of the GRA that Afrikaans, rather than
Dutch, was recognized as the mother tongue of the Afrikaners.

In 1882 Dutch, rather than Afrikaans, was again recognized as an ofﬁcial

language of the Cape Parliament alongside English. When the ﬁrst Anglo-Boer

War broke out in 1899, which was eventually won by the British in 1902, the
ofﬁcial status of Dutch was withdrawn.

In 1910 when the Act of Union was signed, Article 137 of the Constitution
accorded Dutch “co-equal status with English as an ofﬁcial language of the
Union” (Maartens, 1998, p.29). This Constitution did not even acknowledge the
existence of African languages, let alone allocate them any status. As Dutch
regained its status (it had judicial equality, rights and privileges with English) it
was used in schools together with English. A great challenge to Dutch was
mounted by Afrikaans speakers who claimed that “Dutch,” as enshrined in the
Constitution, referred to Afrikaans as well. Because of the endless resistance
waged against this policy (where Dutch and not Afrikaans was accorded ofﬁcial
status) by the Afrikaners, in 1925 an amendment to Act 137 of the Constitution
made Afrikaans an ofﬁcial language alongside English. Hence, Cluver (1992) and
Moodie (1980) record that in 1925 Afrikaans replaced Dutch as the ofﬁcial
language and its legal equality with English was written into the Constitution. The
recognition and adoption of Afrikaans as an ofﬁcial language was eventuated by
a series of struggles and remarkable efforts on the part of the Afrikaners. An
apology that was made in 1908 by Dr. Malan for not having used Afrikaans
before the Afrikaans Language Movement (an Afrikaans student language
movement) at Stellenbosch University could be regarded as a positive step
towards the recognition of Afrikaans as an ofﬁcial language. Dr. Malan argued
that Afrikaans was the only real, viable language for his people (Moodie, 1980,

p.47). Moodie (1980) further quoted part of Dr. Malan’s speech from Pienaar

(1964, pp.169 8175-176) which served to mobilize and strengthen the Afrikaners
to safeguard and agitate for ofﬁcial recognition of Afrikaans. Dr. Malan in his
speech strongly emphasized that people and language are born together; and
that Anglicization could only be circumvented if Afrikaans is not only recognized,
but used as a written language as well. He argued for Afrikaans to be the
language of the Afrikaners’ history, culture as well as national ideals. From this
period onwards, lawyers’ ofﬁces, school rostrums and the Dutch Reformed
Church were sites where very enthusiastic young Afrikaners eagerly fought for
their language and their Afrikanerdom (Moodie, 1980, p.48).

In 1918 as Moodie (1980) points out, the major Dutch teachers’
organizations in the Cape and the Free State had opted for Afrikaans and fought
for its adoption in the junior grades at schools. In 1919 the Transvaal Teachers
Association was formed to represent Afrikaans-speaking teachers. And in the
same year, the conservative Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church granted
Afrikaans equal rights with Dutch and approved the translation of the Bible into
Afrikaans.

Cluver (1992) writes that the victory of Afrikaans over Dutch became an
effective strategy for maintaining the ethnic identity of the Afrikaners, which
formed the base of the political power of the National Party. What is striking and
intriguing is that up to this stage the African languages of the indigenous people
of South Africa were still not recognized.

General Hertzog, an Afrikaner who became a political leader in 1920,

introduced his ‘two—stream policy’ whereby the English and the Afrikaners were to

be developed separately, that is segregated, not only in language, but also in
domains such as economy, education, politics, etc.

Mention must be made that even during this period of South African
history, schools were the institutions that became agencies for the perpetuation
of the language policies of the governments. It was not a surprise therefore that
when the Nationalist Party came to power in 1948, under the leadership of Dr.
D.F. Malan, a policy of Christian National Education was adopted. Consequently,
Afrikaans became a compulsory subject along with English in white education up
to Senior Certiﬁcate level (Grade 12 level).

After the National Party took over the government in 1948, Afrikaans was
developed and elevated to a position to compete with English. The language of
instruction in the education of a white child was determined by the child’s mother
tongue. Unfortunately this was not true for a Black child whose ﬁrst four years of
schooling were conducted in his/her mother tongue, although in some areas only
one indigenous African language could be used irrespective of the children’s
different language backgrounds, eg. as Maartens (1998) pointed out, in Natal
isiZulu was the only indigenous African language used as the language of
learning and instruction. In the ﬁfth year of schooling, either English or Afrikaans
took over as the language of learning and teaching for the African child.
Maartens (1998) quotes Article 15 in the 1948 education policy document which
stipulates:

Any system of teaching and education of natives must be based

on these same principles [trusteeship, no equality, separation] must

be grounded in the life - and world-view of the whites, most especially
those of the Boer nation as the senior white trustees of the native

[who] must be led to an independent acceptance of the Christian and
national principles in our teaching. The mother tongue must be the
basis of native education and teaching but the two ofﬁcial languages
must be taught as subjects because they are ofﬁcial languages and
the keys to the cultural loans that are necessary to [his own] cultural
progress. (p.30)
The stipulations of Article 15 were implemented through the education system
known as Bantu Education introduced through the Bantu Education Act of 1953.
This Act was intended to (1) promote Afrikaans and to reduce the inﬂuence of
English in Black schools (2) to impose in Black schools the use of Afrikaans and
English on an equal basis as media of instruction, and (3) to extend mother
tongue education from grade four to grade eight (Kamwangamalu, 1997, p.6).

The promotion of vernacular (African languages) in Black primary schools
as media of teaching and learning beyond the fourth year of schooling and the
use of Afrikaans were strongly opposed by Blacks in South Africa. The
introduction of African languages to serve as media of instruction was perceived
by Blacks as part of the Afrikaners’ divide and rule policy.

When South Africa became a Republic on 31 May 1961 under the
leadership of Dr. H.F. Venlvoerd, the Republic of South Africa Act reinforced the
equality of English and Afrikaans. However, there was no mention of the status
and position of African languages. During this period Afrikaans and English were
the two languages of teaching and learning beyond the fourth year of schooling.
The Black majority preferred English over Afrikaans as their language of
education. Afrikaans was regarded as the language of the oppressor and English

as an international language and a language for liberation. It was after realizing

that the majority of Africans were denying Afrikaans to serve as a medium of

instruction on par with English in their schools that a circular to that effect (i.e.,
that Afrikaans be used on 50-50 basis with English in Black schools) was issued
by the Department of Bantu Education. This meant that half of the subjects in
Black secondary schools should be offered in Afrikaans. The introduction of
Afrikaans and its imposition on Black schools was done for an obvious reason,
namely, to curb the dominance of English in Black schools.

In June 1976 this language in education policy was met with
insurmountable opposition in the Soweto (Southwest Township) uprisings. Before
the Soweto uprisings broke out, ATASA (African Teachers’ Association of South
Africa) and the Urban Bantu Council met with the Regional Director for Bantu
Education pleading for the reversal of this language policy. Unfortunately the
decision that both languages (English and Afrikaans) should be used equally
remained. Actually the Director of Black Education, Andries Treumicht, pushed
for compliance to the teaching and learning of subjects in both Afrikaans and
English in Black high schools.

This policy, as Tessendorf (1989) indicates, was planned to start in the
high schools in the Southern Transvaal, including Soweto. A Black child was
expected to learn in three languages: his/her mother tongue (from Grade 1-4),
both Afrikaans and English on a 50-50 basis (from Grade 5 until he/she
graduates from high school).

The introduction and enforcement of Afrikaans as a language of teaching
and learning was resisted and opposed by the students and school boards

(where parents and other stakeholders are represented). As Ndlovu (1998)

discusses it, the Phefeni Junior Secondary School Form one and Form two
(Grade 8 and Grade 9) students were the ones affected by this policy. Afrikaans
was to be used to teach subjects such as Geography, Mathematics and Science
in these grades.

Students, ﬁnding difﬁculties learning in Afrikaans, complained to both their
teachers and headmasters. Afrikaans was difﬁcult for them as was evident in
their academic performance which became dismally poor compared to their
performance before Afrikaans was introduced (i.e. when English was still the only
language used in teaching all other subjects except languages). The government
refused to change this language policy stating that the introduction of Afrikaans
should be perceived as an academic matter that did not need the sanction of the
students nor the school boards but only the Minister of Bantu Education. When
students realized that they were not listened to, they began to boycott classes.
Some schools began to burn books written in Afrikaans. In other schools, such
as Phefeni Junior Secondary School, students began to teach themselves in
English.

Although the introduction of Afrikaans was to begin in Grades 8 and 9,
students in the grades which were not to be affected joined the strike voluntarily.
Others joined through coercion, as in some schools exam papers of Grade 10
students were conﬁscated by those who were affected. As Tessendorf (1989)
pointed out, the Afrikaner bureaucrats were not impressed by the resistance and
opposition against Afrikaans in Black schools. What happened on June 16, 1976

is what Tessendorf deﬁnes dramatically:

1O

Wednesday, June 16, 1976: A chilly winter smog overlays Soweto,

but enthusiasm and anticipation is building in the streets. Boys and

girls in neat school uniforms are greeting each other with raised ﬁsts:

“Amandla Awethu!” (“Power to the people!”). They are not going to

classrooms. Word has been passed (and peer attendance is

mandatory) of a major anti-Afrikaans meeting in a football stadium.

Students and hangers-on, estimated at up to twenty thousand, funnel

by way of major avenues to the rally. Some carry outspoken placards;

one calls upon Balthazar John Vorster, current premier: “If we must

do Afrikaans, Vorster must do Zulu!” (pp.172-173)
The police, who were not aware of this gathering until the students began their
march, in a hasty manner, rushed to confront the march. Fifty policemen (four of
them being White, the rest Black) are reported to have gone to stop the march.
Colonel Kleingeld, the police ofﬁcer in charge, had to give orders to the students
at the march that they should disperse since there was no permit granted to
them. Unfortunately, the police ofﬁcer had no bull horn ampliﬁer to give such
orders and could not be heard as a result. Students began to throw stones at the
police and were met with tear-gas canisters from the police. Tessendorf (1989)
explains this confrontation:

The crowd is raging and does not flee before club-swinging police

charge. The dogs are killed. A hail of stones beats upon the police

from the sides as well as the front. Shots ﬁred into the sky have no

effect. The inadequate knot of police is menaced by hundreds on

three sides. A bullet ﬁred into the crowd of students kills

thirteen-year-old Hector Petersen, Soweto’s ﬁrst black casualty. The

police continue to ﬁre and the crowd disperses. (p.173)
Students in Soweto continued with their strike, burning anything belonging to the
government; for example, schools, ofﬁces, automobiles, beer depots, golf
clubhouse, etc. The destruction continued for three to four days before subsiding
through police force. More than 575 people were killed during the Soweto

uprisings although the ﬁgure is disputed by African veterans as being short by

11

half or by even more than that (Tessendorf, 1989, p.175). Thousands were jailed
during and immediately after the Soweto uprisings. Many students ﬂed the
country to become recruits in the communist backed ANC armies in neighboring
countries.

In July of 1976, the apartheid government had to withdraw its policy, and
Black schools were given the right to choose the language they preferred as
medium of teaching and learning. This was the ﬁrst time in the history of South
Africa that the people resisted the apartheid government’s language policy.

What is fascinating and striking about the 1976 Soweto uprisings, though,
is that instead of ﬁghting and losing their lives for the use of their mother tongues
(African languages), the Black masses fought for English as the language to
serve as the medium of learning and teaching after the ﬁrst four years of their
primary education. Cluver (1992, p.119) reports that 96% of the Black schools
chose English as the language of teaching and learning after the ﬁrst four years
of primary schooling.

Education in African languages was perceived by Blacks in South Africa
as one of the government’s strategies to separate the people through a divide
and rule policy, and to offer Black students inferior education. Cluver (1992,
p.114) also indicates that generally the codiﬁcation and elaboration of African
languages was perceived by Blacks as an attempt by the apartheid government
to promote ethnicity and prevent unity. It should be pointed out that since the
government’s intentions were no longer obscured or a secret to the South African

Black masses, every step taken by the government, especially one that had an

12

effect on Africans, was suspiciously interrogated and scrutinized. African
nationalists and South African leaders of various organizations in particular,
preferred English for unity and communication among the South African masses.
Z.K. Matthews of the ANC, for example, preferred English as a lingua franca and
the vehicle of a wider African nationalism (Brown, 1992, p.84). However Peter
Raboroko put forward the idea that Swahili should be adopted as the lingua
franca so that communication could be extended throughout the whole of Africa
(Alexander, 1989). Unfortunately this idea was never entertained presumably
because more attention was being given to the liberation struggle.

African sociolinguist Jacob Nhlapo, who was an ANC activist, published a
pamphlet in 1944 called, “Bantu Babel: Will the Bantu Languages Live?” in the
series called Sixpenny Library. Nhlapo made an extremely fascinating proposal:
the uniﬁcation or harmonization of both Nguni (Nguni varieties are: isiZulu,
isiNdebele, isiXhosa and siSwati) and Sotho (Sotho varieties are: Sepedi,
Sesotho and Setswana) languages. Nhlapo argued that these languages are
mutually intelligible and there was no linguistic justiﬁcation for such varieties to
be developed and written as separate entities. Brown (1992) also argued for the
uniﬁcation of the Nguni and Sotho languages:

There need only be one grammar for Nguni and one for Sotho.

Making different words for the parts of speech in Xhosa, Zulu and so

on is foolish and must stop... two basic Bantu tongues Nguni and

Sotho, is something which can be done. Let it be done. (p.84)

Although Nhlapo reopened the same debate about language harmonization in

1953, no evidence has been recorded that the ANC or the Afrikaner regime took

any decision with respect to his proposal. Of course the Afrikaner apartheid

13

regime would not have adopted his proposal. The Afrikaner regime was in favor
of developing African languages as separate and split entities. Even where it was
possible for the varieties of a particular language cluster or sub-group to be
standardized, the regime would have emphasized the minor differences and kept
such varieties apart (Alexander, 1997, p.82).

Another view emerged from Alan Doyle, a member of the Communist
Party, who accused both Peter Raboroko and Jacob Nhlapo of being idealist and
elitist in their language proposals. Doyle argued that all the vernaculars in the
country be accepted, developed and promoted through the publication of
literature. Doyle’s idea for the development and promotion of vernaculars was not
different from the Marxist-Leninist position on language and nationalism in the
Soviet Union (as reported in Brown, 1992, pp.84-85). In 1962 these dreams and
proposals by the African nationalist movement were shattered when the
apartheid government introduced separate language boards. These bodies were
mainly responsible for the standardization and codiﬁcation of various languages
in South Africa. The goal of the apartheid regime was to enhance its separate
development policy (Cluver, n.d. p.3). Each language board was responsible for
the language affairs of a particular ethnic group. For example, the Tshivenda
Language Board would see to it that only Tshivenda terminologies would be
developed, that correct spellings would be adopted, and that “relevant”
Tshivenda books (both grammar and literature) would be prescribed for schools.
The policy of ethnic division, whereby people were separated and located on the

basis of the languages they spoke, as Alexander (1985, pp.44—45) explicates,

14

became a superior instrument of divide and rule policy. It led to greater
fragmentation of the entire nation and helped the regime to create and justify its
Bantustan strategy.

English continued to be favored by Black South Africans in spite of the
apartheid government’s language in education policy. For example, in 1982 the
Department of Education and Training (which was known as the Department of
Bantu Education), made it clear that when it comes to the choice of the medium
of learning and teaching, the concerned parties could choose among: the
vernacular as medium of instruction, to be followed by either English or Afrikaans
after, for example, four years of primary education, and then either English or
Afrikaans as a medium of instruction or mother tongue instruction throughout the
student’s education (Maartens, 1998, pp.32-33). English was chosen by Black
schools as the language of teaching and learning.

The reasons that the Black masses in South Africa favored English over
their indigenous African languages have been thoroughly discussed by various
scholars in the ﬁeld of sociolinguistics in South Africa. Alexander (1997), among
others, argues that it was because of the apartheid government which used
languages for its separatist policy that the masses perceived African languages
as instruments used by the government to carry out its mission. Since the
masses in South Africa were ﬁghting for solidarity and unity for the attainment of
their freedom, they would oppose anything that was intended to pull them apart.

Given this history of language issues in South Africa, it was not a surprise

that in the early 19903, when the apartheid government opened negotiations with

15

political parties in South Africa, the language issue was one of the items on the
agenda. The new language policy of South Africa, enshrined in the new
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, was born out of the negotiations
between the Nationalist Party (NP) and the African National Congress (ANC).
During these negotiations, the NP was still in power. In these negotiations, the
NP preferred a shift from segregation to assimilation in language policy. As
Heugh (1994, p.4) reports, “Language still remains a problem but that instead of
marginalising people by excluding them on the basis of inaccessible language
codes, an attempt would be made to draw the marginalised group in and under
the wing of the dominant language group(s).”

The primary intention of the NP was to protect the position of Afrikaans as
an ofﬁcial language. It is for this reason that the NP fought for the retention of
both Afrikaans and English, as well as all other languages, especially African
languages, although the latter were to be accorded a lower status. Heugh (1994)
also remarks that since the NP had no clearly deﬁned strategy to maintain the
status quo, i.e. retaining Afrikaans and English as the only ofﬁcial languages in
South Africa, and to justify the sidelining of African languages, its proposal could
not be taken. The ANC’s position in this matter was that of multilingualism.
However, it should be mentioned that Heugh (1994) in quoting Sello (1992)
asserts that some political commentators suggested that the ANC’s real
commitment was to English as the ofﬁcial language. Nonetheless, ANC language
policy favored the elevation of the nine major African languages spoken in the

country to the position of English and Afrikaans.

16

As a result of the negotiations between the ANC and the NP, the new
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, adopted on the 8th of May, 1996, and
amended on the 11th of October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly, recognizes
all the eleven major languages spoken in South Africa as national ofﬁcial
languages. These languages are Afrikaans, English, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana,
siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu. As mentioned,
during the apartheid era, only the two colonial languages, Afrikaans and English,
served as national ofﬁcial languages. These two languages, spoken by the
minorities in South Africa, were accorded this status at the expense of the major
nine African languages spoken in the country. The nine indigenous languages
were only used as ofﬁcial languages in the different regions where they were
dominant, and even there, they shared linguistic space with English or Afrikaans,
or both. Thus, during the apartheid era, African languages in South Africa, as in
many post-colonial African states today, were marginalized and relegated to a
lower status, while English and Afrikaans continued to enjoy ofﬁcial and higher
status. For nearly half a century, the reality of the linguistic diversity of South
Africa was manipulated and exploited by the apartheid regime for the
Verwoerdian divide-and-rule policy enshrined in the South African Afrikaner
Constitution.

The new government of South Africa, the Government of National Unity
(GNU) led by the ANC (African National Congress), is charged both explicitly and
implicitly by the Constitution with addressing the problem of linguicism and

linguistic hegemony in South Africa. The Constitution calls upon the State to take

17

practical and positive measures to elevate the status as well as to advance the
use of African languages in South Africa. According to the new Constitution, all
ofﬁcial languages are not only to enjoy parity of esteem, but to be treated
equitably as well.

Unlike most post-colonial governments in Africa, which ignored and
sacriﬁced the multilingual and multicultural nature of their societies for a
Eurocentric monolithic approach to language and culture, the new South African
government recognizes and embraces both multilingualism and multiculturalism,
thereby granting all major languages spoken in the country equal status at the
national level. In order to achieve this goal, the government, operating through
the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Science, and Technology, established the Language
Plan Task Group (LANGTAG). The charge to the Task Group was to eradicate
the multilingualism-is—a-probIem-approach, and to advise the Minister of Arts,
Culture, Science, and Technology about mechanisms for devising a National
Language Plan for South Africa. The LANGTAG Report (1996) may therefore be
considered a document that lays out a framework upon which the National
Language Plan can be based. The formation of LANGTAG was a symbol of the
government’s commitment to the implementation of the Constitutional mandate.
Hence in presenting the ﬁnal LANGTAG Report, Alexander (1996), who chaired
the LANGTAG committee, wrote:

Knowing your commitment to the language principles enshrined in

the Constitution, we are convinced that a democratic language policy

based on the acceptance of the positive value of multilingualism will

become a reality in South Africa. We do not want to relive the

experience of other postcolonial states where all these noble ideals
remained on paper; for this reason we would appreciate it if we could

18

be kept informed about the follow-up process to the completion of the
work of the LANGTAG. (p.v)

Mateene Kahombo, Head of the Division of Language Policy for the Organization
of African Unity (OAU), congratulated South Africa for being the ﬁrst Member
State to put in its Constitution a language policy similar to the one proposed by
the OAU Language Plan of Action for Africa. In his presentation at an
international seminar on Language in Education in Cape Town in July, 1996,
Mateene Kahombo further indicates that other African states can draw lessons of
democracy from South Africa (1996, p.13).

However, it remains open to question whether South Africa will live up to
these expectations of linguistic democratization. As Maartens (1998) observes, it
is

...becoming increasingly apparent that a considerable mismatch

appears to exist between emerging language policy on the one hand,

and actual language practice in the spheres of government and

education on the other. Whereas language policy expressly professes

to promote multilingualism in South Africa, language practitioners in

languages other than English are complaining more and more that their

languages are being marginalised to an even greater extent than in the

past. (p.16)

Maartens’s critique suggests that there is a contradiction between the
Constitutional commitment to empower the indigenous languages, whose status
was diminished by the apartheid regime, and the actual realization of such a
commitment. The government’s perceived lack of commitment towards the
implementation of the multilingual policy was signaled early on by scholars like

Heugh (1994 & 1995) who claims that the ANC has taken a Iaissez—faire position

on the question of language. She argues that there is a policy decision but no

19

formulation of strategies for implementing that decision. Indeed, despite its new
democratic language policy, South Africa is fast moving in the direction of
becoming a monolingual English country.

English remains the sole language of teaching and learning in South
African schools, other than a few cases where Afrikaans is utilized for this
purpose. At the tertiary (university) level, institutions that used to teach in
Afrikaans are being forced by the government to become dual medium to
accommodate English as one of the languages of learning. However, the
government seems to be exerting no similar effort towards accommodating
African languages as media of learning despite what Article 6, Section 2 of the
Constitution entails. Further, SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation)
television continues with its preference for English as the dominant language of
broadcasting, and African minority languages, such as isiNdebele, Tshivenda
and Xitsonga, rarely, if ever, appear on SABC television. Yet, the majority of
those South Africans who speak English do so as a second or foreign language.
In fact, in Desai’s analysis of language rights in a changing South Africa, she
reports that 74% of South Africans do not know English (Desai, 1994, p.24).

Statistical data provided by the censuses taken in South Africa present
illuminating information on language distribution and use. To be sure, there are
some inadequacies in the censuses taken in South Africa; for example, only
information on the ﬁrst home language is provided when in actual fact most
South Africans can speak and/or write at least two languages. Nonetheless, the

following table, based on the 1991 census, is fairly accurate in reﬂecting the

20

languages spoken in South Africa and the number and percentage of speakers of

each of these languages (Krige, Cairns, Makalima & Scott, 1994):

TABLE A: 1991 Statistical Data for South Africa’s Language Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language Number of Speakers Percentage
Zulu 8 343 587 22.0
Xhosa 6 729 281 17.0
Sotho languages ( North 5 951 622 16.0
Sotho & South Sotho)

Afrikaans 5 685 403 15.0
English 3 422 503 9.0
Setswana 3 368 544 8.6
TsorLga 1 439 809 4.4
Siswati 952 478 2.6
Venda 673 538 2.2
Ndebele languages 477 895 1.6
(Northern Ndebele &

Southern Ndebele)

Other 640 277 1.3
Total 37 684 937 99.7

 

An interesting point to observe here is that according to this census report at

least 16 5032 261 of the South African population could speak Nguni languages

(Nguni languages are isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele and siSwati and are mutually

intelligible). And at least 8 320 166 of the population speak Sotho languages

(Sesotho, Setswana and Sepedi) which like Nguni languages, are mutually

intelligible. As mentioned in this introduction, most Africans are bilingual, if not

multilingual.

21

 

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

As stated, the purpose of this study is to investigate the language/s used
by the new South African national government in executing its national duties,
and to analyze the implications of this language use. Now that the South African
national government has been charged by the new Constitution with the task of
inter alia, the promotion of multilingualism and multiculturalism on the one hand,
and the promotion and elevation of the status of African languages on the other,
the question of the language/s used and preferred by the national government
becomes crucial.

Although the Constitution requires and demands that the government
monitor, through the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), and create
favorable conditions for the equal use and enjoyment of all the eleven ofﬁcial
languages, as a practical matter, it seems impossible for the national government
to equitably run its affairs in all eleven ofﬁcial languages.

During the apartheid era, Afrikaans and English were used as
gatekeepers for political power and dominance, as instruments for preserving
certain privileges for whites, and ultimately as tools for unfair and unequal
distribution of the country’s economic resources. Although apartheid raised these
inequities and injustices to an unprecedented level, with the institution of formal,
written laws and policies about language, for decades before apartheid, language
had been used as a tool of oppression, particularly with the 1910 union of the

Boers and the English against the African population. Hence the language

22

question in South Africa became part and parcel of the struggle for both
democracy and liberation.

Since language is both power and resource, the use of language has
serious repercussions. Only the people whose languages are used (especially by
those in power) are likely to become empowered, and it will be at the expense of
those people whose languages are not used and who thus become marginalized.
It is for this reason that Tollefson (1991) argues that there is a dynamic
relationship between social relations and language policy. Tollefson contends
that hierarchical social systems can be associated with language policies that
ultimately give advantage to groups speaking particular varieties (Tollefson,
1991, p.17).

Negative attitudes will always develop towards languages that are not
utilized by the government, which is what happened during the reign of the
apartheid government in South Africa. During that period, Black South Africans
preferred to use either English or Afrikaans, rather than their own languages,
despite the fact that the majority of Blacks were not ﬂuent in English and
Afrikaans. Since the government’s policy and practice was to use only the two
ofﬁcial languages — English and Afrikaans — African languages became
stigmatized and were perceived as unﬁt for providing access to education,
politics, and the economy. Even the Black majority came to perceive of at least
one of the ofﬁcial languages — English — as the language of success.

Consequently, proﬁciency in English guaranteed upward mobility.

23

An ovenivhelming majority of South Africa lack command of English, yet
the position of English is strongly entrenched and is rapidly becoming more
hegemonic. English is required for success in the academic arena and for Blacks
to compete for those prestigious, well-paying jobs once reserved by the apartheid
government for whites.

As McDermott (1998, p.106) indicates, there are already numerous
reports and claims that, in practice, English is daily coming closer to being the
language of governance and national communication, despite the Constitutional
mandate for ofﬁcial recognition and promotion of all eleven major languages.
Thus, there is a developing outcry in South Africa about the mismatch between
language policy and practice (Heugh, 1994; Maartens, 1998; Webb, 1998).

Most of the policy decisions made by governments, especially in
language-related matters, tend not to be based on the empirical evidence drawn
from particular experiments and experiences. Mateene Kahombo (1996, p.11)
indicates that even in peace time, mental attitudes, ideologies, traditions and
other sociocultural conditions are used to determine linguistic policies, more often
than the recommendations and proposals put forward by sociolinguists or
language experts. Without due consideration of the impact and effect of language
choice and language use, African governments fall into the trap of simply
adopting the ex—colonial language policy. The result has been continued
downward underdevelopment of the majority, maintenance of the former colonial
status quo, and the postmodern irony of an African majority speaking “foreign”

languages in their own countries.

24

If South Africa uses an ex—colonial language as its sole language of
communication, the disenfranchisement and economic disempowerment of the
vast African-language-speaking majority will continue as they will be denied
access to education, economic resources, and political power. Despite the failing
of other post-colonial African governments in this regard, South Africa’s national
government is said to be moving in this direction in spite of the Constitution’s
multilingual policy. It is therefore inevitable that there will be major efforts at
intervention, such as the study proposed here, and those that are sure to follow.
This study thus has potential to inform and sensitize the State about the

signiﬁcance and implications of its language choice/s.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of this sociolinguistic study is to investigate the extent
to which South Africa’s eleven ofﬁcial languages are used by the national
government in carrying out its national duties, and to analyze the implications of
this language use. One of the duties of the government is to implement the
Constitutional mandate that the State must take practical and positive measures
to elevate the status and advance the use of the indigenous African languages.
In assessing the use of language by the national government in executing its
duties, this study will also lead to an assessment of governmental efforts to
comply with the Constitutional stipulation for advancing multilingualism in South
Africa. An extensive review of the literature and works-in-progress indicates that

the study proposed here is the ﬁrst research project to investigate the translation

25

of South Africa’s language policy, as determined by the new Constitution, into
practice by the State.

The researcher proposes to share the results of this study with
governmental ofﬁcials through an executive report and summary. Thus, as
mentioned, this study has potential not only to inform but also to sensitize the

State about the signiﬁcance and implications of its language use.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In order to establish the use and extent of use of the ofﬁcial languages by
the national government, and to analyze the implications of this language use,
this study intends to answer the following ﬁve (5) questions:

1. In which language/s are government records kept at national level?

2. In which language/s are Parliamentary proceedings conducted?

3. In which language/s do various portfolio committees conduct their

affairs?
4. In which language/s do Members of Parliament deliver their public
speeches?
5. What are the implications/effects of the South African national

government using/not using the indigenous languages?

26

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The following were the research hypotheses of the study:

(a) Ex-colonial languages (i.e. English and Afrikaans) are preferred and
used over indigenous languages;

(b) English is the most commonly-used language in Parliament and in
national service;

(0) African languages are marginalized in Parliament and in the MPs’
conduct of national duties;

(d) Ofﬁcial records and documents are originally written in English, and
then translated into other languages;

(e) Members of Parliament who lack English proﬁciency rarely contribute
to deliberations in Parliament and in portfolio committees on which
they serve;

(f) Different organizations or parties have different policies about the

language/s that should be used by the government.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The qualitative methodology was used in data collection for this study.
Data was primarily collected through in-depth unstructured interviews with
Members of Parliament (MP). Parliamentary documents which could be
classiﬁed as internal documents and external communication were used as
primary sources. Internal documents include memos as well as other

communications that are circulated inside an organization. Such documents can

27

In

In

T,

reveal information about the internal rules and regulations, i.e. issues of
procedure and could provide clues about leadership style (Bogdan & Biklen,
1982, p.101). Such documents demonstrate the language/s that are preferred by
the national government. In this study internal documents, such as minutes of
different portfolio committees, agenda for meetings, written invitations for
committee meetings, etc. have been collected and analyzed.

External communication documents are produced not only for the
Parliamentarians but for public consumption as well. In the South African
Parliament, such documents reports from various portfolio committees, reports
from the NCOP (National Committee of Provinces), Bills and Acts of Parliament,
newsletters circulating in Parliament, the Constitution, etc. Such documents
became part of the data for this study. Systematic observations were made for

the conﬁrmation of the data obtained from both primary and secondary sources.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

A body of literature addressing the new South African language policy, as
enshrined in both the interim and the new Constitutions, is already available.
Such studies, although addressing issues of language policy and language
planning in general, pay more attention to the language clauses in the
Constitution. Issues such as the implementability and practicality of this language
policy, language as a human right, language in education policy, promotion and
development of African languages, costs incurred in developing languages and

culture, and protection of minority rights in a multilingual situation are some of the

28

major themes that emerge in the literature that focuses on the new South African
language policy. Heugh (1994 & 1995), Maartens (1998), McDermott (1998),
Alexander (1997), Webb (1998), Verhoef (1998) are among the scholars who
interrogated the implementability of the new language policy of South Africa and
revealed the shortcomings that could occur as a result of the wording of phrases
and clauses in this policy.

Some scholars in South Africa focus their attention on this language policy
as it impacts on schools, thereby analyzing language in education policy as part
of the major language planning-policy in South Africa. Language in education
policy was entertained in Multilingual Education for South Africa, a book edited
by Heugh, Siegruhn and Pluddeman. This book, as its reviewers maintain,
argues that the success of multilingualism is dependent upon the interaction
between theory and practice — hence the contributors address strategies for the
implementation of the new language policy in South African schools (Smitherman
& Thiba, 1998, p.322). de Villiers (1998), Prabhakaran (1998), Chick (1998), etc.,
in their contributions, edited by Extra and Maartens (1998) also focus on the
language policy of South Africa as it appears in the new Constitution. They
discuss the status of languages, especially that of English, Afrikaans, Indian
languages, African languages, particularly isiZulu in KwaZulu-Natal. The
arguments presented by these scholars point to the fact that the ANC-led
government lacks the political will to implement the language policy as spelt out

in the Constitution. The data used by these scholars to support their assertions

29

WE

an:

was drawn from schools and informed by personal experiences as well as
secondary sources instead of primary sources.

Since the adoption of the new Constitution there has been no study
targeting policy-makers as “subjects.” Studies which were conducted after the
adoption of the Constitution only critique the language clauses in the Constitution
and the government’s endeavors to implement the new language policy. The
present study investigated the extent to which the national government is putting
into practice the Constitutional demands of the South African language policy.

The views of the policy-makers are captured and analyzed. The data
collected in this study dovetail well with those data collected from educators,
students, and others about language in South Africa.

The present study is signiﬁcant for bringing another dimension or
perspective, approaches, and insights into the literature that deals with language

planning and language policy, particularly in the South African context.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study is organized into ﬁve chapters. Chapter One presents a brief
socio-historical background of the language situation in South Africa. It focuses
mainly on the status accorded to languages in South Africa, especially the
position of African languages during the apartheid and post-apartheid era. This
chapter also presents a statement of the problem to be investigated, the purpose

and signiﬁcance of the study, and deﬁnition of terms.

30

Chapter Two is a review of literature that focuses on language planning-
policy in both First and Third World countries. Literature addressing the South
African language policy, particularly the eleven language policy as contained in
Clause 6 of the South African Constitution, is reviewed.

Chapter Three describes the research design, methodology, and
procedures used in this study.

Chapter Four provides analysis of the data. Data obtained through in-
depth interviews, Parliamentary documents, reports and related sources, and
systematic observation are presented and analyzed.

Chapter Five is the conclusion of the study. It provides a summary,
conclusion, recommendations ﬂowing from the research ﬁndings, and

implications for future research.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms should be understood and analyzed within the context
of sociolinguistics as well as within the ﬁeld of language planning-policy in South
Africa:
Afrikaner: An Afrikaner is a white person of Dutch descent whose language is
Afrikaans. Legalized segregation in South Africa was introduced by Afrikaners.
Apartheid: This is an Afrikaans term which means “separateness.” Apartheid
was practiced by the Afrikaner regime (the Nationalist Party) in order to divide the

South African people into different geographical areas in accordance with the

31

languages they spoke. For example, isiZulu-speaking people and Tshivenda-
speaking people were forced to live in KwaZulu and Venda, respectively.
Bantustan: This is an Afrikaans word used especially during apartheid in South
Africa to refer to the so-called “homeland.” As the apartheid government divided
Black South Africans and grouped them in accordance with their languages, a
Bantustan would be an area in which a particular Black (Bantu) ethnic group lived
or was ordered to live.

Black: This term is used in this study in the traditional South African way as
referring to African people only, as distinct from the mixed-blood Coloreds, the
Indians and Whites, and even from the San and Khoe people.

Boer: This is an Afrikaans word which means “farmer”. It is used in this study,
as in the South African context, to refer to Afrikaners in general.

Constitution: The word ‘Constitution,’ in this study in several instances refers to
both the interim (the Constitution which served from 1994 to 1996) and the ﬁnal
or new Constitution which was adopted in 1996.

