- LIBRARIES
' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

J

I‘ll/0

1

(

KM
Rx

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

LANGUAGE gleRMONIZATION IN SOUTHAFRICA:
PRACTICESZAND'A'I‘i‘ITUDES OF UNIVERSlTY STUDENTS

presented by
LEKETI MAKALELA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

PhD fl degree in ENGLISH

MW

Major Professor’s Signature
WA? [ 2i 2 C7 O 5

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN REM'BOX to remove this ched<out 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

FEé “it is 20337

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 375‘ WeDueJndd-m 5

 

LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: PRACTICES AND
ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

By

Leketi Makalela

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of English

2005

ABSTRACT
LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: PRACTICES AND
ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
By

Leketi Makalela

Language harmonization is perceived by some linguists as an alternative route
toward effective use of indigenous African languages in high prestige positions. This
study investigated the feasibility of uniting orthographies of Sotho language varieties (a
harmonization process) among student-participants who speak Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho. In order to assess degrees of mutual intelligibility, a determining factor for
harmonization, practices involving interdialect conversations, reading judgments, and
speaker attitudes were used as core variables.

A within-subj ect experimental design was conducted involving Six procedures: pre-
task questionnaire, focus group discussion, information gap activity, reading judgment
test, post-task questionnaire, and delayed interviews. First, frequency counts, chi-square,
and one-way AN OVA analyses showed positive attitudes toward harmonization with no
statistically Significant differences across the language varieties. Second, a matched t- test
revealed that the intervention methods (interdialect conversations and reading tasks)
increased the positive attitude ratings in the posttest questionnaire with statistically
Significant mean differences. Another one-way AN OVA analysis of reading judgment
scores showed mutual comprehension of each of the three language-based texts and the

sampled harmonized text.

Results from qualitative data analyses Showed a general support for the feasibility
of harmonizing Sotho orthographies. First, content analysis revealed arguments for
harmonization, which included, among others, national unity, protection against
extinction, wider readership, and reduction of illiteracy. Arguments against
harmonization, on the other hand, were the lack of market value for African languages,
fear of loss of identity, and the possibility of creating an artificial language. It was
noteworthy, however, that there was no disagreement on whether these Sotho language
' varieties are indeed mutually intelligible.

Discourse analysis based on Grice’s (1975) rubrics of conversational maxims
showed that there are high degrees of mutual intelligibility. The maxims (relation,
quality, quantity, and manner) were observed, and implicatures were appropriately
inferred from illocutions. Personal observations of the interactions also confirmed that the
speakers’ communicative patterns resembled those of speakers of the same language.

In brief, the high degree of mutual intelligibility in. both written and spoken
registers provided adequate evidence that Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho befit the
category of dialects of the same language, not distinct languages as proscribed in the
Constitution. Given the history of linguistic differentiation and the current need to
develop and promote the use of indigenous African languages in high prestige domains,
the study concluded with recommendations for harmonization of orthographies, re-
categorization of Sotho to represent the current three varieties and a Constitutional
amendment reducing the number of official languages. In this way, indigenous African
languages can be used with minimal costs and delays in key areas such as the media of

education within the aegis of the African Renaissance.

Copyfight by
Leketi Makalela
2005

DEDICATION

To all scholars dedicated to the revival of indigenous African languages and their use in

high prestige positions in African societies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the following people without whose contribution this dissertation
would not have been completed. First, my gratitude goes to my advisor and mentor, Dr.
Geneva Smitherman (aka Dr.G). She guided me with love, patience, and expertise, which
all enabled me to succeed in my studies at Michigan State University and to have this
dissertation completed. Through her guidance, I am carrying out the “G” label to rise and
Shine. Thank you, Dr. G.

I am thankful to my dissertation committee members: Drs Debra Hardison,
Denise Troutrnan, and James Stalker for their invaluable support and scholarly feedback
that saw this dissertation germinating from its incubation stage to the final product. They
opened their doors when I needed them. I am so grateful.

I wish to thank all my family members for their unwavering support in my long
.dayS of absence. My grandmother’s inspiration was always articulated in the injunction:
boSuana ke bja dikolobe tSa go ja mokopu wa tala (Pigs are in the worst case scenarios,
for they eat uncooked- some times rotten- pumpkins without complaints). Her words of
wisdom resonated in me at times when I needed emotional support. Despite her denied
opportunity to be able to read and write, my mother had a vision to have me “educated,”
and She has lived to see it done. To all my relatives: I AM because you ARE. Motho ke
motho ka bathe. Ke a Ieboga!

It is my pleasure to express gratitude to friends who were available when I needed
their courage. Brigitte and Hermann Kerkhoff, my second parents from Germany, put me

on the road toward a terminal degree, and kept their thumbs crossed for me throughout

vi

my studies. Dr. Luanga Kasanga, my friend and former colleague, constantly encouraged
me to think big and prioritize. I also had Student friends at Michigan State University who
touched my student life when it heavily snowed. Thank you, Spartans!

I wish to acknowledge the following sponsors whose support contributed
immensely to my success at various stages of my study program: Fulbright, Mandela
Fellowship, Compton Peace Fellowship, National Research Foundation, Ernest
Oppenheimer Trust, and Michigan State University Research Enhancement grant.

I am grateful to God for Spiritual guidance throughout the tough but rewarding
adventure of a PhD degree. To the Makalela ancestors: Dinoko t$a ga makalela ka
dipakele, lena baphalalaborwa ba ga malatji bollanoto ke yo Leketi la ra mapulana, yena
lebaba Ia masetlapelo a b0 rare, a re 0 e apere kobomabiloko, ofihleletSe magomong a
yona Thutokgologomang— ka- nna. (Act of pouring libation: Dear porcupine venerators,

Leketi has finally attained a terminal degree).

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES XII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION- _- -- 1
SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .......................................... 4
Dialect Diflerentiation and the Role of Missionary Linguists .................................. 14

The Proposal for Language Harmonization ............................................................. I 9
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................. 22
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 27
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................ 28
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 29
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 31
DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................ 34
ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTERS ............................................................................. 42
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ' - 43
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 43
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION .............. 44
ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIGENOUS AFRICAN LANGUAGES ......................... 49
RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION ............. , .................................... 5 7
Harmonization for Sotho Languages ........................................................................ 59
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY - 65
RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................. 65

viii

POPULATION, INSTRUMENTS, AND PROCEDURES .......................................... 68

Sampling Frame and Procedures ............................................................................. 71
Pilot Test ................................................................................................................... 73
Pre-task Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 75
Focus Group Discussion ........................................................................................... 76
Information Gap Task ............................................................................................... 77
Reading Comprehension Test ................................................................................... 82
Post-task Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 83
Delayed Interview ..................................................................................................... 83
Personal Observations .............................................................................................. 84
DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA 90

PRE-TASK ATTITUDES ............................................................................................. 90
I 1 Official Languages Policy and the Clustering of the Sotho and Nguni ............... 91
Languages ................................................................................................................. 91

Attitudes toward Sotho Language Varieties as Media of Instruction in Post-primary

Education .................................................................................................................. 93
Mutual Intelligibility ................................................................................................. 95
Harmonization .......................................................................................................... 98
Comparison of A ttitudes across Themes ................................................................. 100
EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION TASKS .................................................................. 102
Language Clustering on National Television ......................................................... 103
Use of Sotho Language Varieties in Post-Primary School Education .................... 104

ix

Mutual Intelligibility ............................................................................................... 1 06

Harmonization of Sotho Language Varieties .......................................................... 107
READING COMPREHENSION ACROSS SOTHO VARIETIES ............................ 109
Sepedi Reading Scores ............................................................................................ 1 10
Setswana Reading Scores ........................................................................... I ............ 112
Sesotho Reading Scores .......................................................................................... 113
Comparison of Reading Comprehension Scores .................................................... 116

CHAPTER 5: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA. 120

CONTENT ANALYSIS: RESPONSES TO THE PRE-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE . 120

Harmonization ........................................................................................................ 121
Harmonized Sotho as the Medium of Instruction .................................................... 13 7
Mutual Intelligibility ............................................................................................... 144
Summary of Content Analysis ...................................... , ........................................... 1 4 6
FOCUS GROUP CONVERSATIONS: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS .......................... 147
Bi-dialect Interaction 1 .' Mopedi and Mosotho ...................................................... 1 4 9
Bi—dialect Interaction 2: Motswana and Mopedi ....................................... ' ............ 15 7
Bi-dialect Interaction 3 .' Motswana and Mosotho .................................................. 162
Tri-dialect Interaction: Conversational Repairs .................................................... 1 6 7
Tri-dialect Interaction: Mutual Intelligibility ......................................................... 169
ORANGE GAME: INFORMATION GAP TASK ..................................................... 172
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS: NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVER ......................... 176
MATCHED QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ......................................................... 177

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 190

 

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 190
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 202
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .................................................. 207
APPENDICES - -_ 210
APPENDIX A: INVITATION ADVERT ................................................................... 210
APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM ............................................................................. 21 1
APPENDIX D: POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................... 221
APPENDIX G: READING COMPREHENSION ...................................................... 230
APPENDIX H: ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................... 234
APPENDIX 1: MATCHED T-TEST TABLES ........................................................... 256
REFERENCES - . 260

 

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Within-Subject Experimental Design ................................................................. 67
Table 2: Attitudes toward Language Clustering and 11 Official Languages .................... 92

Table 3: Attitudes toward Use of Sotho Language Varieties for Post-primary School... 94

Table 4: Attitudes toward Degrees of Mutual Intelligibility ............................................ 97
Table 5: Attitudes toward Harmonization ........................................................................ 99
Table 6: Across Theme Comparison ............................................................................... 101
Table 7: Sepedi Reading Scores ..................................................................................... 111
Table 8: Setswana Reading Scores ................................................................................. 112
Table 9: Sesotho Reading Scores .................................................................................... 114
Table 10: Performance per Language Variety ................................................................ 117
Table 11: Reading Performance per Text ....................................................................... 118

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

It has been nearly a decade since the South African Constitution made provisions
for use and promotion of indigenous African languages, which were historically
marginalized in all public domains and high prestige positions (RSA, 1996). Recognition
of the indigenous languages as official languages was borne out of the language struggle
that saw a consistent domination of these languages by Dutch, English, and Afrikaans
throughout a history of more than 300 years. Inclusion of the indigenous African
languages in the Constitution therefore formed part and parcel of the democratization
process that sought to extend people’s rights and freedoms as well as to guarantee their
human dignity in the post-Apartheid dispensation (Department of National Education,
1994). There has been, however, very little, if any, progress made regarding the use of
these indigenous languages in education, government administration, the media, and
other public spheres. On the contrary, the historically advantaged languages- English and
Afrikaans- have continued to be dominant languages of Parliament (Phaswana, 2003) and
education, despite the Constitutional commitments to multilingualism and Specifically to
official use of 11 languages as stated: Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho, ISiZulu, IsiXhosa,
IsiNdebele, SiSwati, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, English, and Afrikaans (RSA, 1996).

According to Alexander (2001), failure to implement language provisions in the
Constitution has had negative consequences for the education of African children and has
continued over time to put these children on an unequal footing with their English and
Afrikaans counterparts. Such unequal treatment of school going children in the post-

Apartheid language practice is poignantly reported as follows:

It is an amazing fact that South Africa, in spite of its modernist pretensions, is one
of the few countries worldwide where at least primary school children are not
taught through the medium of the mother tongue or a language of immediate
community... It is an equally amazing fact that within the South African context
the only children who receive mother tongue medium education virtually from
cradle to the tertiary level are the minority English and Afrikaans-Speaking
children of the country. Children born to parents whose home language is one or
other African language; i.e., the vast majority of our children, are doomed to be
taught through a medium of the second language (mostly English) from the third
or fourth year of school, mostly by teachers for whom this medium is at best a

second language but often only a third language (Alexander, 2001 , p.16-l 7).

This statement reflects a growing concern that the new socio-political
dispensation has reproduced the linguistic status quo of the past that traditionally favored
Speakers of Afrikaans and English. Reproduction of such inequalities of the past is seen
to be undermining the efforts of democratization and to creating a social paradox at the
time of political Shift toward Africanization (referred to as the “Renaissance era”), which
advocates development of Afiica through integration. For some linguists, success of the
African Renaissance is deeply rooted in the revival of linguistic heritage as well as in the
cultural cohesiveness embedded in the indigenous languages of the masses (e.g.,

Alexander, 2004; Prah, 2001).

The lack of visible progress on the use of indigenous African languages and the
ideology of the African Renaissance have increasingly revived the debate on what has
come to be known as the Nhlapo-Alexander proposal. Realizing that there were ethno-
linguistic divisions among speakers of indigenous African languages in the 1940’s, Jacob
Nhlapo proposed unification of Sotho languages (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho) and
Nguni languages (ISiZulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele, and Siswati). He believed that these
languages were mutually intelligible and that they could be unified in writing. In the late
1980’s, Alexander (1989) restated Nhlapo’s proposal when recommending harmonization
of the orthographies of mutually intelligible languages as an alternative path to resolving
the twin language question of multilingualism and use of indigenous languages in high
prestige positions. The proposal was premised on the assumption that arbitrary linguistic
divisions of the past have exaggerated “multilingualism,” which impedes prospects for
equal use of African languages in official domains. For this reason, South African
multilingualism has been regarded as a challenge that needs to be rc-conceptualized (e.g.,
Makalela, 2005; Makoni, 2003, Matubatuba, 2002). Matubatuba (2002) offers a

categorical view on the multilingual complexity as stated below:

Language power struggle hinders and delays progress from a simple task of
choosing a medium of instruction for Grade 1 to the choice of a national language
for official and business purposes. This boils down to the fact that some linguistic
groups of South Afiica still exist in separate political and puristic pockets though
they co-exist in all social settings such as education, residential and government

(Matubatuba, 2002, p.252).