Corpus Planning: This refers to the process of standardization of languages or
simply codiﬁcation of languages. Corpus planning involves internal, structural
language changes, as opposed to social or political language promotion.
Dominant languages: These are languages that are accorded higher status at
the expense of others. In Africa, ex-colonial languages, for example, English in
Zambia, French in Cameroon and Portuguese in Mozambique, are the dominant
languages. These are the languages that receive preference over African

languages.

32

Dc

US

the

do

El

Dominated languages: Dominated languages are those languages that are not
used as ofﬁcial languages and which have lower status. Although these could be
the languages of the majority, they are marginalized, especially in such important
domains as government ofﬁces, education, economy, etc.
Ebonics: Smitherman (2000, p.19) deﬁnes Ebonics as a language spoken in the
US and rooted in the Black American Oral Tradition, which reﬂects the
combination of African languages (Niger-Congo) and Euro American English.
Indigenous African languages: These are native languages spoken in Africa.
Most of these languages are related in terms of their syntactic, phonological and
morphological structures.
Language attitudes: This term is loosely used in this study to cover speciﬁc
attitudes toward a language, such as attitudes toward learning a new or a second
language, language preference, attitudes toward learning a marginalized or
minority language. Attitudes towards a language could be either negative or
positive, depending on the reasons and circumstances for Ieaming such a
language.
Language Planning: Language Planning can be loosely deﬁned as a process of
conscious language change, which could involve, for instance, allocating
functions to languages. However, the most widely accepted deﬁnition of
language planning is the one given by Tollefson (1991):

...it refers to all conscious efforts to affect the structure or

function of language varieties. These efforts may involve creation

of orthographies, standardization and modernization programmes,

or allocation of functions to particular languages within multilingual
societies. (p.16)

33

La

al?

sir

Language Policy: The decision that has been arrived at with regards to function
allocated to a language or languages, especially in a multilingual setting.
Lingua franca: A language used among groups of different linguistic
backgrounds as a language of communication. It is therefore a common
language which people or groups of people who speak different languages use in
their communication. English can be referred to as the international lingua franca
since it is used as the language of science and technology worldwide, as well as
because of its dominance in the UN. In almost all states in Africa, an ex-colonial
language still dominates as a sole lingua franca.
Linguicism: This term refers to oppression and discrimination based on
language. Linguicism may be in operation simultaneously with, as Phillipson
(1993, p.55) says, sexism, racism, or classism but the term exclusively refers to
ideologies and structures where language is the means for effecting or
maintaining an unequal allocation of power and resources. Linguicism can
therefore be effected intentionally (consciously) and unintentionally
(unconsciously).
Linguistic imperialism: Phillipson (1993, p.55) maintains that this is a sub-type
of linguicism. Using a foreign language in the place of local languages; for
example, Portuguese being the ofﬁcial language in Mozambique while the
indigenous African languages are denied the opportunity to serve as ofﬁcial
languages. Linguistic imperialism is deﬁned in Phillipson (1993) thus:

The phenomenon in which the minds and lives of the speakers of a

language are dominated by another language to the point where

they believe that they can and should use only that foreign language
when it comes to transactions dealing with the more advanced

34

aspects of life such as education, philosophy, literature, governments,

the administration ofjustice, etc. Linguistic imperialism has a subtle

way of warping the minds, attitudes, and aspirations of even the most

noble in a society and of preventing him from appreciating and

realizing the full potentialities of the indigenous languages. (p.56)
National language: A Language whose use is viewed as furthering sociocultural
integration at the nationwide level (Fishman, 1972, p.215 cited in Phillipson,
1993, p. 41). Unlike ofﬁcial languages, national languages serve in domains such
as home, religion, sports, and initiation or circumcision schools.
Ofﬁcial language: A language used in government legislative, executive and
judicial domains. In most African states, ofﬁcial languages serve as media of
instruction in education; for example, English is the medium of instruction in
Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa at tertiary level.
Pan South African Language Board: This is the Language Board which serves
as the umbrella body for all language-speciﬁc boards in South Africa. It is an
independent statutory body appointed by the Senate in terms of the Pan South
African Language Board Act (Act No. 59 of 1995) which has to promote and
create conditions for the development and use of all ofﬁcial languages and those
languages speciﬁed in the Constitution. It was also established to ensure that
languages which are non-South African in origin, such as German, Greek, Hindi,
Portuguese, Urdu, etc., are respected.
Southern Africa: Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some of these countries
today constitute what is called SADC (Southern African Development

Community). Some of the SADC members are as follows: Angola, Botswana,

Namibia, Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc.

35

Third World Countries: This term is used in this study as an equivalent term to
“developing countries,” as opposed to the so—called “First World” countries, eg.
USA. and England. Some of the developing countries are India, countries in the
Middle East, African countries, and others.

Vernacular Language: This term is used to refer to a local nonstandard
language which is usually the mother tongue of a group which is socially or
politically dominated by another group speaking a different language (Phillipson,

1993, p.40).

36

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

The scholarly literature to be reviewed in this research project is of two
types:

(a) work by scholars who provide critical analyses of the South African
Constitutional language provision, and

(b) work by scholars on language attitudes towards African languages in
African societies.

Most African states adopted language policy options belonging to one of
the following broad trends outlined in Adegbija (1994):
(a) Policies that extol one exoglossic language, for example, English, French and
Portuguese and belittle all indigenous endoglossic languages. As Adegbija
(1994) says, in this situation indigenous languages grow “thinner and thinner” as
they are despised and marginalized, while the exalted exoglossic language feeds
“fatter and fatter” as it receives maximum attention and utilization. The Namibian
situation is an example. English in Namibia is the sole ofﬁcial language (Heine,
1990; Cluver, 1993; Phillipson, 1993; Harlech-Jones, 1995; Beck, 1995;
Geingob, 1995; Putz, 1995; Fourie, 1995; Swarts, 1996).
(b) Policies that extol one major endoglossic language and belittle both the
exoglossic language and other endoglossic languages. Kiswahili in Tanzania is

an example. Although the endoglossic language is exalted in Tanzania, Adegbija

37

El

(25'

(1994) argues that there are political tensions and rivalries between the speakers
of the marginalized languages and the speakers of Kiswahili. Again as Adegbija
(1994) says, there are “the minority of educated elite power brokers and destiny
shapers” who prefer the language of colonial dominance. In Ethiopia, although
Amharic was not the only major language, it was exalted above all other
languages including the colonial languages. Tucho (1992) in his study of an
examination of language policy and strategies for the dissemination of Amharic in
Ethiopia between 1942 and 1974, gives a critical exposition as to how Amharic
was promoted to the level of being an ofﬁcial language at the expense of all other
languages in Ethiopia.

(c) Policies that extol several selected endoglossic majority languages and just a
single exoglossic language. Nigeria is an example for this situation. It was difﬁcult
in Nigeria to select one endoglossic language because of political rivalries
between ofﬁcially institutionalized major languages. As Adegbija (1994)
mentions, the consequence of this situation is that the rest of the unexalted
endoglossic languages tend to be belittled. As a result of the conﬂict among all
the endoglossic languages, the single exoglossic language divides, rules,
plunders, takes over and dominates as the only preferred language in all
important domains. Adegbija (1994) further pointed out, “Its very presence and its
concomitant dominant inﬂuence demobilizes language policy planners and blinds
their eyes to the need to plan at all.” (p.157)

(d) Policies that create diglossic situations. In this case, an exoglossic language

is extolled in ofﬁcial circles and domains whereas an endoglossic language is

38

extolled in unofﬁcial and informal domains (Adegbija, 1994, p.158). This situation

creates negative attitudes and feeling towards African languages.

THE LANGUAGE CLAUSES IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
In 1996 the ANC-led government, the Government of National Unity
(GNU), adopted a Constitution (established by Act 108 of 1996) which
guarantees the equality of all the eleven major languages spoken in South Africa.
Unlike many countries in Africa, South Africa, while acknowledging the important
role that English can play internationally (as a language of wider communication),
has for the ﬁrst time drafted a Constitution which recognizes the country’s
linguistic diversity. Satyo (1999) pointed out that there were proposals for ofﬁcial
languages before the adoption of the Constitution in South Africa.
Such proposals were as follows:
. Three ofﬁcial languages, namely, Zulu (22 per cent of the total
population); Xhosa (18 per cent of the total population); Afrikaans
(15 per cent of the total population)
. Three ofﬁcial languages, namely, Zulu, Xhosa and one of the Sotho
languages Pedi/Tswana
. Three ofﬁcial languages, namely, Nguni, Sotho and Afrikaans
. Four ofﬁcial languages, namely, Nguni, Sotho, Afrikaans and English.
(pp. 149-1 50)
Satyo says that instead of the government adopting one of these proposals, the
government vied for a more generous language policy thereby recognizing
eleven languages as ofﬁcial. With regard to this language policy, he contends:
This apparently very generous language policy comes after many

years of non-recognition of any African language as one of the ofﬁcial
languages. In fact, to even talk about the possibility of an African

39

language being one of the ofﬁcial languages sounds bizarre given the

fact that Africans and other black people were not allowed to vote. The

Othering of all the African languages, in spite of the demographic realities,

is still worth noting. (p.150)
Unlike other scholars, for example, Makoni (1999) who are critical about the
number of African languages accorded ofﬁcial status, Satyo (1999) argues that it
was the shameful past, in which only Afrikaans and English were ofﬁcial
languages, which prompted the ANC, NP and other parties during the negotiation
for a new dispensation to accord ofﬁcial status to African languages as well. As
he points out, the negotiated settlement between the ANC and the NP and other
parties had to demonstrate sensitivity about language issues in South Africa
(p.151).

Satyo (1999) considers the following as historical events that led to the
realization of the South African language policy as it exists today:

. The one-time dominance of English as the ofﬁcial language

. The emergence of the Afrikaans language on the scene as a second

ofﬁcial language

. The 1976 riots which were caused among other things by the imposition

of Afrikaans on African students as a medium of instruction

. Ethnic divisions among Africans caused by the homeland system of the

Apartheid government. (p.151)
According to Satyo (1999) these four major issues are factors which were still
looming at the back of the minds of the negotiators and hence the eleven
language policy in South Africa.

South Africa’s New Language Policy: The Facts (1994, p.4) indicated that
ofﬁcial status was granted to all the major languages because the vast majority of

South Africans use African languages as their home languages or ﬁrst

languages. According to a survey conducted by the Human Sciences Research

40

Council in 1990, 43% of South Africans cannot speak, read or write Afrikaans or
English, the two colonial languages which were used as ofﬁcial languages by the
South African apartheid government.

Realizing that the indigenous languages had been marginalized by the
apartheid regime, a provision is made in the new Constitution for the
development, promotion, and elevation of the status of these languages. It is
clearly stated in this Constitution that in recognizing the historically diminished
use and status of the indigenous languages, practical and positive measures to
elevate the status, as well as advance the use of these languages shall be
effected. The Constitution obliges both the national government and provincial
governments to use at least two of the ofﬁcial languages for governance.
However, this can be seen as one of the ﬂaws inasmuch as it leaves open the
possibility of the two languages being English and Afrikaans and thus the
exclusion of African languages from use. In presenting proposals for the
promotion of African languages in South Africa, McDermott (1998) expresses her
concern about this language clause in section 6 of the ‘Founding Provisions’ of
the Constitution of South Africa. Her concern is that the position of English which
is not a language of the majority in South Africa is being entrenched, while all
other languages of South Africa are sidelined. She further argues that:

The phrase, ‘taking into account practicality, expense, the

balance of the needs of the population as a whole’ is the one

which in effect creates the loophole through which South African

language rights are fast slipping. Only English is ‘large’ and ‘robust’
enough to remain behind. (p.117)

41

This observation was also made by Satyo (1999, pp.154 — 155) who
states that paragraph 3(a) of the Constitution waters down the policy of eleven

languages by raising the following issues: “usage,” “practicality, expense,”

“regional circumstances, the balance of the needs of the population as a whole
or in the province concerned.” Satyo (1999) further indicates that the clause
“...but the national government and each provincial government must use at
least two ofﬁcial languages,” can be a source of controversy, if for example, in a
province like that of the Western Cape, which is NNP dominated, the two ofﬁcial
languages used are Afrikaans and English. As Satyo explains, although in this
region the majority of ANC supporters are Xhosas, the NNP could easily sideline
their language (isiXhosa) as it is constitutional for the province to use two
languages as ofﬁcial. In analyzing this situation, Satyo also pointed out that the
status of isiXhosa, which the Constitution othewvise intends to promote, could be
lowered as a result of this clause. He demonstrates how the situation could turn
out to be:

the speakers of Xhosa could ﬁnd themselves default

co-conspirators, by attaching more importance to Afrikaans and

English for economic survival because the wealth of this country is still

in the hands of the traditional voters, namely, Afrikaans and English

speakers. Again because of economic imbalances, virtually all print

media is in Afrikaans and English. In other words access to information

is still in the two former privileged ofﬁcial languages. (p.155)
According to McDermott (1998) the aforementioned problematic phrases in the
Constitution may cause the demise of a South Africa striving for multilingual and

multicultural nationhood. She, however, cites lack of economic infrastructure and

ﬁnancial reserves which should have been put aside for transformation and

42

restructuring education, health as well as the housing schemes and the
maintenance of road-network as some of the major problems that the country is
currently faced with. It is for this reason that McDermott (1998) concludes that
words such as practicality, expense and needs directly point to the fact that
South Africa has difﬁculties in implementing its language policy as provided for in
the Constitution.

Alexander and Heugh (1995) in their comments on the language policy
enshrined in the interim Constitution, submitted to the Constitutional Assembly,
Theme Committee One on the Subject of Language, expressed their concern
about clauses which referred to languages other than those accorded ofﬁcial
status. In challenging such clauses for listing some of the languages and not all
of them as languages that should, among others, be respected and promoted,
Alexander and Heugh (1995) warned that an impression could be created that
those languages which are not mentioned are less important. They speciﬁcally
pointed out that there are no clauses in the Constitution that refer to the South
African historically important languages such as the Khoe and the San
languages. Alexander and Heugh (1995) were of the opinion that the listing of
languages could create problems and proposed a situation whereby names of
languages would not be listed. However, this objection was effectively answered
in the 1996 version of the new Constitution which mentions not only the Khoe
and the San, but also the Nama as languages that should be promoted. As the

new Constitution speciﬁes, A Pan South African Language Board must create

43

conditions for the development and use of all ofﬁcial languages, the Khoe, Nama,
San and sign languages.

Although Alexander and Heugh (1995) warned:

this presents a serious oversight where a number of other

languages are speciﬁcally mentioned under 3(10)(c). Furthermore,

for many reasons, including migration, language usage changes

naturally over time, therefore we would suggest that the Constitution

does not make speciﬁc reference to any language by name (p.3),
the submission to the Constitutional Assembly by Alexander and Heugh (1995)
was partially adopted and incorporated into the new and ﬁnal Constitution in
South Africa. While the mentioning of both the Khoe and San languages was
done in the new Constitution, the Constitution instead of leaving all the other
languages unmentioned, it listed them.

Alexander and Heugh (1995) criticized the Constitution for not specifying
as to who should carry the responsibility for the implementation of the ofﬁcial
language policy. The new Constitution, like the interim Constitution, does not
specify how and who should implement the new language policy in South Africa.
However Alexander and Heugh (1995) argued that a practical policy and
implementation plan which is based on the view that multilingualism is a
functional resource would cover the following issues:

. which government documents need to be translated into all 11 or
fewer languages: for instance not all government documents are of
signiﬁcance to the majority of people, or they may only apply to people
in a particular province, in which case these documents only need to
be translated into the languages of the people whom they affect;

. which sections of documents need to be made accessible to people in
different languages;

. how to streamline translating and interpreting services which can cater

for both government and other sectors as economically as possible;
. how provincial/local language service centres can provide language

44

courses/programmes in languages other than the ofﬁcial ones
(languages of minority communities, religious languages and
languages of trade) for each particular province;

. a time-frame which makes provision for the implementation of a fully-
ﬂedged multilingual plan in a graduated and economically feasible
manner. (Speciﬁc time-frames to be described within which each of
the relevant languages shall be enabled to be used for speciﬁc and
increasing purposes/functions in the state and in society in general.
Thus, for example, it might be possible to specify that the Nguni and
the Sotho language cluster shall be used at national level for speciﬁc
purposes within the next 5 -- 10 years; Tshivenda and Xitsonga at
provincial level immediately and at national level within 10 - 15 years,
etc.) (p.7)

Chick’s (1998) survey on the relationship between English and Zulu in KwaZulu-
Natal found that English is dominant in high domains, for example, it is being
used as the medium of instruction and it is also the medium of national and
provincial political debate in KwaZulu-Natal. This does not come as a surprise,
for Heugh (1994), in interrogating the language clauses in the interim
Constitution, argued about the incompatibility of the clauses in the Constitution in
relation to the effect on provincial language policy. She indicated that the non-
diminution clause guarantees the status and position of both English and
Afrikaans as ofﬁcial languages, whereas in upgrading the status of the nine
indigenous African languages, each province may add other appropriate
languages taking into account factors such as practicality and expense.

What seems to be disturbing and disappointing is that despite what the

Constitution decrees, even today, most of the important work of government
taking place in the standing or portfolio committees, is conducted in English

(Heugh, 1994). She points out that even where Parliamentarians fail to express

themselves in English, they have no other choice, but to use English or else

45

refrain from taking part in the deliberations (Heugh, 1994, p.7). However, if a
Parliamentarian prefers to deliberate in an indigenous language, rather than
Afrikaans or English in Parliament, the Parliament must be informed about the
language to be used twenty-four hours prior to such deliberations.

Heugh strongly argued that the language clauses of the interim
Constitution, which also appear in the new (ﬁnal) Constitution, are being treated
by the government as an issue of passive rights, and the government is adopting
a Iaissez-faire attitude toward the implementation of the new language policy.
She therefore argues:

This is at odds with the overtly stated policy of integration which the

State is espousing. Either the new government has no real intention of

effecting integration and its approach to language policy is a reﬂection

of its real intention to pursue a policy of assimilation in practice;

alternatively; its failure to match integration with a congruent language

planning process will ultimately subvert the integrative process. Either
way, the language policy will inevitably, by default, result in the increasing

hegemony of English. (p.11)

Makoni (1999, p.144) adequately and intelligently presents an analysis of what
he calls language human rights in relation to the South African eleven language
policy as enshrined in the Constitution. He points out that since there is a
remarkable difference between language rights and language human rights,
there is a possibility of attaching rights to languages. He therefore argues:

The notion of language attached to language rights is in itself

problematic and furthermore, by assigning rights to languages, we

logically end up with a situation in which languages have rights and
speakers are deprived of those rights. This creates a weird sense of
reality in which the rights of speakers to languages are subordinated

to the notions of language. The Constitution subordinates humanity to
constructed notions of language. (p.144)

46

Makoni (1999) critiques the Constitution for recognizing eleven ofﬁcial languages
without realizing that some of the eleven languages are speech forms that could
be harmonized. In declaring all the eleven languages ofﬁcial, the Constitution as
Makoni argues, metaphorically divides speech forms into eleven separate and
mutually exclusive boxes. It therefore creates a self-serving amnesia which
ultimately encourages South Africans to unremember the history of the creation
or development of their languages. In arguing that the Constitution of South
Africa did not give due consideration of mutual intelligibility between languages,
he mentions that through a process of Iegitimating a speciﬁc view about
language, the South African Constitution conjures up an image of a South Africa
not as a multilingual country but as a “poly-monolingual state.” Makoni (1999)
regards that the latter (poly-monolingualism) is a linguistic model that could be
equated to post-apartheid Bantustans. Makoni’s (1999) analysis of the South
African language policy as enshrined in the Constitution, therefore, suggests that
the interconnectedness and mutual intelligibility among some of the eleven
ofﬁcial languages have been compromised to an extent that poly-monolingual
model has been favored and multilingualism sacriﬁced.

Satyo (1999) unlike Makoni (1999) in analyzing and critiquing the eleven
language policy of South Africa, perceives the recognition of all the eleven ofﬁcial
languages as a justiﬁable undertaking. Satyo (1999) is of the opinion that since
these languages already have substantial bodies of literature, they should be
recognized as separate entities. He further indicates that there is already a

tendency in the country for using English when members of different ethnic

47

groups want to reach each other and therefore recommends that instead of
harmonizing some of the African languages for broadening communication, let
English be given such a status (i.e. language of wider communication). Unlike
Makoni (1999) who regards the language policy of South Africa as constituting
what he (Makoni) calls poly-monolingualism, Satyo (1999) argues that the South
African language policy enhances multilingualism and should therefore be
implemented as such.

The inadequacy of the South African language policy is also challenged by
Crawhall (1998) who asserts that the Constitution has provided a rights-based
approach to language policy that is not backed up by political will to implement
the rights. This approach, an attempt for compliance without using state
power/force, as he indicates, has strengths as South Africa seeks to build unity,
but it also has fundamental weaknesses. In relating this situation to the San and
the Khoe, he states:

The experience of San and Khoe South Africans has already shown

that rights do not imply implementation. Effective implementation of

rights requires sufﬁcient power to inﬂuence or execute the necessary

actions. An impoverished, vulnerable minority, however just and clear

its cause, evidently does not have the power to make government

implement its rights, even where this is constitutionally guaranteed. (p.9)
Zungu (1998) critiques the language clause in the new Constitution for its lack of
strategic planning and implementation procedures. She points out that “this is
why English remains dominant. Generally speaking, Zulu is now being replaced

by English in the corporate world as well as in the upper and lower-middle class

African communities in KwaZulu-Natal.” (p.38).

48

Prabhakaran (1998), who also remarks that the language clauses in the
Constitution contradict actual practice, demonstrates how some Indians waged a
challenge to the language clauses in sections 6 and 9 of the Constitution. A
group identiﬁed as Concerned South African Indian Citizens (CSAIC) led by a Mr.
Beema Naidoo, a 76 year old retired school teacher, ﬁled a petition with 4, 517
signatures with the Constitutional Court in May 1996. Their plea was that their
civil and political rights had been infringed upon and violated by the Constitution.
Their claim was that section 6 of the Constitution has racial overtones and
discriminates against Indian languages in South Africa. This group argued that
the ﬁve Indian languages which came to Natal two decades after the English
take-over of Natal (where these languages are widely spoken) could not be put
on par or “respected” along with German and Greek (Prabhakaran, 1998, pp.87-
88). Unfortunately this petition was not taken seriously by the government and
therefore, never yielded any fruits.

A Pan South African Language Board was established by national
legislation. According to the new Constitution (1996, pp.4-5), this Board must:
(a) promote and create conditions for the development and use of:

(i) all ofﬁcial languages;
(ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and
(iii) sign language; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for:
(i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including

German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu;

49

 

Thl:

bat

Ila

lea

F:

(I)

and
(ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious
purposes in South Africa.
This Board has already been proven to be ineffective and the reasons for its
failures point to a more general concern that the Constitutional clauses were not
backed up by any plan for implementation (Crawhall, 1998).

In a report on the resignation of Dr. Neville Alexander from the position of
Deputy Chairperson of the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) in
March 1998, the Newsletter of PRAESA (1998) indicates that one of the reasons
for his resignation was that there is more than sufﬁcient evidence that the political
leadership in government is not committed to the Constitutional principles of
promoting multilingualism and the development of African languages. Alexander
noted that it had taken the government more than two years since the
establishment of the PANSALB for even a small ofﬁce to come into being.
Further, the Board still does not have the infrastructure to implement any of its
decisions. Another critical reason for Alexander’s resignation was the failure of
the government to recognize that PANSALB is not a sub-department of the State.
Rather, as the Constitutional statutes provide, it is to be an independent,
autonomous body designed to bring about social transformation in the area of
language policy and practice (PRAESA Newsletter, 1998, p.2).

Satyo (1999, p.156) who discusses the resignation of the deputy chair of
the PANSALB, said that since all the nine African languages are marginalized in

South Africa, it bears testimony to his suspicion that actually the policy of eleven

50

9

languages translates into 11=1+1 =2; and claims that “we are back to square one’
(p.156). He further argues that:

The recent resignation of the deputy chair of PANSALB demonstrates

quite clearly that we are presented not with eleven ofﬁcial languages,

but rather with a menu of eleven languages from which to choose the

two formerly privileged languages. (p.156)

Heugh (1994, p.1) in presenting the media reaction to this language policy,
records that the new language policy was a hollow gesture to appease the
sentiments of Africans. And as she further discussed, the language policy was
scorned as a policy impossible to implement across the country. She said that
insufﬁcient resources, including human and ﬁnancial resources, were cited as
stumbling blocks towards the implementation of such a language policy.

A positive move towards the implementation of this language policy could
be seen from the establishment of the Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG)
by the then Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Dr. B. S.
Ngubane. LANGTAG was formed to advise the Minister on the implementation
of the language policy. LANGTAG formulated a National Language Plan - a
statement of South Africa’s language-related needs and priorities. This plan was
designed to achieve the following four major goals (LANGTAG Report, 1996):

(i) All South Africans should have access to all spheres of South
African society by developing and maintaining a level of spoken
and written language which is appropriate for a range of contexts
in the ofﬁcial language(s) of their choice.

(ii) All South Africans should have access to the learning of
languages other than their mother tongue.

(iii) The African languages, which have been disadvantaged by the
linguicist policies of the past, should be developed and

maintained. Equitable and widespread language services should
be established... (p.7)

51

LANGTAG’s undertaking was cherished and hailed nation-wide by those who, as
Alexander states in the letter to Minister Ngubane (LANGTAG, 1996) are
convinced that a democratic language policy based on the acceptance of the
positive value of multilingualism will become a reality in South Africa” (p.v).
Despite LANGTAG’s recommendations, both long-term and short-term
measures, proposals, and its subcommittees’ implementation strategies for the
new South African language policy, the government has been slow to implement
these strategies. Hence now there is a mismatch between what the Constitution
decrees about language in South Africa and what the government practices

(Maartens, 1998; Crawhall, 1998; Webb, 1998; Prabhakaran, 1998).

ATTITUDES TOWARDS AFRICAN LANGUAGES

Research on attitudes towards African languages indicates that many
African people attach little value to their own languages. Language attitudes
should therefore be perceived as a central element in the formulation of language
policy in African nations. Several states in Africa implemented language policies
that the politicians felt would bring about development without looking at the
impact of such policies on the majority of the indigenous African people. After
independence Namibia fell to the same trap of marginalizing indigenous African
languages in favor of English as its ofﬁcial language (Putz, 1995).

Swarts (1996) cites Brock-Utne (1995, pp.4-5) who made the following
observations in relation to the Namibian language policy:

The Namibian languages are being marginalised. There should be

more people ﬁghting for the Namibian languages from ofﬁcial

52

positions. All languages in Namibia should be treated equally. The
emphasis has been too much on English to the detriment of the
other languages. People are developing a negative attitude towards
their languages. The Ministry is doing nothing about this. And if you
know English well, you are considered educated. If you just know
Namibian languages even though you may know several of them
and speak them well, you are considered dumb and uneducated.

(p.11)

Haacke (1987) reports on a survey Harlech-Jones conducted in Namibia among
teachers which shows that African languages are rejected by many Africans as
undesirable for educational purposes even at the primary level. African
languages are, according to Haacke (1987):

...not only stigmatised as being unﬁt to provide access to learning,

employment and resources, but more crucially: they are seen as tools

abused for the purpose of ethnic segregation. It would be a

short-sighted and perhaps costly fallacy to shrug off this attitude as a

passing one which is symptomatic of African states prior to

independence. The reasons should be sought in the present practices

of language and educational planning as well as in the socio-political

dispensation. (p.198)
A survey on language attitudes was conducted in Zimbabwe by Mparutsa,
Thondhlana and Crawhall (1992) among 100 secondary school students
between sixteen and twenty years of age. 83% of the respondents spoke Shona,
11% spoke Ndebele and 4% spoke a language falling into the category of other,
which could mean Nyanja, Chewa, Lozi or Tonga. Although these researchers
pointed out that the questionnaire was not adequate as an instrument for data
collection since it could not avoid some contradictions in the solicited data, the
results of their survey showed that English was preferred as the medium of

instruction (83% of the respondents favored English to remain as a medium of

instruction in secondary schools) and not an indigenous language.

53

Chiwome and Thondhlana (1992), in studying the role that national
languages play in nation building, conducted a survey in Zimbabwe concerning
attitudes on the teaching of Shona through the media of Shona and English. Both
a questionnaire and structured interviews were used as instruments for data
collection to ﬁrst year university students and teachers, respectively. At least 133
out of 143 students responded to the questionnaire. The responses from
students demonstrated that although they preferred Shona as a medium of
instruction in teaching and learning Shona, ironically the majority of them chose
to write their ﬁrst Shona university assignment in English. It was also found
through the questionnaire that students from rural schools showed greater
interest in learning Shona in Shona than students from multiracial schools (urban
schools).

However, despite the advantages of using Shona in the classroom the
survey showed that high school teachers viewed the following as areas of
problem in using Shona as the medium of instruction (1992):

(1) There is no standard academic register for Shona.

(2) Students prefer to use ready-made material; they are not very

creative.

(3) The exclusive use of Shona leaves students unfamiliar with the
English terminology used in examination questions, thus putting
them in a disadvantageous position.

(4) There is limited literary and linguistic terminology in Shona, and it is
not standardised.

(5) There is a general lack of interest in learning Shona, probably due to
the colonial attitude towards the language; many people have been
made to feel that their language is inferior to English.

(6) Since high school teachers have themselves been trained in English
at university, they do not question the rationale behind it.

(7) The Ministry of Education has done nothing to encourage teachers

to use Shona. There are no ofﬁcial circulars in Shona concerning
terminologY, syllabus, making schemes, and so forth. Ofﬁcial

54

discussions are also conducted in English, which is discouraging to
the teacher.

(8) There is neither a Shona grammar nor any literary texts published in

(9) gnizgateachers are not trained in translation, they ﬁnd it difﬁcult to

produce acceptable Shona equivalents of English terms.

(pp.253-254)
In this survey it was found that due to the colonial past, which marginalized
African languages by making English the sole ofﬁcial language and the medium
of instruction in all educational institutions, it was difﬁcult to promote indigenous
languages. However, they observed that in class students became more
conﬁdent when using Shona (their mother tongue) as opposed to English
(Chiwome and Thondhlana, 1992, p.257).

There is a paradox reﬂected in the results obtained from both the survey
conducted by Mparutsa, et al (1992) and the one conducted by Chiwome and
Thondhlana (1992). Although in both surveys, there is a huge support for the
promotion and use of indigenous African languages among teachers and
students, there is also strong support for the maintenance and retention of
English as the dominant educational language as it is perceived as an
international language which guarantees economic success and political power.

Siachitema (1992) is one of a few researchers in Africa who conducted a
language attitude survey outside the school environment. In investigating and
examining the extent to which Zambia’s language policy has succeeded in
promoting political integration and the extent to which its success or failure has

had an impact at the level of socio-cultural unity and authenticity, Siachitema

(1992) draws our attention to research that she concluded in 1984. Her survey

55

found that little political integration took place in Zambia on account of the fact
that the masses were excluded from participation since their languages were
neither recognized nor used. Her survey involved 352 socially differentiated
respondents from 3 neighborhoods in Lusaka. 204 of the respondents had 0-9
years of education and over half of them lived in the shanty compound of
Kalingalinga and half of this group (living in the compound of Kalingalinga) was
unemployed. The majority of the unemployed group were residents of the shanty
compound with the middle cost area claiming over a third. This group, i.e. the
majority of the unemployed, in responding to questions that had to do with
language attitudes, expressed more unfavorable attitudes towards English than
did members of higher educational groups. Siachitema (1992, p.19) pointed out
that it became evident during the course of her field research that the
uneducated respondents (as their languages were despised) felt as if they lived
within a system in which they were largely outsiders.

Siachitema (1992) explained how frustrating the use of English was to
those at the shanty compound who could not express themselves in it:

One of the most frequent complaints made to the researcher against

the English language during the course of the ﬁeld research in the

shanty compound of Kalingalinga was the division which many people

felt it had created between the educated and the uneducated. Many

people in Kalingalinga felt that the educated people looked down upon

them and that they used English to show off their status. (p.19)
In Botswana, a language survey conducted by Arthur (1997) among 16 male and
39 female primary school teachers in six different schools found that English is

ovenNhelmingly supported as the medium of instruction. 44 respondents (80% of

the respondents) felt that English should be the sole medium of instruction

56

tr
lar
m;

Er

ge

is!

an:
al, I

sch

throughout primary school. This view was expressed despite the fact that in
Botswana, Setswana is used as a medium in the ﬁrst four years of primary
educaﬁon.

Negative attitudes towards African languages are also created as a result
of lack of commitment from the government to use and promote them. Adegbija
(1994) mentions that in Nigeria important national issues such as budget
broadcasts, National Day celebrations and speeches are often conducted in the
language of colonial dominance. More than 95% of the newspapers and
magazines are in English and 80% of radio and television broadcasts are also in
English. As he points out, the Nigerian state has no single newspaper published
in any of the indigenous languages. He therefore concludes that the subtle
message which is being transmitted through this situation from generation to
generation in most African countries is that socio-politically, the colonial language
is the only one that matters.

In South Africa, surveys on attitudes towards African languages were
conducted by researchers such as Young, et al. (1991), Dube (1992), Volbrecht
(1993), Paulus (n.d), Chick, Broeder, Extra and Maartens (1998), Prah (1992)
and Phaswana (1994). The respondents in the surveys conducted by Young, et
al. (1991) and Phaswana (1994) were students at Western Cape secondary
schools and the University of Venda, respectively.

Young, et al’s (1991) language planning and language attitude survey
found that 98% of the respondents “strongly agreed” that a knowledge of English

is important and useful for getting a job. Over 70% of the respondents, including

57

ins

lec

lar

p0

wt

an

De

Afrikaans mother-tongue speakers, preferred English as a lingua franca and
instrumental national communicative language (Young, et al, 1991, p.13).

It became evident that in the academic area, both students and their
lecturers/professors at the University of Venda preferred English over indigenous
languages in the learning and teaching environment (61.05% of the student
population and 87.88% of the lecturers) (Phaswana, 1994, p.39). In this survey,
which was intended to analyze the role of African language planning policies at
the University of Venda, three questionnaires for students, lecturers or professors
and heads of Department were drawn as data gathering instruments.

The respondents in this survey (190 students, 25 lecturers and 8 heads of
Department) gave the following reasons to explain their preferences for English:

. English is an international language (85% of student population and 86% of
lecturers)

. English prepares students for their future careers (83% of student population
and 83% of lecturers)

. Most of the books are published in English (83% of student population and 81%
of lecturers)

. African languages do not have a wide scope of technical terms used in most of
the subjects (80% of student population and 80% of lecturers)

. Students will be able to compete internationally (79% of student population and
78% of lecturers)

. The multilingual composition of the student body at the university will make it

very difﬁcult to use any one of the African languages as medium of instruction

58

(79% of the student population and 77.77% of lecturers)
. English is already an accepted general medium of instruction at all levels in
many African countries (78.70% of student population and 77% of lecturers)
. By far the most publications, certainly the most important and inﬂuential ones
for all subjects (other than particular languages) are in English (45% of student
population and 50% of lecturers)
. Intellectual interaction with other institutions (40% of student population and
50% of lecturers)
. Students should not be disadvantaged when they leave South Africa (30% of
student population and 10% of lecturers)
. Lack of qualiﬁed lecturers to teach all subjects in African languages (0.53% of
student population and 12% of lecturers) (Phaswana, 1994, pp.39-40).
Volbrecht’s (1993) language survey at the University of the Western Cape
(UWC), found that most speakers of African languages are strongly committed to
English as the only medium of instruction across curricula, rather than Afrikaans,
or isiXhosa, an African language spoken by the majority of Black students.
Volbrecht notes that Afrikaans is despised and stigmatized as the “language of
the oppressor” by African students at UWC. According to the respondents,
Afrikaans is said to be, unlike English, lacking international and academic status.
The same goes with isiXhosa which was despised by the respondents as a
means of perpetuating the apartheid policy of separate development where the
promotion of ethnic languages accompanied the blocking of access to English.