Matubatuba’s argument here presents not only a comprehensive view of the
problem of multilingualism in the post-Apartheid period, but also provides grounds for
the need to harmonize mutually intelligible dialects, which have been elevated to the
status of languages. Whereas language harmonization is often construed in different
contexts to mean a variety of things (see for example, Nakin, 2002), the harmonization of
languages as proposed for the South African context is generally understood to mean re-

_ standardization of the written varieties within Nguni and Sotho language clusters so that
lexical, terminological and orthographic conventions could proceed on a convergent path
(Heugh, 2002).

This study sought to investigate the harmonization proposal as an alternative
route to resolving the complex multilingual Situation in South Africa. In order to test the
feasibility of the harmonization project, the study focused on the degrees of mutual
intelligibility among Sotho dialects, which are Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho, and the
attitudes of native Speakers about these dialects within this language group. In order to
provide a broader perspective on the harmonization question investigated in the study, the
following section describes the socio-political context that reflects a history of language
struggle and arbitrary linguistic divisions that date as far back as .1652 when the crew for

the Dutch East Indian Company settled for the first time in the Cape.

SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Research in South Afiican language policy and practices covers a period of more

than 300 years that begins with the arrival of Dutch settlers in 1652 (Alexander, 1989;

Kamwangamalu, 2001; Kloss, 1978; Malherbe, 1977). A plethora of studies categorizes
the language policy of South Africa as one with a history replete with linguistic
discrimination that was characterized by two main factors: (a) exclusive use of exogenous
European languages and (b) marginal use of indigenous African languages in high
prestige positions of power and information (e.g., Makoni, 2003; Phaswana, 2000).
Furthermore, the indigenous AfIican languages were consistently divided by elevating
dialects of the same language into distinctive languages with differentiated orthographic
' and spelling representations. These divisions were strengthened under the aegis of the
Bantustan homeland system, which was based on the Apartheid policy of separate
development. As a result of these underlying socio-political forces, linguistic practices in
South Africa became fraught with a vicious language struggle between the indigenous
African people and the European settlers (e. g., Reagan, 2001), on the one hand and
linguistic tribal enclaves within the indigenous African languages, on the other hand.

The South Afiican language struggle can be classified under five broad historical
themes in the order discussed below: (a) Dutchification period that began with the arrival
of the Dutch settlers in 1652, (b) Anglicization period beginning with the invasion of the
English in 1795, (c) Afrikanerization that started with Afrikaner nationalism in 1925 and
endorsement of Apartheid policy in 1948, (d) the 1976 Soweto Students Uprising and (e)
the democratization period that resulted in the multilingual policy of 1996 (see
Kamwangamalu, 2001). All these periods uncover the complex language struggle in
ways that connect to the harmonization proposal.

The Dutchification period started with the arrival of the Dutch settlers through the

Dutch East Indian Company on Table Bay on April 6, 1652. The settlers wanted to use

the Cape region as their refreshment station and as a temporary stoppage area on their

way to India. Troup (1972) presents the initial mission of the Dutch as follows:

Some five years after the wreck of the Harlem and 154 years after Vasco da
Garna’s voyage, Jan van Riebeeck, a tough, much traveled and very able Ship’s
surgeon, set from Holland with three small ships, Goede Hoep, the Dramedaris
and the Reiger, to found at the Cape “a depot of provisions,” to enable ships of the
company to refresh themselves with the vegetables, meat, water, and other
necessities, by which means the sick on board may be restored to health (Troup,

1972, p.40).

In spite of the mission to settle temporarily at the Cape, the Dutch eventually
settled there permanently and moved inland. AS they moved further inland, they first
clashed with the Khoe and San people who had inhabited the area for approximately 120
000 years and later with the Bantu Speaking communities who had settled mainly in the
upper regions some time before 800 AD (Webb, 2002). The Dutch were not interested in
learning the languages of the indigenous people. Instead, they used interpreters to
communicate with the people who later became slaves. The Khoe and San languages
were disregarded and castigated as the “clucking of turkeys” (Alexander, 1989, p.21).
According to Troup (1972), the settlers had a condescending attitude toward the San
languages because they had a “small vocabulary and strange clicks” (p.22). As a result,
the languages of the indigenous people were denigrated, deemed inferior to be learned

and used for official communication between the Europeans and the Africans.

The Dutch settlers had a further mission of changing and replacing the African
social reality with a foreign culture and ideology. To this end, they imposed their own
language on the local people and consequently used it as the language of learning and
teaching in the European modeled schools. Language was, in this connection, enforced as
a tool of re-socialization (see Alexander, 1989, 1995). According to Marteens (1998), as
quoted in Phaswana (2000), there were other languages of the Cape such as Portuguese
and Malay-Portuguese. The former was Spoken by a few slaves from Angola,
Mozambique, and Madagascar, who were brought to the Cape by Portuguese settlers as
indentured slaves. The latter came from Malaysia as indentured Slaves who were used for
cheap labor in the.“found” refreshment station. Because the languages of the Slaves began
to threaten Dutch as the sole dominant language of the Cape, the Dutch settlers decreed
the use of “Dutch only” in all official domains. This period marks the first known
language policy in South Africa.

The second phase is the Anglicization period that involved the invasion of the
English settlers for the first time in 1795 and secondly in 1802. It was in the second
invasion that the English were vigorously engaged in the Anglicization of the country
where the English language was enforced as the language of use in the government
business and other public spheres like education. In order to succeed in spreading the use
of English throughout the country, the English sought to reduce Dutch, which had been
the sole official language since 1652, in all spheres of life (Kloss, 1978). In this
connection, language was also used as an ideological tool to entrench the Anglicization
mission sanctioned under the auspices of the British imperialism that targeted African

colonies for its expansion. Among other factors, competition for linguistic domination

between the two colonizing groups saw a settler-settler clash between the Dutch and
British that resulted in the Anglo-Boer War, which lasted from 1889 tol902. What is
unique about this Dutch-British rivalry for domination is that both colonizing groups had
a common mission that had far-reaching linguistic implication for the indigenous
languages, i.e., de-Africanization through marginalization of the indigenous African
languages (see Kamwangamalu, 1997; Heugh, 2002; Malherbe, 1977). These expositions
reveal that indigenous African languages were consistently inhibited as means of
expression in government, business, and educational affairs from the 17th century to the
turn of the 20th century due to political control based on colonialism.

The role of missionary linguists in the 19th century was of linguistic importance
in ways that provide a context for the harmonization proposal. The missionaries were the
first to create the orthographies of indigenous African languages because they wanted to
Christianize the natives and to translate the Bible into these languages. According to
Doke (1993), “The period concerning about 1830 down to the present day became a
period of intensive monograph study of the Bantu languages, a period in which almost all
the research and recording work was done by the missionaries”(p. 34). These
missionaries include Isaac Hughes (1789-1870), and Andrew Spaarrnan (1747-1820) who
respectively developed Setswana and IsiXhosa (called “Kafir language” at that time).
According to Miti (2002), IsiXhosa and Setswana were the first Southern African
languages that were reduced to writing by the missionaries. IsiXhosa was put to writing
in 1826 by the missionaries from the Glasgow mission who used the English alphabet
while Setswana orthography was developed in 1837 by James Archbell in 1841 by the

French, Eugene Casalis, and in 1858 by David Livingstone (Miti, 2002). ISiZulu, which is

a Sister dialect of IsiXhosa, was developed by American missionaries in 1849; Sepedi—a
sister dialect of Setswana- was put to writing by the German Lutheran missionaries. This
brief history reveals that indigenous languages were reduced to writing by non-mother
tongue speakers of European origin who, according to Banda (2002), had no knowledge
of the history and relationship that existed between the languages. This led to elevation of
dialects of the same language to the status of fully-fledged languages with orthographies
that coincided with the missionaries’ mother tongues. Banda (2002) contends that the
European colonialists and missionaries treated'AfIican sounds as if they were from a
European phonetic system. A prototypical example of orthographic “disinvention”
(Makoni, 2003) can be seen with different orthographies of Sesotho dialect. Sesotho of
Lesotho and Sesotho of Free State to date still have different orthographies even though
they are the same dialect of the Sotho language. For many linguists (e. g., Mansour,
1993), missionaries have exaggerated the number of actual languages spoken today in
South Africa. Arguments for harmonization of differentiated orthographic representations
and Spelling systems are rooted in this context of exaggerated multilingualism, which
resulted in a proliferation of many indigenous languages (Prah, 2001, Alexander, 1989).
The third socio-historical phase in the language practices of South Afiica is the
Afrikanerization movement that emerged in 1914 (Mbeki, 2005) and reached its peak in
1948 when the nationalist government took power and instituted Apartheid policies of
separate development. When the formally known as “Union of South Africa” was
declared in 1910, Dutch was used as a second official language Side by side with English.
The Afrikaners who spoke a Dutch creole, Afrikaans, protested against the bilingual

official language system that excluded their own mother tongue. They insisted that their

language should have official recognition until it was finally able to replace Dutch in
1925 as the second official language Side by Side with English. According to Marteens
(1998) as quoted in Phaswana (2000), Afrikaans emerged as a result of slave-master and
Slave-Slave conversations, which were derogatorily referred to as “kitchen Dutch.” Over
time, however, Afrikaans became a unifying symbol of nationalism among the Dutch
descendants, and it was promoted and officially declared a fully-fledged official language
above all the indigenous African languages. At the beginning of the official Apartheid
policies in 1948, the National Party ensured that Afrikaans became a medium of learning
and teaching, Side by Side with English, which still had its official status secured. Like
their predecessors, the Afrikaners had a mission of reducing the domination of English in
public Spheres. But far beyond their battle against English, they wanted to reduce
Africans to linguistic-tribal enclaves under the pretext of separate development ideology.
Such linguistic tribalization was enforced in accord with the architect of Apartheid, Dr H.
F Verwoerd’s “blue print of Apartheid” (Smitherman, 2000). Dr H. F Verwoerd decreed
that “Afiicans who Speak different languages must live in separate quarters” (Alexander,
1989, p. 21). Furthermore, a Group Areas Act was passed with the aim of teaching a
Black child that “he was a foreigner when he [was] in White South Africa, or at best
stateless; that equality with Europeans was not for him; that there was no place for him in
the European community above the level of certain forms of labour” (Malherbe, 1977, p.
546)

In order to teach Black children to feel that they were foreigners in South Africa,
foreign languages were promoted at the expense of the indigenous languages. Systematic

exclusion of indigenous languages meant that the indigenous majority population was

10

reduced to the position of a social minority in their own country and that they would
“enjoy” the same status as legal and illegal migrants in Europe (Alexander, 2001, p.9).
Using the Bantustan homeland system, the Apartheid government embarked on
exploiting the ethno-linguistic boundaries that had been arbitrarily drawn by the early
missionary linguists (i.e., the nine indigenous languages) and entrenched dialects of the
same language as different languages. Ten Bantustan homelands were created in
accordance with each of the dialects that had been elevated to the status of languages by
the missionaries as follows: (1) Lebowa (Sepedi) (2) Bophutatswana (Setswana), (3)
Qwaqwa (Sesotho), (4) Kwa-Zulu (IsiZulu), (5) Kwa-Ndebele (IsiNdebele), (6)
Kangwane (siSwati), (7) Transkei (IsiXhosa), (8) Ciskei (IsiXhosa), (9) Venda
(Tshivenda), (10) Gazankulu (Xitsonga). It was only IsiXhosa that had two homelands
that were divided by the Kei River (Ciskei and Transkei). While the laws of
disintegration during the Apartheid era were formulated on the belief that the people of
South Africa had different cultures and languages, the general principle of divide and rule
was the main driving force. Jokweni (2002) portrays this dominant mode of thinking
when stating that “it is a fact that the real cause for disintegration was fear of unity or
integration of any form among Africans, as it was always perceived as a threat to White
supremacy” (p.178). This perspective points out that the indigenous languages were at the
center of the struggle for domination and that they were targeted as tools for social
disintegration and the maintenance of White supremacy. The politics of racial domination
therefore permeated the sociolinguistic landscape of the country in this unprecedented

manner as described through the homeland system.

11

Afrikanerization of South Africa from 1948 to 1994 was the most overtly
politicized period with a number of language related events. First, the Bantu Education
Act 47 of 1953 increased the use of mother tongue from grade 4 to grade 8, for
fiagmentation of the African people whose majority status was both a political and social
threat to the minority settlers. Even though the use of mother tongue was recommended
as the best policy for development of indigenous literacies by UNESCO in the same year,
a number of scholars (Heugh, 2002; Kamwangamalu, 1997; Reagan, 1986, 1988, 2002)

' observed that the Bantu Education Act was not based on UNESCO’S declaration for
mother tongue education as a universal norm. On the contrary, the Act was meant to re-
tribalize the Afiicans so that they had no access to the languages of power and to restrict
them to menial estates and lowly occupations (Prah, 1995, p.68). Following the extension
of mother tongue education to grade 8, Afrikaans and English were used as languages of
instruction from grade 9 to 12 on a 50:50 basis. This means that 50% of the school
subjects were taught in Afrikaans, and another 50% taught in English. Subsequently,
mother tongue instruction was reduced to grade 6 after mounting protests by the main
liberation movements in the l9SOsz African National Congress and Pan African
Congress. These organizations negatively associated mother tongue education with
Apartheid policies of divide and rule and inferior education for Afiicans. Because
education in mother tongue was used to inculcate an inferior Bantu Education curriculum
specially designed for subordination of the African child, it had already tainted the very
notion of mother tongue education (Alexander, 2001, p.16).

In 1976, the students filled the streets of South Western Townships (SOWETO)

decrying the imposition of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in their education. The

12

protests were prompted by the Apartheid regime’s attempts to impose Afiikaans as the

medium of instruction in primary schools in order to reduce the domination of English,
which was then used as the medium of learning and teaching from grade 5. This attempt
was met with one of the bloodiest resistances to language practice in the history of South
Africa where schoolchildren sacrificed their lives in pursuit of linguistic justice (Kloss,
1978). Opinions do vary as to the purpose of the struggle, but Omer-Cooper (1994,
p.226) captures the mood of the event by categorically stating: “in 1976, school children
throughout Soweto staged a massive demonstration against the use of Afiikaans as a
medium of instruction.” Language thus became a source of social strife in the socio-
political affairs of the country.