Volbrecht (1993) also found that UWC staff and students saw the promotion of

59

wa
wit
Vo
ac:
de:
isi)
the

CU:

be
29

lee

isiXhosa and Afrikaans at UWC as too costly and extremely difﬁcult. However, he
advocates, in proposing a language policy for UWC, that there should be a
language statement which encourages and promotes code—switching and
translation. His advocacy was therefore for instruction in African languages,
together with English and Afrikaans, for this was observed as the only positive
way towards a multilingual university. In charging the Department of isiXhosa
with some of the responsibilities towards the promotion of African languages,
Volbrecht said that there should be ways of raising the status of isiXhosa as an
academic language encouraging co-operative projects among the three language
departments, namely, Afrikaans, isiXhosa and English. The Department of
isiXhosa, as Volbrecht proposed, should emphasize cultural production rather
than cultural critique. Such steps could lead to a vibrant multilingual campus
culture.

Negative attitudes towards African languages could also be perceived in
the language survey of teachers’ opinions about language use in schools
conducted by the English Language Teaching Information Centre (ELTIC) and
Read, Educate and Develop (READ) (Edusource, 1993). Although (73%) of the
teachers in this survey felt that the majority of students in their class would do
better if the languages used as media of learning were their mother tongue, only
29% of the respondents expressed that they would be comfortable with students
learning in their mother tongue.

The ﬁndings from the survey conducted by ELTIC and READ differ

remarkably from the ﬁndings of the language survey conducted on a small scale

60

fro
scl
Na
(13'
ml)
p05
wrl‘
cor

lea.

by Phaswana (1998) at the University of Natal (Durban campus). Phaswana
(1998) investigated the language of learning as a major contributing factor in high
matric failure rates. He collected data through interviews with 6 female and 6
male University of Natal African (Black) students who wrote the matric (Grade
12) exam in either 1996 or 1997, examiners, markers and an invigilater (a person
who monitors students when writing their exam). 7 of the students were from
African schools (schools which only have Black learners) and 5 had matriculated
from racially mixed schools. The students who matriculated from racially mixed
schools wrote the English ﬁrst language paper in the exam. The 1997 KwaZulu-
Natal Senior Certiﬁcate Examination Examiners’ Reports were also part of the
data gathered. With the exception of one student who had attended a racially
mixed school, all the students agreed that writing their matric in English had
posed difﬁculties and that they would have achieved better results if they had
written the examination in their ﬁrst language. All students expressed their
concern for the development of African languages to be used as languages of
learning. One of the students said in elaborating this view (Phaswana, 1998):
Although there should be some preparations for the matric examination
to be written in our languages, to avoid all these problems, for the time
being, the best thing to do would be that question papers should be in
both English and our languages. In this way, all students will be given a
fair chance to understand what the questions require, rather than one
group of students being advantaged in that only their languages are
used in teaching and in exams. For now, let the language of exam still
be English while making sure that our own languages are developed for
this purpose. (p.18)

In expressing the importance of the use of language two students said that

it was unfair that Afrikaans and English-speaking learners are taught in their own

61

lar
inv
the

Re

lang
lang
dist

SOIT

sinc

Sou

 

 

languages while the Africans are not taught in theirs. Markers, examiners and an
invigilater expressed the same sentiment that students have difﬁculties in using
their L2 as a language of learning. The results obtained from the examiners’
Reports conﬁrmed the difﬁculties that students experience in learning in English.

Paulus (n.d) conducted a language attitudes survey to ﬁnd out the various
language groups’ views about their languages versus English as an “international
language,” and a “key to success.” A questionnaire to obtain such data was
distributed in Athens, Ohio and in South Africa via e-mail, regular mail and fax;
some were hand delivered. The same questionnaire was administered to citizens
of Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland staying in Athens. The researcher claims that
since the citizens in these countries could seek employment in South Africa, the
South African language policy could affect them.

Only 31 people out of 108 contacted responded. 8 of the respondents
were not born in South Africa, but emigrated there at some point; 10 of the
respondents were living in Athens either as students or as employees; while 21
of the respondents were living in South Africa. Of all the respondents, 15 were L1
speakers of English, 7 were L1 speakers of Afrikaans, 6 were L1 speakers of
African and Asian languages: Tamil, Setswana, siSwati, Ewe, Sepedi and 3 were
L1 speakers of other minority languages of South Africa such as German,
Hebrew and Portuguese.

Although 87% of the respondents indicated that all African and Asian
languages which are not accorded ofﬁcial status should be maintained in South

Africa, an overwhelming majority (71%) in this survey agreed that all South

62

 

 

IE;

he

Africans should learn one “national” language as a symbol of national unity and
English was chosen as a unifying language. In spite of favoring English as a
unifying language, the respondents in this survey also demonstrated a
preference for African languages in other areas. For example, 61% of the
respondents agreed that the media should cater for all major South African
languages. 58% of all the respondents felt that governmental services should be
provided in all eleven ofﬁcial languages, although 77% felt that it was going to be
cosﬂy.

A comment given by the respondents in favor of the use of all eleven
ofﬁcial languages in governmental services was that most Africans who do not
understand either English or Afrikaans would be able to understand isiZulu,
isiXhosa or Sotho. While Afrikaans L1 and other L1 speakers did not agree that
knowledge of an African language should be a prerequisite for employment in
South Africa, 51% of the English L1 speakers and African/Asian L1 speakers
agreed. In analyzing responses to this question (Knowledge of an African
language as a prerequisite for employment) Paulus (n.d) commented:

This question is a very emotional and possibly threatening one, as it

cuts directly into the current power structure, where speakers of

English have had the most advantages in the country where the vast

majority is unemployed: in the work place. A language policy which

promotes and rewards speakers of languages other than English would
be a radical departure from the current status of English as the “key to

success.” (p.154)

A preference for English above all other languages in South Africa was also

realized when students responded to a question about the use of language(s) at

national government, business and media levels. 74% of the respondents agreed

63

findi
Null!
lang

lns‘.

(ﬂ

that English should be the language used at the national government level, while
71% agreed that English should be the language of business within South Africa.
However, the researcher pointed out that this was the feeling of those South
Africans who were competent in English. In the area of education, Paulus’s (n.d)
ﬁndings were not different from the majority of surveys conducted thus far in
Africa and South Africa in particular. In responding to the question about
language (s) for educational purposes, all groups in her survey preferred the
instruction to be done in English.

The ﬁndings obtained from Chick’s 1996 survey also conﬁrm that African
languages are negatively looked upon as languages that cannot be used in
education, politics and economy. In investigating whether or not African students
preferred their mother tongue to serve as media in their education, Chick
conducted a survey in KwaZulu-Natal through a questionnaire administered to
636 African students (50 of the respondents were matriculation level students
and the rest were either at the University of Natal (Durban Campus), Natal
Technikon, or at teacher colleges). The targeted population at tertiary level was
in its ﬁrst year of study. 79% of the total sample was isiZulu ﬁrst language
speakers. Only 10.3% of the respondents preferred the opportunity to write
examinations in their mother tongue (isiZulu) and only 13.1% preferred to have
their chapters translated into isiZulu. An overwhelming majority (73%) of the
respondents preferred the status quo; i.e. preferred English as the language of
instruction. 57.9% of the respondents in giving reasons for their preference for

English indicated that English is the international language, while 29.8%

64

indi
res
divi
pie
ext

pro

Brc

Afr
Th
Gr

dis

pie
EC
int
QLI
dis

indicated that English is the language of national unity. Only 3.3% of the total
respondents indicated that English is the language of corruption, oppression or
division. Chick (1998, p.99) remarks that this situation, whereby English receives
preference over African languages, is informed by the respondents’ life
experiences where the pay-off for proﬁciency in English is greater than that for
proﬁciency in isiZulu.

A language survey which was conducted at Durban primary schools by
Broeder, Extra and Maartens also shows a preference for English. In this survey,
a questionnaire was designed in three languages, namely, isiZulu, English and
Afrikaans, to cover the major languages spoken in the KwaZulu-Natal province.
The questionnaire, comprised of 19 questions, solicited data from children in
Grade 1 and Grade 7 at 54 schools in Durban, Pinetown, Chatsworth and Umlazi
districts. The former two, i.e. Durban and Pinetown, represented two ethnically
mixed districts in the sample, while Chatsworth and Umlazi represented a
predominantly Indian and Black district respectively. 117 student teachers of
Edgewood Teachers’ Training College who were instructed how to conduct an
interview with a Grade 1 child, and to assist Grade 7 pupils to ﬁll out a
questionnaire, administered the questionnaire in different schools within these
districts where they were conducting their practical work. Of the 6, 753 children
who responded to the questionnaire, 5, 762 children ﬁlled out the English
version, 851 ﬁlled out the isiZulu version, while 140 children ﬁlled out the

Afrikaans version. Although Black children, those who speak isiZulu as a mother

65

long

she

sch

Thi
47’
wis

83

Sir

tongue seem to be under-represented in this study, which of course is the
shortcoming of the study, English is regarded above both Afrikaans and isiZulu.

Broeder, et al (1998) comment on this choice made by these primary
school pupils:

Any interpretation of this choice must be handled with circumspection,
as interviewers reported that many children with Zulu as home
language preferred to answer in English. One could speculate on the
reasons for this, the most obvious one being the prestige attached to
English, and the dominant role of English in the school environment.
(pp.125-126)
The ﬁndings of this survey demonstrate that of the total sample of 6, 753 pupils,
47% indicated that they would like to learn English, 38% expressed that they
wished to learn either isiZulu or one of the African languages, 22% of the total
sample indicated that they would like to learn French or another European
language. About 117 pupils wished to learn Latin and 3 pupils wanted to learn
Sign language (p.131).

The researchers concluded that since South African children are generally
offered English and Afrikaans, while a choice of African languages is. limited at
schools, their language choice will reﬂect this state of affairs.

Prah’s 1992 survey on attitudes of university students in Southern Africa
toward the relevance of mother tongue in science and technological education,
unlike a majority of the surveys conducted in Africa to date, interestingly found
that the majority of students preferred the use of mother tongue (African
languages) in their education. The respondents in this survey were students at

the Universities of Botswana (UB), Namibia (UN), Swaziland — Kwaluseni (US),

the Western Cape - South Africa (UWC) the Transkei - South Africa (UNITRA)

66

and Lesotho (NUL). A questionnaire was administered to a random sample of

120 students at each university, who although indicated that they had no

problems in studying in English (83%, 87%, 85%, 90%, 88%, and 84% at UWC,

NUL, UN, US, UB and UNITRA, respectively) still preferred the translation of

scientiﬁc and technological ideas into African languages. A greater majority of the

respondents in this survey who indicated that it is easier to study in African

languages rather than in English, expressed the following categories of opinions

(Prah, 1993):

Difﬁculties with translation.

Scarcity of resources.

Colonialism degraded African languages.

Colonialism was interested in creating Africans who could
serve the colonial purpose in colonial languages.

Western culture was considered to be automatically superior.
The expertise to do this is not present.

All languages have not been given equal status. (p.67)

The respondents in Prah’s survey believed that scientiﬁc and technological terms

would only be effected when:

(1) there is demand from the grassroots level

(2) there is democracy in Africa

(3) there is no longer poverty in Africa, i.e. when African countries are

ﬁcher

(4) Africans develop conﬁdence in themselves

(5) there is equal status among all languages

(6) there is a realization among Africans that development cannot be

achieved when they are still dependent on European languages

67

(7) Africans Ieam that all developed countries managed to develop

through their own languages (Prah, 1993, p.68).

Positive attitudes towards the use of African languages in this study were

also realized when the respondents gave the following as wider societal beneﬁts

that could only be achieved when modern scientiﬁc and technological ideas are

translated into African languages (Prah, 1993):

The rural masses will be rapidly educated.

Africans will gain more conﬁdence in their cultures and history.
Africans will become inventive.

African society as a whole will come to understand scientiﬁc and
technological ideas.

The power and inﬂuence of the present elite will be diminished.
Africans will do better in their studies.

There will be wider and broader job markets.

African languages will be greatly enriched.

There will be a great increase in African scientists and technicians.

(ID-58)

The respondents in this survey, properly matched the use of African languages

as vehicles of scientiﬁc and technological education with the general socio-

economic development of society. Students clearly perceived the relationship

between (African) languages and development of those who speak them. This

type of relationship was deﬁned and described by the respondents as follows

(Prah, 1993):

Wherever African languages or pidgin/creole is used in factories,
production is better.

There is a better understanding of developmental issues.

People would feel better empowered about developmental issues.
People can take better initiatives.

People would be more enthusiastic about developmental

issues. (p.69)

68

It is no wonder that, in realizing the importance of language and development, an
overwhelming majority (75% at UWC, 80% at NUL, 78% at UN, 81% at US, 81%
at U3 and 83% at UNITRA) believed that the task for translating scientiﬁc and

technological ideas into African languages should be a key national issue.

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AS DISCUSSED IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN
LANGTAG (1996) REPORTS

The LANGTAG (1996) Subcommittee on Language Equity Report
compiled by the Subcommittee chairperson, Q. Buthelezi, seems to be the only
document that presents the government’s (ofﬁcial) attitudes towards languages in
South Africa. The Report discusses the ofﬁcial attitudes towards language equity
in particular, at three different levels; namely, national level, provincial level and

local government level.

(a) At national level
The Report indicates that although the interim Constitution favored
language equity, very few departments adhere to and work towards the
realization of this ideal. The Report points out that in both Parliament and
Senate, English hegemony is overwhelming.
The following examples are given in the Report to demonstrate the
national government's attitudes towards language equity LANGTAG (1996):
Even two years later after publication, the ﬁrst seven major RDP
documents are not available in any language but English. In

Parliament and in Senate there are interpreting services, but only
into English and Afrikaans, for the plenary sessions of these bodies

69

prc
Co

gm.
U

(Cf:

tor

lav

Con

Cont

and only for two of the 62 standing committees of Parliament. That
is, even after two years, there are no interpreting services at most
committees where the real work of Government policy making is
being done. Besides this, there are no interpreting services into any
of the nine new ofﬁcial languages. Some cabinet ministers and
directors-general refuse to respond to documents unless they are in
English. The blatant hegemony of English on SABC TV has not been
addressed by Parliament, the Senate or Cabinet. At SABC TV, all
other languages are being marginalised, thus ﬂouting the principle of

equity. (p.47)

(b) At provincial level

The Language Equity Report indicates that only a few provinces have
tackled the ofﬁcial language issue and that language position in most of the
provinces is still similar to what it used to be in the apartheid government.
Correspondence between some of the provincial governments and national

government is still conducted in the medium of English only.

(c) At local government level
In discussing the attitudes of councilors in various areas the Report shows
how African languages, and in some other instances Afrikaans, are sidelined in
favor of English.
Many City and Town Council meetings are held monolingually in
English, because some councillors refuse to let other councillors
speak in any other language. In order to achieve progress during
deliberations, chairpersons of many City and Town Councils have
had to make the ruling that only English be used for council
business. (pp.147-148)
Complaints about the dominance of English in various Town Councils meetings

continued as the languages of the masses faced oppression throughout the

70

count
Altai
goven
inINhi
tree)
lhBl)
Thef
deco
Engli
gove
deCi:

Boa:

Gil

leii

lar

country irrespective of what the language policy articulates. In 1997 South
African Press Association (SAPA) reported that PANSALB accused the
government of heading towards monolingualism. PANSALB cited two instances
in which the government demonstrated its move towards embracing English at
the expense of other languages when even though, “The majority of people in
this country do not speak, understand or function in English.” (p.1)
The ﬁrst instance cited by the Board was a High Court judgment which upheld a
decision by the Germiston Town Council in Gauteng to conduct its affairs in
English only. The second one was a move by the Free State provincial
government to drop Sotho and Afrikaans from its name. In expressing the
decision of the Germiston council and the Free State provincial government, the
Board directed its anger toward the government:

We are concerned about this decision (in Germiston) because it is the

very government violating the Constitution, and if the very government

violates the essence of the Constitution, how can citizens be expected
to honour it? (p.1)

GRASSROOTS ATTITUDES TOWARDS LANGUAGE EQUALITY

The Report mentions that attitudes towards language equity at grassroots
level vary in different areas of the country and differ among speakers of various
languages. However, the Report indicates that there is a general feeling that
English is important for international communication. There is also support for the
fostering of other languages as well, both as subjects at schools and for

expression in the arts.

71

Dissatisfaction among all language groups about language use by the
South African Broadcasting Corporation Television is reported as follows:

(a) they cannot ﬁnd enough that they can understand;

(b) they have given up pushing buttons;

(0) they have switched off their TVs, or, alternatively their TVs are
on for very few hours per week;

(d) the Deaf, in particular, have over the years had nothing at all that
they could understand on SABC TV except the weekly 45-minute
slot on Sundays when they view SIGN HEAR:

. they cannot ﬁnd anything that they can understand;

. they have nothing to push buttons to;

. they watch the pictures without understanding the spoken
language.
In general, people feel disempowered by the new TV schedules
(implemented since February 5, 1996). (p.48)

The LANGTAG (1996) Subcommittee on the Development of the (South) African
Languages, instead of discussing negative attitudes towards language
development, this Subcommittee recommends some measures that could be
used to bring about positive attitudes towards African languages. The Report
mentions and argues for the introduction of African languages as languages of
Ieaming and teaching as optional media in tertiary education (colleges and
universities) (LANGTAG, 1996, pp. 82-83). When people realize that their
languages are used as media of instruction at tertiary level, their attitudes
towards them will be positive. LANGTAG identiﬁes three strategies that should
be used to change attitudes towards the use of African languages in education:
(1) The introduction of (optional) university courses taught through
the medium of an African language.
(2) The translation of high quality literature into African languages,
linked to incentives to produce original literature in those
languages.

(3) The promotion of African drama and literature by awarding prizes
for the best of these works and by prescribing them in the schools.

(N33)

72

II is b
Africa
backi
inslrL
altilu
the i1
ecor
colo
one
son

DEN

It is because of English’s perceived high status in South Africa that indigenous
African languages are despised as languages largely associated with
backwardness, ethnicity, poor standards, incapable of being poor media of
instruction and international unacceptability. McDermott (1998) argues that
attitudes such as these, where English is observed as an instrument for entering
the international arena and its “superiority” as the medium of instruction,
economic development, political development, etc. are no more than linguistic
colonialism and ultimately are a denial of a basic human right - the right to use
one’s mother tongue. As McDermott contends, this has far reaching
consequences for one uses a mother tongue to conceptualize. English should be
perceived as a language of oppression for it is because of the “English is best”
myth that many indigenous Africans want to get rid themselves of their
Africanness as it (Africanness) has been so undermined and devalued by the
colonial machine McDermott (1998).

In analyzing negative attitudes toward accepting African languages as
languages for empowering Blacks, Msimang (1993) argues that since people’s
reactions are inﬂuenced by a variety of factors, and that since none of the African
languages can at present be utilized as a bargaining tool in the labor market,
indeed negative attitudes toward African languages will prevail. African
languages are always utilized at the lowest domain, e.g. sports, agriculture,
family, etc. Luckett (1993, p.39) indicates that African languages are

marginalized as languages for both higher education and for serving the needs of

73

the modern state. van den Bergh (1968) shows that the Black South African
intelligensia, in conforming to westernization and attitudes of “cultural shame”
toward indigenous cultures, contributed to negative feeling toward indigenous
African languages. As he demonstrates, the South African freedom movements
were unashamedly eclectic in ideology and organization, and antitraditional in
tactics and aims. Indeed this situation turned out to favor and entrench the use
and preference of colonial languages at the expense of African languages. de
Kadt (1992) points to the South African apartheid regime as the main cause of
negative attitudes towards African languages in South Africa. She argues that all
languages in South Africa have been constrained in different ways by the
apartheid regime. She observes that simply removing apartheid laws will not
miraculously restore languages to freedom, just as it has not transformed the
South African situation.

A number of the studies reviewed here have illuminated the complexity of
the language issue in South Africa. Several have critiqued the Constitutional
policy itself and the attitudes towards different languages, especially African
languages in South Africa and elsewhere. However, to date, there have been no
studies of the views and language practices of the new democratic national
government and its role in promoting the Constitutional mandate of
multilingualism. The study proposed here seeks to ﬁll this void in the research

literature.

74

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which
South Africa’s multilingual language policy is being put into practice by the
national government. The Constitution demands that all the eleven major
languages spoken in South Africa be equally treated and calls for the promotion
and the elevation of the status of African languages which were marginalized

during the apartheid government.

UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW STYLE

The interviewing method was the principal method used in data collection.
The unstructured interviewing, as opposed to the structured interviewing method,
was utilized in this study. The unstructured interviewing provided a relaxed and
unhurried atmosphere which was neither stressful nor intimidating to the
interviewees. Given the status and responsibilities of the interviewees, the
unstructured interviewing style solicited relevant data that could not have been
produced through structured interviewing. Further, this type of interviewing was
more dependable than the case would have been with the structured
interviewing. Structured interviews would have only succeeded in eliciting
rational, controlled responses and would have failed to properly assess the
emotional dimension that I found to be essential in data analysis and

interpretation. Still another advantage of unstructured interviews is that they

75

alrc
giv
of l
ele
the
acc

whe

red

ino

OllC

efte
func
com
sens

solic

allowed for variation in responses. Some respondents took considerable time
giving reasons why it is difﬁcult to practice what the Constitution requires. Many
of the respondents blamed the ANC for the difﬁculties of implementing of the
eleven language policy in Parliament and the provinces in South Africa. When
the respondents dwelt at length on such accusations and where such
accusations were no longer contributing to the information that l targeted, that is,
when the respondents drifted “off course,” I had to persuasively and intelligently
redirect the interview to the research topic. In this way, through this method of
interviewing, it was possible for me to determine where the real difﬁculties were.
With the unstructured interviewing style, it was easy for me as the

interviewer to code switch and code mix. This linguistic ﬂexibility was necessary
in order to give my respondents an opportunity to freely use their mother tongue
once they realized that the interviewer knows and understands their languages.

While structured interviewing is believed to control for such possible
effects as interviewer bias and thus to lead to greater “objectivity,” it has the
fundamental disadvantage of forced responses that often do not reﬂect the
complexity, depth, and accuracy of the respondents’ views. Given the political
sensitivities involved in the study proposed here, it would have been difﬁcult to
solicit the unanticipated data that might be of signiﬁcance to this study.

In South Africa where the indigenous languages were marginalized and
stigmatized during the apartheid period, and where the two ex-colonial languages
were used as ofﬁcial languages, an unstructured interviewing style was a more

reliable technique, particularly for unpacking sociolinguistic attitudes and for

76

pro
sev
con

The

inle
Iran
all ll
Gift)

Of e.

probing sentiments underlying the opinions of the respondents. For instance, in
several cases, I was able to probe respondents’ responses for clariﬁcation,
consistency and follow up on statements that seemed contradictory.
The interviews solicited information that relates to:
(a) The South African language policy enshrined in the new Constitution;
(b) The language/s presently used by the South African national
government in Parliamentary proceedings;
(0) The present State’s position towards the development of African
languages as stipulated in the Constitution;
(d) The implications of using some, rather than other, languages by the
State, both in Parliament and in the conduct of its national duties.
All the interviews were recorded using a cassette tape recorder. Each
interview took about 50 minutes to one and a half hours. The interviews were
transcribed by a transcriber whose mother tongue is isiZulu. I transcribed the two
interviews which were conducted in Tshivenda, my mother tongue, as the
transcriber was not ﬂuent in Tshivenda. l veriﬁed and edited the transcription of
all interviews. Very few errors were made in the process of transcription. Such
errors were in areas such as punctuation, spelling and omission of some words

or expressions. Each interview was transcribed verbatim.

77

lNTE

level
Soul
parti
in IS
Gov
only
SOL
Re;
DP
De

the

ale

La

INTERVIEWEES

Since the study aimed to investigate the language of use at the macro-
level, only Members of Parliament were interviewed. During the interviews, the
South African Parliament was made up of 400 members from different political
parties and organizations. After the withdrawal of the NNP (New National Party)
in 1997, which by then was known simply as NP (National Party) from the
Government of National Unity, the IFP (Inkatha Freedom Party) remained the
only party in cabinet with the ANC and its alliances, COSATU (Congress of
South African Trade Union) and SACP (South African Communist Party).
Representatives of all other parties, for example, PAC (Pan African Congress),
DP (Democratic Party), FF (Freedom Front) and ACDP (African Christian
Democratic Party) participated only as Members of Parliament and not as part of
the Cabinet.

The interviewees in this study were not only Members of Parliament, each
also represented his/her respective political party in the Arts, Culture and
Language, Science and Technology Portfolio Committee. This Committee was
chaired by a member of the ANC. As Members of Parliament dealing with
language matters in Parliament, they were found to be the relevant interviewees
in the study and most of them proved to have in-depth knowledge about and
considerable experience in language issues, especially the historical
background, of the South African language situation. About 96% of the
interviewees had a university education and specialized in language planning

policy as either a subject or as part of their education. It was interesting to realize

78

that
com
Cult

BXCI

lhei
lang

Ol'l‘

8n

anr
ear
the
39
8X;

lite

Du

Chi

that different political parties sent their representatives to different portfolio
committees in accordance with their specialization and expertise. The Arts,
Culture and Language, Science and Technology Committee was therefore no
exception — members of this Committee were experts in language issues. During
the interview process such members were able to articulate the language plan of
their own parties and highlighted the successes and shortcomings of current
language use in Parliament. As expected, the interviewees were able to reﬂect
on the impact of South Africa’s language policy on South African citizenry.

Although the initial plan was to interview 20 members from all parties (i.e.
8 members from the ANC and 2 from each of the six parties), only 16 Members
of Parliament were interviewed. It was not possible to interview members of PAC
and ACDP. Both the PAC and ACDP were the minority parties in Parliament and
each had less than 5 members in Parliament. These members had to represent
their parties in various portfolio committees in Parliament. Attempts to secure
appointments with them never materialized. Their hectic schedules were
exacerbated by the election campaigns as all the political parties were preparing
themselves for the upcoming elections. Consequently, only 16 Members of
Parliament were interviewed.

The interviewees were from diverse language backgrounds. This was
purposefully done to ﬁnd out if members from different language groups had
different views about South Africa’s language policy or the manner in which

languages are used by the national government.

79

abou‘
ﬂuen'
often
choii

choi

DEE
Nur
Nut
Nur
NU|
Nu

Nu

However, mother tongue language had no bearing on the MPs’ views
about language issues and the Constitutional language policy. In fact, since I am
ﬂuent in most of the African languages in the eleven language policy, MPs were
offered the opportunity to conduct the interview in the ofﬁcial language of their
choice. Yet all of the interviews, except for two, were conducted in English by

choice of the MP5.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
Number of the ANC respondents: 8
Number of the IFP respondents: 2
Number of the NNP respondents: 2
Number of the DP respondents: 2
Number of the FF respondents: 2
Number of respondents with African languages as L1:

isiNdebele: 0

isiXhosa: 1

isiZulu: 1

siSwati: 0

Sepedi: 1

Sesotho: 0

Setswana: 2

Tshivenda: 2

Xitsonga: 1

80

Nur
Nur
Nur

Nun

DA'I

lnte

Mall
whe

dem

appc
sam;
reco

lthL

inter

Writl

IECOI

notio

Number of respondents with English as L1: 4
Number of respondents with Afrikaans as L1: 4
Number of female respondents: 4

Number of male respondents: 12

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

Interviews

The interview process took place from the 5th of February 1999 to the 31St
March 1999 in Parliament in Cape Town — South Africa. This was the period
when the Parliament of South Africa had its last sitting before the second
democratic elections which were held in June, 1999.

Since the interviewees of this study were Members of Parliament,
appointments for their interviews were made through their secretaries. Snowball
sampling technique was also involved, where some of the interviewees
recommended other MP5 to be interviewed. Both methods, i.e. appointments
through secretaries and referrals, were successfully and conveniently utilized. All

interviews were arranged and conducted at the convenience of the interviewees.

Written Records
The data collected through the interviews was matched against written
records, for instance, reports, ofﬁcial minutes and related sources such as

notices, internal memoranda, minutes of meetings, programs and agenda of

81

me

Na‘

Se

bill

del

COI

cle

Se

meetings, newsletter for Members and Staff of Parliament, newsletter of the
National Council of Provinces, debates of the National Assembly, debates of the
Senate, debates of the National Council of Provinces, acts of Parliament and
bills, other Parliamentary documents, and recorded and written speeches
delivered in Parliament and outside of Parliament. This enabled me to
contextualize and draw inferences about language-related data that was not

clearly and adequately captured in the interviews.

Secondary Sources

It became evident that it was not enough just to analyze the interviews, it
was also equally important to understand the respondent’s world and social
forces that might have inﬂuenced their thinking. This observation was also made
by Kahn and Connell (1957) cited in Fontana and Frey (1994, p.364).
Interviewees in this study might have been uncomfortable revealing their beliefs
and attitudes as well as their motivations and feelings. Thus information obtained
such as textbooks, published and unpublished dissertations and theses, and
articles on language planning-policy also became reliable and dependable

sources of information.

Systematic observation
The South African Parliament reconvened from the 5th of February 1999
to the 31"t of March 1999 in Cape Town. I observed Parliamentary proceedings in

order to determine the language/s used by the South African national

82

gov
and
four
Par
diffs
the

obs

government and to assess the language/s that are dominant in Parliamentary
and standing committee deliberations. Such observations were made daily for
four weeks. In order to get a representative glimpse of the language behavior of
Parliamentarians, observations focused on both the entire Parliament and the
different portfolio committees. The portfolio committees’ schedules determined
the time for such observations. Some of the portfolio committee meetings that I
observed were the following:

Portfolio Committee on Finance — 9th of February

Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture and Language, Science and

Technology -10"1 of February

Portfolio Committee on Land Affairs - 11th of February

Portfolio Committee on Justice — 12th of February

Portfolio Committee on Communications - 15th of February

Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry — 16th of February

Portfolio Committee on Finance - 18th of February

Portfolio Committee on Finance — 19th of February

Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises — 23rd February

Portfolio Committee on Justice — 26th February

Portfolio Committee on Communication — 1st March

Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises - 2"d March

Portfolio Committee on Communications — 3rd March

Portfolio Committee on Finance — 9th March.

83

Mor
Lar
holr
a B
Sor
lani

Airi

pla

del

Pat

Bill

PR

801

be

8a

he

M E

More attention was given to the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture and
Language, Science and Technology since this was the committee that has been
holding discussions on the Pan South African Language Board Amendment Bill,
a Bill which will affect the language policy enshrined in the Constitution. The Pan
South African language Board, among other things, sees to it that there is
language equity and that the promotion of languages in South Africa, especially
African languages, takes place.

The Pan South African Language Board Amendment Bill meetings took
place on the 16th and 17th of February. The Pan South African language Board
debate and the Heritage debate took place on the 18th of February.
Parliamentary discussion of the Pan South African language Board Amendment

Bill took place at the National Assembly on the 23'” of February.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THE FIELDWORK

Although all the interviews conducted took 50 to 90 minutes, there was
always the constraint of time. It was not possible for Members of Parliament to
spend extended time doing interviews. Two members, for example, could not go
beyond 50 minutes with the interview.

Since meetings of various portfolio committees would take place at the
same time, it posed difﬁculties especially during observation periods where it was
necessary to attend such meetings as scheduled.

The fact that all the political parties were heading towards the elections,

Members of Parliament found themselves with tight schedules as they, in

84

80

CO

Cc

thr

addition to their duties in Parliament, had to address and organize their
constituencies as well.

In order to provide anonymity to the MPs, as promised in the Interview
Consent Form, they will be identiﬁed simply by number, from #1 through #16,

throughout the text.

85

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents and analyzes the data under three main sections.
The ﬁrst section presents and analyzes the data collected through in-depth
interviews. The data in this section is divided into various themes that emerged
during the interviews. The second section of the chapter presents and discusses
the data collected through annual reports, speeches, acts and bills, newsletters,
HANSARD documents, agenda and minutes. The third section presents and

analyzes the data collected through systematic observation.

4.1. DATA COLLECTED THROUGH lN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

Since the unstructured interview style was used in this study, all the
interviewees (MPs) were asked whether or not there was a mismatch between
what the Constitution demands and what they as Parliamentarians practice in
Parliament. In other words, the Parliamentarians were asked to account for their
practice vis-a-vis what the South African language policy requires. Although this
question was central to all the interviews conducted, some interviewees, instead
of addressing themselves speciﬁcally to the question, gave the reasons for the
difﬁculties in the implementation of such a language policy at national level. As a
consequence I had to infer their position.

The data collected through this method is categorized into the following
themes which are related to the research questions and research hypotheses of

the study:

86

4.1 .1. Languages used in domains of the political apparatus: the mismatch
between Constitutional demands and Parliamentary practice

4.1.2. Obstacles in the promotion and elevation of the status of African
Languages:
4.1.2.1. Affordability
4.1.2.2. Attitudes towards African languages
4.1.2.3. African languages and corpus planning
4.1.2.4. Problem of mindset

4.1.3. The government’s efforts to achieve the Constitutional demands
4.1.3.1. to encourage multilingualism and national unity
4.1.3.2. to promote and develop African languages

4.1.4. Harmonization of Nguni and Sotho languages
The data in this section is presented and analyzed under each main

theme.

4.1.1. Languages used in domains of the political apparatus: the mismatch
between Constitutional demands and Parliamentary practice
In response to this open ended question, Respondent #11, an NNP
representative, acknowledged that 80%-90% of the speeches delivered by the
Members of Parliament in Parliament are in English, while 10% are in Afrikaans,
and the balance in the other languages (African languages). In addressing and
acknowledging that there is a mismatch between the Constitutional demands and

the language practices of Parliament, he pointed out that there is always a

87

Thi

DIOV

the z

polio
way i

dema

difference between theory and practice. He further explained that the Constitution
contains theory, ideas and what should be strived for by a nation. He gave an
example of what the Constitution says with regard to education where it
stipulates that every person has the right to free education up to a certain age,
when in actual fact the education is not free. Respondent #11 states:

But you see our Constitution says the education is free up to a certain

age. Now there is a problem between what is the ideal theory and

what is happening in practice. So, the language policy is very much

the same. The Constitution says equal attention to every language; we

support that. Our ofﬁcial policy is to support that because we voted for

the Constitution; on that issue we did not disagree. We disagree with

some other issues in the Constitution but not this one. But in practice it

[the use of all eleven languages — my emphasis] just does not work.
This position for the support of the language policy is also echoed by another
NNP representative, Respondent #12, who said that since the NNP was involved
with the ANC in drawing up the present Constitution, the NNP is bound to
support it until such time that amendments which the NNP could not align itself
with are made. Respondent #12, however, acknowledged that time has already
proven that there is something fundamentally and inherently complicated about
the approach to the South African language situation set out in the Constitution.

Like Respondent #6 of the ANC, who argued that the eleven language
policy is an ideal policy which practically cannot work, she said that there is no
way that the eleven ofﬁcial languages could be used equitably as the Constitution
demands. She challenged the adopted approach and proposed her own:

The ideals embodied within the Constitution do not work. To

my way of thinking, the approach that there should be eleven

ofﬁcial languages universally across South Africa is an impractical

approach. The more practical approach would have been an
incremental approach.