After the Soweto uprisings of 1976, there was a rapid emergence of private
English medium schools (called Model C) and the reversal of the Afrikaner language
policy to the original missionary policy of first 4 years of mother tongue education in
public schools (Education Act of 1979) (Murray, 2002). While Afrikaans was reversed as
the medium of instruction in primary schools, the struggle did not help to elevate the
Status of indigenous African languages. By default, English gained more clout over

Afrikaans as the language of learning and teaching in Black schools.

The socio-historical context described above roughly summarizes the South
African language struggle prior to the multilingual policy of 1996 (which will be
discussed in the next section) and can be summed up as: (a) exclusion and ethno-
linguistic division of African languages, on the one hand and (b) promotion and exclusive
“38 of Afrikaans, Dutch, and English on the other hand. Both factors (a and b) formed the

Core of the language question that has remained unresolved even in the new socio-

13

political dispensation that started in 1994. The role of missionary linguists and the history
of harmonization in South Africa are described in details in the following subsections to

preface the statement of problem presented in the study.

Dialect Differentiation and the Role of Missionary Linguists
The proposal for harmonization of mutually intelligible, but differently encoded
dialects is premised on the assumption that “multilingualism” as it is conceived in South
Africa is an artificial construct that was invented by the missionary linguists (Makoni,
2003; Mansour, 1993; Prah, 1998). Nakin (2002) provides a broader picture as to how

Sotho language varieties were differentiated in spelling and orthographies as follows:

The emergence of Sesotho, Setswana and Sepedi, as distinctive languages owes
much to three different missionary societies whose activities were centered in
different areas where Sesotho was Spoken. The London Missionary society was
active in the western Side and the Sotho language became Setswana, the Catholic
missionaries were active in the south and the Sotho language became Sesotho
while the Lutheran missionaries were located in the north and the Sotho language
became Sepedi. Therefore there were three varieties of the same language created:

words pronounced the same way were now Spelt differently (Nakin, p.238).
This description explains how “multilingualism” became exaggerated where, for

example, one language was encoded into three different languages irrespective of their

Similarities. Because the European missionaries created a “multilingual complex”

14

(Mansour, 1993) for African societies, proponents of the harmonization proposal see the
need to unite Spelling systems and orthographies as a necessary step to reduce the number
of languages with higher degrees of mutual intelligibility.

The Sotho example reflects an Africa wide problem where missionary linguists
arbitrarily elevated the status of dialects to that of languages often without consideration
of the sociolinguistic landscape and communicative practices of the Speakers (Alexander,
1989; Bokamba; 1995; Campbell-Makini, 2000; Makoni, 2003; Mansour, 1993; Prah,
1995, 1998). Campbell-Makini (2000) notes that mishearing and faulty transcription by
the missionaries occurred throughout the continent with the result that dialects of the
same language and different languages were created from what was one language
(p.115). In another study, Mansour (1993) contends that the first linguists in Afiica were
European and American missionaries who were sent to a specific colony to found, and
later expand Christian missions. But over and above that, “it was part of the missionaries’
task to analyze the phonology and grammar of the African language in order to devise a
writing system, and ultimately, to translate the Bible, the catechism, and hymns”

(Mansour, 1993, p. 12).

According to Mansour (1993), practical goals of the missionaries’ linguistic
analysis surpassed development of a scientific methodology for the study of indigenous
African languages. There were two steps in the process of translating the Bible into
indigenous languages. First, data were collected from one particular place and from one
Or two informants. Limited responses from these informants were generalized and used in

encoding the written registers. In addition, the researcher received the native Speakers’

15

preconceptions and prejudices concerning their language and its relationship with
varieties from neighboring villages through the informant (S). This introduced the
problem of language labels, which still haunts Afiican linguistics.

The second problem with missionaries was that they were coming from different
countries and from denominations whose rivalries were reflected in their encoding of the
languages, in which they were not conversant. As a result, they did not make scientific
comparison of data on the languages they were transcribing in order to establish the
degree of relationships between language varieties (Mansour, 1993). Groenewald’s
(1995) study of the Sesotho orthography also supports the view that the missionary
linguists misinvented the orthographies of African languages (see also Makoni, 2003) and
elevated dialects of the same language to fully-fledged languages through the lack of a

centralized system. He elaborates on the work of missionary linguists that “the different
missionary societies worked independently of one another, and developed written forms
in order to translate the Bible in the different languages as well as to provide liturgical
documents in these languages” (Groenewald, 1995, p.381). In extreme cases, one dialect
Was encoded with two different orthographies. As previously stated, one of the known
cases of orthographic differentiation in one dialect is the case of Sesotho, a language
Variety spoken in Lesotho and in the Free State. Prah (2001) observes that the
orthography of Sesotho of Lesotho was designed by the Protestant Evangelical Mission
and the one in Free State was designed by the London Missionary Society (see also
Nakin, 2002). AS a result of the lack of coordination and centralized System of
Standardization, Spelling system of one dialect was differentiated, with Sesotho of

LeSOI-ho following a conjunctive system (toward agglutinative) while the one in Free

16

 

State followed a disjunctive orthographic system (toward isolating). These systems were

studied in Groenewald’s (1995) project where he concluded as follows:

Southern Sotho today has two writing forms. This clearly Shows that
languages, which on the surface appear to be innocent vehicles of communication,
in fact often are more than that for their users: they can be the stick with which the

dog is beaten (Groenewald, 1995, p. 381).

The clause in italics Shows that linguistic barriers that are caused by misspellings
and divergent orthographic representations can be detrimental in dialects whose speakers
share a high degree of mutual intelligibility. These arbitrary orthographies have created a
language problem in Africa where the Speakers “are now faced with the phenomenon of
having a number of languages entered into the catalogue of Afiican languages where in
fact there should be only one” (Mansour, 1993. p13). In another study on creation of
orthographic representations, Prah (1995) highlighted the fact that ethno-linguistic
boundaries were caused by missionary involvement in the writing System of the

indigenous African languages. He drew a Similar conclusion when stating that:

Missionary linguists were fairly idiosyncratic in the way they developed
orthographies and through such practices projected their own views in the
creation of separate identities for people who were not really ethno-linguistically

different (Prah, 1995, R81).

17

The observation articulated in Prah’s (1995) statement that the missionaries
projected their own views in dividing languages into dialects coincides with Makoni’s
(2003) description of disinvention. According to Makoni (2003), division of African
languages in the current boundaries reflects a European centered mode of thinking,

positivism, as reported in this passage:

The missionaries created languages, which were describable as mutually
exclusive boxes as opposed to the interconnectedness. In fact, the very notion of
languages as discrete units, or “boxes” is a product of European positivism

reinforced by literacy and standardization (Makoni, 2003, p.141).

This quote implies that Eurocentric lenses of individuality and separateness
contributed to the missionaries’ view of the African sociolinguistic landscape. They could
not adequately comprehend the interconnectedness of speech that cuts across a wider
Spectrum of the communities they found.

Studies by Groenewald (1995), Mansour (1993) and Prah (1995, 1998) restate the
widely held view that the present nine indigenous languages are missionary created
languages, which do not reflect a true sociolinguistic landscape of South Africa. Reasons
for dialect differentiation include lack of detailed studies on African languages, urgency
to translate the Bible into the local languages, rivalry among various denominations and
nationalities, mishearing, and European positivism. Harmonization, as proposed, in this

particular case is seen as a recourse to redress the missionary “errors” especially when the

18

current Constitutional provisions for use of African languages have become difficult to

implement in a society that seeks to reform itself toward a “Renaissance” era.

The Proposal for Language Harmonization

The proposal for harmonization of indigenous South African languages with
higher degrees of mutual intelligibility was initiated in 1944 by Jacob Nhlapo who
reported on the “trouble of a Babel of Bantu tongues” (p.10) in South Africa. Nhlapo’s
' (1944, 1945) proposal was prompted by the growing linguistic tribalization among people
who Spoke mutually intelligible dialects that were separated in writing by missionary
linguists. For example, he cited a word for ‘cow’, which has three distinct Spellings in
Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho as kgomo, khomo and locomo, respectively, even though
these words are pronounced in mutually comprehensible ways. For Nhlapo, these
Spellings are evidence of the fact that these three varieties are in fact one language that
needed to be unified in writing because “writing is the beSt way to make languages grow
together” (p.7). In this connection, unification of orthographies of closely related
languages could save them from further fragmentation and death, and enrich them as
useful vehicles of national cohesiveness. Specifically, Nhlapo (1944, 1945) proposed that
Bantu languages of South Afiica be united in at least two categories: standard Nguni
formed from a “mixture” of ISiZulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele and siSwati and standard Sotho
derived from Sotho dialects (Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana). He Stated the original

version of his proposal as follows:

19

ll

Having agreed as to which are the chief Bantu languages in South Africa, we can
also agree that the work of joining Bantu languages would chiefly have to do with
these languages. From these tongues we can at first build up two languages. Zulu
and Xhosa, together with the branches known as Ndebele, Swazi, Baca, etc., are
so much alike that, put together, they can make one good strong language called
Nguni. In the same way, Pedi, Tswana, and Southern Sotho, together with Kxatla,
Tlokwa, etc., are so much alike that joined together, they can make one good

strong language called Sotho (Nhlapo, 1944, p.6).

The advantages of harmonizing South African languages as elicited from Bantu Babel

(Nhlapo, 1944) include the following:

(1) Reducing the costs of translation

(2) Enriching literary tradition and widening readership in African languages
(3) Use of similar orthography for educational purposes

(4) Creating a basis for the use of Bantu languages as the media of instruction in

higher domains of science

Apart from the linguistic unification necessary for nation building and the advantages
outlined above, Nhlapo’s second concern was the deteriorating standards of education,
higher rates of illiteracy, dropouts and repeats in the Black community. He pointed out
that only a third of Afiican children were going to school while two out of three among

those who were going to school would fail. For these reasons, Nhlapo (1944, 1945) saw

20

the need for mother tongue education as a necessary step in alleviating the educational
problems associated with the use of a foreign language. Language harmonization was
regarded, therefore, as a transitional phase toward mother tongue education. Taken
together, Nhlapo’s (1944, 1945) proposal called for a language planning-policy in South
Africa with two main thrusts: (a) linguistic unification as a basis for national unity and
(b) use of the unified vernaculars for the education of South African Black children.
Nhlapo’s proposal was not developed for over four decades of Apartheid rule
until it resurfaced through the National Language Project (N LP), a non-govemmental
body formed in the mid 1980’s to work on language policy for new South Africa and Dr
Neville Alexander’s controversial text: Language policy and nation building in South
Africa/Azania (1989). After elaborating on the linguistic balkanization of Bantu
languages under the Apartheid government, and contemplating the exigencies of planning
for the new language policy of post-Apartheid South Afiica, Alexander (1989) forcefirlly

re-stated Nhlapo’s proposal as follows:

...one issue has engaged my attention and will not be postponed. I refer to what I
call the question of the possibility and desirability of consolidating (standardizing)
Nguni and Sotho respectively. In a nutshell, I am examining and airing the
possibility that major varieties of Nguni (Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele) and Sotho
(Southern Sotho, Northern Sotho and Tswana) can and Should be standardized or
unified in writing and in all formal settings (school, church, law, court, etc.)

(Alexander, 1989, p.74).

21

Both Nhlapo (1944) and Alexander (1989) conceptualized harmonization only for
writing. AS in the quote above, the harmonized form is envisaged for use in formal
settings like schools, courts, etc. Overall, this proposal underscores the view that
communication within the Bantu language clusters iS mutually intelligible and that degree
of inter-comprehension should be a guiding principle in the formulation of a language

policy for South Africa. (see also Prah, 1993, 1995, 1998).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In order to end the language struggle that saw a systematic exclusion of African
languages in public domains and to foster national unity among ethno-linguistically
divided people, the South Afiican Constitution accorded 11 languages an official status at
its inception in 1996 (RSA,]996). Including the nine major indigenous African
languages as well as Afrikaans and English, which were historically privileged as
national official languages, the act recognizes the new official languages: Sepedi,
Sesotho, Setswana, ISiZulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele, SiSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, English
and Afiikaans (RSA, section 2). In addition, the Constitution made Specific provision for

the development and use of African languages as follows:

Recognizing 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 (RSA, section 6 (2)).

22

_r'

AS a way of translating these Constitutional provisions to concrete and practical
action, a Fan South African Language Board (PANSALB) was established and tasked

with the following general responsibilities:

a) Promote, and create conditions for the development and use of
(i) all official languages;
(ii) Khoe, Nama and San languages
(iii) Sign language;
b) Promote and ensure respect for-
(i) all languages commonly used for communities in South Africa ,
including German, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil,
Telegu and Urdu; and
(ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, and other languages used for religious

purposes in South Afiica. (RSA, 1996, 6 (5)).

The rationale for this inclusive policy was to extend language rights and freedoms
Of all the people of South Afiica and to build national unity in response to the history of
edInc-linguistic and racial divisions. Makoni, Ridge & Ridge (1999), however, pointed
out that the Constitutional provisions are too wide ranging and that practical
implementation of the provisions might prove a daunting task. In a later study, Makoni
(2003) critiqued the Constitution on the basis that it repackaged the missionary “errors”
and di sinvention of indigenous languages. He states, “South African Constitution

language policy creates a self-serving amnesia by encouraging Africans to “unremember”

23

the historical and material contexts, which the so-called African languages were invented
or cobbled together” (Makoni, 2003, p.132).

This critique showcases the fact that the Constitution does not make reference
whatsoever to the key notion of unification of the arbitrarily divided indigenous
languages. This is problematic. Makoni (2003, p.139) further argued that the policy
Should have Specified only two or three African languages as official languages and
explicitly made provisions for re-conceptualization of the so-called “language.”