88

Altho
dem:
main
langi
argu
thes
devr
con:
Afril

sho

not
Ian!
Ian.
0th
En
Slri
sai
Co

WI“

Sp

Although Respondent #12 recognized the mismatch between the Constitutional
demands and what is being practiced in Parliament, she however, supported the
maintenance of the status quo; i.e. that Afrikaans and English be the two ofﬁcial
languages. When asked to give reasons for what she was alluding to, she further
argued that the dominance of English and Afrikaans could be justiﬁed in that
these two languages, unlike African languages, are already completely
developed. According to Respondent #12, African languages, which she
considered under-developed, are cultural languages whereas English and
Afrikaans, which she considered developed, are practical languages which
should be the ones used in Parliament.

Respondent #1 of the ANC, in responding to the question as to whether or
not there is a mismatch between what Parliamentarians practice and what the
language policy requires, indicated that since English and Afrikaans are the two
languages which are still privileged in South Africa, they are likely to dominate all
other languages in Parliament. He said that this situation (where Afrikaans and
English are privileged) can only be alleviated when the following are in place:
structures, resources and expertise, for the promotion of African languages. He
said that these three elements could guarantee the realization of what the
Constitution decrees; i.e. all ofﬁcial languages to be used equally. When asked
whether the marginalization of African languages would be continued in
Parliament, he emphatically stated that the eleven language policy was
spearheaded and initiated by the ANC at the World Trade Centre (Kempton

Park) during negotiations and that the ANC will never shift from, or abandon,

89

Alt
the
offi

do.

flVe l

such a policy. However, Respondent #1 pointed out that the ANC has to be
pragmatic in the application of this policy.

In acknowledging that some Parliamentarians refrain from using their
mother tongue (which are ofﬁcial African languages), which shows that
Parliamentarians do not afﬁrm what the Constitution demands, Respondent #1
gave the following explanation:

we must remember that there has been a very systematic and

conscious oppression of African languages in this country. Also,

there has been a very systematic and conscious discrediting of

anything African in this country. Of course in this short space of time,

it will be reﬂected.

Although Respondent #1 agreed that English is still dominant in Parliament, and
that some Parliamentarians rarely use their mother tongue even if they are
ofﬁcial languages, he pointed out that there is remarkable progress in that some
do. He said in support of his point:

But I want to say this to you: many times when we attend either

committees or when the house is sitting, I promise you that here many

many languages are used. For instance, the Minister of ﬁnance, Trevor

Manuel, yesterday, delivered the national budget speech in three

languages: English, Afrikaans and Sesotho. And many times when you

go to Parliament when there are heated debates you hear all these
eleven ofﬁcial languages. I am not saying we have arrived at the point

at which we will use all the languages, but I think this is the beginning.

It will be much more so especially when a democratic process actually

entrenches itself. ..

Respondent #1 argued that since the ANC government had only been in power
ﬁve years, many of the policies that have been put in place are just beginning to
work. He said that he is optimistic that South Africa is going to set an example of

how the language issue in a multilingual country could be handled. Respondent

#1 stated:

90

Re
no
the
is r
pol
Ian
Par

Eng

the

poir

Ill ar
Empj

use t

I am very sure it (South Africa) will become a model; not to say it is the

only model, but it will become one of the models in the world of

possibilities of engaging the question of languages such that it is a

positive tool rather than a negative tool.
Respondent #4, also of the ANC, in responding to the question as to whether or
not there is a mismatch between what the Parliamentarians practice and what
the Constitution demands, said that the implementation of the 11 language policy
is not possible in Parliament. He said that it was after realizing that this language
policy was unimplementable that an agreement about the so-called “functional
language” had been reached in Parliament. Although he acknowledged that
Parliament is still using only Afrikaans and English, however, he mentioned that
English has been chosen to be the language of record in Parliament.

When asked whether he supported the decision which favored English as
the sole language of record and communication in Parliament, Respondent #4
pointed out:

We are not speaking English just because we want to speak English,

but because it is convenient...We are speaking English because we

want to communicate, not because we want to be Englishmen. ...We

are not using English because we want to sound educated. It is easy

and it is cheap. It is a lingua franca.
In arguing for the continuation of the use of only English in Parliament, he
emphasized that at higher levels (national or Parliamentary level), people must
use the language that is going to work, which he regarded as English.

Respondent #4 pointed out that there are ongoing negotiations about how
the government could give equal attention to all languages in a practical way. He

also mentioned that it is particularly the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and

Technology which is working hard to ﬁnd how the government could best put the

91

SE
Ol

lh

de
su

fol

In i
am
due

are

Afri
am:
don
the:
flier
IOgE

lahg

demands of the Constitution into practice as far as languages are concerned. He
said that the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology should be the
one responsible for the implementation of the new language policy, rather than
the PANSALB.

In responding to the question of a mismatch between the Constitutional
demands and the Parliamentarians’ practice, Respondent #9 of the IFP
supported the use of English as the only language of Parliament. He made the
following argument about the position of only English in Parliament:

But we are already noticing what is happening in other countries of

the world; that the English language is the one that is the most robust

and generally pushes all other languages to one side whether it is in

India, whether it is in Australia, and whether it is in America.

In his argument for the maintenance of this situation, where English monopolizes
and dominates as the language of Parliament in South Africa, he said that this is
due to the fact that, “English has now become the global language and that there
are so many varieties of English that people have made their own.”

Respondent #9 further advances the use of English only in the South
African Parliament by stating that when people have a need to communicate
among themselves locally, nationally and internationally, English would be
dominant partly because science and technology, internet and computers and all
these modern technologies utilize it more than any other language. He
mentioned that where people from different language backgrounds come

together, one language which is Eurocentric is always going to dominate all other

languages. A Eurocentric language, as Respondent #9 stated could be used

92

CIC

so
an:
tha
USE
ma

the:

not
very
mall

gove

to or

langr,

cross-culturally and for the purposes of educational research as well as for
communication with the outside world.

In giving an explanation as to why Afrikaans is sidelined in Parliament, he
pointed out that although political leaders such as General Viljoen (FF leader)
and Martinus van Schalkwyk (NNP leader) are extremely proud of Afrikaans, and
that their constituencies are predominantly Afrikaans speaking, they frequently
use English in Parliament. He further indicated that these two political leaders
make a few statements in Afrikaans only so that people outside do not accuse
them of having given up the use of Afrikaans altogether.

Respondent #9 argued that the new language policy, which he contends is
not practiCal, emanated as a result of President Mandela who, as he said, was
very anxious not to cause anyone to rock the boat, but wanted the language
matter to be settled over time, rather than settled the way the apartheid
government did - through force and by compulsion.

Respondent #9 also pointed out that allowing language use in Parliament
to occur as it does, is a diplomatic way of allowing language use to dictate
language policy in the long run.

In defense of the status quo, Respondent #9 concluded that although the
Constitution spells out the eleven ofﬁcial language policy, the Constitution does
not conﬁne the government to a certain time frame. He presented his argument
as follows:

...the Constitution has not limited anyone of us to a time frame; it has

not said that all these things must be done in one year or four years. It

said to us this is the direction that we should take and like a ship which
leaves a harbor, it is going to take its time before it reaches its

93

€l€l
that
recs

nex

Con

Res
He p

Sieve

COmn

SUpp<

Wrong

destination. And it may come back again to the port from which it set,

but along the way, it is going to touch many other ports. So, what we

have done was to look at the Constitution. We can tick off many places

and say, yes, this is done; this is almost done; this is ﬁnished; but here

we have hardly scratched the surface.

Respondent #9 said that each Parliament which is going to come after the 1999
election will have certain areas that it will have to give attention to. He pointed out
that in the future language might become more and more an issue which
receives serious attention. It is not a matter that is going to be resolved within the
next ﬁve years, but could take twenty years.

In his explanation as to why Parliament does not always comply with
Constitutional demands, he stated:

We recognize all that, but what we will do is rather than causing things

to happen quickly, and therefore causing resentment, let us allow the

process to unfold more gradually. Let it happen bit by bit so that

communities that are not represented, slowly ﬁnd the way of being
represented.

Respondent #10 also of the IFP, makes a distinction between status and use.
He pointed out that although the Constitution guarantees the equal status of all
eleven languages, the use of these languages might not be equal.

A rationale for the dominance of English was noted in terms of the drafting
of the new Constitution. Respondent #11 pointed out that because of different
language backgrounds, it was imperative that CODESA delegates at Kempton
Park choose English as the medium of communication as it was the only
common language among the majority of delegates. Respondent #11 further

supported the use of only English in Parliament by arguing that there is nothing

wrong with using English as the dominant language for it is a language

94

undi
isth

hovv

drah
nnsr
Padi
cone
who
lhse
make
deve
argue

going

RJRe
inter;

senor

Cons:
beiwe

itShoe

understood by everybody. He further argued that although the policy of his party
is that everything should be done in the eleven languages, it should be noted
however, that there is a time constraint in terms of Parliamentary deliberations.

Respondent #15 of the FF, who was on the language committee in the
drafting of the new Constitution, in addressing himself to the question of the
mismatch between what the Constitution demands and what the
Parliamentarians practice, argued that it was for the sake of being politically
correct to say eleven languages are “ofﬁcial.” Hence, as he said, not all of those
who were in the language committee were in favor of the eleven language policy.
His argument is that the eleven language policy was meant to retain English and
make it the sole ofﬁcial language as all other languages could not be promoted or
developed to a position equal to that of English. He asserted that those who
argued for the eleven language policy knew from the beginning that it was not
going to be practical to use all these languages.

Respondent #11 points out that in the committee rooms (where according
to Respondent #16, also of the FF, “big debates are taking place”) there are no
interpreting facilities. Thus only English is used while other languages are
seriously sidelined.

Respondent #16, like Respondent #15, mentioned that what the
Constitution says is quite a symbolic thing. Multilingualism is not practiced at the
highest level of the government. In pointing out the existence of the mismatch
between the Constitutional demands and Parliamentary practice, he argued that

it should be English instead of Afrikaans that should be downgraded in

95

Pal

ind

Re
lane
in P
it is
gOVI
indig
Blac

ago.

then
misr
eXpr
Rest
only
ngC

Atllk;

Parliament since Afrikaans, unlike English, is a legitimate South African
indigenous language. He stated:

How many years have we (Afrikaners) been here? We have been here

for so many years. I mean English is not the indigenous language.

English is from Britain and wherever, but Afrikaans has been written

here as an indigenous language. So, we actually talk of ten indigenous

languages and one foreign language, which is English.

Respondent #16 blamed the national government for sidelining indigenous
languages and moving into a policy of monolingualism where English dominates
in Parliament. He pointed out that the main reason for sidelining Afrikaans is that
it is regarded as a language of oppression since it was used by the apartheid
government. He counters this point with the argument that Afrikaans is an
indigenous language of South Africa, not only spoken by Afrikaners, but by
Blacks as well, and that it was also oppressed by the English, many many years
ago.

Respondent #14 and Respondent #13, both of the DP, in addressing
themselves to the key question central to the interview, that is, is there a
mismatch between the Constitutional demands and the practice in Parliament,
expressed no problems in having English dominant in Parliament. However,
Respondent #14 acknowledged that in spite of what the Constitution demands,
only a few languages are heard in Parliament. As he said, this makes a

“mockery” of the Constitution. Respondent #14 further acknowledged that

Afrikaans is also used in Parliament though to a lesser extent.

96

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

In addressing themselves to the key question central to the interview, that
is, the mismatch between Constitutional demand and Parliamentary practice in
terms of language use, the interviewees expressed the view that the new South
African eleven language policy is not easy to implement in Parliament. All
conceded that Parliament is deﬁnitely not afﬁrming the Constitution in putting its
demands into practice. There was unanimous agreement among the
interviewees that theoretically, the policy sounds good, whereas practically, it
could not be implemented.

It should be pointed out that the argument postulated by the interviewees,
which supports the ideals embodied within the Constitution, but denies the
implementation of these ideals, can lead to the justiﬁcation of having only one
language, English, to serve practically as an ofﬁcial language, while the rest of
the languages are only theoretically kept as ofﬁcial languages. Thus there is a
high possibility of the dominance of English as the only ofﬁcial language in the
South African Parliament since the majority of the MP5 argue that it is not only
difﬁcult, but impractical, to use all the ofﬁcial languages simultaneously in
Parliament. This position was clearly articulated by Respondent #12 of the NNP
who argued that time has already proven that there is something fundamentally
and inherently complicated about the approach to the South African language
situation as set out in the Constitution.

Some of the interviewees, for example, Respondent #9 and Respondent

#12, proposed that the incremental approach be adopted. The proponents of this

97

strategy (where the ofﬁcial languages are gradually added to the one in current
use) favored Afrikaans and English to serve as the only two ofﬁcial languages.

This approach was, among others, proposed by the NNP whose
constituency is Afrikaans speaking. It makes a lot of sense, therefore, for the
NNP to vie for Afrikaans and English as the NNP was the leader in the apartheid
government where English and Afrikaans served as the only two ofﬁcial
languages. The NNP constituency which of course is Afrikaans speaking, could
maximize its beneﬁts when Afrikaans is being used in Parliament and elsewhere.

The proposal by Respondent #12 of having Afrikaans on par with English
in Parliament demonstrates her understanding and insight of what some of the
linguists in South Africa and elsewhere have pointed out, that language cannot
be divorced from power as language is the instrument which is required to
express power and authority. As Alexander (1992) stresses, language policy,
language practice and language usage reinforce power relations in a particular
society.

Although Alexander saw this as relevant for the South African situation
where there has been a shift of power relations as Africans (Blacks) are taking
political power as well as, to a certain degree, economic power from the White
minority, however, the ANC government is seen to be supporting the
entrenchment of English as the only ofﬁcial language in Parliament at the
expense of all other ofﬁcial languages.

Respondent #1 mentions that it is because of this history, i.e. where

Afrikaans and English have been utilized In Parliament that invariably English

98

and Afrikaans dominate the African languages in Parliament today. Like all the
MP3 that were interviewed, Respondent #1 says that there should be structures,
resources and expertise for the African languages to be equally used with the
other two ofﬁcial languages in Parliament. It should also be mentioned that since
language is both a conceptual and analytical tool, and that it could be used to
express a more sophisticated content, it cannot as de Kadt (1992) argues, be
taken for granted as simply a neutral instrument for passing on information about
reality, but rather is closely implicated in the power relations of society that
sidelining it on the basis of lack of structures and resources as the interviewees
postulated, would be denying the speakers thereof freedom of expression in
Parliament. If the South African government was willing to develop the structures
to enhance the use of African languages, it would have done so some years
back. The denial of the use of African languages on account of lack of structures
could be interpreted as lack of political will and commitment towards the use of
African languages in Parliament.

Although there was unanimous agreement among the interviewees that
English is dominant and African languages are sidelined in Parliament, some
MP5, for example, Respondent #9 and Respondent #1, indicated that there are
some MPs who try to use their mother tongue (African languages). It is
unfortunate that only a few of them do it.

Respondent #4 and others argue that English should monopolize in
Parliament for it is convenient to use it, it is easy, it is cheap, and it is a global

national lingua franca.

99

The fact that English is easy should be treated as an ideology which works
against the appreciation of all other languages. The truth is that Africans ﬁnd it
easy to learn African languages as they are related to each other, rather than
learning English or any other foreign Eurocentric language. English, Portuguese
and French remain difficult for the majority of Africans to master. Kunene (1992)
indicates that only 24% of the Mozambican population, as per the National
Census conducted in 1980, speaks Portuguese, which is the only ofﬁcial
language of the country. Webb (1998a) points out that in South Africa, only 25%
of Black South Africans have a reasonably effective proﬁciency in English. Less
than 10 per cent of the entire Namibian population, according to Cluver (1993)
knows English. As a result, the introduction of English as national, ofﬁcial
language in Namibia disempowered the various Namibian indigenous ethnic
groups which this policy othenivise intended to unite.

The Namibian language situation, as analyzed by Cluver, clearly shows
that when a new foreign language has been introduced as an ofﬁcial language in
a multilingual setting, it renders the other languages insigniﬁcant. This is
especially ironic because the introduced language is intended to unify a nation.
This will also ultimately happen in South Africa if English continues as the only
language of communication and records in the South African Parliament.

Contrary to what Respondent #4 alludes to, i.e. it is cheap to use English,
renowned African sociolinguists, such as Heugh (1997 & 1998), Webb (1998),
Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1989 81998), Mateene Kahombo (1996), Alexander (1995 &

1997), Kunene (1992) and Prah (1995 81997) envision a larger picture. Their

100

argument is that there won’t be real development in Africa without the integration
of national languages and the consequent full participation of the citizens.

The fact that English is a global language should therefore not be used to
dominate the national indigenous languages as the masses will only develop
when their languages are used. For example, the LANGTAG Report (1996, p.93)
points out that research in Australia demonstrated that invaluable expertise which
people have is under-utilized because employers cannot recognize such
expertise when ideas are limited to transmission in one language.

In both South Africa and Namibia, citizens seriously challenge the
marginalization of their languages. Motau (1993) strongly expresses how he
perceives language as a tool for his empowerment and what he expects the
government to be doing as a result:

I want to communicate with the government in my own language,

in the language I understand best. I want to listen to Parliamentary

speeches in isiZulu. I do not wish to hear big, bombastic English or

Afrikaans words that I do not understand, and I do not like interpreters.

...How the government will provide for isiZulu as a national ofﬁcial

language is a matter that needs their attention and it will be resolved

by them. I have merely stated my language needs as a citizen of a

future South Africa. (p.218)

Swarts (1996) says that where English is given preference and allowed to
dominate all other languages in a multilingual and multicultural setting, the
indigenous African languages stagnate and fossilize. A Namibian citizen
recorded in Swarts (1996) makes a case for his/her language to be used:

Our politicians should not speak to our people in English.

Our languages have no ofﬁcial role anymore. We experience the

strange situation that a politician originally from the north and

Oshiwambo-speaking goes to the north and delivers his speech in
English and is translated into Oshiwambol (p.15)

101

Since science and technology as well as internet and computers are in English,
as Respondent #9 pointed out, Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1998), in responding to a
situation where this technology is not available in African languages, argues that
a whole people are denied access as this technology is stored in foreign
languages. Ngugi wa Thiong’o encourages and motivates African scholars to
interpret and translate the knowledge they have accumulated from foreign
countries (which he says are still stored in European granaries) into African
languages for proper accessibility to the latest developments in science and
technology, for the development of African masses.

Respondent #4’s position is not different from the one that he expressed in
arguing for English as a functional language in South Africa. Despite the
contributions made by sociolinguists in South Africa, for example, de Kadt (1992)
who sees the ever increasing dominance of English as running the danger of
contributing to a perpetuation of the constraints on the autonomy of the South
Africans, Marivate (1993, pp.342-343) is of the opinion that only English in South
Africa could serve in cross-cultural communication as a “functional language”. In
arguing for the ex-colonial languages as the languages that should dominate the
indigenous African languages, he said that in other countries French or German
or Spanish could be utilized depending on the colonial powers which dominated
those cultures in their early histories. He stressed that English is the means of
acquiring knowledge and therefore the only language which is, “a window

through which one can peep at the international arena.”

102

Respondent #4 is not the only politician in Africa who regards a colonial
language to be the only language adequate to serve as the sole ofﬁcial language.
The Prime Minister of Zambia, Nolumino Mundia, in congratulating SWAPO of
Namibia for the choice of English as the sole ofﬁcial language, used both the cost
and conﬂict as the basis for his argument. He said:

I am glad that SWAPO has opted for English as an ofﬁcial language,

for basic practical reasons. It has, I feel, been correct in resisting the

costly, futile, and potentially divisive option of giving pre-eminence to

one local African language. (Quoted in Phillipson, 1993, p.284)

It should be mentioned that Respondent #4 and the Zambian Prime Minister
Nolumino Mundia do not understand that the languages that are being used
empower those who speak them. Africans will not be fully empowered through a
second or a foreign language. It is not only political power that goes with
language, but also, economic and educational power. To endorse colonial
languages as ofﬁcial languages is denying Africans proper political participation
and depriving them of their economy, as language is also a resource (Webb,
1994; Matsela, 1995). Both Respondent #4’s and Prime Minister Nolumino
Mundia’s perceptions differ greatly from views of opponents of the English-Only
movement in the United States of America. Combs and Lynch (1990) contend
that it is English Plus and not English-Only in the USA that holds better promise
for a uniﬁed society. They indicate that linguistic and ethnic differences are a
positive force. They ultimately argue for a multilingual policy as against a
unilingual policy where English is regarded as the only ofﬁcial language.

The argument for gradual implementation of the eleven language policy

was advanced by a number of MPs, such as Respondent #9 and Respondent #1.

103

They contend that the process of using all languages should not be speeded up
for it may cause unnecessary resentment. Therefore, the Constitutional policy
should be allowed to unfold more gradually. The danger about this scenario
would be that while all the other languages are sidelined, English would be
entrenching itself to such an extent that bringing back the other languages at a
later stage would be more difﬁcult (if not impossible) than trying to use them
together with English now. People will always develop a preference for the
language that has been in use. The status quo will be difﬁcult to change once it
has solidiﬁed.

The same outcome could result if the implementation strategy advocated
by MPs such as Respondent #9 were allowed to prevail. This would be a
scenario, considered “diplomatic” by Respondent #9, whereby the current
language practice in Parliament would be allowed to continue so that
Parliament’s dictates would be used to determine Parliamentary language policy
in the long run. However, if this scenario is entertained, only English will continue
to serve as the language of Parliament as it has already been endowed with such
a function, for example, it is already the agreed-upon language of record.

The language situation in Parliament could lead to what de Kadt (1992)
regards as the most dangerous power of language, the “signitive” power, which
she deﬁnes as covert power that language exercises over its speakers. de Kadt
(1992) further describes the signitive power of language thus:

Although this power is inherent to any language, in a given society

a dominant language may become ‘imperialistic’ and prescribes ‘its’
reality to speakers of other languages. (p.10)

104

This is the power that derives from the fact that reality can be constructed at a
subconscious level. When one particular language is used, a spontaneous
impression could be created that the dominant language is dominating by
consent and not by coercion. If the South African Parliamentary language
situation is neglected or allowed to continue as it is, the signitive power of English
would amass to an extent that individual Parliamentarians and citizens would
deny any language other than English an opportunity to be utilized in Parliament.

Respondent #9 is of the opinion that the language issue in South Africa is
so delicate that it should not be settled through force or compulsion as happened
during the time of apartheid. While Respondent #9 makes this observation, one
must take cognizance of the fact that in some cases, especially where ex-colonial
languages had entrenched themselves and where negative attitudes towards
African languages had amassed, a policy to enforce people to learn a language
of the majority should be established and implemented. What happened during
the apartheid era was inhuman that people were forced to learn the languages of
the minorities as it is the case today with English. English is imposed both
implicitly and explicitly on the South African Parliamentarians while their
languages remain silenced and sidelined.

Again Respondent #9 argues in terms of the weakness of the Constitution
for not stipulating and conﬁning the government to a certain time frame to have
the language policy implemented. This also demonstrates a lack of willingness to
implement such a democratic and multilingual language policy as enshrined in

the Constitution. The absence of time frame for the implementation of this policy,

105

if the government was willing to implement it, would be used as a strength rather
than a weakness; for such a vibrant language policy could be implemented within
a short space of time. In other words since there is no speciﬁed time frame for
this language policy to be implemented, it could be implemented sooner than it
would have been stipulated.

The FF (the Afrikaans conservative wing in Parliament) representatives
who were interviewed strongly challenged and attacked the government for its
language policy. Their claim is that this policy ended up granting English the
status which is perceived to be ofﬁcial at the expense of the other ten languages.
Both Respondent #15 and Respondent #16 argue that instead of having English
becoming the language of record, it should be Afrikaans, because Afrikaans and
not English, is one of the South African indigenous languages. What is
interesting in their argument is that both of them believe that only the indigenous
languages should serve as ofﬁcial languages. To pursue this reality, i.e. the fact
that only indigenous languages deserve to be ofﬁcial languages, they had to
prove and justify that indeed Afrikaans is one of the legitimate indigenous
languages in South Africa unlike English. Respondent #16 argued:

English is not the indigenous language. English is from Britain...

But Afrikaans has been written here as indigenous language. We

actually talk of ten indigenous languages and one foreign language

which is English.

Although both Respondent #16 and Respondent #15 argue that Afrikaans is one
of the South African indigenous languages, it must, however, be pointed out that

while it originated in South Africa, linguistically it does not belong to the Bantu

language family in which all the South African indigenous languages are

106

classiﬁed. In terms of its linguistic features, it could be classiﬁed as one of the

Germanic languages.

4.1.2. Obstacles in the promotion and elevation of the status of

African languages

Various Members of Parliament argued that for now, and for the
foreseeable future, it is going to be very difﬁcult to utilize any one of the African
languages extensively because there is no one African language that is
commonly shared by all Parliamentarians. This section will discuss the obstacles
which are perceived as barriers to the promotion of African languages as

enshrined in the Constitution.

4.1.2.1. Affordability

The majority of the Parliamentarians indicated that although they would
support what the Constitution demands, it should be borne in mind that it is costly
to publish every document in eleven ofﬁcial languages. Respondent #9 proposed
that South Africa should consider what Namibia and the other African countries
are doing, i.e. to have one language used for ofﬁcial purpose, as now tens of
billions of Rands are already spent annually in publishing in two languages
(Afrikaans and English). He further asked if money should not be spent on the
health care system, education, and in clamping down crime, rather than spending
it on duplicating documents in eleven languages. This issue arises, he argued,

because money is scarce and limited. Consequently, the government has to

107

make proper choices and come up with projects that are priority. Respondent #9

elaborated:

Now you can take all the money that you want; use it in one place

or somewhere else, but there are so many competing needs. And if

we consider that in this country, as I told you earlier on, 63% of the

Black people, 38% of the Colored people, 5% of the Indian community

and 1% of the White community are below the poverty line Now

what is the government’s responsibility? To look at the most basic

needs? Or is it to make sure that people have food, people have

jobs...

Respondent #9 emphasized that although there was an uproar of disapproval in
Parliament when an announcement was made that English will be the only
language of record in Parliament, the decision was made in order to minimize the
cost that would be incurred had all the ofﬁcial languages been accorded this
function.

The point that Respondent #9 is making here, is similar to the view held by
Respondent #4 who argued that having all the eleven languages as ofﬁcial is just
but too expensive, that the government does not have money for the translation
of documents into eleven languages.

Respondent #10 who perceived cost as one of the essential factors in
determining the status of languages, said that since Parliament is using tax-
payers’ money, it should not be extravagant in using it to have documents in all
the eleven ofﬁcial languages. Respondent #10, like Respondent #9, regards the
decision for English as the only language of record in Parliament as the most
appropriate one. Respondent #10 also pointed out that languages are not used

equally in Parliament or elsewhere in South Africa because of the lack of an

efﬁcient interpreting system that would require a lot of money.

108

Respondent #14, in support of the view that it would be extremely
expensive in Parliament to translate all the documents into eleven ofﬁcial
languages, pointed out that his party settled for one language of record, which is
English, in order to avoid a huge cost that the government would otherwise incur.
He said that the government should begin to direct money towards the
development and promotion of languages. Respondent #14 further said that the
catering budget in Parliament should be cut in half to fund the process of
development and promotion of languages in Parliament.

Respondent #2, elaborating on the ﬁnancial impossibility of using all
eleven ofﬁcial languages in Parliament, indicated that the implications would be
enormous, for there would need to be big libraries and archives in Parliament to
store all the documents that would be in different languages.

In recognition of the cost-conscious reality that only one ofﬁcial language
has been chosen as the language of record, Respondent #2 made a call to
academics to provide a practical solution, so that this situation would not lead to
the marginalization of other ofﬁcial languages.

She suggested that one strategy for minimizing cost and at the same time
using all the languages would be to alternate the languages monthly. Her
“language of the month proposal” might have Xitsonga in January, in February,
Afrikaans, in March, Setswana, and so on. At the same time English would
remain a common denominator; i.e. all the languages used on a monthly basis

would be translated into English.

109

This idea was also echoed by Respondent #11 who maintained that
English should remain the language of record throughout the year, while all other
languages rotate monthly. He further indicated that when money becomes
available, then more languages could be utilized each month.

Respondent #2 indicated that there are some political parties in
Parliament, especially the Afrikaner dominated parties, which are opposed to the
choice of English as a language of record in spite of the minimization of cost. In
opposing and challenging what such parties are ﬁghting for, she argued:

...but we are saying if every material has to be printed in Afrikaans,

then it has to be printed in isiXhosa or in Tshivenda [and all other

ofﬁcial languages as well - my emphasis] because this is a national

government.

Respondent #15 also mentioned cost to be a stumbling block towards using and
elevating the status of all other ofﬁcial languages except English in Parliament.
He believed that it is not possible to have a document like HANSARD translated
into all eleven ofﬁcial languages. As he further pointed out, it is even ﬁnancially
difﬁcult to have the committee rooms equipped with the interpreting facilities.

Respondent #3 of the ANC and Respondent #16 of the FF took a different
view and pointed out that cost should not stop Parliamentarians or the
government from implementing the demands of the Constitution. Respondent
#16 said that those who were responsible for the drawing of the Constitution
knew before it was ﬁnalized and adopted what it would take to have all the
languages equally promoted. He went further to say had government taken the

issue of cost as a stumbling block towards the realization of what the Constitution

requires, then there would be a legitimate argument about cost. Although

110

Respondent #16 acknowledged that it could be expensive to promote and use all
eleven ofﬁcial languages equally in Parliament, he maintained that since the
government is already spending a lot of money on worthless projects (for
example, he says that R28 Million was spent on the building of a tarred road to a
monument subway), such funds should be channeled to the promotion of
languages and for the development of the interpreting facilities that would not
only promote, but enhance and bring about the elevation of the status of
languages other than English in Parliament.

Respondent #12 blamed the government (ANC) for failing to have the
priorities set right in the budget. She identiﬁed three areas which the government
should target; knowledge creation, job creation, and safety and security. She
explained that knowledge creation would include areas such as the ﬁeld of
language planning as well as language development. She argued that if cost was
an issue in the development and promotion of languages, the government should
have begun with four languages as ofﬁcial languages. These languages should
have been English, Afrikaans, one of the Nguni languages and one of the Sotho
languages. She claimed that it is not a question of cost, but a lack of political will
to promote and develop the African languages.

Respondent #4 who emphasized that English should not only serve as the
language of record, but of communication as well, pointed out that this policy is

the only one that would be sustainable in terms of cost and time in Parliament.

111

 

4.1.2.2. Attitudes towards African languages

Respondent #3 indicated that one who speaks in Tshivenda or any other
African language in Parliament is perceived as uneducated and uncivilized, while
those who invariably speak in English are said to be well informed and better
educated. He regarded colonization as the primary cause of negative attitudes
towards African languages. He stated that people do not feel honored when
using their African languages. It is not only those who are in power who denigrate
African languages as languages of communication, commerce and education,
but the educated elite as well.

Respondent #7, like Respondent #8, also argued that because of
colonization, Black South Africans see themselves as inferior to their white
counterparts. He said that apartheid also created negative attitudes towards
African languages since languages were used as tools for a divide and rule
policy. As he elaborated, the government created homelands and the so-called
independent states (T ranskei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei (TBVC))
within South Africa using language as the basis for creating these political
entities. He explained that now that people are building a new South Africa, they
no longer feel at ease when using their African languages because they feel that
they are perpetuating the apartheid policy. Consequently, they regard a
European language (English) as superior.

Respondent #2 argued that people, including Parliamentarians, tend to
think that they look more digniﬁed when they communicate in a language other

than their native African tongues. She said that such attitudes could be traced

112

back to the history of South Africa where elevated status was associated with
proﬁciency in English. Respondent #2 argued that such perceptions are difﬁcult
to eradicate.

Respondent #5 made a similar point when stating that there are still
perceptions that emerged as a result of the South African historical past, that
those who speak in English are civilized. She said that because of these
attitudes, many Parliamentarians do not use their mother tongue in Parliament
but prefer to use English. Respondent #5 furthermore stated that although one
cannot be comfortable expressing himself or herself in a language other than
one’s mother tongue, it is surprising that in Parliament, even where there are
interpreting facilities, Parliamentarians still ignore their mother tongue for English.
She expressed her disappointment in the top leadership of those parties whose
supporters are Blacks. They go to the villages and sideline village languages,
using English in order to look and sound different from their communities. She
indicated that this situation in which the top leadership is marginalizing African
languages, does not motivate an ordinary MP to use the indigenous African

languages in Parliament.

4.1.2.3. African languages and corpus planning

Respondent #12 maintained that since African languages, which she
called “cultural languages” are still underdeveloped, they could not be utilized in
Parliament. She said that African languages lack the vocabulary that could be

used in various ﬁelds — hence it becomes difﬁcult to use them in Parliament. A

113

similar observation was made by Respondent #7 who said that one of the
constraints in using African languages is lack of the terminology required in the
deliberations and speeches in Parliament.

In further justifying why English should be a dominant language in
Parliament, Respondent #9 cited the underdevelopment of African languages as
the main obstacle to their use. He stated that since the Parliamentarians’ talks
are not always on the level of social conversation, even where there are
translating facilities it becomes difﬁcult for translators to do this task efﬁciently.
He stated:

...we are dealing with technical and intricate aspects. Therefore, to

be able to translate technical terms, legal terms quickly and efﬁciently,

so that everyone understands, is not always possible.

He illustrated how cumbersome translation could turn out to be by citing an
example in which a Minister has to respond to a question posed in a language
(other than English) which he/she does not understand. He demonstrated that
such a Minister would quickly look around for the earphone, press the right
button for the translation, and try to work out what it is that the Member is asking.
Sometimes it happens, as Respondent #9 elaborated, that the translator fails or
the translation services fail because of a technical problem, to such an extent
that the speaker has to repeat the question, usually in English for the Minister to
properly understand such a question. Respondent #9 stressed that the

translation barrier is that minutes, records and all other ofﬁcial documents are

highly obtainable in either English or Afrikaans in Parliament, and consequently,

114

those who have low proﬁciency in these two languages ﬁnd it difﬁcult to translate
into their mother tongue.

Respondent #2 blamed the education system designed by the Afrikaner
regime for Black people as the major reason that Black people in South Africa did
not develop formal communication or conversation in their own languages. The
marginalization of African languages in Parliament, as she said, can be attributed
to the fact that these languages were never used in formal conversation. Thus,
they never grew with culture. New concepts were introduced in another medium,
which happened to be either Afrikaans or English.

In addressing the question of the development of African languages,
Respondent #2 states that there should be an Africanization of the new concepts,
which would require the conscious participation of the masses. She further
pointed out that in Parliament Black people ﬁnd it difﬁcult to translate some of the
concepts which are only in English or Afrikaans into their own languages.

Respondent #2 argued that since Parliamentarians are always under time
constraint, they end up resorting to English instead of their own languages, as it
is difﬁcult to have the relevant concepts that they would otherwise use in their
deliberations in Parliament. She stated:

It means you must sit; you must give yourself extra time to look for

those concepts and for those words that you are going to use In

addition it requires extra concentration.

Respondent #2 argued that it is not only demanding and taxing to a

Parliamentarian to prepare his/her speech in an African language, it is also

difﬁcult for interpreters and translators to interpret and translate such a speech

115

into English because of the lack of relevant and sufﬁcient jargon in African
languages. At times interpreters and translators are confronted with expressions
or terms in African languages that they have never seen or heard before. Since
Afrikaans and English, unlike African languages, developed with the culture, it is
not difﬁcult to make speeches in them for they have the required terminology.
She strongly emphasized:

The Afrikaner does not have to write the speech in advance and give

it to the interpreter. We (those who speak African languages - My

emphasis) have to do that; otherwise your message won’t reach the

people you’re talking to. So, it is a double job, and people outside do

not understand this aspect. They just think that because I am a

Muvenda, if I want to make an address in Parliament, I must speak

in Tshivenda and I must ﬂow. It is not like that; it means I must prepare

in Tshivenda and give my speech to an interpreter in advance, which

means if I want to change my ideas, I can’t change... I have to stick to

what I have written, which is unfair. If you want to add, you can’t; you

can’t deviate. There is no ﬂexibility when you speak in our own mother
tongue”.

Respondent #2 explained that the interpreters and the translators who work in
Parliament are not formally trained. There is no formal accreditation for
interpreters in South Africa. This is a major problem. Further, she argued that
Black people (those who speak African languages as their mother tongue) have
not developed the skill to express themselves formally in their own languages. It
is easy for them to give colloquial speeches, but not formal speeches in
Parliament, which will require very technical terms and a different style from the
colloquial one. Respondent #2 states:

Parliament speeches are not colloquial speeches; they are formal

speeches which must be digniﬁed like our fathers when they speak in

our traditional courts. The type of language that they use to bring forth

the message is the type of language that we have to use in Parliament.
How many of our people have that rich background?

116

Respondent #3 and Respondent #8, both of the ANC, held a different
view. To Respondent #3, it is difﬁcult to deliberate in English in Parliament since
English has words that, according to him, are difﬁcult to understand and apply to
local situations. He said that words like globalization, workshop, etc., are not only
difﬁcult for some of those in Parliament, but also to a larger extent to those that
voted the MPs to represent them in Parliament. Respondent #3 argued that it
would be easy and simple to use African languages in Parliament if the
Parliamentarians would not spend a lot of time searching for words whose
meaning they do not understand.

According to Respondent #3 and Respondent #8, African languages have
been fully developed and therefore have all the necessary words that could be
used by Parliamentarians if they so wish. Both of these Parliamentarians
indicated that the obstacle in Parliament today is not the lack of development of
African languages, but negative attitudes towards these languages. African
languages were utilized as languages of Parliament in Transkei,
Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei, Gazankulu and Lebowa during the apartheid
era. Yet there was no problem related to the development of these languages
until now that we have a democratic government. Both interviewees said that
there is no empirical evidence to justify the lack of scientiﬁc terms in African
languages. One must therefore look elsewhere to account for their

marginalization in Parliament.

117

4.1.2.4. Problem of mindset

Respondent #3 said that the thinking of the Africans has been crippled by
colonization. He argued that colonizers not only degraded everything African, but
created conditions in Africa that forced the Africans to hate and look down upon
themselves as people, and subsequently despise their customs, their cultureand
thier languages. Although Respondent #3 strongly pointed out that it would be
easy and simple for the Parliamentarians to discuss issues of concern in their
own languages (African languages), he said that unfortunately some of the
Parliamentarians have a different understanding. Discussing the consequences
of this mindset in his African language, Tshivenda, Respondent #3 argued:

threreli na pfunzo ye ra newa yone zwo diswa kha rine zwo
shandiwa. Zwino ndi ngazwo zwine vha vhona na namusi hafha
Phalamenndeni muthu u pfa u nga ri hezwi musi a tshi amba nga
Tshivenda kana nga Tshizulu, u nga ri ha khou pﬁwa; ngeno hu
na uri ndi lwone luambo lune a pﬁwa ngalwo. Na vhathu hangei
nnda, vha pfa dzenedzo nyambo u fhirisa Tshikhuwa; ngauri ri tshi
amba nga Tshikhuwa hafha Phalamenndeni, vhathu nnda a vha ri
pﬁ; vha vhona zwiﬁ1atuwo zwashu na mivhili yashu fhedzi, zwine ra
khou amba a vha tou zwi fara u fhirisa arali ri tshi khou tou amba
nga Tshivenda, Tshibeli, Tshitshangana, kana Tshizulu kana
Tshithoza; ngauri arali ri tshi amba nga hedzi nyambo, vhathu vha
a kona u ri pfesesa zwavhudi.

[TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH]

Both religion and education given to us were brought to us twisted.
That explains what you see here today in Parliament. A person
feels that when he or she speaks in Tshivenda or in isiZulu, it is like
he or she is not understood. Yet it is the language through which he
or she could be understood. And people outside understand

those languages better than English, for when we speak in English
here in Parliament, people outside there do not understand us. They
only see our faces and our bodies. Unlike when we speak in
Tshivenda, Sepedi, Shangaan or isiZulu or isiXhosa they do not
understand us, because when we speak in these languages
(Tshivenda, Shangaan, isiZulu or isiXhosa) people understand us
better.

118

In conclusion Respondent #3 mentioned that true liberation and democracy will
only prevail when people have the rights and freedom to use their own
languages. As he further pointed out, as long as people do not change their
mindset and begin to use their own languages, the attainment of liberation and
freedom will remain artiﬁcial.

Respondent #2 pointed out that the use of languages in Parliament has
been traditionally associated with the use of “languages which are not ours” (non-
African languages). Colonial languages have been used and accepted as ofﬁcial
languages and consequently, languages used in Parliament.

Respondent #10, who talked about the decolonization of the mind if ever
African languages were to be used and promoted in Parliament, indicated that
people still prefer the use of English. He said that a person who stands up in
Parliament and speaks in his or her mother tongue, an African language, such a
person would appear less than a human being. Respondent #10 indicated that as
a result of this type of mindset, when such Parliamentarians stand up to speak in
Parliament, they apologize for their use of a language other than English or
Afrikaans. Respondent #10 explained the challenge of this type of situation:

...The person stands up and apologizes that he will speak in Zulu.

Why apologize? Why is he being apologetic? You see, such
mentality we must get rid of if we want to promote our languages.

119

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

Tollefson (1991, p.33) maintains that the neoclassical assumption that
language planners base their decisions on costs and beneﬁts ignores, and at the
same time undermines, the political structure that might explain the composition
of language planning bodies, their interests, as well as their goals. In language
planning, therefore, other variables come into play when the choice of language
to serve as either ofﬁcial or national language is made.

As Tollefson argues, it is not necessarily resources that determine
language choice. This could be clearly related to what Respondent #9 implicitly
was referring to when questioning whether money should be spent on clamping
down crime, creating jobs, health care, education or promotion and development
of languages. Respondent #9 revealed that these are competing needs that the
government has to be sensitive and careful about when it comes to its
prioritization. He also pointed out that the majority of South Africans are still living
below the poverty line. This by implication means that although the government
might have enough money, other projects, and not language promotion should
receive more serious attention.

Respondent #16 conﬁrmed what Tollefson says in indicating that money
should not be used as a stumbling block towards the implementation of the
eleven language policy in South Africa since the government knew what it would
take ﬁnancially before the ﬁnalization and adoption of the Constitution in 1996.
He further said that a lot of money is used for something not as important as

language promotion and development. While acknowledging that money is

120

essential in the promotion and elevation of the status of the historically
marginalized indigenous South African languages, it should not be used to justify
the marginalization of African languages in Parliament as the majority of MPs
could participate meaningfully when their languages are used.

Alternatives have been mentioned to minimize the cost of languages in
Parliament and the government does not seem to entertain them. For example, a
“language of the month” proposal could, as the interviewees mentioned, be
economically viable and feasible.

Another proposal was for adding two African languages; one from the
Nguni languages and another one from the Sotho languages to English and
Afrikaans.

If cost was a factor that prohibits the government from using African
languages, the government would (if it was willing to use African languages)
adopt these proposals that appear to be well thought out and relevant to the
South African language situation, especially at the national level.

Respondent #1 mentioned that the budget for the PANSALB would be
doubled in the year 2000 for it to be more effective in its responsibility for the
development and promotion of languages in general. However, the PANSALB
does not seem to have any programs directed towards the promotion and
development of languages in Parliament. The broad scope of language
development and promotion that this body is intended to cover remains an

arduous task that ultimately renders the PANSALB ineffective. For example,

121

there are many languages in South Africa apart from the ofﬁcial ones that need
serious attention, some of which face possible extinction (Crawhall, 1998).

African languages will only be used in Parliament when there is a political
will to do so. Otherwise costs will be used as a stumbling block towards the
implementation of the South African language policy.

Negative attitudes towards African languages have been created since
African languages have been downgraded even by those who are supposed to
promote them as the interviews in this study demonstrated. Unfortunately the
denial of the use of the African languages due to negative attitudes towards them
makes the promotion and elevation of the status of such indigenous languages
difﬁcult, not only at the national government level, but in the provincial and local
governments as well.

It is paradoxical to have MPs who are supposed to implement the South
African language policy with negative attitudes towards the languages that the
Constitution has deemed ofﬁcial languages. It is because of English’s perceived
high status in South Africa that indigenous languages are denigrated as
languages associated with backwardness, ethnicity, poor standards, poor media
of instruction and international unacceptability. McDermott (1998) argues that
attitudes such as these, where English among others, is considered an
instrument for entering the international arena and its “superiority” as the medium
of instruction, economic development, political development, etc. are no more
than linguistic colonialism and ultimately a denial of a basic human right — the

right to use one’s mother tongue. As McDermott indicates, this has far reaching

122

consequences for one uses a mother tongue to conceptualize. English should be
perceived as a language of oppression for it is because of the “English is best”
myth that many indigenous Africans want to rid themselves of their Africanness
which has been so undermined and devalued by the colonial machine
(McDermott, 1998, p.111). English should be challenged for its position as an
international language in relation to the South African situation since the average
South African does not need access to the international arena to fulﬁl himself or
herself.

Negative attitudes towards African languages also prevailed in Namibia
after independence where African languages were marginalized in favor of
English as the sole ofﬁcial language (Putz, 1995). Swarts (1996) argues that
people in Namibia continued to develop negative attitudes towards African
languages as English was the only ofﬁcial language while the Ministry was doing
nothing about the situation. In Namibia if you knew English well, you would be
considered educated, whereas if you knew Namibian languages, even though
you knew several of them and spoke them well, you would still be considered
dumb and uneducated (Swarts, 1996, p.11).

It is self-evident that there won’t be any preference for African languages
in national, provincial and local governments if the judicial, legislative and
executive arms of the African state and bureaucracy are conducted in European
languages. Colonial languages would be perceived as passports to success in

politics, economies and education (Swarts, 1996; Ngugi wa Thiong’o, 1998).

123

The Afrikaner apartheid regime contributed to a situation in which African
languages are looked down upon. African languages were abused for the
purpose of ethnic segregation. Haacke (1987, p.198) argued that, “It would be a
short-sighted and perhaps costly fallacy to shrug off this attitude as a passing
one which is symptomatic of African states prior to independence." A similar
observation was made by de Kadt (1992) who stated that although the South
African apartheid regime was the main cause for the negative attitudes towards
African languages in South Africa, simply removing apartheid laws will not
miraculously restore languages to freedom, just as it has not transformed the
South African situation.

van Bergh (1968) argued that negative language attitudes in South Africa
were not only created by the apartheid government, but also by the Black
intelligensia who conformed to Westemization and adopted attitudes of “cultural
shame” toward indigenous cultures. van Bergh stated that the South African
freedom movements were unashamedly eclectic in ideology and organization,
and anti-traditional in tactics and aims.

Smitherman (1997), like other sociolinguists, believes that Members of
Parliament can bring about positive attitudes towards the use of African
languages. After realizing that 87% of the speeches delivered in the ﬁrst
parliamentary session of newly-Democratic South Africa were in English, she
warns that this should not become a pattern. She, however, states that Black

Members of Parliament should take leadership in using the languages of their

124

nurture in Parliamentary deliberations and discussions (Smitherman, 1997,
pp.30-31).

It is only when the government of the day demonstrates its love and
appreciation for African languages that positive attitudes towards African
languages could develop. When the top leadership of the parties in Parliament
begins to use African languages in speeches and in discussing political matters,
the subordinate members will become motivated and encouraged to use African
languages.

The decision for making English a language of record in Parliament was
arrived at partly because of the positive attitudes towards English, and negative
attitudes towards other ofﬁcial languages. It won’t be easy therefore to reverse
this decision because of the embedded negative attitudes towards both Afrikaans
and the indigenous South African languages that are supposed to serve as
ofﬁcial languages in Parliament. The former, i.e. Afrikaans is still perceived as the
language of the oppressor, while African languages are associated with the
discredited and rejected policies of apartheid.

To create positive attitudes towards all other languages, the government
will have to take very aggressive steps and perhaps require each
Parliamentarian to have knowledge of at least one African language. Otherwise
without incentives or motivation for learning and using African languages in
Parliament, there is absolutely no reason why Parliamentarians would feel

compelled and motivated to learn or at least to use these languages in

125

Parliament. The Parliament must therefore see to it that such negative attitudes
towards African languages are addressed.

The interviewees presented different views as to the development or
underdevelopment of indigenous African languages. Respondent #12,
Respondent #2, and Respondent #7, among others, argued that African
languages are still underdeveloped and because of that cannot be utilized in
Parliament. Respondent #12 argued that both Afrikaans and English can be the
only languages used in Parliament as a result. Although Respondent #2
maintained that English and Afrikaans are developed languages, she, however,
maintained that only English be utilized in Parliament. Respondent #2 like the
majority of South Africans, perceives Afrikaans as the language of the oppressor.
On the other hand, Respondent #3 and Respondent #8 expressed that the nine
African languages that have been accorded ofﬁcial status are fully developed and
must therefore be used in Parliament. Respondent #3 and Respondent #8
indicated that it is difﬁcult to deliver speeches in English since English is not a
mother tongue of the majority in Parliament.

While acknowledging that some of the South African languages are not as
yet fully developed, as Respondent #3 and Respondent #8 perceive it, all the
nine indigenous South African languages that have been accorded ofﬁcial status
are fully developed. These nine indigenous South African languages were used
during the apartheid era in the homelands as ofﬁcial languages. The apartheid
government established the so-called independent states and in the Parliaments

of such states, African languages, rather than colonial languages, were

126

dominant. The fact that African languages were never used at the Parliamentary
level and informal conversation as Respondent #9 and Respondent #2 said,
therefore, remains a fallacy that should be dismissed. In some of these states, for
example, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, and Venda, African languages served as
ofﬁcial languages for more than a decade. Even before the status of being
"independent states” was allocated to these Bantustans. other homelands like
Lebowa, Gazankulu and others were using African languages as ofﬁcial
languages. The use of African languages in such homelands was imperative as
the apartheid regime, in most cases, only appointed chiefs and headmen who
hardly spoke English or Afrikaans, to be leaders in the respective homelands and
the so-called independent states.

During this period of apartheid, African languages proved their worth as
languages of education, economy, religion, law, etc. Speeches, bills and acts
were made and discussed in African languages in homeland Parliaments. New
terminology emerged. Although apartheid was a problem, Africans could discuss
their affairs in their own languages. Nowhere in the homeland Parliaments did
the problem of terminology exist, nor were there any reports of such a problem. It
is only after the democratic government of South Africa was ushered in that the
ofﬁcials excluded African languages from use on account of lack of terminology.
This reﬂects a deeper problem than just lack of terminology.

Another important indicator of the fact that African languages are fully
developed is the translation of the Bible into African languages. Long ago the

Bible was translated into all the nine indigenous South African languages that

127

have been accorded ofﬁcial status. Interestingly enough, the Bible was translated
into African languages by the missionaries who were not trained in linguistics.
Such missionaries, who got assistance from some individual Black Africans,
managed to produce documents that testify to the viability and adequacy of
African languages in expressing whatever context or setting of any period of
human history.

There is a lot of literature, especially ﬁction, in the indigenous African
languages. There are outstanding scholars of these languages. These languages
have been taught in more than twenty institutions of higher learning in South
Africa. Some of these languages, for example, isiZulu, Sesotho, and Setswana
have been taught abroad for a long time.

The belief that African languages are still underdeveloped is an ideology
designed to keep not only African languages, but Black people who speak those
languages, from participation in politics and economies. Unfortunately even high
ranking MPs believe that African languages are not as yet developed. For
example, Respondent #1 believes that the language policy of the apartheid
government contributed to the underdevelopment of African languages as he
argues that there has been a very systematic and conscious oppression of
African languages in South Africa. Contrary to this belief, the South African
regime, through its divide and rule policy, ended up developing African
languages. Ironically, these measures provided a space for the continued
development of African languages. The South African regime established

language boards for each and every major language spoken in South Africa in

128

1962 in order to keep Africans divided and independent from each other.
Although it was not the intention of the apartheid government to develop African
languages as such, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which
accommodated individual languages, did much for the development of African
languages. The underdevelopment of African languages, therefore, cannot be
used as an excuse for not utilizing them in Parliament.

Comparison should be made to the history of Afrikaans which became an
ofﬁcial language in 1925 (Cluver, n.d.; Alexander, 1989; Moodie, 1975;
McDermott, 1998). The level of development of Afrikaans, when it became
ofﬁcial, was far much below that of the South African indigenous languages
today. Cluver (n.d.) reported that Afrikaans was actually written ﬁfty years after
some of the South African indigenous languages were written. Yet there was no
imposed halt on it for its development to take place before it served as an ofﬁcial
language. It is only when African languages are to serve as ofﬁcial languages in
Parliament that questions as to their development arise. It must also be pointed
out that the struggle to recognize Afrikaans as an ofﬁcial language was waged
long before 1925.

Respondent #9 and Respondent #2 argued that translation and
interpretation are difﬁcult; i.e. it is difﬁcult to interpret and translate into African
languages. This statement reﬂects the linguicism of English speakers as it
unambiguously demonstrates that translations and interpretations should only be
done from English into African languages. It reﬂects a mindset which in itself

becomes a problem towards the use of African languages in Parliament.

129

The new government of South Africa must strive to have translators and
interpreters trained. Those who work in Parliament are not formally trained, as
there has never been formal accreditation for interpreters and translators in
South Africa. The eleven language policy will require trained and professional
translators and interpreters for its implementation to be effective at the national
level.

The colonized mind of the Africans is discussed and challenged by Ngugi
wa Thiong’o (1989) who metaphorically writes that there is a deliberate
disassociation of the language of conceptualization, of thinking, of formal
education, of mental development from the language of daily interaction in the
home and in the community in Africa. He sarcastically pointed out in deﬁning this
situation that it is like separating the mind from the body; so that they are two
unrelated linguistic spheres occupying the body of the same person. On a larger
social scale, as he further explains, it is like producing a society of bodiless
heads and headless bodies. Ngugi wa Thiong’o asserts that his struggle is
therefore to restore the harmony between all the aspects and divisions of
language for the development of humanity.

Respondent #4 believes that it is the religion and education that were
given by the missionaries which colonized the mind of the Africans. Africans
began to develop negative attitudes towards everything African and developed
“foreign is better attitudes.” Exoglossic languages were favored as they are even
today, while endoglossic languages were despised. It is no wonder why in the

South African Parliament today English is being used when the languages of the

130

majority are marginalized by those who are not only supposed to promote them,

but more importantly, by the L1 speakers of those indigenous African languages.

4.1.3. The Government’s efforts to achieve the Constitutional demands

The interviewees acknowledged the difﬁculties and stumbling blocks that
impede the implementation of the South African eleven language policy at the
national or Parliamentary level. However, the Parliamentarians also pointed out
the government’s accomplishments during the ﬁrst ﬁve years in which it has been
in power.

According to the interviewees, the government has been engaged in
projects for the development and promotion of African languages and in
eradicating the false perception that multilingualism is a problem.

The government’s endeavors have been largely in the following areas:
4.1.3.1. to encourage multilingualism and national unity

4.1.3.2. to promote and develop African languages

4.1.3.1. Encouraging multilingualism and national unity

The interviewees maintained that the Parliament, acting on a requirement
of the Constitution, setup the PANSALB which functions as an interactive agent
through which all communities and role players will be committed to advance the
use of various languages of the country. All the interviewees regarded

multilingualism as a valuable asset that should be encouraged in South Africa.

131

Respondent #9 said, “The government is very conscious of the fact that all
languages should be promoted because we see language as an asset belonging
to the nation. We see each language as having a signiﬁcant purpose in the
cultural life of our people...” The interviewees pointed out that the PANSALB was
established as an instrument to encourage and promote multilingualism in South
Africa; and as they argued, once people begin to learn and speak each other’s
language, they will reconcile and unite.

Respondent #16 also mentioned that in South Africa there is diversity of
cultures and that there is no other way to know each other except in learning
each other’s culture and language.

According to Respondent #1, one of the major roles of the PANSALB is to
ensure that multiculturalism and multilingualism are protected. He said that the
PANSALB should see to it that there is a promotion of diversity in the country.

This observation was also made by Respondent #12 who said that the
duty of the PANSALB is to promote multilingualism which she considered to be a
wonderful and a very necessary thing to do in South Africa. She stated that the
fact that there are people who do not know and understand Afrikaans and
English, as well as other languages, compelled the government to establish a
Board like this. She said that people would be deprived linguistically and
materially if their languages are not used in a multilingual society like that of
South Africa. She therefore called for the development and promotion of African
languages for the masses in South Africa to use them in all areas including

Parliament.

132

Respondent #2 acknowledged how PANSALB, which according to the
new Bill, has to report quarterly to Parliament, should promote multilingualism:
Promotion of multilingualism means provision of interpretation so
that people can speak [people could freely use their different
languages in their deliberations or speeches - my emphasis]. The
PANSALB itself does not go about all over the country and establish
such a goal (provision of interpretation). It must encourage other
bodies to establish such a goal It must encourage institutions like
universities to have courses on interpretation and it must monitor it. It
must also encourage and monitor industry to introduce interpretations
and also to introduce human resource or in-service training courses in
the different languages Industry needs skill production, not English.
There are people in industries who are there to write reports on the

basis of production, but a mechanic, a spanner person does not need
English proﬁciency. This is what the PANSALB must encourage.

4.1.3.2. To promote and develop African languages

The Constitution demands that the government, in recognizing the
historically diminished use and status of the indigenous African languages of
South Africa, must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and
advance the use of these languages (South African Constitution, 1996). Some
Parliamentarians, like Respondent #4 and Respondent #9, pointed out that just
to recognize and accord nine African languages ofﬁcial status should be
perceived of as a positive step towards the realization of what the Constitution
decrees.

Respondent #16 referred to the PANSALB Amendment Bill which was
recently passed (February 1999) by Parliament. According to Respondent #16,
the Bill empowers the Board to subpoena anyone who violates the expectations

and demands of the South African language policy as deﬁned in the Constitution.

133

As he indicated, it is through this Board that the position of English in Parliament
could be challenged.

Respondent #4 perceives language equality, deﬁned in the Constitution,
as a remarkable step in the promotion of African languages. He, however,
mentioned that the real promotion of African languages must take place at
provincial level, rather than national level.

Respondent #16 argued that the promotion of languages, particularly
African languages, should take place in various provinces where they are used
as ofﬁcial languages. He mentioned that the languages in South Africa should be
promoted all at once. He said that for Afrikaans and African languages to survive,
promoted and recognized, there should be a joint struggle waged against
English.

Respondent #2 said that some countries might only recognize the
existence and use of African languages but never accord them ofﬁcial status.
She argued that the move towards elevating and promoting African languages to
the ofﬁcial level, as the ANC government has done, was never taken anywhere in
the world. She pointed out that this status (ofﬁcial status) is always given to one
language which is in most cases a colonial language in Africa. In South Africa, as
she claimed, “We have given all the languages the same status.” She also
indicated that although the Constitution decrees that all the eleven major
languages be ofﬁcial languages, practically not all of these languages could be

used in Parliament. She emphasized that although there is a language of record,

134

no impression should be created that the ofﬁcial status of other languages has
been reduced.

The Parliamentarians indicated that National Lexicography Units (NLUs)
will serve as the institutes for the development of African languages. The NLUs
are dictionary units that the government is planning to establish throughout the
country.

Regarding the signiﬁcance of these units, Respondent #9 indicated that
Afrikaans has had a very dynamic dictionary unit at the University of
Stellenbosch, and English has had one at Rhodes University in Grahamstown.
Both dictionary units were funded by the previous regime to advance the use of
these two languages. He said that isiZulu was “poorly” developed and promoted
at the University of Natal. He disclosed the intention of the new government
towards the development of African languages:

When we came to Parliament in 1994, we recognized that each one

of the universities could play an essential role in developing the

languages of several ethnic groups within our country. So, we

identiﬁed that the University of Transkei in Umtata could, for example,

become the pivotal point for research into isiXhosa, and the University

of Venda could play such a role for Venda and in this way we could

help to empower these universities to become central to research and

development of the languages.

Respondent #9 considers the development of languages as the step that
precedes their promotion or elevation of their status. This observation was also
made by Respondent #3 who added that language development itself should be

preceded by language preservation (which according to him is to be done

through dictionary making) followed by promotion.

135

Respondent #3 mentioned that although the PANSALB is charged with the
responsibility of seeing to it that languages are developed and promoted in South
Africa, the development of languages will only be realized when people outside
Parliament motivate, encourage and strengthen the government to implement the

language policy as enshrined in the Constitution.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

Although in most cases, Constitutions of various governments in Africa
reﬂect the Western experience and character where multilingualism and
multiculturalism are considered a problem, the interviewees in the South African
Parliament reﬂect a very unique character and understanding of how unity could
be enhanced in a multicultural and multilingual country. The common view
upheld and cherished by the interviewees is that the observation and promotion
of multilingualism and multiculturalism guarantee unity.

The fact that a monolithic approach in a multilingual country brings about
national unity has been dismissed by linguists such as Bamgbose (1994), Bourne
(1997), Putz (1995), Cluver (1993), Siachitema (1992), Beer (1985), Hartig
(1985), Judd (1990), Sledd (1990), Frick (1990), Smitherman (1990 & 1992),
Jacob and Beer (1985), Alexander (1995), and McDermott (1998).

Bamgbose (1994) argues that there are two complementary myths
developed as a result of the perceived solidarity function of language. The ﬁrst
myth is that multilingualism is always divisive, and the second myth is that

monolingualism unites. Bamgbose observes that the ﬁrst myth is often

136

associated with African languages which are said to be keeping the people apart,
perpetrating ethnic hostilities, weakening national loyalties, etc. The second myth
suggests that nationhood requires linguistic unity. As Bourne (1997) indicates,
the problem lies with the authoritarian states which frequently use the “national
Ianguage” as a point of unity and social cohesion, and consider linguistic diversity
as a threatening element that should either be kept or be eliminated - depending
of course on what favors the government of the day.

In South Africa, as the language policy demonstrates, the government is
geared towards achieving unity in diversity. As Alexander (1995) said in
analyzing the role or the position of language in the building of a nation,
especially in building the new South Africa, the future of South Africa as a nation
is indisputably a multilingual one. As Alexander further stated, all suggestions of
a monolingual future go against the global trends and have within themselves the
dangerous seeds of future ethnic conﬂicts rather than unity. Putz (1995) and
Cluver (1993) observed that the main intention of the SWAPO government to opt
for English as the sole ofﬁcial language was to unify the Namibians. African
languages are always stigmatized as languages that could bring about conﬂict
and disunity in a multilingual country. Unfortunately, as Cluver (1993) said, the
move towards Iegislating English as the only ofﬁcial language in Namibia had
detrimental effects. Since less than 10 per cent of the entire Namibian population
knows English; the introduction of this new language disempowers the

Namibians which it is otherwise intended to unite.

137

A similar argument was made by the Zambian ﬁrst Minister of Education,
Mwanakatwe, who argued that in order to celebrate unity in diversity without
exacerbating inter-tribal conﬂicts and suspicions in Zambia, English (which he
ironically acknowledges is a foreign language and the language of Zambia’s
former colonial masters) has a deﬁnite, unifying role to play in Zambia
(Siachitema, 1992, p.18).

It is, however, interesting to note that contemporary studies on the
success of colonial languages in uniting people who speak different languages
have shown negative results. Rather than achieving unity, the use of ex-colonial
languages has resulted in creating an elite alienated from the entire population
(Phillipson, 1993, p.281).

Bokamba (1995) maintains that the view that the monolingual policy
fosters unity is unsupported by facts as political and social diversions occur in
countries like Japan, Korea, Ireland, and others, where a monolingual policy has
been adopted.

Bamgbose (1994) who argues that conﬂicts between groups of people
within the country have little to do with linguistic differences, sees some of the
real causes of conﬂicts in African countries as exploitation of ethnicity by the elite
for both political and economic gains, the problem of sharing scarce resources,
and external instigation based on nationalistic, ideological or religious motives.

Judd (1990) presents a similar argument in his opposition to the ELA

(English Language Amendment). He argues that where groups are denied an

138

opportunity to use ethnic languages, feelings of resentment prevail, and as he
points out, this leads to political and national instability.

Any attempt to marginalize and suppress the rights of languages will
inevitably give rise to resistance (Alexander, 1995, p.40). In his interview with the
Mercury newspaper (1996) as quoted in McDermott (1998, p.116) Alexander
remarked that it is a myth that national unity is promoted by a situation in which
only one language is accorded ofﬁcial status. He says that democracy can only
be achieved and maintained when people are able to use their own languages in
their lives. Since the vast majority of South Africans do not have access to
English, Alexander argues that the policies that could empower the South African
majority should be promoted.

The South African government as the interviewees indicated, and as the
address in Parliament by the Deputy Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and
Technology, Brigitte Mabandla on the 23rd of February 1999 entails, intends to
promote and elevate the status of the indigenous South African languages,
especially the nine major African languages that have been accorded ofﬁcial
status. Mabandla in her address pointed out that the framework for language
reform in South Africa has been provided for in both the interim and the new
Constitution. The Deputy Minister indicated that the creation of the PANSALB in
1996 was for the provision of an institutional framework for the delivery of the
Constitutional demands; namely, that the language policy as enshrined in the

new Constitution of South Africa be implemented.

139

The PANSALB Amendment Bill, which the address of the Deputy Minister
(1999) was referring to, was formulated in Parliament with four major and broad
objectives:

(a) to amend the PANSALB Act in respect of the composition of the

Board and the appointment of its members

(b) to adjust the provisions relating to the Board’s powers and

functions, staff appointments, the duties of the chief executive
ofﬁcer, and contacts with experts engaged to perform specialised
services;

(c) to regulate the ﬁnancing of the Board and the utilisation of its

funds; and

(d) to make certain amendments necessitated by the supercedence of

the interim Constitution by the new Constitution. (pp.2-3)
The Amendment Bill demonstrates that the government did not abandon the
demands of the Constitution. The Amendment Bill came as a result of the revised
principles towards the realization of the language policy as deﬁned in the interim
Constitution. The revised principles are enshrined in section 6 of the new
Constitution.

Another factor that brought about this Bill was the disbandment of the
Senate which in terms of section 5(3) of the PANSALB Act was responsible for
the appointment of members and the termination of membership. Most of the
duties that the Senate used to perform have been transferred to the line-function
Minister who works in consultation with the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture
and Language, Science and Technology.

An Amendment was also necessary with regard to the appointment of the
administrative staff of the Board. The Chief Executive Ofﬁcer of the PANSALB in

consultation with the Minister of Finance used to appoint staff. This has been

amended so that staff may be appointed by the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer in

140

consultation with the line-function Minister (Mabandla, 1999, pp.3-5). The
membership of the Board, which should be not less than 11 and no more than
15, should represent the different ofﬁcial languages. Mabandla further stated that
the Bill required, where possible, that the Board should include persons with
interpreting, translation, terminology and lexicography, language and literacy
teaching, and language skills and experience.

The establishment of the national lexicography units (NLUs) in South
Africa as the PANSALB Amendment Bill stipulates, is now the duty of the Board.
According to this Bill, the units will operate as companies under section 21 of the
Companies Act of 1973. The PANSALB shall allocate the necessary funds to the
units to enable them to function and fulﬁll their mandate (Mabandla, 1999, p.6).
Mabandla furthermore pointed out that the inclusion of the units under the
PANSALB should be perceived as a signiﬁcant step in the process of creating an
environment for the afﬁrmation and growth of all languages in South Africa.

The PANSALB Amendment Bill could be perceived as part of the
determination of the government to achieve the demands of the Constitution.
However, much remains to be seen as the Bill can also be viewed as part of the
planning process or policy formulation rather than policy implementation. There is
a vast difference between policy formulation and policy execution or
implementation. A lot of policies remain in policy documents and Constitutional
documents, abandoned or forgotten, as there has never been a will to put them

in practice.

141

Although the establishment of the national lexicography units
demonstrates the eagerness to develop African languages in South Africa, it
should be realized that operation of the units as companies under section 21 of
the Companies Act of 1973 could trigger some problems in the long run. It may
happen that the two colonial languages, Afrikaans and English, will continue to
receive more funding than African languages (Afrikaans and English units used

to receive funds from rich companies in South Africa and abroad).

4.1.4. Harmonization of Nguni and Sotho languages

In explaining how the eleven language policy could be implemented, some
of the Parliamentarians consistently referred to the use of one of the Nguni or
Sotho languages together with English and Afrikaans as a viable option. Such
Parliamentarians argued that once one of the languages within these language
groups (Nguni and Sotho) is used, the majority of Black people in South Africa
will be able to understand and follow whatever is being discussed in Parliament.

In articulating the DP language policy Respondent #13 explained that
there should be four languages serving as ofﬁcial languages at national level.
Such languages should be Afrikaans, English, one language from Nguni
language varieties and one language from Sotho language varieties. He pointed
out that once these four languages are entrenched as ofﬁcial languages, the
other languages, which he calls minority languages, could then rotate on a

monthly basis to serve with the four ofﬁcial languages. Respondent #13 claimed

142

that it is because of the lack of political will and vision that the government does
not support the DP language proposal.

Respondent #12 also pointed out that the choice of four languages
(Afrikaans, English, one African language each from Nguni and Sotho varieties)
as ofﬁcial languages would be the most viable option. She said that since the
government (ANC) declined this proposal, it will become extremely difﬁcult to

develop and promote all the languages demanded by the Constitution.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

Language harmonization in South Africa has been an issue since the
1940s when Jacob Nhlapo proposed that Nguni and Sotho languages be
harmonized since they are mutually intelligible. Nhlapo said that there need be
only one grammar for Nguni and one for Sotho and that making different words
for the parts of speech in Xhosa, Zulu and so on is foolish and should stop.
Nhlapo argued for Sotho and Nguni as the only two tongues which should be
codiﬁed (Cluver, 1992). Brown, 1992; Alexander, 1989 & 1992a; Satyo, 1999;
Makoni, 1999 and Msimang, 1992, among others, discussed the harmonization
of Nguni and Sotho languages in South Africa. According to Makoni (1999),
Alexander (1989 &1992a) and Msimang (1992), harmonization of the Nguni and
the Sotho languages would reduce the South African major languages that have
been accorded ofﬁcial status to no more than six languages; namely, Afrikaans,
English, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Nguni and Sotho. According to Makoni (1999) and

Alexander (1992a), this would be a manageable number as opposed to eleven

143

languages, which include, according to Makoni, community speech forms that
have been accorded the status of languages. Such community speech forms, as
Makoni pointed out, are isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele and siSwati that should
comprise the Nguni language. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho should comprise
the Sotho language.

Although the question of harmonizing Nguni and Sotho languages seemed
to be an abandoned task as the language policy of South Africa was already part
of the Constitution, the resurrection of the harmonization debate, especially
during this time of implementation, cannot be taken for granted. The debate of
harmonization of Nguni and Sotho languages existed among the academics,
particularly the linguists, but not the government. Now that it is an issue that

some Members of Parliament often refer to, it is imperative that scholars revisit it.