In nearly a decade, attempts to implement multilingualism and use African
languages in the high prestige positions have proved complex and hard to translate into
concrete action despite the PAN SALB engagement in the process. AS a result, the old
linguistic status quo is reproduced in the new socio-linguistic dispensation with
traditionally privileged languages remaining the dominant languages of education,
science, medicine, and official communication. Phaswana (2000, 2003), for example,
reported that there has been no visible progress with regard to the use of African
languages in the national Parliament. His study Showed that language practices in
parliamentary sessions still favor the two previously dominant languages, English and
Afrikaans, while members of Parliament who are not communicatively confident in these
languages often withhold their participation. There has also not been much progress in
using the indigenous African languages in most public services like the banking system,
the media and the job market (e. g., Simmons 2003; Kamwangamalu, 2001) For example,
Simmons (2003) reports that the Department of Home Affairs was still unable to produce

a birth certificate in ISiZulu- the largest indigenous language- as late as October, 2003.

24

More negative developments were noted regarding the use of African languages
as the media of learning and teaching. Indigenous African languages have not yet been
used as the media of instruction beyond grade 4. By default, the public schools still
follow the missionary designed subtractive bilingualism program, which is a deficit
model that forces learners to make a sudden transfer from their mother tongue to English
at grade five. This program is continued in the post-Apartheid era despite volumes of
research documenting its association with high failure and attrition rates in primary and
secondary schools (see Adler, 2001; Macdonald, 1990). Taken together, these expositions
Show that the Constitutional commitments to promote the use of African languages have
not been upheld. It is in this context that Kamwangamalu (2000) succinctly observes: “if
any thing has changed at all, it is that English has gained more territory and political clout
than Afrikaans” (p.129).

It is, however, noteworthy that the difficulty of developing and using all the
African languages in their current status in the official domains was predicted aS early as
the forties and fifties by Nhlapo (1944, 1945) and in the late 803 through the seminal
work of Alexander (1989). Nhlapo (1945) and Alexander (1989) argued that development
of African languages and their use as vehicles of science and technology needed to be
preceded by a redress of arbitrary linguistic divisions of the past. In redressing the
divisions in indigenous African languages, they Specifically proposed that orthographies
and Spelling systems of mutually intelligible language varieties within one cluster like
Sotho (Sesotho, Sepedi and Setswana) and Nguni (ISiZulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele and
siSwati) can be unified into a common written language, respectively. Known as the

“Nhlapo-Alexander proposal”, language harmonization is described as a re-

25

standardization process that codifies language varieties in the same cluster into one core

written standard. Heugh (2002) explains this process comprehensively as follows:

The proposal concerned the further standardization of the written (not spoken)
varieties within each of these language clusters so that lexical, terminological and
orthographic conventions could proceed on a convergent path (Heugh, 2002,

p.457).

Whereas the harmonization proposal was neither favored in the 1940’s nor in the
early 1990’s, the perceived difficulty of implementing the multilingual policy of 11
official languages has increasingly brought the proposal into focus (Makoni, 2003; Prah,
1998; Webb, 2002). It is viewed as an alternative language-planning endeavor that would
ease the problem of multilingualism and create a conducive climate for development and
use of indigenous African languages in official domains (e.g., Alexander, 1989; Makoni,
2003). Some scholars, however, regard it as a sociolinguistic impossibility because
Speakers of these languages have already formed strong identities that are attached to the
current language entities (e.g., Titlestad, 1996; Zotwana, 1989). Amid these competing
views, it remains unknown whether or not harmonization is a feasible language project
for post-Apartheid South Africa. There is very little, if any, known about (i) the attitude
of Speakers in one cluster toward harmonization of their language varieties and (ii) the
degrees of mutual inter-comprehensibility among Speakers of the Sister languages

proposed for harmonization. Given this knowledge gap, this study focused on language

26

attitudes and degrees of inter-variety comprehensibility in the Sotho language cluster

(i.e., Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The main research question for the study was whether or not harmonization of
language varieties in the Sotho cluster is feasible, given the inter-variety practice and
attitudes of Speakers of these varieties. The research question is subdivided into the

following five Specific questions:

(a) What are the preconceived attitudes of Speakers of Sister language varieties toward
other language varieties in the Sotho language cluster?

(b) Can speakers of Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho)
communicate among themselves, given a shared topic of mutual interest, without
major linguistic barriers?

(c) Can inter-variety communication among Speakers of Sotho language varieties
achieve a set communication goal?

(d) Can speakers of Sotho language varieties read and comprehend texts written in
varieties of Sotho other than their own?

(e) Does language contact among speakers of Sotho language varieties harden

or reinforce Speakers’ preconceived attitudes toward other varieties?

27

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to explore the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho
language varieties to reduce differentiated orthographic representations and develop a
core written standard emerging from Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho. In order to explore
the feasibility factor, two variables were identified: attitudes of native speakers and
degrees of mutual intelligibility. Within the context of Speaker attitudes and degrees of

mutual intelligibility, this study has the following five identifiable sub-aims:

(1) To assess the preconceived attitudes of native Speakers of Sotho language
varieties toward other varieties in the same language cluster: Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho.

(2) To investigate the extent to which communication without major linguistic

barriers (mutual intelligibility) can be achieved when Speakers of the Sotho
language varieties are involved in interactions in which all their vemaculars
are used (inter-variety communication).
(3 ) To asses whether Sotho inter-variety communication can accomplish a set
communicative. goal.
(4) To explore the extent to which reading and understanding of written texts
from varieties of Sotho other than the informants’ own can be achieved.
(5) To examine the degree to which preconceived attitudes are changed or

reinforced after the Speakers were immersed in the inter-variety interactions

and exposed in the inter-variety text.

28

METHODOLOGY

This study triangulated methods of inquiry in order to gain the depth and range of
the harmonization phenomena investigated. There were six stages that required the use of
both qualitative and quantitative measures within the over-arching umbrella of an
experimental design. These stages were preceded by a pilot study that was used to predict
areas of potential difficulty in the design and to modify the research instruments and
procedures.

The pilot test involved three Students who represented ideal respondents from
three Sotho language provinces: Limpopo (Sepedi), North-West (Setswana), and Free
State (Sesotho). The students provided answers on the questionnaires that were written in
their own language varieties, and they participated in inter-variety communicative
activities designed for the study. AS they followed all the procedures of data collection,
the students were asked to give feedback on areas that needed changes and clarification.
This procedure proved useful in enhancing internal validity of the study, as will be
reported in Chapter Three.

The first part of the research involved a survey of preconceived attitudes on
themes relating to harmonization: (a) the Speaker’s beliefs and perceptions about
clustering their dialects in national television channel, (b) the use of Sotho language
varieties as media of learning and teaching in post-primary school education, (c) mutual
comprehensibility of their dialect with sister dialects, and (d) unification of the varieties’
writing systems. Responses from 12 out of 48 participants were used as the pre-task data,
Which were later compared with data collected from the post-task questionnaire (see

Chapter Three for full description).

29

The second part of data collection involved a focus group discussion on a topic of
mutual interest- “ethnic stereotypes”- among the selected participants who used their
mother tongues in carrying out their communicative tasks. This mimicked actual inter-
variety communication in real life. Focus group discussion was complemented by an
information gap activity involving an orange game, which was conducted not only to
assess the level of mutual intelligibility, but also to ascertain whether the participants
were in a position to reach a communicative goal in their interactions.

Another procedure of data collection was based on a reading comprehension task.
This was a judgment test to determine whether the present orthographies of Sotho
language varieties and a sample of their unified form are intelligible across the dialect
spectrum. To this end, the speakers were required to answer questions based on readings
from all the three written dialects and on a model of Harmonized Sotho developed by
Jacob Nhlapo in the 1950’s.

The next procedure involved the same attitudinal survey based on the
questionnaire that was used to gather data on preconceived attitude (serving as the pre-
task). Since the same questionnaire was administered among the participants who went
through these intervention tasks of the experiment: focus group discussion, information
gap activity and reading comprehension, it gave post-task data comparable to the data
from the pre-task questionnaire. Finally, a 2 week delayed interview was conducted to
follow up on issues of the questionnaire responses that needed further clarifications and

more input.

30

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

There are far-reaching implications for this study on language harmonization.
First, failure of the 11 official languages policies in a period of about nine years has
negative consequences for development of indigenous African languages and Speakers of
the languages. As the trend Shows, reproduction of the linguistic practices of the past
excludes Speakers of African languages from meaningful participation in the socio-
economic and technological affairs of their country. This has therefore made it imperative
for current language planning research to interrogate alternative policy options, their
feasibility, and practical implications. It is envisaged that the results of this study will
inform future language planning initiatives that may involve re-conceptualization of
“languages” in South Africa and subsequent revision of the current language policy,
which has proved untenable for a decade.

Secondly, harmonization of mutually intelligible language varieties, if feasible,
can be one important alternative to resolving the language struggle that divided the
country into artificial linguistic boundaries. Its Specific policy implications include the

following:

(1) The number of indigenous African languages currently enshrined in
the Constitution will be reduced dramatically from nine to four
, languages. Two of these languages may become national official

languages: Nguni and Sotho.

31

(2) ‘

(3)

(4)

(5)

The costs of developing and translating into four indigenous
languages (Sotho, Nguni, Tshivenda and Xitsonga) may be low
compared to translations into nine languages.

Harmonized written Sotho may be used for a wider array of social
functions including development of education materials, the print
media and literature and maintenance of government records.
Unification of written codes, by extension, may unite the speakers
through a common cultural expression.

It would be possible to cluster the teaching of Sotho varieties to become
a Single language and to facilitate its effective use as the medium of

learning and teaching.

Achievement of the above goals of harmonization provides a fertile environment

that enables development and use of indigenous African languages in science and

technology. This will mark a Significant progress on the language question that stagnated

and saw various struggles of more than 300 years.

A third contribution this study will make is that it will increase the body of

knowledge on the harmonization question and inter-variety language attitudes, which

have not been studied to date. The results of this study will provide a niche area of

research on the harmonization issue. What exists in the harmonization literature is the

debate for or against harmonization and analysis of linguistic similarities of languages

deemed to be mutually intelligible. This study takes the issue a step further by centering

the harmonization proposal among the actual speakers who would be affected positively

32

.
in:

in...
U

"N‘:
it
been:

1‘1

all.

. s.
)0.
fish \|

is .
.‘W- I

or negatively by top-down decisions. This approach subscribes to the view that
harmonization is not only about languages, but also about people who speak these
languages.

Furthermore, this study Shifts the predominant paradigm of research on language
attitudes, which has always been lopsided toward the informants’ choice between English
and African languages, with no Similar studies on attitudes of the speakers of African
languages toward Sister varieties of the same cluster. This is the first study to investigate
‘ attitudes from within closely related Afiican languages in South Africa.

The study of inter-dialect attitudes will reveal stereotypes within language
varieties in the Sotho cluster and raise social awareness about languages and mutual
tolerance. This study is therefore important in making contributions to mutual
understanding, which is vital for nation building and development.

Taken together, the results of this study Showing the support or lack of support for
harmonization are socially significant with respect to (1) potential development of a core
written standard as a common tool for cultural expression among the Sotho group and (2)
revelation of the linguistically embedded attitudes whose awareness can lead to tolerance
and cooperation in a country that has been riddled with ethnic conflicts until 1993. Both
(1) and (2) are necessary conditions for future language policy direction and for

providing new dimensions on the study of language harmonization.

33

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms are operationalized within the context of South Africa.

Afrikaans
Afrikaans is a Dutch creole that emerged in South Afiica and used as a mother
tongue of white people of Dutch descent. People of African descent generally associate it

with Apartheid policies of racial discrimination.

Afrikanerization

Afrikanerization is the period in which the Dutch descendants, who have lived in
South Africa Since 1652, formulated Apartheid policies that sought to change the social
reality through cultural and linguistic domination of the indigenous people. This period
stretched from 1925 to 1994 when Apartheid ended. The concept is used in this study to
reflect the domination of Afiikaans as a Dutch creole over the indigenous Afiican

languages from 1948 when Apartheid was officially instituted in South Africa.

Apartheid

The concept “Apartheid” derived from two Afrikaans words “apart”, which
means separate, and “heid”, which is the suffix equivalent to the English “hood” as in
“brotherhood”. Apartheid therefore means a system of separation. In 1948, this system
was practiced in South Africa where people of different Skin pigmentation were separated
and treated unequally in all domains of South African life. Based on the belief of

supremacy of one race over another, the South African racial hierarchy was developed in

34

this descending order: (1) White, (2) Indian, (3) Colored (mixed race), (4) Black. Within
the Black community, separateness ideology was used to divide Speakers of various

dialects into Bantustans (defined below).

Bantustan

Bantustan refers to reserves that were set aside for indigenous people who spoke
Bantu languages. Bantu is the umbrella term to refer to language spoken by the largest
group in African geo-linguistics. In South Afiica, it is used to refer to speakers of all the
nine indigenous African languages. “Stan” is an Afrikaans word. meaning a place of
living. The coinage “Bantustan” is an Afrikaans code that referred to the homelands and/
or reserves inhabited by people who spoke any one of the Bantu languages. It is used in

this study to refer to these “homelands.”

Bi-dialect interaction
Bi-dialect interaction refers to instances where Speakers of two different dialects

are involved in verbal interactions and are mutually comprehensible.

Dialect

There are no linguistic differences between a language and a dialect even though
a dialect is generally seen as a subset of a language. Socially, it has acquired a negative
connotation of inferiority. Because of the negative public view of a dialect, many
linguists started to use the term variety (Smitherman, 2000, p. 14). For the purpose of this

study, the language varieties under study (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho) are referred to

35

as dialects of the same language: Sotho. The concept language variety is used
interchangeably with dialect to emphasize that the dialect referred to is perceived as

being different.

Harmonization

According to Nakin (2002) harmonization is a very complex concept because it
means different things to different people. On the one hand, it can mean the merging of a
number of dialects to form a Single language. On the other hand, it can also mean the
merging of a number of languages belonging to the same group to form one standard
variety. At the core of harmonization lies an assumption that unified languages or dialects
are mutually intelligible. AS used in this study, harmonization means re-standardization
of the orthographies and spelling system of three Sotho dialects: Sepedi, Setswana, and

Sesotho so that they form a common written language.