4.5. Data obtained through written reports, speeches, newsletters, acts and
bills, HANSARD document and agenda and minutes

Data collected through primary sources, such as reports, speeches,
newsletters, acts and bills, HANSARD document also demonstrate high
preference for English in Parliament. The LANGTAG (1996) Subcommittee on
Language in the Public Service reports that the RDP (Reconstruction and
Development Programme) document was never written nor translated into any
other language but remained accessible only in English. Paradoxically, while this

Subcommittee of the LANGTAG makes this accusation, all the LANGTAG

144

Reports including the ﬁnal comprehensive LANGTAG document appear in
English only.
Other documents reﬂecting the dominance and preference for English only

are as follows:

4.5.1. Governmental/Departmental annual reports
The following Reports are some of the Reports sent to Parliament on an
annual basis. These Reports are usually sent through different ministries:
4.5.1.1. Report of the Auditor-General on the Dairy Board Liquidation
Account (Verslag van die Ouditeur—Generaal oor die
Suiwelraadlikwidasierekening) (1996, 1997 & 1999), is in both
English and Afrikaans.
4.5.1.2. Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 31 —
South African Revenue Service (Verslag van die Ouditeur-
Generaal oor die Rekenings van Begrotingspos 31 - Suid-
Afrikaanse Inkomstediens) (1996-97), is in both English and
Afrikaans.
4.5.1.3. Report of the Auditor-General on the Local Authorities Loans
Fund for 199 7-98 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die
Leningsfonds vir Plaaslike Besture vir1997-98), is in both
English and Afrikaans.
4.5.1.4. Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of

Vote 9 - Constitutional Development (1998), is only in English.

145

4.5.1.5. Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 30 —
South African Police Service (Verslag van die Ouditeur-
Generaal oor die Rekenings van Begrotingspos 30 — Suid-
Afn'kaanse Polisiediens) (1996-97), is in both English and
Afrikaans.

4.5.1.6. Report of the Auditor-General on the Secret Services Account,
the Related Departmental Accounts and the Security Services
Special Account (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die
Rekening vir Geheime Dienste, die Verwante Departementele
Rekenings en die Spesiale Rekening vir Veiligheidsdienste)
(1996-98), is in both English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.7. Report of the Auditor-General on the South African Medical
Research Council (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die
Suid-Afn'kaanse Mediese Navorsingsraad) (1995-96), is in both
English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.8. Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services for
the Period 1 January to 31 December 1997 is only in English.
It is however, stated in this Report that should one require a
letter (which forms a preface of the Report) in any other
language, the ofﬁce concerned should be contacted.

4.5.1.9. CSIR Annual Report (Technology Impact) of 1998 is only in
English.

4.5.1.10. 1996 Report of the Attomey-General: Eastern Cape on the

146

4.5.1.11.

4.5.1.12.

4.5.1.13.

4.5.1.14.

4.5.1.15.

4.5.1.16.

Annual Report, is obtainable only in English.

National Training Board Annual Report of 1997 is only available
in English.

South African Communication Service Annual Report of 1997 is

only available in English.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Annual Financial

Statements of the Foundation for Research Development for

(Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die Finansiele Jaarstate

van die Stigting vir NavorsingsonMikke/ing) (1997-98) is in both

English and Afrikaans.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Re-insurance Fund for

Export Credit and Foreign Investments for the Financial Year

Ended 31 March 1996 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-General oor

die Herverseken'ngsfonds vir Uitvoerkrediet en Buitelandse

Beleggings vir die Boekjaar Geeindig 31 Maart 1996) is in both

English and Afrikaans.

1996-97 Medical Research Council Annual Report is in English,
although its vision, mission and goals are also in Afrikaans,
French, German, Ndebele, Portuguese, Setswana, siSwati,
Northern Sotho, South Sotho, Spanish, Tsonga, Venda ,
Xhosa and Zulu.

Report of the Public Investment Commissioners for the

Financial Year Ended 31 March 1997 (Verslag van die

147

4.5.1.17.

4.5.1.18.

4.5.1.19.

4.5.1.20.

4.5.1.21.

4.5.1.22.

4.5.1.23.

Openbare Beleggings-Kommissarisse vir die boekjaar geeindig
31 Maart 1997), is in both English and Afrikaans.

South African Law Commission Project 90 The

Harmonisation of the Common Law and the Indigenous Law:
Report on Customary Marriages, of August 1998, is written only
in English.

South African Law Commission Project 94 Arbitration: An
International Arbitration Act for South Africa Report, July 1998
also appears in only English.

South African Human Rights Commission Third Annual Report
of 1997-1998 is only in English.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
Vote 1 — President for the year Ended 31 March 1998 is only in
English.

Report of the Auditor-General on the National Supplies
Procurement Fund for 1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-
Generaal oor die Landsvoonedeverkrygingsfonds vir1996-97)
is in both English and Afrikaans.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Urban Transport Fund for
1996-97 is obtainable in English only.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 29 -

South African National Defence Force for 1996-97 (Verslag van

die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die Rekenings van Begrotingspos 29

148

4.5.1.24.

4.5.1.25.

— Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag vir1996-97) is in both
English and Afrikaans.

Report of the Auditor-General on the National Zoological
Gardens of South Africa for 1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-
Generaal oor die Nasionale Dieretuin van Suid-Afn’ka vir1996-
97) is in both English and Afrikaans.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 1 —
President, Vote 2 — Executive Deputy President, Vote 3 —
Executive Deputy President from the Largest Minority Party for
1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die Rekenings
van Begrotingspos 1 — President, Begrotingspos 2 -
Uitvoerende Adjunkpresident, Uitvoerende Adjunkpresident
vanuit die Gmotste Minderheidsparty vir1996-97) is in both

English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.26. Report of the Auditor-General on the Department of

Communications for 1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-
Generaal oor die Department van Kommunikasiewese vir 1996-

97) is in both English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.27. Report of Auditor-General on the Maize Board for 1996-97

(Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die Mielieraad vir 1996-

97) is in both English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.28. Report of Auditor-General on the Council for Mineral

Technology for 1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal

149

oor die Raad vir Mineraaltegnologie vir 1996-97) is obtainable

in both English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.29. Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 12 —

Environmental Affairs and Tourism for 1996-97 (Verslag van
die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die Rekenings van Begrotingspos
12 - Omgewingsakeen Toerisme vir1996-97) is obtainable in

only English and Afrikaans.

4.5.1.30. Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of the J.L.B.

4.5.1.31.

4.5.1.32.

4.5.1.33.

4.5.1.34.

Smith Institute of Ichthyology for the Financial Year 1 April 1996
to 31March 1997 (Verslag van die Ouditeur-Generaal oor die
Rekenings van J.L. B. Smith Instituut vir Viskunde vir die
Boekjaar 1 April 1996 tot 31 Maart 1997) is in both English and
Afrikaans.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Council for Nuclear Safety
for 1996-97 (Verslag van die Ouditeur—Generaal oor die Raad
vir Kemveiligheid vir1996-97) is in both English and Afrikaans.
Interim Report of 1 998-9 7: Heath Special Investigating Unit is

only in English.

Annual Report of 1996 by the Attomey-General: Natal, to the
Minister of Justice for Submission to Partiament of 1996
(Jaarverslag van 1996 deur die Prokureur-Generaal: Natal aan
die Pariement) is obtainable in both English and Afrikaans.

1996 Annual Report Submitted by the Attomey-General of the

150

Cape of Good Hope in Terms of Section 5(6) (a) of the
Attomey-General Act No. 92 of 1992 is only in English.

4.5.1.35. 1997-98 Annual Report of Independent Complaints Directorate
is only available in English.

4.5.1.36. 1996 Annual Report from the Department of Housing is only in
English.

4.5.1.37. Airports Company South Africa Annual Financial Statements

Report is available only in English.

4.5.2. Speeches by the government ofﬁcials

Although some Parliamentarians deliver their speeches in the languages
of their choice, some high ofﬁcials, for example, Ministers and Deputy Ministers,
constantly deliver their speeches in English. For instance, the address to
Parliament by Brigitte Mabandla, Deputy Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and
Technology, on the Pan South African Language Board Amendment Bill on
Tuesday the 23rd of February 1999 was entirely in English.

The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Dr. B.S. Ngubane,
also delivered his speech in English. Interestingly, with the exception of a few
Members of Parliament who delivered speeches on the Pan South African
Language Board on this day (February, 23, 1999) the majority of them delivered
theirs in their mother tongue. Among others, Tsheole, Gamdane, Tshivhase and

Mulder delivered their speeches in their mother tongue.

151

ofF

lang

4.5.

inP

acts

President Nelson Mandela's last and ﬁnal address of Parliament of the 5th

of February 1999 never included any single expression of an indigenous African

language; it was entirely in English.

4.5.3. Acts and bills
Several acts and bills in Parliament still reﬂect the past language situation
in Parliament; i.e. English and Afrikaans are still the only two languages in which
acts and bills appear.
The following acts and bills are in English or in English and Afrikaans only:
4.5.3.1. Pan South African Language Board Amendment Bill (B 107 — 98)
(Wysigingswesontwerp op die Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad) is
in both English and Afrikaans.
4.5.3.2. Public Investment Commissioners Amendment Bill (B 8 - 99)
Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Openbare
Beleggingskommr'ssarisse) is in both English and Afrikaans.
4.5.3.3. Domestic Violence Bill (B 750 — 98) (Wetsontwerp op
Gesinsgeweld) is in both English and Afrikaans.
4.5.3.4. Witness Protection Bill (W 1308 — 98) (Wetsontwerp op
Getuiebeskerming) is in both English and Afrikaans.
4.5.3.5. Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill (B 1328 — 98)
(Strafpmseswysigings—Wetsontwerp) is in both English and
Afrikaans.

4.5.3.6. Pan South African Language Board Act No. 59 of 1995 is in

152

4s5

Prc

anc
the
(Del
the
F”:
nhe

repl

tang
tang
Engl
Eng]
dscl
8935

then]

English, but it is stipulated in this document that the version was
signed by the President (Statutes of the Republic of South

Africa — Cultural Institutions, p.371 ).

4.5.4. The HANSARD documents

The HANSARD documents contain the debates of the National Council of
Provinces, which replaced the Senate, and the debates of the National
Assembly. Some of the HANSARD documents contain interpellations, questions
and replies, where a Minister is asked short questions and expected to respond
there and then without any prior consultations. The two HANSARD documents:
Debates of the Senate Second Session — First Partiament (No. 9) of the 6'” to
the 13'" of June 1995 and Debates of the National Assembly Second Session —
First Parliament (No. 14) of the 5th to the 6th of September 1995 contain the
interpellations, questions and replies. All the interpellations, questions and
replies in these two documents are only in English.

Although the debates in the HANSARD documents are recorded in the
languages which the MP8 use in their deliberations, since English is the
language of record in Parliament, such languages are immediately translated into
English. However, very few MPs express themselves in any language other than
English. For example, of the 117 MP5 who made their contributions to the
discussion about the bills as documented in the Debates of the Senate Second

Session — First Paniiament (No. 9) of the 6th to the 13‘“ of June 1995 only 2 of

them were in Sepedi, while only 1 was in isiXhosa.

153

Par
Eng
Wo

Am

var
the

the

bills
use
Eng
fror
swi'

as;

4.5.

30d

All 350 MPs, as Debates of the National Assembly Second Session - First
Parliament (No. 14) of the 5th to the 6th of September 1995 reﬂects, used only
English in their discussion about bills such as the State of Emergency Bill, Social
Wonk Amendment Bill, National Building Regulations Building Standards
Amendment Bill, Public Holidays Amendment Bill.

About 237 MPs used only English in their debates and discussions about
various bills in Parliament on the 18th to the 213t of November 1997 (Debates of
the National Council of Provinces First Session - Second Partiament (No. 8) of
the 18th to the 21”t of November 1997).

Debates of the National Assembly First Session — Second Partiament (No.
5) of the 15th to the 18th of April 1997 records 224 MPs who deliberated about
bills in Parliament. Of the 224 MP5 who took part in the discussion, only 1 MP
used Xitsonga as a medium of his discussion, only 1 MP code-switched from
English to Tshivenda, 2 MP5 used isiZulu as a medium, 1 MP code-switched
from English to isiNdebele, 1 MP used both English and isiZulu, i.e. code-
switched from English to isiZulu and from isiZulu to English, 2 MPs used isiXhosa

as a medium, while only 1 MP code-switched from English to isiXhosa.

4.5.5. Newsletters
Both the Newsletter of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP News)

and the Newsletter for Members and Staff of Parliament are only in English.

154

 

n)

4.5.6. Agenda and minutes of meetings

The agenda and minutes of the meetings are always obtainable in both
English and Afrikaans. For example, the National Assembly Order Paper
(Nasionale Vergadering Ordelys) of the 9th of February 1999, National Assembly
and National Council of Provinces Meetings of Committees (Nasionale
Vergarden'ng en Nasionale Raad van Provinsies Vergaderings van Komitees) of
the 9th of February 1999 also appears in English and Afrikaans.

Although English and Afrikaans are used alongside each other in the

agenda and minutes of the meetings, African languages are not.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

In all the reports that have been accessed in this study, the dominance of
English is telling. As discussed in the forthcoming section that deals with
systematic observation, despite the language in which a report is written (some
of the reports are in Afrikaans), all the portfolio committees use only English in
discussing such a report. There is no report that was found written in an African
language during the period of this study. This shows that although the
Constitution demands that the status of African languages be elevated, the fact
remains that contrary to what the Constitution decrees, African languages are still
sidelined and have no role to play in Parliament. This situation leads to the
disempowerment of the majority of the MP5 while the elites that understand and
speak English dominate in discussions and debates, and ultimately their views

receive very little challenge from the majority.

155

A deliberate effort to exclude African languages from the writing of such
reports could lead to a false impression that African languages have no scientiﬁc
terms that could be used in creating such reports. Yet during the apartheid era
African languages were used as ofﬁcial languages in the so-called TBVC states;
i.e. Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. Since the apartheid
government appointed chiefs and headmen who did not ﬁnish their high school
education, such puppets could only use African languages as dominant
languages in their governments. African languages, during this period, proved
their worth and capability in serving as ofﬁcial languages. The governments in
these “states” could discuss annual budgets, legal issues, political matters,
education, and their economies in African languages without any linguistic
hiccups. One could argue, therefore, that it is not on linguistic account that
African languages are marginalized in the writing of Parliamentary reports.

These Reports are of great value as they are not only intended to elicit
meaningful responses from the national government, but more importantly they
are used as documents to present a proper assessment and evaluation of the
successes or failures of the government in running its affairs. Thus the
marginalization of African languages in the discussion of such important
documents could therefore not only be a hindrance, but could affect the whole
government delivery of service as proper planning is always associated with
meaningful discussions and debates.

The Medical Research Council Report of 1996-97, by accommodating all

the ofﬁcial languages in its preface where the vision, mission and the objectives

156

of the Council are presented, demonstrates some sense of language awareness
despite the fact that in the development of the entire Report, all other languages
apart from English were left behind. It would be extremely interesting and a
valuable service to have the Report in all the languages that the citizens speak,
especially in this important ﬁeld of medicine.

The only weakness in the Report is that while it accommodates nine
African languages accorded ofﬁcial status, it leaves out other important
indigenous African languages that are listed in the Constitution (for example,
Khoi, San and Nama languages). It also uses some of the European languages,
even those which the Constitution does not mention, for instance, Spanish and
French. Unlike the 1995-96 Report which had Afrikaans alongside English, the
1996 -1997 Report relegates all other languages, including Afrikaans, to the
same inferior position, while English becomes the language used in the entire
Report.

The speeches delivered in the National Assembly are in most cases in
various ofﬁcial languages, although English is dominant. Most of the MPs
displayed a tendency to code-switch. Either a Parliamentarian starts with his/her
speech in English or his/her mother tongue and ends up with English or a mother
tongue. The bulk of the speeches of those who code-switch are always in
English. MPs rarely code-switch from an African language to another African
language. Ofﬁcials like Deputy Ministers, Ministers and Deputy President and
President deliver most of their speeches in English. For example when the

PANSALB Amendment Bill was debated in the National Assembly in February

157

1999, the Deputy Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Brigitte
Mabandla delivered her speech in English. One would have expected her to
deliver such a speech, which focused on the promotion of African languages, at
least in one of the African languages. Her speech pointed out that the challenge
facing the government was to give the Constitutional principles content and
meaning by translating them into action. She singled out the immediate elevation
of the nine major African languages to the status of ofﬁcial languages as the
most important step to be taken (Mabandla, 1999, pp.1— 2). Ironically, in arguing
for the promotion and elevation of the status of African languages, she ended up
further marginalizing them in presenting her speech in English in a forum with a
potential to promote African languages.

The speech delivered by Dr. B. S. Ngubane in support of the PANSALB
Amendment Bill was also presented in English.

As mentioned, President Nelson Mandela’s last speech in Parliament
during his Presidency was also entirely in English. His address captured the
attention of the whole country, as it was the last speech of the ﬁrst democratically
elected President, a man who spent 27 years in prison ﬁghting for democracy
and human rights. However, only those who had beneﬁted during the apartheid
era (able to access a speech written in English) were able to understand
Mandela’s speech.

The address by Nelson Mandela was simultaneously interpreted into nine
(South) African languages and Afrikaans in Parliament, as there are interpreting

facilities in the National Assembly, but it remains to be translated into African

158

languages in hard copies. Since the government never took initiatives to have
speeches by Parliamentarians translated into all other languages, the majority of
the people in the country remain uninformed.

Mr. S. Kotane, head of the South African Communication Services,
referring to a situation where people are marginalized through language use,
warned that, “Good governance is impossible if you are governing an uninformed
community, because people will continue to be restless, suspicious, anxious and
uncertain” (LANGTAG, 1996, P.157).

In one of the chapters of Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s book, ‘Penpoints,
Gunpoints, and Dreams’ (1998) entitled, “The Allegory of the Cave: Language,
Democracy, and a New World Order,” he metaphorically presents the role of the
three interpreters. One of the kinds of interpreters he discusses in this chapter
achieved a lot of success in abolishing slavery and obtaining independence from
colonial rule. This interpreter, despite his outstanding achievement, fails dismally
to empower his own people. His failure is attributed to the perception and
ultimately the handling of the language of his people. Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1998)
goes on to write about this painful situation:

Thus instead of empowering the tongues of those in the cave, the

tongues which had really given him the power to prophecy and

leadership, he now stood behind the English and French screens
haranguing his people to come out of the darkness of their languages
into the light of European tongue. He also started talking to them

through interpreters because, in reality, he had never learnt how to

speak to the people, how to hold a genuine dialogue. His real

dialogue had been with the metropolitan bourgeoisie in London or
Paris or at the United Nations. (pp.87-88)

159

The situation portrayed in the Parliamentary reports and speeches
delivered by President Nelson Mandela, and by the Minister of Arts, Culture,
Science and Technology, Dr. B.S. Ngubane, and his Deputy Minister Brigitte
Mabandla, is a direct conﬁrmation of Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s (1998) point that the
African intellectual elite refuses to interpret and translate what they have required
through colonial languages into African languages. Ngugi wa Thiong'o (1998)
says with regard to this:

The chorus is the same: let them ﬁrst learn European languages.

In the meantime, the game continues: knowledge researched by

sons and daughters of Africa, is stored in Europe-language

granaries. (p.90)

It can be said that newsletters are important documents which are
intended to keep Members of Parliament informed and abreast of current events
and issues in Parliament and in the nine provinces. They seem to target,
language wise, only those whose L1 is English. Newsletters contain very
important reports that are crucial to Parliamentarians. The majority of the MP3
and staff of Parliament (most of the ordinary staff members in Parliament,
because of the past geo-political arrangement, speak Afrikaans, while a

reasonable number has isiXhosa as its L1) are therefore not properly reached by

the newsletters.

4.6. Data obtained through systematic observation
Observation was conducted to determine whether or not English is
dominant in Parliament. Observations made in both the committee rooms and the

National Assembly proved the linguicism of English in the South African

160

Parliament. All the fourteen meetings of various portfolio committees which I
attended were conducted in English.

In some portfolio committee meetings, for example, when the Pan South
African Language Board Amendment Bill was discussed, very few Members of
Parliament who serve on this portfolio committee contributed verbally. Although
their deliberations might have been hampered by the subject, as bills involve
some legal aspects that need experts in the legal ﬁeld, lack of proﬁciency in
English could also be singled out as a stumbling block, for one could detect from
some of the few who contributed to the discussion that they were not that
proﬁcient in English.

In the National Assembly, where there are interpreting facilities, speeches
and responses were made in different ofﬁcial languages. Although the majority of
the MP3 are Black Africans who have African languages as their L1, speeches
and deliberations are often made in English, even though there are interpreting
facilities.

I observed that English remains the only language used by the MPs in the
portfolio committee rooms. The reason given for the dominance of English in the
portfolio committee rooms is that there are no interpreting facilities in such
rooms. Another reason given is that English has been chosen as the language of
record in Parliament. The use of only English in the portfolio committee rooms
prevents a lot of Parliamentarians from participating.

In the National Assembly, few Members of Parliament participate

because, ﬁrstly, they are not ﬂuent in English, and secondly they do not want to

161

be seen by their constituencies presenting their speeches in their mother tongue
— African languages. During my observation in Parliament, one MP who delivered
a speech in the National Assembly in Setswana reported that she was rebuked
by her senior for having presented a brilliant speech in Setswana instead of

English.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS AND CRITIQUE

The dominance of English in Parliament is clearly separating those who
are articulate in English (elite group) from those who are not (the majority). This
will ultimately lead to what do Kadt (1992) entitled, “the dangerous power of
English,” and demonstrates that since language and power are inseparable,
those whose languages are used only in the private sphere will not be
empowered.

Dua (1994) also discusses language as an instrument of communication
that involves class, power and knowledge. With reference to the Indian language
situation Dua (1994) says that unless the newly emerging class associated with
the Indian languages organize themselves to counter the hegemony of English,
and ﬁght for a different political, social and cultural arrangement of power and
knowledge, they will not only fail to curb the dominance of English, they will also
contribute to the marginalization of their languages and cultures. As he further
says, they will betray the cause of language and cultural renaissance and the

destiny of mankind (Dua, 1994, p.133)

162

Situations like these where the majority are excluded from participation on
account of lack of the chosen language have been discussed by Lanehart (1997)
among others. Lanehart analyzed the American situation and compared it with
that of France and England where the standard language was the language of
the political centers. Lanehart (1997) is of the opinion that people who do not
speak “standard” English could be excluded from politics. Prah (1995) points out
that the historical fortunes of languages are tied to the political power of the
users. He further mentions that while some languages expand in usage, others
die. This situation, where languages could die while other languages thrive, could
be compared to that of South Africa where African languages are always pushed
out of the center onto the periphery.

The choice of English as a language of record in Parliament reduces the
status of all other languages to the extent that the speakers of other languages
become disempowered. The selection of the norm determining the choice of a
language to be accorded a higher status normally beneﬁts and favors the political
or economic elites who establish it and this tendency ignores the desires of the
dominated people (Hartig, 1985, p.68).

Situations like the one in the South African Parliament where the majority
of the MPs do not have a meaningful participation as they are expected to
deliberate in a foreign language is challenged by Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1997) who
argues that when African languages are sidelined in Africa, there is no freedom
of expression as the majority of Africans have to have interpreters in the political

and economic affairs of their own land. According to Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1997)

163

the right to a language is a precondition for the freedom of expression. He
strongly emphasized:
By being deprived of the use of their languages for whatever reason,
the voice of African people is being effectively silenced. Thus although
my own struggle to express myself in my own language has led me to
prison and exile, l have always to remember that the majority of Africans
live in conditions of linguistic prisons and exiles in their own countries.
What meaningful participation can there be in the economic, political
and cultural life of the country if this is only mediated by a handful of the
educated, the corpus of interpreters who have been lucky to get a formal
education? (pp.80-81)
A similar observation was made by Cluver (1993) who analyzed the new
language policy enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia. Cluver
pointed out that Article 3(1) of the Namibian Constitution does not recognize any
of the 21 indigenous African languages as ofﬁcial languages. He argued that in
this scenario, speakers of indigenous African languages have fewer rights
compared to speakers of English, for they cannot fully express themselves in a

foreign language.

164

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

The main aim of this study was to explore the language or languages used
by the South African national government with the goal of determining whether
the new democratic language policy, as set out in the Constitution, is put into
practice by Members of Parliament.

Chapter One of this study provided a socio-historical account of the South
African language policy. The language policy of South Africa was traced from the
Seventeenth Century to the Twentieth Century. From this history, it is evident
that African languages have been sidelined and marginalized since the arrival of
Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape in 1652. English and Dutch remained the two
ofﬁcial languages until 1925 when Afrikaans replaced Dutch to serve as an
ofﬁcial language alongside English. The position of Afrikaans as an ofﬁcial
language was further strengthened and entrenched in 1948 when the National
Party came to power.

In 1953 the Bantu Education Act was established to promote Afrikaans
and to reduce the influence of English in Black schools. The Bantu Education Act
was also intended to impose on Black schools the use of English and Afrikaans

on an equal basis as languages of teaching and learning and to extend mother

165

tongue education from Grade 4 to Grade 8. The outbreak of the Soweto
uprisings in 1976 was a reaction against the implementation of the Bantu
Education Act. Black Africans resisted the use of Afrikaans as a language of
teaching and learning in Black schools until the government succumbed to their
demand about language in education. Although in July of 1976 Black schools
were given leverage by the apartheid government to choose their language of
teaching and learning, no school chose an African language. English was
selected as the language of teaching and learning from Grade 4.

African languages have been rejected by Africans as the apartheid
government used them to divide the Black ethnic groups from each other. Since
Afrikaans was the language of the apartheid government, it was regarded as the
language of the oppressor and therefore became undesirable among Black
communities. This meant that although Afrikaans was an ofﬁcial language with
English, only English received high preference from the Black South Africans.

When the new dispensation was negotiated in the early 19905 after the
unbanning of political organizations in South Africa, the new South African
language policy became one of the items of the agenda. The interim
Constitution embodied the eleven major languages spoken in South Africa as
ofﬁcial languages. Nine of the eleven ofﬁcial languages happened to be the
(South) African indigenous languages to be accorded ofﬁcial status for the ﬁrst
time in South African history. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
adopted in 1996 also provides for the eleven language policy as did the interim

Constitution.

166

Chapter One, which gives the socio—historical background of the South
African language policy, forms the basis for the pursuit of the language question
about language or languages of use by the South African national government.

Chapter Two presented a review of the literature. The literature reviewed
in this chapter focused on two main areas: language policies as deﬁned in the
South African Constitution, and language attitudes towards both indigenous
African languages and colonial languages. Most of the sociolinguists who
analyzed and critiqued the South African language policy as it appears in the
Constitution pointed out that some expressions in the language policy could be
interpreted in favor of certain languages while others are marginalized. Such
linguists argue that the ﬂaws in the new South African language policy make the
whole Constitution a mockery. However, there are those linguists who argue that
the Constitution provides for too many languages without realizing that some of
these “languages” are in actual fact community speech forms. Community
speech forms such as isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele and siSwati are said to
constitute the so-called Nguni language, while community speech forms such as
Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho form the Sotho language (Makoni, 1999;
Alexander, 19923). These linguists argue that this situation, where South African
community speech forms have been accorded the status of language, was
created by missionaries who had their own agenda and who were not trained as
linguists (Cluver, n.d. pp.2-3). It could be argued that if the arguments advanced
by such sociolinguists are correct, it would mean that such a mistake, of raising

community speech forms to the level of language, has been Constitutionalized by

167

the ANC-led government. The repetition of the missionary mistakes by the South
African government would make it extremely difﬁcult to reduce the speech
community forms to their rightful position, i.e. that of being community speech
forms, as they have now been accorded an ofﬁcial status and developed as well
as promoted as independent full ﬂedged languages, not only in South Africa, but
in other countries as well. For example, isiNdebele in Zimbabwe, siSwati in
Swaziland, Setswana and Sesotho in Botswana and Lesotho, respectively, are
recognized as languages and not as community speech forms.

The government is also taken to task by scholars in the ﬁeld of
sociolinguistics for not putting into practice the demands of the Constitution. The
government is criticized for becoming monolingual. English is said to be
promoted above all other languages in Parliament as it is the language of record
in Parliament.

The majority of the language attitude surveys reviewed in this study
demonstrate that colonial languages are preferred over indigenous African
languages. African languages are despised as languages associated with poor
academic standards, ethnicity and underdevelopment as well as lack of
education, while Afrikaans is despised as the language of the oppressor and
associated with the oppressive apartheid government. African languages are
said to be devoid of scientiﬁc terms that could be used in Parliament.

Furthermore, African languages are said to be divisive. Some of the
leadership in some African states point out that using one of the indigenous

African languages as a sole ofﬁcial language would create unnecessary conﬂict

168

and hostilities as other ethnic groups, whose languages are not used, could
resent the language that has been accorded ofﬁcial status. Such politicians argue
that English or any other colonial language should be used as the sole ofﬁcial
language, for such a language would not only be neutral and bring about stability,
it would also disadvantage every ethnic group in the country.

Chapter Three of this study presented the methods used in data
collection, a description of the interviewees and the description of data gathering
procedures. It became evident in this study that various methods could be used
to supplement each other in data collection and data analysis. Three methods
that were used in data gathering for this study yielded similar results.

Although the unstructured interview method was adopted as the main
method of data gathering, additional evidence for the use of languages as
provided for in the Constitution was also derived from pertinent secondary
sources. Ofﬁcial documents (eg. newsletters, bills and acts, HANSARD
document, etc.) and systematic observation were made to ascertain the reliability
of the views and responses given by the interviewees.

The ﬁndings of this study are analyzed and discussed in Chapter Four.
The data analyzed in this chapter reﬂects that there is a mismatch between what
the South African national government practices and what the Constitution
demands. Instead of the government afﬁrming the observance of multilingualism
and multiculturalism celebrated in the Constitution, the data showed that the
South African government is becoming monolingual, using only English as the

language of record and communication in Parliament. Lack of explicit details as

169

to how and when the South African language policy as deﬁned in the Constitution
should be implemented, is exploited and manipulated by Members of Parliament,
as the interviews revealed, to justify the use of English at the expense of all other
ofﬁcial languages in Parliament.

The interviews conducted in Parliament show that English is the dominant
language in Parliament. The views given by the Parliamentarians also point to
the fact that English could remain dominant for a long period. Such a viewpoint
was common among members of different parties in Parliament. Members of
Parliament pointed to the historical language background as the main
contributing factor to negative attitudes towards other ofﬁcial languages and a
preference for English.

It is evident, as the data in this study revealed, that this monolingual
situation in Parliament is being challenged and seriously opposed by the political
parties which have Afrikaners in the majority. These political parties (namely, the
NNP and the FF) argue that English does not deserve to be the ofﬁcial language
since it is not one of the South African indigenous languages. As the
representatives of these two parties argue, Afrikaans is one of the South African
indigenous languages as it originated in South Africa. It became evident that
some other political parties, for example, ANC, IFP and DP, are not as
aggressive as the NNP and the FF in opposing the dominance of English in
Parliament. It is, however, not surprising for the DP to support the dominance of
English since its constituency is mainly English-speaking. On the other hand, the

IFP leadership, especially the IFP president, always addresses his constituency

170

in English, even in the deep rural areas of Zululand where almost all the
members and supporters of IFP have isiZulu as L1. The ANC, which is the
majority party in Parliament, also supported the dominance of English in
Parliament.

The data collected through systematic observation conﬁrm the dominance
of English in debates and discussions in various portfolio committees.

Further, although other ofﬁcial languages are used at the National
Assembly when deliberations and speeches are made, the dominance of English
remains paramount. The majority of the Parliamentarians who deliver their
speeches in indigenous languages have a tendency to code switch from either
English to indigenous African languages, or from indigenous languages to
English. This tendency conﬁrms the dominance of English over all other ofﬁcial
languages in Parliament. Taken with the interview data on African languages,
this tendency also conﬁrms the negative attitudes toward African languages. It
has been already pointed out that English dominates in the HANSARD
document, newsletters, bills, acts, written speeches, etc.

Although there are some annual reports that appear in both Afrikaans and
English, the discussion of the reports in the portfolio committee meetings are
conducted only in English. It should be realized that it remains absolutely
redundant to have annual Parliamentary Reports appearing in both Afrikaans and
English, while the discussions thereof are conducted only in English. While some
of the annual reports are in both Afrikaans and English, none of them are

obtainable in any indigenous African languages. This becomes an indictment of

171

the fact that not only are indigenous African languages pushed to the periphery in

Parliament, but Afrikaans as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa embraces a
democratic language policy which reﬂects the multilingual nature of the country,
there is enough evidence that the national government is moving towards
monolingualism, with English as the dominant language in Parliament and as the
only language of record.

Despite the complaints and resistance against using only English in the
portfolio committee rooms, English remains the only language used. What
disturbs in this instance is that meaningful and signiﬁcant discussions, which in
most cases are followed by crucial decisions, are conducted in English in
committee rooms devoid of interpreting facilities.

The dominance of English in Parliament is not only observed internally,
but external communication is mainly done in English. While almost all the
internal memoranda, notices and minutes are in English, and a few of them
translated into Afrikaans, external communication, for example, annual reports
from government departments, speeches addressing issues of national interest
made by Members of Parliament, and documents for public consumption, for
instance, white papers, discussion documents and the RDP (Reconstruction and
Development Programme) document, are only obtainable in English. As the

LANGTAG Subcommittee on Language in the Public Service reported, the

172

government failed to have the RDP document in any language other than
English. This Subcommittee in discussing the importance of the RDP document
in relation to the development of the masses in South Africa exposes that, “The
lack of an explicit acknowledgement of the crucial role of language in the process
of redeveloping the human resources of our multilingual country is extremely
problematic.” (p. 1 56)

The new language policy is intended to eradicate, “multilingualism is a
problem” notion. However, controversial clauses within the Constitution, such as
the ones captured in (3a) indicating that “the government and provincial
govemment may use any particular ofﬁcial languages taking into account
usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances,” could not only be used to
the detriment of some languages which have been accorded ofﬁcial status, but it
also undermines and underestimates the impact of apartheid on the South
African masses. Apartheid succeeded in brain washing the South African masses
as well as in discrediting everything Black to an extent that they, among others,
developed negative attitudes towards their indigenous (South) African languages.
In other words Black South Africans, as surveys demonstrate, could continue
marginalizing and despising their languages in favor of English. Of course this
could have far-reaching consequences: a province may choose to use the two
ex-colonial languages (English and Afrikaans) at the expense of African
languages and still be Constitutionally correct.

The adoption of an “English-only policy” in a multilingual Parliament

disempowers the majority of the MPs and consequently only a few of them are

173

able to participate in the affairs of their own country. Once the majority of the
MPs are deprived of their rights of expression, it is subsequently their
constituencies that eventually suffer the most.

The choice of English as the language of record by the South African
Parliament testiﬁes that invariably language planning and language policy could
be determined and be effected by those who are in power. Politicians tend to
ignore and undermine the Constitution and continue with the maintenance of the
status quo. Situations like this always insinuate hostilities and conﬂicts in
countries.