Indigenous African languages

This concept is used to refer to native languages Spoken in South Africa. These
languages are related in terms of their morpho-syntactic and phonological structures.
Whereas arguments may be launched that Afrikaans is an African language because it
originated in South Afiica, and it is not spoken anywhere outside of Afiica, it is not
classified in this category because its morpho-syntax is close to that of Germanic
languages outside of Southern Afiica. The concept, indigenous African languages, as

used in this study, encapsulates both grammatical structure and place of origin.

36

Intervention tasks

Intervention level is a technical term used to refer to a procedure or activities
carried out between the pre-task and post-task in experimental designs. In some cases, the
concept is used interchangeably with treatment. It is used in this study to refer to three
activities that were used between the pre-task questionnaire and the post-task
questionnaire. These levels were focus group discussion, information gap activity and

reading comprehension task.

Language

There are various definitions of language. The approach taken in this study
defines language as a system of human sounds that convey meaning. Mutually intelligible
dialects are classified as subsets of a language. Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are

regarded as dialects of the same language: Sotho.

Language attitude
An attitude refers to beliefs, preferences, feelings and perceptions of Speakers
toward a language. The concept is used in this study to refer to the beliefs and perception

of speakers of Sotho dialects.

Language cluster
Language cluster refers to a number of related languages that have an immediate
common ancestor language. Sotho is referred to as a language cluster in the study

because it has three sister language varieties that emerged from it. These variants are

37

Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho. But as will be Shown in the study, Sotho fits the category

of a language, not a cluster in the South Afiican context.

Language planning

Language planning involves deliberate efforts to change the use and function of
languages in a society. According to Tollefson (1991, p.16), these efforts involve creation
of orthographies, standardization and modernization programs, or allocation of functions
to particular languages within multilingual societies. This is the operational definition of

language planning used in this study.

Language policy

Language policy refers to the guidelines, laws, principles that govern the use of
language in a given setting. The Constitutional provisions under section 6 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Afiica, Act 108 of 1996 are referred to as

guidelines constituting a language policy.

Mutual intelligibility

Mutual intelligibility is a complex term and one difficult to define. In broad terms,
however, two forms of mutual intelligibility are identified: structural intelligibility and
attitudinal intelligibility. For example, there are languages that have the same structure,
but its Speakers do not necessarily understand each other due to socio-political factors
associated with the language. Conversely, there are languages that do not have the same

structure, but their Speakers understand each other due to positive attitudes attached to

38

these dialects or languages. The concept is operationalized in this study to refer to
attitudinal intelligibility (positive inter-dialect attitudes) and mutual understanding in
inter-dialect interactions among the Speakers of Sotho dialects. The approach taken in this
study departs from classical comparison of linguistic components of the languages
because such intelligibility among the Sotho dialects is widely accepted. This is “people”

intelligibility as opposed to the classical “linguistic” intelligibility.

National language

A national language is a language that is widely understood across a wider
Spectrum of a given country. According to Fishman (1971), it is viewed as furthering
integration at the nationwide level through domains such as home, religion, Sports and

initiation or circumcision schools.

Official language

An official language refers to the language the government uses to run its
business. It is used in courts, in schools, the media, etc. Reference is made in this study to
languages that are official as stated in the South African Constitution, but which are not

necessarily used in official Spheres.

Orthographies
According to Mtenje (2002), orthography is a set of conventional Signs, which
decode the phonological system of languages. Such a system is, among other things, a

representation of the major (distinctive) sounds of a language (both consonants and

39

vowels), suprasegrnental information (such as tone, stress, segment, length) phonological
features (nasalization, glottalization and pharyngealisation, palatalisation, labialization
and so forth) and phonotactic constraints (Mtenje, 2002, p.32). Mtenje’s (2002) definition

is adopted in all references to orthography in the study.

Pan South African Language Board

According to Phaswana (2000, p.45), Pan South African Language board
' (PAN SALB) is 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 Afiican
Language Board Act (Act NO. 59 of 1995) that iS tasked with the responsibilities of
creating conditions for use and development of all the official languages and other

languages that are Specified in the Constitution.

Sotho
Sotho is an umbrella term to refer to language varieties: Sepedi, Sesotho and
Setswana. For the purpose of the study, Sotho will be referred to as a language while its

subvarieties will be referred to as dialects (e. g. Sotho language, but Sepedi dialect).

Sesotho
Sesotho is a dialect of Sotho Spoken mainly in the Free state province of South
Africa. While some use “Sotho” and “Sesotho” interchangeably, there is a clear line

drawn between the two with the latter being a dialect of the former.

40

Sister language/dialect
Sister languages are variants of a language that have a common ancestor
language. Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are referred to as Sister dialects instead of Sister

languages because they are believed to be variants of one language.

Standardization

Standardization refers to accurate representation of the salient phonetic and
phonological features of a language or varieties. It also involves a thorough
understanding of the manner in which those features function and relate across the

varieties or languages in question (Mtenje, 2002, p.32).

Subtractive bilingualism

Subtractive bilingualism is a deficit model of bilingualism that forces learners to
transfer from learning through their mother tongue to learning in a foreign/second
language. This model was used in all British colonies in Africa during the colonial period
and is still in place in most states to date. South Africa is one typical example that still

uses this model despite its negative impact on literacy and educational success.

Tri-dialect interaction

Tri-variety interaction refers to a communication Situation where speakers of three

different dialects interact with each other, using their own respective dialects.

41

ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTERS

This section presents the organization of chapters in the order they are presented
in the study.

Chapter Two provides a review of prior research and related literature on
language policy and planning in an African context. It provides a theoretical framework
for language harmonization within the theories of Language Planning (LP) and reviews
scholarly literature on attitudes toward indigenous African languages and research on
harmonization of African languages, with a Specific focus on work conducted on the
Sotho language varieties.

Chapter Three outlines the methodological procedures, design and data analysis
carried out in the study. It emphasizes the benefits of triangulating methods of enquiry in
a research topic that needed answers from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

Chapter Four presents of the results of the study, with related graphs, figures,
tables and statistical procedures, showing Significance levels to accept or reject
hypotheses formulated.

Chapter Five presents the results of qualitative data using content analysis and
discourse analytic procedures based utterances captured on the video-recorder used in the
study.

Chapter Six summarizes the results of the study, draws conclusions, and provides
recommendations for Language Policy and Planning (LPP) in South Africa and niche

areas for further research.

42

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho language varieties by
testing (a) degrees of mutual intelligibility among university students who speak dialects
of the Sotho language and (b) their attitudes toward each other’s language variety and
perceptions on a proposal for Sotho harmonization. The study iS contextualized within

the scholarly literature that deals with the following themes:

1) Theoretical framework for language harmonization
2) Attitudes toward indigenous African languages

3) Research in harmonization and standardization

The aim of this chapter is to provide a synopsis of language planning issues that
pertain to the harmonization and standardization of indigenous African languages. First,
it provides a theoretical framework from which the harmonization proposal can be
contextualized. This is followed by research literature on a topic akin to language
harmonization: attitudes toward indigenous African languages. Research that extols a
project on mutual intelligibility and harmonization by the Centre for Advanced Studies in
African Society (CASAS) is given prominence in the last section of the chapter. In the
end, concluding remarks are made to tie up different sections of the literature and to place
the current study within the existing body of knowledge on the harmonization subject,

showing gaps that the present study seeks to fill.

43

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION

Language harmonization as a school of thought is grounded within the framework
of language planning (LP). A plethora of studies defines LP as a systematic effort of the
policy makers to influence the use of a particular language in a given Speech community
(Bokamba, 1995; Christian, 1988; Cooper, 1989; Eastman, 1982; Fishman, 1971;
Tollefson, 1991). LP has become a useful model, especially in multilingual countries,
where direct intervention in changing and giving direction for change in language
practices are necessary to diffuse potential tensions that may result from rivalry and
Competition for linguistic domination (Tollefson, 1991).

One of the most comprehensive definitions of language planning is offered by
Christian (1988) who describes it as an “explicit and systematic effort to resolve language
problems and achieve related goals through institutionally organized intervention in the
use and usage of languages” (Christian, 1988, p.197). This definition emphasizes explicit
efforts as opposed to implicit ones that are decided and executed by the elite. Rather, as
some scholars have argued, LP iS and Should be a bottom-up project involving the
grassroots masses who are directly affected by decisions about their languages
(Bamgbose, 2000). For example, a trifocal (three-language model) language policy is
considered inclusive of the majority of the population groupings in the US (Smitherman,
2000) and in South Afiica (Alexander, 1995) instead of an “English ONLY” decree in
these societies that are inherently multilingual.

The next key word in Christian’s (1988) definition is the systematic nature of LP
as a process, which involves stages that are carried out in a cyclical manner. This implies

that LP is a continuous process that has no terminal endpoint; it is responsive to changes

44

in the language practices of the Speakers. According to Tollefson (1991) who also sees
the Significance of LP in multilingual countries, LP efforts Should involve, among other
things, development of orthographies, standardization and modernization programs or
allocation of firnctions to particular languages within multilingual societies (p.16). This
view is supported by Webb (2002) and Cooper (1989) who connect LP to “people
planning” because it is tied to the educational, economic, political and social
development of a country. People planning, as articulated by Alexander (2001), involves
the use of indigenous African languages as vehicles for development of national unity
and a cohesive culture in South Africa, which has a long history of ethno-linguistic
divisions. These descriptions of LP extolled in these studies place language
harmonization as an integral part of LP Since it seeks to resolve dialect differentiation
through unification of the dialects’ orthographic representation and divergent Spelling
systems within the realm of standardization and modemization of language forms.
There are three main foci of LP that spell out the connections between
harmonization and LP in an explicit way. They are status, corpus and acquisition
planning (Cooper, 1989). Status planning entails allocation of functions to languages
either as national, regional or official languages. Bamgbose (1991, p. 109) outlines
decisions on the role of a language such as (a) maintenance, expansion or restriction in a
range of uses of a language for particular functions, (b) language standardization which
involves the development of a given dialect or a group of dialects as a norm for the
language in question, (c) revival of a dead language (e.g. Hebrew in Israel) and (d)

introduction of an artificial language (e.g., Esperanto in Europe).

45

Activities that are carried out with regard to language standardization,
codification and development of new vocabulary fall within the corpus planning strand.

These activities include the following:

1. Vocabulary expansion, which also includes terminology creation and

standardization of variants of existing terms

2. Changes in aspects of language structure
3. Simplification of language registers
4. Orthographic work which includes creation of orthographies for

languages hitherto unwritten, harmOnization of existing orthographies,
orthographic reform (including change in script and Spelling reform)
5. Prescribing rules for pronunciation, correctness of style and usage
6. Production of language material such as primers, dictionaries,
grammars, supplementary readers, translations and Special manuals

(Bamgbose, 1991, p.110).

In acquisition planning, learning and teaching of the language through second and
foreign language instruction programs become central. In addition to having a medium of
instruction, some policies require that certain languages be learned as school subjects.
Bamgbose (1991) Shows that by the time learners complete their secondary education in
Nigeria, they have learned three languages other than their mother tongues. As a model

for acquisition planning in the US, Smitherman (2000), proposed a trifocal policy that

46

fosters competence in the Language of Wider Communication (Standard American
English) and a second language, and supports local dialects or vemaculars.

A number of studies describe LP through four tasks in order to emphasize that it
is a systematic and cyclical process (e.g., Bokamba, 1995; Eastman, 1982). The first
stage is code selection, which refers to a process of choosing a language or a number of
languages by the state as national or official medium. When analyzing the East African
language policy situation, Fishman’s (1971) study identified three typical choices African
states make when designing policies for national and official languages. The first choice
(A) involves the option of the Languages of Wider Communication (LWC). LWCS are
colonial languages like English that assume official status due to perceived difficulties of
choosing one of the many competing local languages. The second option (B) is that of a
local language that is understood across a wider Spectrum of the population like Swahili
in Tanzania and Amharic in Ethiopia. The third choice (C) involves a combination of
both a LWC and one indigenous language (see also Heine, 1992). It Should be noted,
however, that Fishman’s characterization overlooked the fact that LWCS could also be
indigenous African languages such as Swahili in Tanzania, Sesotho in Lesotho, Setswana
in Botswana, Siswati in Swaziland, Shona in Zimbabwe, etc. The indigenous LWCS tend
to be more widespread in use than the colonial languages.

Whereas South Africa has made a unique option of including all languages
(indigenous and exogenous), it has not moved beyond this first stage of planning, code
selection, with regard to the use and development of indigenous African languages. This

relates to Barngbose’s (1991) view that language policies in African countries are

47

characterized by some of the following: avoidance, vagueness, arbitrariness, fluctuation
and declaration without implementation.

The second stage of LP is codification. Codification of languages refers to
functions such as standardization and development of grammars and dictionaries. This
stage iS followed by code elaboration that involves modernization where new
terminologies are coined so that the language adapts to modern use of scientific and
technological concepts. Finally, LP requires a stage called implementation. At this stage,
a modernized language is Spread through education as a school subject or medium of
instruction and used in other state organs like national television channels (see Bokamba,
1995; Eastman, 1982). According to Bokamba (1995), code selection and implementation
form part of status planning while codification and elaboration are components of corpus
planning.

The study of language harmonization and re-standardization fits in well within
this model of language planning since it involves unification of orthographies in order to
resolve the problem of implementing the eleven-official-language policy in South Africa.
The present orthographic representations of the 9 indigenous languages were devised
arbitrarily regardless of oral intelligibilities among speakers of the language variants
(Prah, 2001). In contrast to other situations where there are no written forms, the
languages proposed for harmonization have written codes. This kind of harmonization,
according to Bamgbose (1991, p.137), may be directed at the use of similar letters or
symbols for similar significant sounds in different languages, or the use of identical

letters for the same Significant sound where current conventions sanction divergent

48

representation. Re-codification of the current orthographies thus falls squarely within the

realm of LP (i.e., corpus planning).

ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIGENOUS AFRICAN LANGUAGES

There are no knoWn studies that directly deal with attitudes of Speakers toward
language harmonization in the South African context. This section, however, reviews
literature on attitudes of states, teachers and students toward indigenous African
. languages because language harmonization centers on and promotes the use of
indigenous African languages.

Research in language planning for African languages in post-colonial Afiica
Shows that the policy-makers do not move beyond the first phase of code selection
because of the low regard for these languages by the policy-makers and dependence on
exogenous languages. Abdegbija (1994) conducted a series of attitudinal studies in sub-

Saharan Afiica where he found that:

...attitudes towards [African] languages in the educational and official circles,
which filter into the general aspects of life in the societies, constitute a prime
motivation for western dependent, generally outward looking stance of sub-

Sahara Afiica (Abdegbija, 1994: 99)

As a result of dependence on the West, most African states opted to choose
exogenous foreign languages as official and national languages. Out of the 53 African
nation states, only five countries have opted for the use of African languages as the

national official languages. They are Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mauritania

49

(Webb, 2002). Forty three countries opted for exogenous languages like Portuguese
(Lusophone Africa), English (Anglophone states) and French (Francophone). Compared
to all African countries, South Afiica is the only one so far to recognize as many
indigenous languages as nine as official languages. Even in Nigeria, which is regarded as
the most multilingual country on the continent with over 400 language varieties, only
three languages are recognized as national languages: Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa
(Bamgbose, 2000; Ohia, 1998). Whereas studies Show that there is a general low regard
for African languages on the continent, African Americans Show great interest in learning
African languages like kiSwahili (see for example, Smitherman, 1998) as opposed to
learning European languages.

Bokarnba’s (1995) study on the critical language choices in the 21St century for
post-colonial Africa makes three observations about language planning-policy in African
states; namely, (a) they are not systematic, (b) they are impositions of missionary policies
and (c) the people at the grassroots level are not consulted. Bamgbose (1991, 2000),
Alexander (1998), Campbell-Makini (2000), Prah (1998), Mazrui (2002) carried out
Similar studies that Showed that the policy decisions are decided upon by the elite groups
without consultation with the people at the grassroots level (top-down instead of bottom
up). The top-down decisions have led to the lack of change with regard to the value and
use of Afiican languages even in countries that have 90% monolingual speakers like
Botswana, Swaziland, Rwanda, Burundi, and Lesotho.

There are a number of post-Apartheid studies that focused on the attitudes of
Speakers toward indigenous languages, especially afier the endorsement of 11 languages

as official (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2002; Barkhuizen and De Klerk, 1998; Mmusi, 1996; Thiba,

50

2000; Verhoef, 1998). These studies provided mixed results on the value and use of
indigenous African languages as media of science, technology, education, and business.
Findings from these studies provide a picture through which attitudes toward the
harmonized Sotho may be anticipated.

Thiba (2000) carried out a study of attitudes and language practices among
parents, teachers and learners in seven high schools of the North West Province (total of
109 subjects). In all the three categories of the study on preferences for (1) language of
instruction, (2) language as a school subject and (3) language of extracurricular activities,
English was the most preferred language by parents, teachers and the students. In the
same province, Verhoef (1998) investigated language preferences among 145 African
learners. Over 64% of the learners chose English as their favorite language of instruction
and school subject. The surprising result of the study is that Afrikaans was chosen
second, with Setswana, which is the most dominant language of the province and mother
tongue of most of the learners, becoming the third choice. Both studies confirm the
stigmatized perceptions about African languages as opposed to exogenous languages.
Despite this pattern Shown in the Thiba (2000) and Verhoef (1998) Studies, these
researchers recognize the pedagogical importance of mother tongue. In this connection,

Thiba recommends that:

The pedagogic implications of mother tongue instruction have to be emphasized
in teacher training programs and in in-service-training of teachers. The notion of
insufficiency of mother tongue instruction must be eradicated by introducing the

sociolinguistic approach to language policy and planning as a sub-discipline of

51

language studies and linguistics at university and training colleges (Thiba, 2000,

p.142)

This statement implies that the choice teachers and parents make is not
pedagogically informed and as a result, learning institutions need to have Specific courses
in line with “attitude planning,” which might change negative attitudes toward indigenous
African languages over time.

Some studies Show contradictions between what iS preferred and actual language
practice. Separate studies by Adler (2001) and Brock-Utne (2004) Showed that teachers’
classroom practice involved code—switching from English to African languages even
though these teachers would prefer English to indigenous African languages. The
problem is that there were communicative difficulties in conveying the subject matter in
the language that both the teachers and the learners are not functionally competent in.
Another study comparing the attitudes and practice of the South Afiica Infantry Battalion
in Graharnstown, a city in the Eastern Cape Province, Showed that 34% of IsiXhosa
speakers prefer English even though Afrikaans, which had a long tradition of domination
in the military, iS still widely used despite the Constitutional commitment to 11 languages
(Barkhuizen and De Klerk, 1998). This case and others elsewhere (e.g., Barkhuizen,
2002) reveal that attitudes of speakers do not always match their actual language practice.
The paradox of choice between preference and actions reflects that English iS necessary
for resources, opportunities, and social mobility, which have always been associated with
the people who speak it. This kind of reaction may be anticipated with regard to

harmonized languages unless they are tied to economic opportunities.

52

Studies on the attitudes of university students toward African languages in South
Africa are also relatively few. Some of the known studies were carried out by Mmusi
(1996) and Prah (1993). Mmusi (1996) investigated the languages of preference by the
students, faculty and staff at the University of the North. Using questionnaire surveys, the
study focused on three variables: language use in curricular, extracurricular and non— A
curricular contexts. The results Showed an overwhelming preference for English as a
language of learning and teaching with Sepedi and Xitsonga (two of the three indigenous
languages of the province) following second. For extra-curricular and non-curricular
activities at the university, the respondents preferred a multilingual policy where
languages used campus wide are encouraged and thus allow the university community to
communicate in African languages in non-academic interactions.

A more positive picture of the need to use African languages in institutions of
higher learning is portrayed in a comprehensive study conducted by Prah (1993). In this
study, 720 university students in Southern Africa, involving the universities of Botswana,
Namibia, Swaziland, Western Cape, Transkei and Lesotho were used as respondents to a
questionnaire designed to investigate attitudes toward and perceptions of African
languages as media of instruction in science and technology. The respondents involved a
diverse category of students whose ages ranged from 16 to 25. The respondents were

asked to provide answers to these questions, among others:

a) Whether or not scientific and technological ideas could be rendered in

African languages,

53

b) If the respondents’ understanding of science and technology would

improve if they were taught in African languages.

On question (a), 76% of the respondents believed that scientific and technological
ideas could be rendered in African languages. More importantly, 91% of the students
believed that their understanding of science and technology would improve if they were
taught in African languages.

Goduah (2003) carried out an attitudinal survey at the University of the
Witwatersand among freshman students, third year students and faculty members. The
aim of the study was to investigate whether or not an Afiican language could be
introduced as a second medium of instruction in addition to English in university

programs. The respondents were asked to respond to the following:

1. An African language should be introduced in addition to English as
languages for teaching and learning at Wits University.

2. Would you like to see both English and an Afiican language as
languages for teaching and learning (medium of instruction)

3. Zulu or Sotho Should be the African language chosen for teaching and
learning (medium of instruction) at Wits University.

4. There will be more significant improvements in student’s academic
performance if an African language is introduced in addition to English

for teaching and learning at Wits University.

54

First year students answered question 1, third year and faculty members answered
question 2. Question 3 was answered by both first and third year Students while question
4 was answered by members of the faculty. The results of the study on question 1 Show
that only 34% of the students agreed with the idea of introducing an African language as
the second medium of instruction. 42% of the respondents disagreed while 24% were
neutral on the question. Comparison between third year students and the faculty on
question 2 is interesting. On the one hand, the third year students responded to the
question of a dual medium of instruction involving an Afiican language with 64%
positive (yes) answers and 27% negative (no) responses. The faculty members, on the
other hand, were negative 69% of the time and only had a positive rating of 31%.
Question 3 had almost equal negative and positive responses among the third years while
the first year students gave 51% negative responses. The faculty in question 4 gave 45%
of positive responses, 22% negative and 33% neutral responses. Goudah (2003)
acknowledged that the choice between Zulu and Sotho was problematic even though the
need for the use of African languages is positive. This boils down to the problem of many
languages, where a choice of one instead of the other might cause social strife. Given the
complexity of the language question, the Goudah recommends harmonization of Nguni
and Sotho languages so that the choice of an African language becomes less complex
than it is at the moment.

Collectively, research on language attitudes Shows a trend where parents, high
school teachers and their students prefer English as the medium of communication for
instruction, extra- and non-curricular activities. The preference for African languages is

very low at this level (Thiba, 2000; Verhoef, 1998). Atthe university level, there is a

55

different picture. Preferences for the use of African languages as non-curricular and
extra-curricular medium of communication were reported at the University of the North
(Mmusi, 1996), and as the medium of instruction at the universities of Transkei and
Western Cape (Prah, 1993). The Witwatersrand University project Shows that multiplicity
of languages accounts at least in part for the low regard for choosing an Afiican language
because that involves competition among multitudes of languages. The study brings into
light that harmonization of mutually intelligible languages can ease the choice for
' indigenous African languages and ultimately change attitudes toward these languages.
One of the issues overlooked in the studies that reported negative attitudes toward
Afiican languages is the attitude of speakers toward other African languages, not in
comparison to their attitude toward English. Studies that focus on attitudes toward
African languages within the same linguistic cluster would give a comparative view of
the attitudes toward African languages. Further, the studies made a comparison between
African languages viS-a-vis English while using English as the medium through which
the questions were asked. This has the potential for skewing the attitudes toward the
language of communication at the point of data collection. Whereas the harmonized
languages will in the long run be compared (attitudinally) with present dominant
languages (English and Afrikaans), more African language-centered studies are needed to
provide a comprehensive account of the attitudes toward African languages - an issue that

is crucial in determining the feasibility of the harmonization proposal.

56

RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE HARMONIZATION

There are a number of projects that attempted to harmonize indigenous African
languages in Africa. These include: (i) the stock of symbols prescribed for Senegal’s Six
recognized languages, (ii) UNESCO-sponsored Bamako meeting of 1966 on unifying the
alphabets of Hausa, Falfude, Madingo and Kanuni, (iii) A Seminar on the Normalization
and Harmonization of the Alphabets of the sub-region of Togo, Ghana, Upper Volta,
Nigeria and Benin in 1975 and (iv) the Meeting of Experts on the Transcription and
Harmonization of African languages in Niger in 1978 which has been cited elsewhere
(Bamgbose, 1991). The successful harmonization models in Africa are Shona in
Zimbabwe, Igbo in Nigeria and Runyakitara in Uganda. The Ugandan harmonization has
been successful due to the high level of sensitivity in choosing a name for the harmonized
languages and its Spin-offs in neighboring states. The process of choosing a name is

explained as follows:

Runyakitara is a general name adopted by Makerere University in 1996 to refer to
four western Ugandan dialects, namely; Runyuru, Rutooro, Runyankore,

Rukiga. . .Other languages outside Uganda, such as Ruhunya in Tanzania and
Ruhema in Zaire can also be considered to be dialects of [the evolving]

Runyakitara language (Quoted in Owino, 2002, p.24).

The benefits of harmonization as reported in the Ugandan situation include

internationaliZation of the languages in ways that ease cross-border communication in

African states.

57

Apart from the three successful models of harmonization explained above, there iS
an Africa-wide project being carried out by the Centre for Advanced Studies of African
Society (CASAS) in Cape Town, South Africa. CASAS started in the early 19905 with
the mission that “Education in Afiica at all levels should be transacted in African
languages, the languages of the majorities of the people, and the languages in which these
majorities create and think...” (Prah, 2002a, p.1).

CASAS saw the need to embark on harmonization projects as a means toward
achieving mother tongue education for the masses of the continent. According to Prah
(2002b), the task of harmonizing African languages is part of the process of rehabilitating
these languages so that they are used as the media of instruction (p.1-6). Since this
period, there’s been a proliferation of studies that focused on degrees of mutual
intelligibility among Africa’s 1200-2400 languages. An important finding was revealed
that among the Afiican languages that are believed to be ranging from 1000 to 2500,
there is mutual intelligibility to a degree of 85% and above and that these languages can

be divided into 12 language clusters. Prah (2001) explains this finding as follows:

Classification of African languages on the basis of mutual intelligibility has so far
demonstrated that, as first and second language Speakers, over 80% of Africans
speak no more than 12 key languages (clusters which enjoy 85% of mutual

intelligibility) (Prah, 2001, p.189).

The 12 key languages are: Falfude, Hausa, Swahili, Nguni, Sotho-Tswana,

Western Interlacustrine Bantu, Amharic, Yoruba, Igbo, Bambara, Oromo, and Luo (Prah,

58

2001). In an earlier study reported by Prah and King (1998), the degrees of mutual
intelligibility were elaborated. The study Showed that F alfude is Spoken in 13 countries,
with about 50 million speakers; Sotho is spoken in 6 countries in Southern Africa while
Nguni is spoken in over 7 countries with about 40 million Speakers. The CASAS research

findings have renewed an interest in the harmonization question in African linguistics.