Politicians prefer languages that will empower them as an elite and ignore
the impact of such a language policy. Lanehart (1997) who discusses the
position of African American Vernacular English (Ebonics) and education in the
USA, as well as ideologies that people hold about language and the A
repercussions of those ideologies, argues that one can control who gets in and
who stays out of power by just controlling how one is to talk and by establishing
the rules in favor of the elites who have power. In cautioning about the danger
and the ideology underlying so-called “standar ” English in the USA, she points
out that the ideal of “standard” English can be used as a means of control and
thus, it is political. “Standard” English as a result belongs to those in power and
to those who determine what is acceptable. As she indicates, “It is safer and
better suited for those in power to direct how society is to be structured which

insures that those in power will stay in power.”(p.5).

174

Alexander (1992b) argued that unless one has a good command of
standard English or standard Afrikaans, he or she is simply eliminated from
competition for jobs that are well remunerated and from consideration for certain
positions of status and power. It is for this reason that Alexander proposes an
approach which involves the masses or the majority in the language planning
process. He proposes what he calls “language planning from below” as the only
viable approach in language planning. It is only when this exercise is adopted in
language planning that individuals feel through their participation and recognition
that they are part of the whole process of liberation. This approach differs from
the “top down” process in language planning which tends to impose language
decisions and preferences on the masses. The latter approach always provokes
oppositions and endless language problems. It is simply exclusive in nature in
favor of those who are in power

There were hopes and dreams in South Africa, when a Black government
took political power that African languages, either standard Nguni or standard
Sotho, could take over from English as the lingua franca in South Africa. The
choice of English as the language of record in Parliament and the position of
English in Parliament seem to shatter off such dreams and hopes in South Africa.
The move towards monolingualism rekindles the struggle for respect and the use
of ofﬁcial languages as deﬁned in the Constitution. Both the Afrikaner dominated
parties and some members of the ANC are vigorously opposing the dominance

of English in Parliament.

175

Luckett (1995), who was also of the opinion that those who are in political
power determine which language/s should serve as ofﬁcial or national languages,
concluded with reference to the South African situation:

...it is worth bearing in mind that languages and the values we attach

to them are only social constructions. In a given social context, the

meanings of languages are usually determined by those in power...

and of course language works to keep them in power. In our current

context of social and political change, the black middle class is

gaining control of the social and political institutions in our society.

This group will be given some opportunity to redeﬁne South African

language practices. Whether this opportunity will be used to widen

access to power and opportunity for the majority by developing the

African languages as languages of education and power, or whether it

will be used to consolidate the power of an English-speaking black

elite, remains to be seen. If the latter is the case, then it is likely that

South Africa will follow the long road of most post-colonial African

states, where even after thirty years of independence it is clear that

the dominant metropolitan languages cannot facilitate national

development. (pp.77-78)

The South African language policy at national government level is likely to ﬁlter
down to both provincial and local government levels. If this happens, as seems
likely, the South African government shall have not only betrayed its citizenry, but
shattered off the hope of the whole continent of Africa as most African states look
up to South Africa as the role model for African democracy and true human
empowerment. The democratic government of South Africa is perceived as an
example of the government that intends to empower its people (African masses)
through among other processes, the recognition, development, and promotion of
African languages to the level of ofﬁcial status and through use of the indigenous
languages as tools towards empowerment. The Constitution of South Africa
symbolizes the multilingual and multicultural nature of African states. It is

incumbent upon those who are in power and the masses in South Africa to see to

176

it that this democratic language policy is implemented and honored for the

development of the majorities in South Africa.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There is sufﬁcient empirical evidence that past linguicism, instituted and
perpetuated by the apartheid government, created negative attitudes towards

African languages and Afrikaans. The “new” language policy of South Africa

should not only be perceived as sensitive, but also as a terrain which is highly

contested and poses several challenges to the government which is obligated to
develop clearly deﬁned mechanisms for the implementation of such a policy.

The national government, as evident from the data presented in this study,
is seen to be implicitly and explicitly promoting English above all languages in

South Africa. Since the promotion of only one language in a multilingual situation

has detrimental effects, the national government should, as a way of

demonstrating its commitment to the demands of the Constitution, adhere to the
following:

(3) depending on its plans and agenda, the national government should have
short term and long term measures in its endeavors towards the meaningful
implementation of the democratic language policy enshrined in the
Constitution of the country;

(b) the national government should become exemplary in carrying out the
demands of the Constitution. The national government must make sure that

all MPs have a deeper understanding of the Constitution in order to avoid

177

misinterpretations and contradictions of what the Constitution decrees. Since
the Constitution spells out which languages should serve as ofﬁcial, the
malpractice or the mismatch between what the Constitution demands and
what is being practiced by Parliamentarians, may destroy the conﬁdence and
trust that the citizens have in the government;

(0) although some MPs might be aware of the fact that language cannot be
separated from power, there should be some debates focusing not only on
language choice, but on the ideology of language as well as on the role of
language in politics, education, commerce, and society in general. MPs’ use
of language gives enough evidence to account for their lack of knowledge of
the signiﬁcant role that language plays. During the interviews it became
evident that the concern of the majority of the interviewees is the viability and
adequacy of the language to serve ofﬁcial functions, rather than language as
an instrument for total emancipation and empowerment of the majority of
South Africans. Once Members of Parliament are conscientized about the
importance of language, their attitudes towards African languages will change
and ultimately African languages could be perceived as indispensable
languages of Parliament;

(d) taking the diversity of the MPs’ language backgrounds into account, there
should be a language institute in Parliament to teach languages to MP3. The
institute could, apart from teaching for language acquisition and language
proﬁciency, teach the MPs theories in language planning and policies. Some

of the MPs demonstrated their willingness to learn at least one other

178

language. Others mentioned that apartheid deprived them of the opportunity
to learn each other’s languages. Such Parliamentarians, especially whites
whose education system did not demand or require them to learn African
languages, strongly expressed the need for such a language institute in
Parliament. Learning each other's language might sensitize and inform the
process of language choice as well as help to change the negative attitudes
towards certain languages. Incentives for learning other languages could be
effected through recognizing and allowing some members to express their
views in Parliament in the acquired L2 from the language institute;

(e) drawing from the inferences and proposals made by the majority of the
interviewees whose L1 is a non African language, harmonization of Nguni
and Sotho “languages” should be given serious attention by the national
government. The interviewees across the linguistic spectrum expressed their
genuine interest in and desire to Ieam either Sotho or Nguni language.
Although the present study was never intended to explore and examine the
possibility of language harmonization and the perceived advantages thereof,
it could be possible in the long run to have such a language or languages to
serve in the domains that are today dominated by English, for example,
education, commerce, and at both provincial and local government levels.
The national government should therefore seek advice from the experts in
the ﬁeld of sociolinguistics, particularly from specialists in language planning
and language policy, on how a project of language harmonization could be

carried out. The South African government should have a sound relationship

179

(f)

and partnership with the NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) which have
done research and those that are researching the feasibility and viability of
harmonizing both Nguni and Sotho community speech forms. The project of
harmonization should therefore become a national project in order to avoid
the unnecessary emotions that might jeopardize its success. The South
African apartheid government developed otherwise similar speech forms as
separate languages (as did the missionaries) thereby emphasizing the small
lexical differences for its own agenda. For too long a time ethnic groups
speaking these community speech forms have been separated from each
other on account of speaking different “languages.” These ethnic groups
speaking different community speech forms have been linguistically and
geographically separated from each other to an extent that they
conservatively developed a primordial attachment to their speech forms;
there should be a Language Code of Conduct in Parliament to prevent any
tendencies that could lead to the dominance of a single language as a
medium of communication in Parliament. Guidelines should therefore be

drawn as to how and when African languages are to be used in Parliament.

(g) since the Constitution maintains that in recognizing the historically diminished

use and status of the (South) African indigenous languages, the state must
take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the
use of those languages, the national government is therefore obliged to use
the indigenous languages in conducting its own affairs. This means that the

national government should see to it that African languages are utilized at

180

national level; for the use of a language at the highest level by those who are
in the leadership position would unarguably raise the status of such a

language;

(h) the decision and the choice of English as the language of Parliament; i.e. the

(0

language of record in Parliament, should be revisited and be deﬁned within
the conﬁnes of what the new democratic language policy spells out. This
means that any decision with regard to language choice should be done
within the context and spirit of the new Constitution. Since the decision for
English as the language of record not only undermines and contradicts the
new Constitution, but also perpetuates the disempowerment of African
languages and ultimately Africans who constitute the majority of MPs, such a
decision should be reversed and a more Constitutional one be accordingly
effected;

African languages should not only be used in Parliament by the MP3, but also
on all ofﬁcial and important occasions outside Parliament where the MPs are
involved. Campaign speeches, especially in rural areas where only Black
Africans reside, should be conducted in African languages. Any MP who
knows an African language should be encouraged to use it even where other
languages, for example, English and Afrikaans, could be utilized. The MPs
should, as a result, deliver their speeches in African languages and have
them interpreted and translated into either Afrikaans or English, but not the

other way around;

181

(j) the national government should see to it that the interpreting facilities are
available in the committee rooms as they are at the National Assembly.
Serious discussions and debates about bills and annual reports take place in
different portfolio committee rooms where ideally all the ofﬁcial languages
should be in use;

(k) the national government should ensure that funds are available for the
training of adequate numbers of translators who will be able to translate bills,
annual Parliamentary reports, HANSARD documents, interpellations,
newsletters, speeches, etc., into different languages. Interpreters should also
be trained to serve in Parliament and to interpret for MP5 outside of
Parliament;

(1) the national government should take some of the proposals and
recommendations laid down in the LANGTAG document (1996) into account
and where necessary have them implemented. The LANGTAG document is
intended to achieve among others the following major goals:

(i) the development and maintenance of the African languages which
have been disadvantaged by the linguicist policies of the past
(ii) the establishment of equitable and widespread language services;

(m) language of the month proposal, where each of the ofﬁcial languages could

alternate on a monthly basis should be revisited and where possible

modiﬁed and implemented to eradicate the continual use of one language

182

(linguicism) as the language of record and communication in Parliament.
This could be done until such time as an appropriate language policy has

been arrived at and put in place.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This study provokes several other questions for areas of future research.

One implication for further research is an investigation of languages of use at

both provincial and local government levels. Other related research questions or

themes that should be investigated in future studies are as follows:

(i) Exploring alternative language policy for the South African national
government

(ii) The impact of the current South African national government language
policy on the political participation of the Members of Parliament whose
mother tongue is not English

(iii) How to challenge the dominance (linguicism) of English in the South
African Parliament

(iv) The implementability of the South African language policy in the South

African Parliament

183

APPENDIX A:

EXCERPTS FROM INTERVIEWS:

RESPONDENT #9

You are touching on a very important aspect of our Constitution. The fact
that it appears right up in front is indicative of the fact that the new government is
in fact very serious about helping the marginalized languages. To that end the
Parliament acting on the requirement of the Constitution set-up the PANSALB,
which functions as the interactive agent through which all communities and role
players will be committed to advance the various languages of our country. What
the Constitution has done is to ascertain those primary languages used by the
largest minorities in our country. These languages are, isiZulu, isiXhosa, English,
Setswana and Sesotho, and these languages are listed accordingly. Then there
are secondary languages also used by much smaller minorities and these
languages are Hindu, Hebrew, Arabic, and so on. The government is very
conscious of the fact that all languages should be developed and promoted
because we see language as an asset belonging to the nation. We see each
language as having signiﬁcant purpose in the cultural life of our people. The
Portfolio Committee of Arts, Culture and Language, Science and Technology, of
which I am a member, has been looking at the language problem very intensively
and very extensively over the last four and a half years.

So, if it is going to be four languages serving as ofﬁcial languages, the

language like Venda might be cutoff. So it is mostly likely that it will be one of the

184

Nguni languages, isiZulu, because it is spoken by more people than any other
language. It is the language that is going to be given a step up. And so it would
probably become the ﬁrst Black language in this country to start becoming

recognized as an ofﬁcial language.

185

RESPONDENT #10

The difference is only when it comes to HANSARD. In which language will
HANSARD appear? Imagine having HANSARD appearing in all the ofﬁcial
languages; it could be very expensive.

Parties have submitted their proposals. The popular one is that the two
languages that are being used must remain, that is, Afrikaans and English, and
African languages alternate in the printing of the HANSARD document.
Unfortunately this proposal was not accepted. When it comes to debates in the
National Assembly, I am free to use isiZulu, isiXhosa and any other official
language. Although we are allowed to use these languages, I mean African
languages, how often do you see them in use?

Again remember that we are dealing with eleven ofﬁcial languages and
each language group is proud of its own language. Now which of these African
languages should be used? If say, the HANSARD document is published in
Tshivenda, do you think other language groups will encourage it? I do not think
so. There will be a lot of opposition and conﬂict. That is why we are still debating
the languages of use in Parliament even today. In the meantime English is

serving as the language of record in Parliament.

186

RESPONDENT #1

Now you were there yourself when the portfolio committee was dealing
with Amendments of the PANSALB Language Board Act. Now largely speaking,
the Act enshrines language rights for people, but most importantly the Act
establishes the parastatal charged with the responsibility to ensure that what the
Constitution decrees is actually realized by the nation. One of the major
responsibilities of the PANSALB is the promotion of multiculturalism and
multilingualism in the country. The PANSALB encourages and promotes the
observance of cultural diversity in the country. One of the things that the
PANSALB does is to monitor those institutions as far as possible, implement
what the Constitution decrees. So, in other words what I am saying is that
although within the past four years we have not been able to implement this
language policy, but we have laid a very important ground in this regard.
Also in adding further responsibilities to this Board, for instance, the
establishment of dictionary units for all eleven ofﬁcial languages, we also had to
add money. Up to now the PANSALB was receiving 11 million Rands, and I think
we will double this amount to ensure that the PANSALB does the work. More
than that we paid a lot of attention in our Amendment to ensure that there is also
specialized expertise which assists in the implementation of what the Constitution
decrees. I do not think that the PANSALB is toothless as you say, it is a very
empowered parastatal.

The ANC is the one that spearheaded and initiated the discussion

around the eleven language policy at the World Trade Center during the

187

negotiations. It is the policy that we have put fonNard which we believe in, for it is
a reality of our country. So, there is no way that the ANC can shift from that. Of
course the ANC has to be very pragmatic and practical in the application of the

policy, and we will do that.

188

RESPONDENT #4

The government declared those languages ofﬁcial languages. And
declaring a language ofﬁcial, I mean declaring a language an ofﬁcial language is
a very good start in the promotion of such a language.

Previously there were two ofﬁcial languages in South Africa. But the
Constitution today says that the nine indigenous languages are also ofﬁcial
languages. They are on par with English. That is the ﬁrst step that the
government made in the promotion of those languages. The promotion of African
languages to ofﬁcial level will help improve the self-image of the speakers of
those languages and make them realize and feel that they are part and parcel of
this nation. The second thing that the government did was to create a Board,
they call it PANSALB, and “PAN” means for everyone. This Language Board
sees to it that it brings on board those languages which were marginalized. That
is why yesterday we were debating about this Pan South African Language
Board Bill which is intended to arm this Board to teeth. So, you can’t say the
government is doing nothing. It has done a lot and it is still in the process of
developing these languages.

We all decided and agreed that we use English as the functional
language. You must understand, underline, functional language. The whole of
South Africa speaks English. We are Vendas, Xhosas, Zulus, Tsongas, and so
on, which language would be used to unite us? I think we want to communicate
ideas even when we have so many languages. What language should be used in

this situation where we have such a large number of languages?

189

We speak of a regional language. Different ethnic groups in South Africa
are concentrated in a particular region. For example, Vendas are in Venda, and
when you communicate with them in their region, use Tshivenda, their language.
Xhosa is not spoken in Venda, it is spoken in another area. When you go to the
area in which Xhosa is spoken, use it. So, that is what is called a regional
language. Anybody who wants to communicate with those people in different
regions should use the relevant regional languages.

But when people get to Parliament, they must speak English. In Nigeria,

when you get to Parliament, you must speak English.

190

RESPONDENT #2

The most important thing is the mindset. But how many of our people have
developed the skill of speaking their language? I mean, let’s look at the reality.
How many of our people have developed that skill of expressing themselves
formally in their own languages except in colloquial speeches? A Parliamentary
speech is not colloquial; it is a formal speech which must be digniﬁed like our
fathers when they speak in our traditional courts. The type of language they use
to bring forth the message is quite digniﬁed. This is the type of language that we
have to use in Parliament. How many of our people have that rich background?
For our languages to reach that level, instructions in our schools should be done
in our African languages.

For recording we are using English only. That is why the Afrikaners are
complaining. The Afrikaners want everything that is printed in English to be
printed in Afrikaans. But we are saying if every material has to be printed in
Afrikaans, then it has to be printed in isiXhosa or Tshivenda and all other ofﬁcial
languages as well; for this is a national government. Another suggestion was for
the alternating of the languages. Say, for example, we print one bill in Tshivenda
with an English translation this month, we shall print another bill in Xitsonga with
the English translation the following month. And when we propose that, they say
we are giving preference to English as English becomes the common
denominator. We need to come to a stage where we can say, do we have a
language that we can use as the common denominator. We need to come to that

stage where we ask ourselves which language could be used as the common

191

denominator for now, not for the future; and that language should be relatively

understood by everybody. Which language is that?

192

RESPONDENT #15

I was part of Committee One in the Constitutional negotiation process.
Committee One was the committee that handled language issues. In that
committee the politically correct thing was to say eleven languages ofﬁcial, all of
them. We argued from a different point of view indicating that it was not going to
be practical whether we liked or not. We said that it was very foolish to say
eleven languages are ofﬁcial. Our argument was that if you are saying eleven
languages are ofﬁcial languages, you must be sincere to have all of them written
equally. If they cannot be all equal, you are going to end up with one language,
English, above all other ofﬁcial languages.

80, if you are serious about the eleven language policy, then you must be
willing to put money there. We proposed something different, which was not very
popular but we think it is more realistic in our proposal. Our proposal as Freedom
Front was that there should be four ofﬁcial languages in Parliament; namely,
Nguni language, Sotho language, English and Afrikaans. The statistics show that
97% of all South Africans understand one of those four.

I said more than once in Parliament that when somebody else speaks
his own language I congratulate him. And I would say that I really thank you for
speaking your language and that I can now speak Afrikaans as well. I think last
month there were more speakers who were willing to speak their own languages.
There were very few of them, but I heard some Xhosa, some Zulu and the

Minister of Labor, Mr. Mdladlane, spoke in Xhosa and I liked it very much; I really

193

like it you know. Some of the Inkatha people speak Zulu as well, and there are

translation services in the National Assembly and I could follow it.

194

RESPONDENT #16

I can give you my personal view, but also the Freedom Front’s view on
this whole language issue. As you know, I mean it is a well known fact that we
are ﬁghting for Afrikaans as a language to survive in this country. But we always,
and we are still saying we are not only ﬁghting for Afrikaans, but we are ﬁghting
for Afrikaans and all the indigenous languages because Afrikaans won’t survive if
the other indigenous languages are not surviving in the process or they don’t
develop in the process. You are quite correct when you say we got eleven ofﬁcial
languages as it is in the Constitution at this stage. We are worried that it’s a
symbolic thing. But our main concern is that at the highest level of government in
this country, that is, in Parliament, multilingualism is not favored. In Parliament
people, I mean only those who are to present speeches in languages other than
Afrikaans and English, should not hand their speeches to translators before such
speeches are delivered for they cannot change or alter some of the issues they
want to raise. This denies a particular group freedom of speech in Parliament.
But they can still make a speech in Parliament in their own languages. And we
will ask them to do it more because that will help the development of their
languages and it will also help Afrikaans in the process. In the committee
rooms where there are no translation services you can only speak in English. So,
we think it is very bad that the Government says, multilingualism, eleven
languages in the Constitution, and when you come to the Parliament in this

country, you can’t argue in your ﬁrst language; you have to speak in English.

195

I want to close this by saying that you can’t leave the language issue, I
mean language promotion, to the government; for the government will always
have a political agenda. So you must have the independent body to oversee and
be the watchdog over this. I hope that PANSALB will be able to bring about

language development and language promotion in this country.

196

RESPONDENT #14

It makes very good sense for the DP to have one major language for
Parliament and government services; and we have got no problem with the fact
that English is used as much as it is. But I think we have a real problem with the
Constitution that says there will be eleven ofﬁcial languages, when we never hear
certain languages spoken in Parliament except a few Afrikaans, Zulu, Sotho,
Xhosa and of course English. If it is difﬁcult for the government to implement this
policy, where all languages are treated and used equally; the government must
be clear about it. It is time for the government to say let us be honest with the
nation. If we are not going to use eleven languages equally, then let us cut them
down to one or two, three or four, and decide which ones are we going to use.
But there is a kind of dishonesty at the present time, because certainly you are
quite right, there is no way that these eleven languages are given the opportunity
in this country the way the Constitution requires.

If you are going to have eleven ofﬁcial languages used in Parliament or
outside of Parliament, you need to have full time translators. You have to get
everything translated into eleven languages. Is it feasible? Can we afford the cost
of using eleven languages? The answer is probably no. Then we decided to use
only one language, English, as the language of record in Parliament. We said we
can’t afford eleven languages, but stated how many we can afford. We pointed
out that even two would be too much. ...You need to talk to Mr. Smuts about the

DP’s language policy for he is the one who knows about the language issue and

197

he will make the DP's position quite clear. But it also goes back to 1993; I will be

quite frank with you to say I can’t remember what the DP’s position is.

198

 

 

wher
who
notv
HAN
forel
prefe
the I
that
in m
Engl
Engl
spok
Mots
word
at wl
she:
when
to s;
“D a

indie

 

facili

RESPONDENT #5

I think it has to do with our background. You know our background
whereby if a person speaks in English is said to be more civilized than a person
who speaks other languages, particularly African languages. Parliamentarians do
not want to use their languages. Even when l was still in Senate as the
HANSARD could reﬂect, I would, together with about four or ﬁve colleagues,
forever speak in our mother tongue, while the rest of the Parliamentarians
preferred English over their mother tongue. I have always stressed the issue of
the use of mother tongue in Parliament. The fact that you speak in a language
that is not yours, you are not comfortable. I become comfortable when speaking
in my own language, that is, when I use my mother tongue than when I try to use
English. I can express whatever I want in my mother tongue better than in
English. Although our Constitution accommodates all the eleven major languages
spoken in South Africa, very few of us use our languages. I remember when one
Motswana lady in Parliament stood up and spoke in English without a single
word in Setswana or Sepedi. I said to a member who was sitting next to me, look
at what is happening, the poor woman is forever speaking in English although
she speaks both Setswana and Sepedi where she comes from. I remember
when I was still in the Senate, one time the debate was stopped as l was asked
to speak on the SAA (South African Ainlvays) language policy. As usual, I stood
up and spoke in my mother tongue, isiXhosa. The National Party member
indicated that he could not follow what I was saying, as there were no translating

facilities. So as I’m saying, if you sit and listen to our debates, you will realize that

199

 

 

 

man

in un
Engli
com

in hi

cons
lead

lang

the

addr

 

 

many of the Africans are going to speak in English. At times we have difﬁculties
in understanding what the member is trying to say, but the major problem is that
English is not our language. It would be after the HANSARD document has been
compiled that we would then understand what the honorable member was saying
in his speech. But I am saying it is a big big problem. I think our people and
constituencies out there have also a serious problem with some of our top
leadership who do not want to use the language of the people; I mean African
languages. I know of certain people in top leadership who will speak in English in
the village. I mean, how can you go to a village that does not speak English and

address the people in it?

200

 

 

sha
mul
sho
that
you
noti
don’
not
This
to ca
is co
in the
Parli;
Dem
not 3
shou

and :

Of Sc
Each

multi

RESPONDENT #13

Firstly, I am the strong supporter of that Constitutional provision that there
shall be eleven ofﬁcial languages. I am the strong supporter of the idea of the
multilingual country; and it does not mean that all eleven ofﬁcial languages
should be spoken, read and understood by everybody. Here you are aware
that every MP is entitled to speak in his/her own language in debate, and that if
you speak in any language other than English or Afrikaans you have to give
notice beforehand that you are going to speak in isiZulu or whatever language. I
don’t know how many actually do that, but we do have translations. But this does
not apply in the committee rooms, for there are no interpreting facilities there.
This demonstrates that in Parliament there has never been any serious attempt
to carry out the promise of the Constitution in as far as the new language policy
is concerned. What we have to do is that we have to show that our hearts beat
in the right way on multilingualism and the promise of the Constitution. If
Parliament does not do it, who else is going to do it in South Africa? We as the
Democratic Party proposed that the agendas and documents of Parliament, I am
not saying every piece of paper, but the agendas and the ofﬁcial documents
should all come out in English or Afrikaans. We don’t want to diminish Afrikaans
and Sotho language and Nguni language.

If at least you have those four languages, you are probably covering 30%
of South Africa. We said take the other minority languages and in rotation use
each one for a month. This would be a way of recognizing multilingualism and

multiculturalism in Parliament. Following this approach, as time goes on, we can

201

 

 

derr

 

min
affo
say
annL
say l

the n

 

demonstrate our commitment to multilingualism thereby picking up or adding a
minority language to the major ones. This could be done in a more practical and
affordable manner. People say this could turn out to be expensive, but the DP
says it is not too expensive. We were told it could cost about R5 million per
annum to have Zulu and Sotho as additional languages in Parliament. Now we
say that the catering budget of R10 million in Parliament should be cut in half and

the money be used for the addition of languages in Parliament.

202

 

Iar
lar
Na
for
rec
dUl
prii
Eng
anc
pec
like

CO

that
hap
was
IeSs
time
in th
it 53'

BnCC

RESPONDENT #11

The Constitution is something that we supported in terms of culture and
language policy; we therefore, regard the development of all the eleven
languages as being equally important. That is the ofﬁcial policy of the New
National Party, but of course in developing the languages there is a problem of,
for example, if you take Parliament there is a problem of cost in terms of say
recording the discussions and the debates that take place in Parliament. Even
during the time of the old regime in many years recording in Parliament was done
primarily in Afrikaans and a very small percentage of recordings were done in
English. Although this was an attempt to give equal attention to both Afrikaans
and English, invariably Afrikaans got more attention than English. So, English
people as well were perturbed at that stage about the relegation of English, while
like Afrikaans it was an ofﬁcial language. I was fortunate to be in the ﬁrst
CODESA talks which began at Kempton Park and moved on and developed into
a Constitution and so on, and l was one of the two people in the interim phase
that insisted that even Indian languages be listed in the Constitution. What
happened was that from that point on they were listed, but the only difference
was that since Indian languages have been developed in the overseas countries,
less effort and money would be spent here on those languages; and more effort,
time and money should be spent on developing the languages that were ignored
in the past. I just want to refer you to our general language policy document and
it says, “Language, Arts and Cultural diversity is our strength”. The state must

encourage the development of various cultures and all of our ofﬁcial languages.

203

 

 

Thi
is tr

poli

in tr

this:

Parl
Iang

putti

what
was
And
had

the la

 

This is our ofﬁcial policy in a nutshell and this is being expanded by the lady who
is the party’s spokesperson in arts and culture, Ms. Anna van Wyk, into a full
policy document. But that tells you in essence what we stand for.

In KwaZulu-Natal everything that the New National Party does is done
in three languages. Our preference for language use in KwaZulu-Natal is like
this: English ﬁrst, Zulu second, and Afrikaans third.

The Nguni languages are used. There are one or two Members of
Parliament not from our side, but from the ANC side, who always speak in those
languages and it is always translated; so we follow what is going on simply by
putting the earphones onto our ears and hear what is going on.

I have been with the National Party from 1992. If this party was still doing
what it did before, and I can tell you now that one of the mistakes that they made
was to impose Afrikaans on Black schools; they forced people to Ieam Afrikaans.
And if anybody forces something on you, you tend to hate it. The reason why you
had the Soweto riots was because the National Party was imposing Afrikaans as

the language medium.

204

 

 

 

dic
Afr
OPI
exl
pra
m
the
ter
OL

ed

BL

CC

SL

Ui

th

RESPONDENT #7

First of all I think you are perfectly right to say that the Constitution
dictates and describes the equality of all the major languages spoken in South
Africa. Such languages must be used equally and must be given equal
opportunity. As you have indicated also, in terms of the Constitution we are
expected to be using our African languages or our mother tongue. But there are
practical constraints attached to that. The ﬁrst constraint is an issue of cultural
impact. You know our people during the era of apartheid were divided and
therefore, lost their sense of identity and also because of colonization, our people
tend to see themselves as inferior and consequently adore the Western culture.
Our people still regard the European languages as superior, and judge an
educated person in terms of how ﬂuent he is in foreign languages. ...Parliament
is trying to emphasize that people should be proud of using their own languages.
But we also have some constraints as l have already pointed out. One of the
constraints is lack of scientiﬁc terminology in African languages. We do not have
sufﬁcient terminology in African languages to express ourselves in Parliament.

...English is predominant in Parliament; we use English only and we use it
unconsciously. We have not taken a decision that we must use English only in
Parliament.

There should be the development of African languages if they are to be
used in Parliament. We need to instill in our students love of these languages so

that they take pride in the study of their mother tongue.

205

 

 

 

th

There are very few people who specialize in African languages because of
the inferiority complex. It is like when one obtains a Ph.D. in Tshivenda,
Xitsonga or any other African language, person is inferior to a person who
obtains his Ph.D. in Communications, Anthropology and so on. So, I think we
must de-orientate our people to take pride in their cultures and languages.

I am really optimistic and we will work very hard towards the achievement
of all this. It could take us ﬁve years down the line to have our languages

appreciated and properly used in Parliament because of the factors I mentioned.

 

Even the people who determine the terminology. which I said was artiﬁcial, they
were not experts; those who were properly qualiﬁed were very few. Until we
inﬂuence our people to know these languages, to study them, it will take us

longer than ﬁve years, but I think we are on the right track towards achieving this.

206

RESPONDENT #12
The realities of languages have to do with empowering people and making
it possible for them to communicate their needs in their own languages. ...The
two languages that are completely developed in this country are Afrikaans and
English. These languages have the vocabulary for every ﬁeld of study and every
discipline and so on. We can therefore say that these two languages are
practical languages and others, I mean African languages, are cultural

languages. We should therefore gradually build up the other languages that had

 

been neglected or that have not been developed.

But there seems to be on the part of the governing party a lack of
comprehension as to the whole ﬁeld of language study and language planning.
...The Constitution does make provision for PANSALB, and its primary task is to
promote multilingualism, which I think is a wonderful and very important thing to
do in this country because of the fact that there are so many people that speak
neither English nor Afrikaans. Any language opens windows of the landscapes of
the mind, of the landscapes of the soul. These windows are shut. I can’t speak
Venda but I know that it has a wonderful treasure of children’s songs and of
poetry and it is closer to me. Unfortunately I cannot speak this beautiful
language. I personally, and I think any thinking person, ﬁnds it a deprivation not
to be able to speak the languages of the country.

And I know a day will dawn when all South Africans will start to be more

realistic in accepting that Afrikaans is an indigenous language and not a foreign

 

207

language. And that it should really be used to help the other languages to be
developed in the same way it developed.

It is so funny when you walk in passage ways in Parliament and hear
people talking to each other in Afrikaans, and when these people stand in
Parliament to speak, they pretend that they can’t speak a word of Afrikaans; they
rather speak the most horrible English. They are really crippling themselves. I
mean that is a childish attitude; it is not the constructive attitude, it is not positive,

it does not contribute anything.

208

 

 

RESPONDENT #6

And it all comes down to that. When we ﬁrst came up with the interim
Constitution, which is the ﬁrst one declaring eleven languages ofﬁcial, we had no
idea whatsoever as to what strategies to use to promote and develop those
languages which were marginalized by the apartheid government. When we
came to the real Constitution, I mean the Constitution that was adopted in 1996,
we carried forward those language provisions; and we then began to realize how
expensive it would be to implement such a policy.

We do agree that an ideal South African language situation would be the
one in which eleven ofﬁcial languages are used; and what we would like to have
in Parliament is that all languages are represented, but unfortunately that is not
practical. There is no money for translation and printing. Just in Parliament, and I
am sure people told you, if you want to speak in any language other than
English, you have to inform Parliament well in advance, about twenty-four hours
before the speech is delivered. It is done this way for there is no money that
could be used for constant interpretation services for all eleven languages; that is
the problem. It all goes down to money; it is just not there.

There are constant discussions about it. Committees have been set up. to
look at ways of bringing all the eleven languages into the Parliamentary process
but every single one comes against the stumbling block of money.

Realizing that it would not be possible to use all the eleven ofﬁcial
languages simultaneously, we came up with one thing and that was to use

English as the language of record in Parliament. English is the major language in

209

 

 

that everyone can speak it. We also proposed that it should be English and one
of the other languages per month. English is already there by force of
circumstances. You know we were having a discussion about education and
people wanted to use other languages such as, Afrikaans, Venda or Sotho.
There was only one person who spoke English as the ﬁrst language, but English
happened to be the only language that every single person in that meeting

understood.

I tell you the government is doing far too little to promote and develop

African languages.

210

 

 

RESPONDENT #3

Tsha u thoma tshine ra fanela u ita ndi u vhulunga nyambo dzashu.
Nyambo hedzi dzi fanela u vhulungwa phanda ha musi dzi tshi bveledziswa. Ri
tea u vha na dikishinari dzine dza vha na maipﬁ ane a thoma nga A, u swika kha
maipﬁ ane a thoma nga Z. Kufhatele kwa dzidikishinari hedzi ku do fanela u
fhambana na kufhatele kwa dzidikishinari dzine dza shumiswa zwikoloni zwashu
namusi. Hoyu ndi mushumo une ra fanela u u ita ri tshi tevhedza zwe zwa vha
zwi tshi khou ambiwa kha mulayo-tibe wa PANSALB.

Hezwi zwa u shumisa dzinyambo dza hashu ndi zwone zwine zwa do ri
livhisa kha mbofholowo yo teaho. A hu na mboﬁwolowo kha lushaka arali lushaka
lwonolwo lu sa shumisi luambo lwalwo.

Nga u vhona hanga, hezwila zwe zwa vha zwi tshi khou ambwa zwe
vhathu vha fhedza vho tendelana khazwo mutanganoni wa mulayo-tibe wa
PANSALB, ndi amba hezwila zwauri bodo dza dzinyambo dzi fanela u
ridzhisitariwa sa Khamphani, zwi do sia dzinyambo dza Vharema dzi henefha
hune dza vha hone. A hu nga do swika hune dza do gonya ntha dza swika hune
dza Vhatshena dza vha hone. Ndi hezwi zwine vha pfa ndi tshi ri hezwi zwithu ro
tea u zwi lavhelesa nga ndila ya vhutali. Vhatshena ndi vhathu vhane vha vha na
zwithu zwavho lune vha do isa phanda na u thusedza dzinyambo dza havho
ngeno rine dzashu dzi tshi khou salela murahu. PANSALB i fanela u vhona
zwauri nyambo dza Vharema dzi khou takuwa, nahone dzi fanela u lingana na
dza Vhatshena. Zwa sa ralo ri do vha ri kule na u swika kha demokirasi ye ra

lwela yone. Vhatali vha do bvelela nga u shumisa dzinyambo dzavho; hu si

211

dzinyambo dzisili lini. Mavhuru vho bvelaphanda nga u shumisa luambo Iwavho.
Ngavhe zwi si vhe izwo, ndi musi vha do vha vhe haﬂ'la hune vha vha hone
namusi. Tshivhuru tsho shumiswa zwikoloni, zwibadela, Phalamenndeni, oﬁsini

dza muvhuso na mmbini.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

The ﬁrst thing that we have to do is to preserve our languages. These
languages should be preserved prior to their development. We have to have
dictionaries that have words that begin with A, up to words that begin with Z. The
way these dictionaries shall be built, will be different from the way in which the
dictionaries used in our schools today are built. This is the job that should be
done in line with what was said with regard to the PANSALB Bill.