Harmonization for Sotho Languages

Under the aegis of CASAS, there has been a number of studies that focused
Specifically on harmonizing Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho, using morpho-syntactic and
phonological similarities as measures of mutual intelligibility among these language
varieties (N akin, 2002; Matubatuba, 2002; Mwikisa, 2002). In all these studies, there is a
commonly held view that the Sotho languages, even though written differently, derive
from a common ‘mother language’ and that they still share a high degree of mutual
intelligibility. The connection between the three varieties was established in what is
known as the Doke classification of the Bantu languages in the South Eastern Zone as

represented in the following table:

Doke’s classification:

1. Nguni group- Xhosa, Zulu and Swati

2. Sotho group- Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana
3. Venda

4. Tsonga group- Tonga, Ronga, Twa

5. Inhabane group- Chopi or Lenge, Tonga

59

(Nakin, 2002, p. 238)

Nakin’s (2002) Study on harmonizing Sotho languages provided salient facts that
need to be considered in harmonization, and linguistic reasons why the Sotho dialects
need to be unified. Nakin defined harmonization in the Sotho case as standardization that
adopts a dialect democracy approach in which all dialects are elevated to the standard
level, as opposed to the imposition of one dialect as standard over others. Following this
definition, these various dialects are united, refined and neutralized until they merge into
a common standard language (p.241). Three factors that need to be taken into account

were identified as:

1. Establishment of a basic vocabulary
2. Establishment of word pairs

3. Exclusion of borrowing and language universals

With regard to the establishment of vocabulary, Nakin (2002) refers specifically
to parts and functions of the body, domestic vocabulary, weather and natural phenomena.
Some of these vocabulary types are demonstrated as being common in Sepedi, Setswana,

and Sesotho as in:

60

English Sesotho Setswana Sepedi

“ear” tsebe tsebe tsebe
‘fat’ mafirra mahura mafura
‘water’ metsi metsi madi (metsi)

Establishment of word pairs in these languages involve words that have similar
phonological Shape and represent the same field of meaning. Nakin (2002) identifies
words for ‘try’ and ‘buy’, which are identically represented as leka and reka,
respectively, in all three dialects.

With regard to exclusion of borrowing and language universals, Nakin (2002),
pointed out that words that have the same form but do not conform to established sound
Shifis will be regarded as not having their source from the original language. AS a result,
they need to be excluded from a pool of words that are standardized in the new written
system. This is seen as a very important aspect of harmonization because the project
intends to use already existing words instead of coining new terms altogether (N akin,
2002).

The study went further to Show that similar lexical, syntactic and morphological
structures in three Sotho dialects are compelling reasons for harmonization (N akin, 2002,
p.246). For example, all three language varieties Share the same noun class prefixes used
in agreement markers, the pronominal system, number, and other morpho-syntactic
features; Similar to other advantages of harmonization as outlined elsewhere, Nakin drew
on points highlighted in Machobane and Mokitimi (1998) (quoted in Nakin, 2002) who

viewed Sesotho harmonization in the following light:

61

1) The proposed orthography simplifies the reading and the writing of Sesotho for
students.

2) It renders writing of Sesotho uniform wherever it is Spoken.

3) It makes it possible for all Sesotho books to be read by every Mosotho.

4) It will reduce the publication costs. ‘

5) The market for Sesotho books will increase.

Matubatuba (2002) carried out another comparative study of Sepedi-Setswana-
Sesotho dialects, following a phonological process of palatalization. The results of this

comparison Show that palatalisation occurs in at least five identical categories as listed:

a. with diminutives of nouns

b. with passives of verbs

c. with causatives of verbs

d. with locatives of nouns ending with —ng
c. with certain nouns of the b0- class

f. with certain nouns of the le- noun class
With these examples, Matubatuba (2002) argued that a high degree of mutual

intelligibility of the three languages could be established. As a result of this analysis, he

draws the following conclusions:

62

Because of the level of mutual intelligibility of these languages, I strongly believe
that we might not even need dictionaries as a matter of urgency while doing
projects such as Skills development to the illiterate masses and medium of

instruction through the Special lingual franca (p.253).

Mwisa (2002) conducted an analysis of mutual intelligibility in the spoken and
written forms of Sesotho, Setswana and Lozi (a Sotho variety spoken in Zambia). Using
' the Lord’s Prayer version written in Sesotho (1855), Setswana (1840) and Lozi (1951),
Mwisa aimed at discovering the extent of vocabulary correspondence among the three
versions of the Lord’s Prayer, and the extent to which the variation in orthographic
representations in the three languages can be described in a way that makes it easy to
predict and transcode from one language to another. The study shows that Sesotho has 81
words, Lozi has 81, and Setswana has 70 words. Out of these words, it was found that
correspondence between Sesotho and Lozi made up 87%. Correspondence between
Setswana and Lozi is 68% while 66% was recorded for correspondence between
Setswana and Sesotho. The study Shows that even though the missionary linguist
differentiated these dialects as different languages, the languages still have more cognate
resemblances. '

Generalizing from the work of Matubatuba (2002), Mwisa (2002) and Nakin
(2002) one can argue that Sotho language varieties have mutual intelligibility on the basis
of morphosyntactic, lexico-semantic and phonological features. The question remains,

however, whether the Speakers. themselves will find these languages mutually intelligible

63

as these linguistic analyses indicate. Empirical studies examining speaker receptivity and
inter-dialect interactions have not been conducted.

The studies reviewed in this chapter have shown that language harmonization is
premised on the objectives of language planning that provide a framework for re-
standardization. From the Centre for Advanced Studies in African Society (CASAS),
linguistic analyses that test degrees of mutual intelligibility have been advanced,
demonstrating that the language varieties under study are mutually intelligible in ways
that warrant their harmonization. Whereas linguistic intelligibility is clearly attested, it
was pointed out that no empirical studies have yet been carried out to test intelligibility
through actual interactions among the Speakers of these languages. A Slightly different,
but related set of literature focused on the attitudes towards indigenous Afiican
languages. Most of the attitudinal studies focused on the choice between African
languages vis-a-vis English. Attitudinal studies focusing on Afiican language vis-a-vis-
Afiican languages are not yet available. This study of language harmonization, with its
focus on inter-variety interactions and inter-variety attitudes is the first of its kind. It
begins to fill the gap in the existing body of knowledge on both mutual intelligibility and

the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho languages in South Africa.

64

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho
language varieties, taking into account the degrees of mutual intelligibility among these
varieties and the attitudes of native speakers toward the harmonization proposal. In order
to carry out this investigation, a multilayered research design was used. This chapter
presents details of the research design, population and sampling frame, methods applied

in collecting data and data analysis techniques.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This is a Six-phased study that triangulated methods of inquiry and data collection
procedures. Given the complexity of assessing mutual intelligibility and the need to test
the feasibility of harmonizing three dialects into a common written standard, a
multilayered design was employed in order to maximize external and internal validity
while at the same time providing a range and depth of the phenomena under
investigation. Triangulation is a research procedure that is bent on hybridity of research
methods in order to make sure that qualitative research informs quantitative research and
vice-versa (Balnaves and Caputi, 2001). This combination increased the power of
explaining the intertwined question on mutual intelligibility and attitudes of the native
speakers toward harmonization of their dialects in this study.

The over-arching design for the study is experimental, using within-subj ect
intervention tasks to assess how the participants react to harmonization as a

sociolinguistic practice. Balnaves and Caputi (2001) contend that within-subject design

65

exposes the same groups to the independent variable at different times and the individuals
themselves act as a control. In this study, the participants were tested before and after the
intervention tasks to see whether their initial responses (attitudes as dependent variables)
would be affected by inter-dialect communication and exposure to the sampled
harmonized text (independent variables). While study is mainly experimental, the tools of
data collection were based on a survey design where the attitudes of the participants were
elicited in both pre- and post tests. To this end, intersection of the experimental and the
survey designs provided a rich database in both qualitative and quantitative respects. In
addition to this intersection, the intervention tasks in the study (focus group discussion,
information gap activity, and reading comprehension task) provided more qualitative data
that proved useful to understanding the harmonization phenomena. The experimental

design is visually represented in the following table:

66

Table l: Within-Subject Experimental Design

 

 

Pre-Task Intervention Reading Post-Task Delayed
Questionnaire Tasks Comprehension Questionnaire Interview
Attitudes on Focus group 3 dialects & Attitudes on Clarifications
harmonization Discussion & harmonized harmonization

Information Sotho text

Gap Task
48 participants 12 participants 12 participants 12 participants 4 participants
Data: Yes/No Data: Data: Reading Data: Yes/No Qualitative
counts & Utterances Scores counts &
descriptions descriptions
Analysis: Analysis: Analysis: Analysis: Analysis:
frequencies, Discourse Frequencies, Matched t- test, Content
chi-square, Analysis chi-square, One- strength of
one-Way (Grice’s way ANOVA association
ANOVA maxims)

 

The phases of the design as Shown in Table 1 above can be described as follows:

1) pre-task questionnaire to assess preconceived attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of

Speakers from Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana varieties toward their own respective

varieties and Sister varieties that constitute the Sotho language cluster. This questionnaire

was also used to select main respondents who were asked to participate in subsequent

phases of the Study; 2) focus group discussion, this was based on a topic that addressed

67

ethnic conflicts and ways of resolving ethnic stereotypes. It was aimed at ascertaining the
degree of mutual comprehensibility in inter-dialect interactions; 3) information gap task
that sought to test whether participants who Speak different dialects could achieve a
communicative goal when involved in a discussion that required Simultaneous use of the
three dialects; 4) reading comprehension that assessed comprehension of passages written
in each of the Sotho language varieties and of the harmonized Sotho text (i.e., a passage
that combined words and phrases from all the three Sotho dialects); 5) post-task
questionnaire, testing attitudes of the participants after they were immersed in the
communicative activities (i.e., intervention tasks). The results of this attitude test were
compared with responses from the pro-task questionnaire; 6) delayed interview to follow
up on the issues that needed clarification. Responses that were elicited from this
interview strengthened the original ideas expressed in the questionnaires. The following

sections explain the design and procedures of the study in detail.

POPULATION, INSTRUMENTS, AND PROCEDURES

The population targeted for this study was a group of first year University of
Limpopo students who Speak any one of the dialects in the Sotho cluster: Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho. These language varieties are grouped into a Single linguistic
category by the Pan South African Language Board (PAN SALB) (2000). Beyond this
grouping, Sotho language varieties share a Similar television channel in the South African
Broadcasting Corporation (SABC 2) and phrases from these dialects were joined into one
version of the national anthem: Morena Boloka Sechaba sa heso (God bless our nation).

In terms of the Constitutional provisions, however, these three dialects are classified as

68

distinct languages. The Sotho group represents 24-30% of the total population, making it
the second largest group of South Africa’s indigenous peoples after the Nguni group.
Historically, dialects of Sotho are believed to have been a common language based on the
traditional dress and ancestry shared by these groups (see Thompson and Wilson, 1983).
According to Thompson and Wilson (1983), the Sotho communities had one language
that differed only in dialects and were concentrated between the Limpopo and Orange
rivers (p.130), which is a large area of the former Transvaal and the former Orange Free
State. The Center for Advanced Studies of African Society established that variants of
Sotho are spoken in 6 countries in Southern Africa: Lesotho, South Africa, Botswana, V
Namibia, and Zambia. The emergence of the South African Sotho variants as distinctive
languages is the result of the work of the missionaries who worked in different regions of
the Sotho communities and then encoded them through different writing systems as
distinct languages (N akin, 2002). For example, Sepedi was reduced to writing by the
Lutheran missionaries from Germany who worked in the northern side (once called
Northern Sotho), Setswana was encoded by the London Missionaries who worked in the
western side (once called Western Sotho) while the Catholic missionaries in the southern
Side were responsible for Sesotho (once called Southern Sotho). The population group
that falls within the category described became the subject of interest in this study
because the harmonization proposal (e. g., Alexander, 1989; Nhlapo, 1944) recommends
unification of the orthographies of their dialects as they are anecdotally perceived to have
a high degree of mutual comprehensibility. For this reason, this population provided a
language cluster or group through which the harmonization proposal, involving attitudes

and degrees of mutual comprehension, could ideally be tested.

69

The Sotho cluster language Speakers are dispersed in three remote provinces of
South Afiica. The Sepedi Speaking population is concentrated in the Limpopo province,
the Setswana community is in the North West province and the Sesotho community is
found mainly in the Free State province. Although the new socio-political dispensation
allowed free movements and settlement in any part of the country, the geographical
concentration of the three groups still reflects the Bantustan homeland policy (Group
Areas Act) that created borders among these linguistic communities as Lebowa,
Bophutatswana and Qwaqwa homelands, respectively, and then prohibited movements
from one linguistic community to another. This geographical concentration and the
remoteness of each of the provinces from one another were deemed convenient for a
study of this nature that sought to draw a representative population of speakers who have
had no prior interaction with speakers of the other sister dialects.

Students who had only two weeks of university entrance were preferred for this
study as they represented a community of speakers who have had no prior contact with
speakers of sister dialects. Most of them attended their secondary schools in the far
remote areas such as Qwaqwa for Sesotho Speakers, former Lebowa for Sepedi Speakers,
and Bophutatswana for Setswana mother tongue Speakers. These remote places are
stretched over a distance of approximately 300 miles, and they are separated by the
province of Gauteng. As a consequence, the geographical dispersion limited face-to-face
interaction among the freshman students Speaking these Sister dialects. Going to
university as a freshman provided a first-time encounter among students as speakers of

different Sotho varieties, other than the minimal exposure from national television.

70

The original Site for a pilot study was a university located in each of the three
provinces that historically enrolls speakers of these languages: University of North- West,
Free State University and University of the North (re-named University of Limpopo).
Each of these universities provided a representative sample of university students. After
the pilot study was concluded, the University of Limpopo was selected as the research
base for the project. It was found that there was an influx of students going to the new
University of Limpopo due to the merger program in the South African higher education
system. The University of North-West was merging with Potchefstroom University while
the University of the North (Qwaqwa branch) merged with Free State University. The
University of the North that became the University of Limpopo attracted many freshman
students from North-West Province and Free State. This university iS Situated 20 miles
east of the main city of Limpopo Province, Polokwane. It is a historically Black
university that was previously dominated by Sepedi speakers. With the new political
dispensation, the campus life has a blend of speakers from various language backgrounds.
A research office and a discussion room were allocated for this research project on the

campus.

Sampling Frame and Procedures

This study selected 60 freshman students from the University of Limpopo that
hosted approximately 3,000 freshman students out of a total of approximately 11, 000
students. On the first day of classes, February 16, 2004, notices seeking research
participants, with Specific conditions set out in the advert, were distributed throughout

campus. Most of these notices targeted the entrance gates, the library, and the student

71

representative offices to ensure that every first year student who speaks any of the Sotho
language varieties would see the adverts. Two important conditions were that the students
Should be first year speakers of any of these dialects Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho, and
that they Should not be hi or tri-dialect Speakers of these dialects (See Appendix A). In
order to draw a sampling frame, a list of 300 students who responded to the advert was
created in the office where the researcher and assistants were based.

A number of sampling procedures, mainly probability sampling techniques, were
carried out to select 60 students that truly represented the population under investigation.
The first sampling procedure was stratified random sampling, where the 300 potential
participants were classified into three dialect strata: Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho that
equally divided them into 3 groups of 100 each. This sampling procedure was necessary
to ensure that the final sample equally represented the three dialects, which were the
focus of the study. Then a systematic random sampling was carried out, taking every
fifi‘h from each of the three lists with 100 names of the students. This procedure allowed a
selection of 20 participants from each stratum so that a total of 60 respondents were
selected. To ensure that gender was equally represented in each of the 20 names, a
purposive sampling was carried out to supplement the above procedures. Here, the
researcher and assistants used the name criterion to verify the gender of each pro-selected
participant. All the pre-selected participants were notified by telephone and individual
appointments were set for completion of the questionnaires.

Four potential respondents from each stratum were dropped from the study due to

a variety of reasons, such as an incomplete questionnaire, failure to arrive on schedule, or

72

request to quit for personal reasons. In the end, there were 48 participants left in the
study, allowing each dialect to be represented by 16 participants.

For convenience of small room discussions in three varieties, the second sampling
phase sought to gather 12 participants (4 from each dialect) out of the remaining 48 .
participants selected in the first phase of the study. These participants were selected to
participate in the next phases of the experiment (intervention tasks). The completed
questionnaires were scrutinized with Special focus on the biographical data given in
section III of the questionnaire. This section required the participants to list the
languages/dialects they knew and were able to speak other than their own varieties. Using
the dialect stratum through which the participants were grouped, systematic random
sampling was used to arrive at four participants from the total of 16, taking every fourth
(4, 8, 12 and 16). Like in the first sampling procedure, a purposive sampling was carried
out to ensure that gender was equally represented. This resulted in 4 participants (2
males, 2 females) from each of the three dialects. Purposive sampling procedure was also
deemed necessary at this stage to exclude native speakers who might have had the
opportunity to Speak or use one of the Sister varieties other than their own (i.e., bi- or tri-
variety Speakers). It was also useful as a screening measure to select only the participants
who were motivated and who showed interest in continuing in the subsequent phases of

the study.
Pilot Test

A pilot test is described as a preliminary test of a questionnaire, interview or

relevant procedure in order to identify problems associated with the design (Balnaves and

73

Caputi, 2001). Because the questionnaires used in the study were translated into the
dialects Spoken by the participants and because unusual concepts like ‘harmonization’
and ‘mutual intelligibility’ were used, it was necessary for the questionnaire or other
procedures to be subjected to a preliminary test to assess the effectiveness of these
instruments and procedures.

The researcher and two research assistants visited the three universities: Limpopo,
North West, and Free State that represent communities speaking Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho, respectively. In each of the campuses three participants (Sepedi Speaker,
Setswana Speaker and Sesotho speaker) were conveniently selected from the student
population during registration week. The pilot mimicked the major steps in the actual
data collection: pre-task questionnaire, focus group discussion, information gap activity,
reading comprehension and post-task questionnaire. The delayed interview was not
necessary at this stage because it was only going to be used in selected cases that needed
further clarifications. The students were asked to give feedback and to point out
difficulties encountered during their participation. This provided the researcher with an
opportunity to analyze the items included and to carry out revisions before the actual
instruments and procedures were administered. Problems with the wording of some of the
questions were identified. For example, the concepts ‘indigenous’, ‘intelligibility’,
‘harmonization’, ‘dialect vs language’ were resolved through translation (i.e., translating
back from Sotho language varieties to English and vice-versa) without which they would
have biased the answers Significantly. Reduction of errors and bias through this piloting

has therefore enhanced both construct and internal validity of the study.

74

Pre-task Questionnaire

A pre-task questionnaire consisting of open ended, closed-ended, and
biographical questions was administered to 48 students representing each of three dialects
and their respective provinces: Limpopo (Sepedi), North West (Setswana) and Free State
(Sesotho). A questionnaire was preferred to an interview because it would provide
standardized answers that could be compared with answers provided in the post test
questionnaire in a within-subject design like this one. Interviews would generate non-
standardized responses that would be difficult to compare. Additionally, potential bias
from interview effect was avoided. There were 34 questions out of which 21 were closed-
ended while items 22 through 27 were open-ended. Items 28 through 34 were
demographic questions including the participant’s age, proficiency in other languages,
gender, mother tongue, year of study, and declaration of their willingness to participate in
the next round of the project (Appendix C). Demographic answers were important in
making further sampling for participation in the second phase. The purpose of this
questionnaire was to assess the students’ attitudes, beliefs and perceptions about their
own dialect variety and other sister dialect variants in the Sotho cluster. Both open ended

and closed-ended questions were centered on issues within these four stands:

1) Attitudes toward clustering of languages (questions 1-4).

2) Attitudes toward using Sotho dialects as media of instruction beyond primary
education (questions 5-8c and 23).

3) Views on mutual intelligibility; i.e., how far do they think they can understand

their Sister dialects (9-14c and 25).

75

4) Perceptions of the harmonization proposal (15—21, and 22, 24, 26).

The closed-ended questions had a binominal scale of yes (positive) and no
(negative) poles. Some of the open-ended were written as follow-ups to the closed-ended
questions so that they could be post-coded in the analysis. The close—ended questions
sought to elicit standardized responses that would be compared in pro-task and post test
analyses. The open-ended questions were aimed at collecting data that would otherwise
be missed with closed-ended questions and at giving participants liberty to explore their
feelings in an unrestricted form.

Using the appointment system, each of the 48 participants had 30 minutes to
complete the five-page questionnaire in the office reserved for administration of the
questionnaires. Responses to both open-ended and closed-ended questions provided
necessary input to assess the attitudes of the respondents and to provide an answer to the
first question of the study: what are the preconceived attitudes of native Speakers of Sotho
language varieties toward Sister varieties in the same cluster, use of Sotho languages in

education, mutual intelligibility and the proposal for harmonization?

Focus Group Discussion

The second phase of the research involved a focus group discussion as a forum for
data collection on degrees of mutual intelligibility among Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho
participants. This stage exclusively involved 12 participants (4 from each dialect stratum)
who participated in the pre-task questionnaire phase of the study. The participants were

invited to attend a focus group discussion that was held in a large discussion room on the

76

campus. The discussion topic was disclosed in advance so that they could think through
and become comfortable with the discussion. Topic participants were instructed to use
their mother tongues throughout the interactions, and they were told that English was
strictly prohibited. The topic covered these components: (i) causes of ethnic stereotypes,
(ii) the danger of stereotypes and (iii) ways of resolving social problems caused by
stereotypes. Instructions and roles were also given in advance so that the participants
knew ’what was expected of them. Sepedi Speakers were asked to address part one (i) of

' the question, Setswana speakers part two (ii) while the Sesotho speakers were requested
to answer part three (iii) of the discussion topic (see Appendix D). After each group
presented their part to the whole group, the presenters were asked for clarification by
other group members (representing different language varieties) to support or disagree on
the issues raised by each group. A video recorder was used to keep track of the
interactions while the research assistant, who Spoke all these varieties, moderated the
discussions and encouraged each informants to provide as much information as possible.
These discussions lasted for an hour. Data collected using this procedure was necessary
to provide information on the second question of the study: can speakers of Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho communicate without major linguistic barriers when immersed in

communicative activities on topics of mutual interest?

Information Gap Task
In order to investigate whether Sotho inter-dialect interactions could achieve a
predetermined communication goal, an information gap activity was used to prompt goal-

directed interactions among the Speakers of the three dialect varieties. Through

77

negotiation, the participants were expected to fill in the gap through information they
sought from the other groups and to resolve the problem presented. This activity marked
the third phase of the data collection procedure and it was administered to the same 12
participants who had taken part in the focus group discussion. The aim of this activity
was to provide further data on whether mutual understanding among speakers of the three
dialects, if any, was sufficient to allow the speakers to negotiate, collaborate and reach a
communicative goal. A hypothetical Situation was created around an orange, which the

students had to compete for as explained below:

The orange game

The researcher and the assistant brought an orange to the discussion room. The
participants were divided into three groups based on the language varieties they speak.
According to the instructions, each group needed the orange for different reasons. They
were expected to express their intentions, convince each other, negotiate, and ‘discover’
that they could share the orange because each pair needed only one part of the orange.
This activity allowed communication across language varieties as representatives of each
variety had to negotiate with representatives from a different language variety. The
Sepedi group was expected to find out that they needed the rind, the Setswana group
needed the pips and Sesotho speakers had to find out that they only needed the juice. The

contexts of the groups’ needs were described as follows:

78

(a) The orange rind

The Sepedi speaking group was given a context that one of their important leaders in
the Limpopo province was dying of influenza and that, as advised by the traditional
healer, the patient could only be saved if the only remaining orange in the country could
be used to cure her. The image of the Rain Queen was portrayed in this discussion
because She represented the regional tradition of having command over rain. The
participants therefore had a moral responsibility to protect and save their traditional
leader. This was relevant for Sepedi speakers since their province is negatively painted as
‘witchcrafi province’, where there was also a popular belief that the orange rind could

cure influenza. Here’s the translated directive for Sepedi speakers:

Your leader (Queen Modj adji) is dying of influenza and, as the traditional healer
instructed, she needs an orange to have her life saved. But, there’s only one
orange left in the whole country. Setswana and Sesotho groups also need this
orange. As representatives of the Queen, negotiate with your Setswana and
Sesotho counterparts so that they allow you to get the orange. Make your case and

convince them why you, not them, Should get the orange (Appendix E)

(b) The orange pips

The Setswana Speakers were told about the extinction faced by the orange trees
Species and a farmer from Mabopane area (one of the townships in the North West
province) has discovered that if he could find an orange, he could save the Species and

help in multiplying the trees in the next couple of years. The issue of farming and citrus

79

fruits was relevant to Setswana speakers Since it was topical at the time of this study.
They were given the following background information that helped to reflect both the

urgency and the seriousness of the case:

Oranges have become extinct in the North West province. One of the farmers
from Mabopane promised you that he could help multiply the number of oranges
when and only if he gets an orange. But, there’s only one remaining orange in the
whole country. Sepedi and Sesotho groups also need this orange. AS
representatives of your province, negotiate with your Sepedi and Sesotho
counterparts so that they allow you to get the orange. Make your case and

convince them why you, not them, Should get the orange (Appendix E).

(c)The orange juice
The need for orange juice was assigned to the Sesotho group. They were given the

context in which their city, Phutaditshaba was faced with drought. Phutaditshaba is the ’
capital city of the former Qwaqwa homeland and it remains a uniting symbol for Sesotho
Speakers. The city was chosen so that it could bring sympathy, loyalty and an urgent
cause for action. The problem presented to this group was that there was only one
remaining water engineer who could die of thirst if he did not get that orange in a few
hours. This task tallied with the newspaper reports about Shortage of engineers in this

area. This context was presented to the participants as follows:

80

Your city, Phutaditshaba, is faced with drought and there’s only one water
engineer remaining for the whole city. But the engineer is very sick after he was
thirsty for more than 7 days. The doctors recommended that he get an orange so
that he can recover to continue with his water project to save the city. There is
only one orange remaining in the country that you should get. Sepedi and
Setswana groups need this orange. AS representatives of your city, negotiate with
your Setswana and Sepedi counterparts so that they allow you to get the orange.
Make your case and convince them why you, not them, Should get the orange (see

Appendix E).

The problem created in this game was two fold. First, it prompted rivalry over the
possession of the orange because the participants were given the impression that the
orange was the only one remaining in the country. Secondly, the purpose for which each
group needed the orange was not revealed to the other groups. The purposes that were
revealed in the midst of the discussion needed to be weighed and ranked in the order of
importance. As a result, the participants would have achieved their communicative goal if
they found out, after negotiations, (1) what exactly the other groups needed from the
orange and (2) if they could reach a solution in which they Share the orange in terms of
the pips, rind and juice per group. AS with the focus group discussion, the discussants
required that the participants strictly use their own languages, without switching to
English, as they negotiated for meaning, clarified their positions, interrogated other
groups and repaired potential communication breakdowns. The discussion lasted for 1

hour and it was video-recorded. Interactions video-recorded in this activity provided

81

answers to the third question of the study: can inter-variety interactions among the

Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho achieve a communicative goal?

Reading Comprehension Test

In order to test whether harmonization of written orthographies is feasible among
the Sotho language varieties, reading comprehension tasks were used. This is a very
important part of the study on the question of harmonization; it involved three samples of
readings from the three dialects and another one from a harmonized Sotho text. The
harmonized text included words and spelling systems used in all three varieties in order
to provide a feel for what harmonization might entail in practice. In order to avoid a
carry-over effect from one reading to another, all the texts were dealing with different
topics and they were not identified by dialect. Each of the 12 respondents read the
passages and, using their home language, answered 25 questions (5 from each passage)
that sought to test their overall comprehension of the readings. Since the harmonization
proposal would in practice involve unification of Spellings, vocabulary and orthographies,
this part of the research was regarded as the hallmark in testing the practical nature of
harmonized Sotho. It proved instrumental in determining if mixed vocabulary and unified
orthography could be mutually understood. From questions that included a mixture of
true/false, Short answer and multiple choice, the responses given were important in
addressing the fourth question of the study: can Speakers of Sotho language cluster read

and understand written texts from varieties other than their own?

82

Post-task