Using our own languages will lead us to the right liberation. There is no liberation
in a nation if that nation does not use its own language.

According to my own judgement, what has been said and agreed upon in
the PANSALB Bill meeting, that language boards should be registered as
companies, shall leave Black languages where they are. There will never be a
time that they would develop to the level on which the White languages are. That
is the reason why you hear me saying we have to look at these issues wisely.
White people are the ones who have property and will continue to support their
languages while ours would be lagging behind. PANSALB should see to it that
Black languages are elevated, and should be on equal footing with the White

ones. If it works differently, we would be far from attaining democracy that we

212

fought for. The wise are going to prevail when using their own languages and not
in using foreign languages. Afrikaans speaking people only developed when
using their language. Othenivise they would not be where they are today.
Afrikaans was used in schools, hospitals, Parliament, government ofﬁces, and in

the army.

213

 

 

 

 

nd

d:

it:

 

(KL

 

RESPONDENT #8

Zwithu zwinzhi a zwi athu bvelela. Mandela o dzhia muvhuso, Mbeki ene
ndi wa u vhusa. Ri a zwi divha zwauri dzinyambo hedzi dza hashu dzo tea u
shuma; fhedzi zwi divheni zwauri ro vha ri tshi kha di lwa uri muvhuso hoyu ri u
dzhie. Zwino musi ro no dzhia muvhuso, ndi hone-ha ri tshi do kona u vhusa. ra
ita hezwo zwine vhathu vha hashu vha funa zwone.

Ro thoma nga u fhata dzinndu dza RDP ri tshi fhatela havha vhathu vha
hashu vhe vha vha vho tangulwa nga muvhuso hoyu wa tshitalula. Zwino
mafhungo a uri ri shumisa lufhio luambo Phalamenndeni a si mafhungo ane a tou
dina u yafhi lini. Ro no vha na PANSALB ine ya khou dzudzanya haya mafhungo
a dzinyambo dzashu. Ndi ngoho, samusi rothe ri tshi khou zwi divha, a hu na
muthu ane a nga kona u dibveledza arali luambo lwawe lwo kwanyeledzwa.
Muthu ha koni u bvisela vhupﬁwa hawe khagala nga lulimi lu si lwawe. Ndi
ngazwo zwine namusi ra vha na Bodo ine ya pﬁ PANSALB ine ya vhona zwauri

dzinyambo hedzi dzi khou fan/va nga ndila i fanaho.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Many things have not as yet unfolded. Mandela took the government, but
Mbeki has to govern. We know that our languages ought to be used, but you
should know that we were struggling to take this government. After taking the
government, it is then that we can govern, and do those things that our people

need.

214

 

 

We began by building the RDP houses for our people who were
dispossessed by the apartheid government. Now the question of which language
to use in Parliament is not a difﬁcult one. We already have a PANSALB which is
dealing with the issue of our languages. It is true, as we all know it, nobody can
develop himself or herself if his or her language is oppressed. Nobody can
express his or her feelings through a tongue which is not his or hers. That is why
today we have a Board called PANSALB which sees to it that all these languages

are treated.

 

 

215

APPENDIX B:

LETTERS TO THE INTERVIEWEES AND UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER:

APPROACH LETTER FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
FROM: NKHELEBENI EDWARD PHASWANA, MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDENT

Dear MrIMs/DrlProf/Rev ........................

I am requesting your participation in my project which focuses on language policy
in South Africa. The topic of my research project is “Languages of Use by the
South African National Govemment. ”

I am a Ph.D. student in the Department of English in the School of Arts
and Letters at Michigan State University in the United States of America. As a
student in Sociolinguistics, I am interested in studying the South African
language policy. The study will investigate the extent to which South Africa’s
eleven ofﬁcial languages are used by the national government in carrying out its
national duties. Another aim of the study is to analyze the implications of the
national government’s language use.

This study, which mainly focuses on the language/s used by the new

South African national government and the implications thereof, is one of the few,
if not the only, research project that investigates the translation of policy, as
determined by the new Constitution of South Africa, into practice by the State. In
other words, this study establishes the extent to which the State practices what

the Constitution provides as far as language issues are concerned. The ﬁndings

216

 

 

of

In

 

 

of this study may, therefore, inform the national government of what the
Constitution requires and what is being practiced.

The data will be collected through an in-depth interview that will take
approximately one hour. I will use audiotape (tape-recorder) in recording the
interview. You will be asked, for example, to indicate as to whether or not the
national government is afﬁrming what is enshrined in the Constitution in as far as
language policy is concerned. If during the interview you need to give sensitive
information that if disclosed may put you in a vulnerable position, you may ask
that this information not be included in the data-base. The information you share
with me shall be treated with conﬁdence. During the interview you can ask me to
stop tape-recording at any time, and you can also stop answering questions at
any time. You are allowed to withdraw from the study at any given time without
any penalty or recrimination. If you choose to do so, I shall immediately destroy
all the data I collected from you.

I must, however, mention that I am excited about this research. Please
read and sign both copies of the consent form enclosed herein. Retain one copy
and return the other to me as soon as possible.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study.
Sincerely,

N.E. PHASWANA

217

CONSENT FORM:
Below is a consent form for participants in the qualitative study, “Languages of
Use by the South African National Government.”

I appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. As a participant,
you have speciﬁc rights that will be observed. Your participation in the study is
voluntary. Feel free to refuse to answer any question at any time during the
interview. You also have the freedom to withdraw from the interview at any time;
and to have the tape-recording stopped. Although the interview will be kept
strictly conﬁdential, parts of the interview, i.e. particular quotations may appear in
the dissertation. I would be grateful if you could sign this form to show that you
have read the letter of explanation describing the research plan and your rights.
Retain one signed copy for your record. Use the enclosed self-addressed
envelope to return the other signed copy to me. You can contact me at (0159)
83561 to answer any further questions you might have regarding this study.
Sincerely,

Nkhelebeni Edward Phaswana, Graduate Student

Date:

 

 

Name (Please Print):
I agree to participate in the study, “Languages of Use by the South African
National Government. ”

I read the letter explaining my rights as a participant.

 

Signature:

218

 

 

Fl

(I)

 

FOLLOW-UP LETTER FOR “LANGUAGES OF USE BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT”

FROM: NKHELEBENI EDWARD PHASWANA

Dear MrIMsIDrIProfIRev

 

This letter is a follow-up to our conversation about my research project. As I
mentioned previously, my research project is intended to investigate the extent to
which South Africa’s eleven ofﬁcial languages are utilized by the South African
national government in carrying out its duties.

Thank you for the time you took to respond to my invitation to participate
in my study.
Sincerely,

N.E. PHASWANA

219

 

THANK-YOU LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

FROM: NKHELEBENI EDWARD PHASWANA

Dear MrlMsIDrIProf/Rev ..........................

Thank you for participating in my project which focuses on language policy in
South Africa. I enjoyed talking with you. Again, thank you for the time you took to
participate in this study which investigates the extent to which South Africa’s
eleven ofﬁcial languages are used by the national government in carrying out its
naﬁonalduﬁes.

Sincerely,

N.E. PHASWANA

220

 

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

Michigan State UniverSily
246 Administration BUilding
East Lansmg, Michigan
488244046

517/355-2180
FAX’ 517/353-2976

7”? ”'5'”an State University
1054 '5 institutional Diversity-
Excet/ence in Action

MS." 5 an .ittiimat/ve-Jction.
3:..3 opportunity institution

MICHIGAN STATE

 

U N I V E R S I T Y
January 28, I999
T0; Dr. Geneva SMITHERMAN

221 Morrill Hall
English Dept.

APPROVAL DATE: January 28, 1999
RE: [RB # 99006 CATEGORY: l-C

TITLE: LANGUAGES OF USE BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL
The University CommngYAiwwmlnvolving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review ofthis

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects
appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include

in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to
the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms and instruction are

located

Sincerely,
“ (M l J.L- .,
3w C“ , vv/ ’/ a," ,1”; I i". 'i
/
David E. Wright, PhD. ( >
UCRIHS Chair \\_j
DEW: db
CC: Edward Phaswana
221

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Secondary Sources

Adegbija, E. (1994). The Context of Language Planning in Africa: An Illustration

with Nigeria. In M. Putz (Ed.), Language Contact and Language Conﬂict
(pp.139-163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Alexander, N. & Heugh, K. (1995). Submission to the Constitutional Assembly,
Theme Committee One on the Subject of Language. Cape Town: The
National Language Project (NLP) and the Project for the Study of
Alternative Education in South Africa (PRAESA).

Alexander, N. (1997). Language Policy and Planning in the New South Africa. In
African Sociolggical Review 1(1) (pp.82-92).

(1996). Language Policy and the National Department of Education. In D.
Brown (Ed.), E_dt_ication Policy and Language Leamingfor a Multilingual
Sociey (pp.27-30). University of Natal: Education Policy Unit & Centre for
Education Policy Development Evaluation and Management.

(1995a). Nation Building and Language in the New South Africa. In M.
Putz (Ed), QErimination through Language in South Africa?:
Perspectives on Namibian Experience (pp.29—43). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

(1995b). The Economic and Political Importance of Language Policy in the
New South Africa. Paper Presented to the Inter-Governmental Technical
Committee. Pretoria.

(1992a). A Language Policy for a Future South Africa. In D. Young (Eds),
How Do We Ensure Access to Egglish in g Post-ApartheitLSoTuthern
Africa? Proceedings of the English Academy of Southern Africa
Conference (pp.154-161). University of Cape Town: The English Academy
of Southern Africa in Association with the Language Education Centre,
School of Education.

(1992b). Language Planning from Below. In R.K. Herbert (Ed.), Language
and Society in Africa: Th; Theory and Practice of Sociolinguistics (pp.143-
149). Braamfontein: Witwatersrand University Press.

(1989). Language Policy and National Unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape
Town: Buchu Books.

222

__ (1985). Sow the Wing Contemporagy Speeches. Johannesburg:
Skotaville Publishers.

Allardt, E. (1985). Bilingualism in Finland: The Position of Swedish as a Minority
Language. In W.R. Beer, & J.E. Jacob, (Eds), Language Policy and
National Unity (pp.79-96). New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers.

Arthur, J. (1997). ‘There Must Be Something Undiscovered which Prevents Us
from Doing Our Work Well’: Botswana Primary Teachers’ Views on
Educational Language Policy. In Language and Education 11(4) (pp.225-
241)

Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods oLSociaj Research. New York: The Free

Press.Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.

Bamgbose, A. (1994a). Pride and Prejudice in Multilingualism and Development.
In R. Fardon, & G. Furniss (Eds), African Languages. Development and
the State (pp.33-43). London: Routledge.

(1994b). Language and Cross-Cultural Communication. In M. Putz (Ed),

Language Contact and Language Conﬂict (pp.89-101). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Beck, A. (1995). Language and Nation in Namibia: The Fallacies of
Modernization Theory. In M. Putz (Ed), Discrimination through Language

in Africa?: Perspectives on t_he Namibian Experience (pp.209-220). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Beer, W.R. (1985). Toward a Theory of Linguistic Mobilization. In W.R. Beer &

J.E. Jacob (Eds), Language Policy and National Uniy (pp.217-235). New
Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers.

Benjamin, J. (1994). Language and the Struggle for Racial equality in the
Development of a Non-Racial Southern African Nation. In R. Fardon & G.

F urniss (Eds), African Languages, Development and the State (pp.97-
110). London: Routledge.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, SK. (1982). Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theom and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bokamba, E.G. (1995). The Politics of Language Planning in Africa: Critical
Choices for the 21“ Century. In M. Putz (Ed), Dis-crimination t_hropgp

Language in Africa?: Perspectives on the Namibian Experience (pp.11-
27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

223

Bourne, J. (1997). “The Grown-Ups Know Best”: Language Policy-Making in
Britain in the 19903. In W. Eggington & H. Wren (Eds), Language Policy:

Dominant English, Pluralist Challenges (pp.49-65). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Broeder, P. et al. (1998). Durban Language Survey. In G. Extra & J. Maartens

(Eds), Multilingualism in a Multicultural Context: Case Studies on South
Africa and Western Europe (pp.121-137). The Netherlands: Tilburg
University Press.

Brown, D. (1992). Language and Social History in South Africa: A Task Still to be

Undertaken. In R.K. Herbert (Ed), Language and Socieg in Africa: The
Theog and Practice of Sgciolinguistics (pp.71-92). Braamfontein:
Witwatersrand University Press.

Chick, J. K. (1998). The Relationship between English and Zulu in KwaZulu-Natal.

In G. Extra & J. Maartens (Eds) Multilingualism in a Multicultural Context:
Case Stu_clies on SOI_.l_t_h Africa anplltestem Europe e(pp. 91- 103). The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Chiwome, E. & Thondhlana, J. (1992). A survey Concerning Attitudes on the
Teaching of Shona through the Media of Shona and English. In R.K.
Herbert (Ed), Language and Society in Africa: The Theory and Practice of

Sociolinguistics (pp.247-275). Braamfontein: Witwatersrand University
Press.

Cluver, A.D. dev V. (1993). Namibians: Linguistic Foreigners in their own

Country. In K. Prinsloo, et al. (Eds), Language, Law and Eguiy (pp.261-
275). Pretoria: University of South Africa.

__ (1992). Language Planning Models for a Post-Apartheid South

Africa. Language Promems & Language Planning 16(2) (pp.105-136).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

(n.d.). Variables Affecting a Language Policy at Tertiary Level (Preﬁnal
Version). Working Document.

Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language Planning anc_l_§ocial Chang. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Commonwealth Secretariat and SWAPO
(1983, October). English Language Programme for Namibians. Seminar
Report. Lusaka.

Corson, D. (1997). Social Justice in the Work of ESL Teachers. In W. Eggington
& H. Wren (Eds), Language Policy: Dominant English, Pluralist

224

Challenges (pp.149-163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Crawhall, N. (1998, July). Going to a Better Life: Perspectives on the Future of
Language in Education for San and Khoe South Africans. Paper
Presented at the World Conference on Comparative Education. Cape
Town.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

de Kadt, E. (1992). The Dangerous Power of English. In D. Young (Ed), How Do
W_e ﬂaire Access to English in a Post-Agrtheid Southern Africa?
Proceedings of the English Aca_demy of Southern Africa Conference
(pp.6-16). University of Cape Town: The English Academy of Southern
Africa in Association with the Language Education Centre, School of
Education.

Desai, Z. (1995). The Evolution of a Post-Apartheid Language Policy in South
Africa: An On-Going Site of Struggle. European Journal of Intercultural

Studies. 5(3)1, pp.8-25.

(1994). Praat or Speak but Don’t Thetha: On Language Rights in South
Africa. Language and Education. 8(182), pp.19-29.

Dua, HR. (1994). Hegemony of English. Mysore: Yashoda Publications.

Dube, W.M.R. (1992). Language Attitudes in Soweto: The Place of the
Indigenous Languages. (Unpublished MA-dissertation). Vista University.

Esman, M.J. (1985). The Politics of Ofﬁcial Bilingualism in Canada. In W.R. Beer
& J.E. Jacob (Eds), Language Policy and National Uniy (pp.45-66). New

Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers.

Edusource (1993). Language Use in Schools: A Survey of Teachers’ Opinions.
EduSource Data News. 3: pp.1-11.

Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skiin, White Masks. Paris: Grove Press, Inc.
Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics oLSociety. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fishman, J.A. (1989). Language & Ethnicity in MinoritLSociolingpistic
Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Fontana, A. and Frey, D. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Res__earch. California: Sage.

225

Fourie, K. (1995). Afrikaans - The Unwanted Lingua Franca of Namibia. In M.

Putz (Ed), Discrimination through Language in Africa?: Persgctivea on
Namibian Experience (pp.315—324). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 

Frick, E. (1990). Metaphors and Motives of Language-Restriction Movements. In

H.A. Daniels (Ed), Not Only English: Afﬁrming America’s Multilingual
Heritage (pp.27—35). Illinois: NCTE.

Geingob, H.G. (1995). “Our Ofﬁcial Language shall be English”: The Namibian
Prime Minister's Perspective. In M. Putz (Ed), ﬂscrimiaaiion through

Language in Africa?: Perspectives on the Namibian Experience (pp.175-
179). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 

Gonzalez, RD. (1990). In the Aftermath of the ELA: Stripping Language
Minorities of Their Rights. ln H.A. Daniels (Ed), Not Only English:
Afﬁrming America’s Multilingual Heritag_a (pp.49-60). Illinois: NCTE.

Granville, S. et al. (1997, July). English with or without G(u)ilt: A position Paper
on Language in Education Policy for South Africa. Paper Presented at the
English Teachers Connect International Conference. University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Haacke, W. (1987). Minority Languages in the Education of System of Namibia:
Fragmentation or Uniﬁcation? In D. Young (Ed), Language: Planninganq
Medium in Education. Southern African Applied Linguistic Association (pp.
184-205). University of Cape Town: The Language Education Unit &
SAALA.

 

 

Harlech-Jones, B. (1995). The Role of English in Namibia. A Sociocultural and
Linguistic Account. In M. Putz (Ed), Discrimination through Language in
Africa?: Perspectives on t_he Namibian Experience (pp.207-220). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Hartig, M. (1985). The Language Situation and Language Policy in Belgium. In
W.R. Beer & J.E. Jacob (Eds), Language Policy and National Unity
(pp.65-78). New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers.

Heine, B. (1990). Language Policy in Africa. In B. Weinstein (Ed), Language
Policy and Political Development (pp.167-184). Norwood: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.

Heugh. K. (1998, July). Languages, Development and Reconstructing Education

in South Africa. Paper Presented at the World Conference on
Comparative Education. Cape Town.

226

(1995). Disabling and Enabling: Implications of Language Policy Trends in
South Africa. In R. Mesthrie (Ed), Language and Social Histom: Studies in
South African Sociolinguistics (pp.329-350). Claremont: David Philip
Publishers.

(1994, July). The lmplementability of South Africa’s 11 Language Policy.
Paper Presented at the First World Congress of African Linguistics.
Kwaluseni, Swaziland.

Holliday, L. (1993). The First Language Congress for Afrikaans. In J.A. Fishman
(Ed), The Earliest Stage of Language Planning: The “First Congress”
Phenomenon (pp.11-30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jacob, J.E. & Beer, W.R. (1985). Introduction. In W.R. Beer & J.E. Jacob (Eds),

Language Policy and National Un'gy (pp.1-19). New Jersey: Rowman &
Allanheld Publishers.

Judd, EL. (1990). The Federal English Language Amendment: Prospects and
Perils. In H.A. Daniels (Ed), Not Only English: Afﬁrming America’s
Multilingpal Heritaga (pp.37-46). Illinois: NCTE.

Kamwangamalu, NM. (1997). Multilingualism and Education Policy in Post-
Apartheid South Africa. In Language Praplems & Language. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Krige, D. et al. (1994). The Education Atl_as of South Africa. Durban: Education
Foundaﬁon.

Kunene, L. (1992). LASU: Experiences and Objectives. In N.T. Crawhall (Ed),
Democratically S_Leaking: International Perspectives on Language
Planning (pp.12-16). Salt River: National Language Project.

Lucket, K. (1995). National Additive Bilingualism: Towards a Language Plan for
South African Education. In K. Heugh, et al. (Eds), Multilingual Education
for South Africa (pp.73-78). Johannesburg: Heinemann Publishers (Pty)
Ltd.

(1993). National Additive Bilingualism: Towards the Formulation of a
Language Plan for South African Schools. In D. Young (Ed), Southern

African Journal of Applied Language Studies 2(1) (pp.38-60). University of

Cape Town: The Language Education Centre in the School of Education.

Maake, NP. (1994). Dismantling the Tower of Babel: In Search of a New
Language Policy for a Post-Apartheid South Africa. In R. Fardon & G.
F urniss (Eds), African Languages, D_evelp_pment and the State (pp.111-
121). London: Routledge.

227

Maartens, J. (1998). Multilingualism and Language Policy in South Africa. In G.
Extra & J. Maartens (Eds), Multilingualism in a Multicultural Context: Case
Stages pn Sopth Afri__c_:_a and Western Europe (pp.15-36). The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

 

Makoni, S. (1999). Shifting Discourses in Language Studies in South Africa. In
K.K. Prah (Ed), Knowledge in Black and White: The lmLact of Apartheid
9n the Prod_uction and Reprodgction of K_nowlng_e (pp.143-148). Centre
for Advanced Studies of African Society: University of the Western Cape.

Marivate, C.T.D. (1993). Conference of the International Academy of Language
Law: Summary Impressions. In K. Prinsloo et al. (Eds), Language, Law
and Eguality (pp.339-343). Pretoria: University of South Africa.

 

Mateene Kahombo (1996, July). OAU’s Strategy for Linguistic Unity and
Multilingual Education. Paper Presented at an International Seminar on
Language in Education in Africa. University of Cape Town.

Matsela, Z.A. (1995). Empowerment of the Masses through the Use of African
Languages. In M. Putz (Ed), Discrimination through Language in Africa?:
Perspectives on the Namibian Experience (pp.45-56). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Mawasha, AL (1987). The Problem of English as a Second Language Medium
of Instruction in Black Schools in South Africa. In D. Young (Ed),
Language: Planning ang Mecﬂim in Education. Southern African Applied
Linguistic AssociatiorApp.107-119). University Of Cape Town: The
Language Education Unit & SAALA.

McDermott, L. (1998). The Case of English in South Africa. In G. Extra & J.
Maartens (Eds), Mtilingpalism in a Multicultural Context: Case Studies
on South Africa and Western Europe (pp.105-119). The Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.

McLean, D. (1992). Guarding against the Bourgeois Revolution: Some Aspects
of Language Planning in the Context of National Democratic Struggle. In
R.K. Herbert (Ed), Language and Sociey in Africa: The Theogy and
Pract_ice of Sociolinguistics (pp. 1 51 -161 ). Braamfontein: Witwatersrand
University Press.

 

Mkanganwi, K. (1992). Language Planning in Southern Africa. In N.T. Crawhall

(Ed), Democratically Speaking: International Perspectives on Language
Planning (pp_6-11). Salt River: National Language Project.

 

 

228 h

Moodie, T.P. (1980). The Rise of Afrikantﬂlom: Power. Apartheid, and the
Afrikaner Civil Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Motau, Z. (1993). Language and Empowerment. In K. Prinsloo et al. (Eds),

Language, Law and Egualiy (pp.213-218). Pretoria: University of South
Africa.

Mparutsa, et al. (1992). An Initial Investigation into Language Attitudes of
Secondary School Students in Zimbabwe. In R.K. Herbert (Ed), Language
Ed Society in Africa: The Theoryarlg Practice of Sociolinguistics (pp.235-
245). Braamfontein: Witwatersrand University Press.

Msimang, CT. (1993). African Language and Empowerment. In K. Prinsloo, et al.

(Eds), Language, Law and Egualig (pp.195-204). Pretoria: University of
South Africa.

(1992, August). African Language and Language Planning in South Africa.
(The Nhlapo-Alexander notion of Harmonization Revisted). Inaugural
Address. Pretoria: Bard Publishers.

Ndlovu, S.M.(1998). The Soweto uprisings: Counter-memories of June 1976.
Randburg: Ravan Press.

 

Ngugi Wa Thiong’o (1998). Penpoints. Gunpoints, and Dreams: Towards a
Critical Theory of the Arts and the State in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

__ (1997). Writers in Politics: A Re—engagement with Issues of Literature &
Socieg. Oxford: James Currey.

(1989). Decolonising the Ming: Politics of Language in African
Literature. London: James Currey.

Ohly, R. (1993). Man behind African Language. In J. Boughey (Ed), Visions and
Realities. Applied Language Studies in Sopthern Africa (pp.17-22).
University of Cape Town: The Language Education Unit & SAALA.

Paulston, CB. (1994). Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings: Implications
for Language Policies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Paulus, T. (n.d.). Language Policy and Planning in the “New" South Africa.
[Online] Available email: Tp284689@oak.cats.ohiou.edu

Phaswana, NE. (1998). Language and the Common Matriculation Examination

Policy in KwaZulu-Natal: EPU Working Paper No. 17. Natal: Education
Policy Unit.

229

(1994). African Language Planning Policies at the University of Venda
and the Medium of Instruction Question. (Unpublished Mphil-dissertation).
University of Cape Town.

Phillipson, P. (1993). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prabhakaran, V. (1998). Indian Languages in KwaZulu-Natal. In G. Extra & J.
Maartens (Eds), Mtﬂtilingpalism in a Multicultural Qantext: Case Studies
on South Africa and Western Europe (pp.75-90). The Netherlands: Tilburg
University Press.

PRAESA News: A Newsletter of the Project for the Study of Alternative
Education in South Africa. Cape Town, June, 1998.

Prah, K.K. (1997). Beyond the Colour Line: PaLri-Africanist Disputations. Florida:
Vivlia Publishers & Booksellers (Pty) Ltd.

__ (1995). Wes for the Mass Education of Africans. Bonn:
Education, Education Science and Documentation Centre.

Putz, M. (1995a). Language and Colonialism in Africa - Introduction. In M. Putz

(Ed), Discrimination through Language in Africa?: Perspectives on the
Namibian Experience (pp.1-8). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 

(1995b). Ofﬁcial Monolingualism in Africa: A Sociolinguistic Assessment of
Linguistic and Cultural Pluralism in Namibia. In M. Putz (Ed),

Discrimination through Language in Africa?: Perspectives on the Namibian
Experience (pp.155-173). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 

(1995c). Attitudes and Language: An Empirical Investigation into the
Status and Use of English in Namibia. In M. Putz (Ed), Discrimination

through Language in Africa?: Perspectives on the Namibian Experience
(pp.245-284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sagarin, E. & Kelly, R.J. (1985). Polylingualism in the United States of America:
A Multitude of Tongues amid a Monolingual Majority. In W.R. Beer 8 J.E.
Jacobs (Eds), Language Policy and National Unig (pp.20-44). New

Jersey: Rowman & Allenheld Publishers.

SAPA: Government Heading Towards Monolingualism: Language Board in
Pretoria. [Online] Available
gopher:/lgopther.anc.org.za/OO/anc/newsbrief/1997/news0605, June 5,
1997.

230

Satyo, S. (1999). Eleven Ofﬁcial Languages: One Plus One Equals Two. In K.K.
Prah (Ed), Knowledge in Black and White: The Impact of ALarthmn the
Procﬁiction aag Reproduction of Knpwlecjge (pp.149-158). Centre for
Advanced Studies of African Society: University of the Western Cape.

Siachitema, K. (1992). When Nationism Conﬂicts with Nationalist Goals. In N.T.
Crawhall (Ed), Democratically Speaking: International Persgectives on
Language Planning (pp.17-21). Salt River: National Language Project.

Sledd, J. (1990). Anglo-Conformity: Folk Remedy for Lost Hegemony. In H.A.

Daniels (Ed), Not Only English: Afﬁrming Amenw’ngltilinggal Heritage
(pp.87-95). Illinois: NCTE.

Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that Talk: Language, Culture and Education in
African America. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Smitherman, G. & Thiba, T. (1998). Book Review: Multilingual Education for
South Africa. In R.J. Watts (Ed), Multilingua: Journal oLCross-Cultural

and Interlanguage Communication (pp.321-323). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Smitherman, G. (1997). Language and Democracy in USA. and the R.S.A.
to appear in S.Makoni & N. M. Kamwangamalu (Eds), Language and
Institutions in Africa: Trends and Future Prospects. Cape Town: Centre for
Advanced Studies in African Society (CASAS), Forthcoming, 2000.

(1992, 1993, 1994, Fall). African Americans and English Only, from
Language Problems and Language Planning.

(1990). The “Mis-education of the Negro” - and You Too. ln H.A. Daniels

(Ed), Not Only English: AfﬁrmingAmeriaa’s ijtilingual Heritage (pp.109-
120). Illinois: NCTE.

(1977). Talkin and Test'ﬁyin: The Language of B_lack America Boston and
New York: Houghton Mifﬂin.

South Africa’s New Language Policy: The Facts (1994). Department of National
Education.

Swarts, P. (1996, July). Language Equality as a Policy Contradiction: The Case
of the Namibian Language Policy for Schools. Paper Presented at an
International Seminar on Language in Education in Africa. University of
Cape Town.

Tessendorf, KC. (1989). Along the Roaito Soweto: A Racial Histpry of South
Africa. New York: Antheneum Macmillan Publishing Company.

231

 

Tollefson, J.W. (1991). Planning Language. Planninwegualig: Language Policy
in the Community. London: Longman.

Towards a National Language Plan for South Africa: Final Report of the
Language Plan Task Group (1996). Department of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology.

Tucho, Y. (1992). An Examination of Language Policy and Strategies for the
Dissemination of Amharic in Ethiopia between 1942 and 1974.
(Unpublished PhD-dissertation). Ohio University.

UNIN (United Nations Institute for Namibia). (1981). Toward a Language Policy

for Namibia. English as the Ofﬁcial Language: Perspectives and
Strategies. Lusaka: UNIN.

van den Bergh, PL. (1968). Language and “Nationalism” in South Africa. In J.A.
Fishman, et al. (Eds), Language Problems of Developing Nations
(pp.215-224). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Verhoef, M. (1998). In Pursuit of Multilingualism in South Africa. In R.J. Watts

(Ed), Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage
Commpnication (pp. 181-196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Webb, V. (1998). Multilingualism as a Developmental Resource: Framework for a
Research Program. In R.J. Watts (Ed), Multilingua: Journal of Cross-

Cultural and Interlanguage Communication (pp. 125-1 54). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.

(1998, July). Multilingualism in Democratic South Africa: The Over-
estimation of Language Policy. Paper Presented at the World Conference
on Comparative Education. Cape Town.

(1994). Revalorizing the Autochthonous Languages. In M. Putz (Ed),

Language Contact and Language Conﬂict (pp.181-203). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Young, D. et al. (1992). Language Planning and Attitudes Towards the Role and
Status of Languages; Especially English, in the Western Cape Secondary
Schools. (Unpublished Research Paper). University of Cape Town:
Language Education Centre. '

Zungu, P.J. (1998). The Status of Zulu in KwaZulu-Natal. In G. Extra & J.

Maartens (Eds), Multilingualism in a Multicultural Context: C_a_se Studies
on Sogth Africa 109. Western Eurog (pp.37-49). The Netherlands: Tilburg
University Press.

232

 

Primary Sources

Airports Company South Africa Annual Financial Statements Report for the Year
Ended 31 March 1998. Johannesburg.

Annual Report of the Attorney-General: Natal, to the Minister of Justice for
Submission to Parliament for 1996. Natal.

Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services for the Period 1
January to 31 December 1997. Cape Town: CTP Book Printers (Pty) Ltd.

Annual Report of the Department of Housing for 1996. Cape Town: CTP Book
Printers (Pty) Ltd.AnnuaI Report of the Independent Complaints
Directorate of 1997-98. Cape Town: CTP Book Printers (Pty) Ltd.

Annual Report of National Training Board for 1997. Cape Town: CTP Book
Printers (Pty) Ltd.

Annual Report of the South African Communication Service for 1997. Cape
Town: CTP Book Printers (Pty) Ltd.

Annual Report of 1996 Submitted by the Attorney-General of the Cape of Good
Hope in Terms of Section 5(6) (a) of the Attorney-General Act No. 92 of
1992. Cape Town: Government Printer.

Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill (W 1328 - 98). Republic of South Africa:
Creda Communications.

CSIR Annual Report of 1998. Pretoria: CSIR.

Debates of the National Assembly (HANSARD) Second Session — First
Parliament. No. 5. 5 — 6 September, 1995. Cape Town: Creda Press.

Debates of the National Assembly (HANSARD) Second Session — First
Parliament. No.14. 15— 18 April, 1997. Cape Town: Creda Press.

Debates of the National Council of Provinces (HANSARD) First Session -
Second Parliament. No. 8. 18 — 21 November, 1997. Cape Town:
Government Printer.

Debates of the Senate (HANSARD) Second Session — First Parliament. No. 9. 6-
13 June 1995. Cape Town: Creda Press.

Domestic Violence Bill (B 75 — 98). Republic of South Africa: Creda
Communications.

233

Interim Report of 1998-97: Heath Special Investigating Unit. East London: Gem
Instant Print.

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces Meetings of Committees:
Third Annual Session, Second Parliament, February, 1999: Parliament of
the Republic of South Africa.

National Assembly Order Paper: Third Annual, Second Parliament, 9 February,
1999: Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Newsletter of the National Council of Provinces (1999, February). Cape Town:
DTP & TBSP Advertising & Marketing.

Newsletter for Members and Staff of Parliament (January, 1999). Produced by a
Project of the European Union Parliamentary Support Programme.

Mabandla, B. (1999, February): Address to Parliament on the Pan South African
Language Board Amendment Bill. South Africa, Cape Town.

Mandela, NR. (1999, February): Presidential Address to Parliament. South
Africa, Cape Town.

Pan South African Language Board Act No. 59 of 1995. Republic of South Africa:
Creda Communications.

Pan South African Language Board Amendment Bill (B 107 — 98). Republic of
South Africa: Creda Communications.

Public Investment Commissioners Amendment Bill (B 8 - 99). Republic of South
Africa: Creda Communications.

Report of the Attorney-General: Eastern Cape on the Annual Report: 1996 (In
terms of section 5(6) (a) Act 92 of 1992). Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor_General on the Accounts of the J. L. B. Smith Institute of
Ichthyology for the Financial Year 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997. Pretoria:
Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 12 — Environmental
Affairs and Tourism for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 1— President, Vote 2 -

Executive Deputy President, Vote 3 - Executive Deputy President from
the Largest Minority Party for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

234

 

 

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 29 - South African
National Defence Force for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 30 - South African Police
Service for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 31 - South African
Revenue Service for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Annual Financial Statements of the
Foundation for Research Development for 1997-98. Pretoria: Government
Printer. a

Report of the Auditor-General on the Council for Nuclear Safety for 1996-97.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Council for Mineral Technology for 1996-97.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Dairy Board Liquidation Account for the
Period Ended on 22 April 1998. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Department of Communications for 1996-
97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statement of Vote 9 —
Constitutional Development for the Year Ended 31 March 1998. Pretoria:
Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 1 — President
for the Year Ended 31 March 1998. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Local Authorities Loans Fund for 1997-98.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of Auditor-General on the Maize Board for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government
Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the National Supplies Procurement Fund for
1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa
for 1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

235

Report of the Auditor-General on the Re-lnsurance Fund for Export Credit and
Foreign Investments for the Financial Year Ended 31 March 1996.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Secret Services Account, the Related
Departmental Accounts and the Security Services Special Account for
1996-97. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the South African Medical Research Council for
1995-96. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Urban Transport Fund for 1996-97.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

Report of the Medical Research Council on Health Impact for 1996-97.
Tygerberg: Corporate Communication Division.

Report of the Public Investment Commissioners for the Financial year ended 31
March 1997. Cape Town: Cape and Transvaal Printers (PTY) LTD.

South African Human Rights Commission, 1997-1998 Third Annual Report.
Johannesburg: South African Human Rights Commission.

South African Law Commission Project 94 (July, 1998). Arbitration: An
International Arbitration Act for South Africa Report. Pretoria: Government
Printer.

South African Law Commission Project 90 (August, 1998). Harmonisation of the
Common Law and the Indigenous Law: Report on Customary Marriages.
Pretoria: Government Printer.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). South Africa.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1993). South Africa.

Witness Protection Bill (W 1308 — 98). Republic of South Africa: Creda
Communications.

236

 

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII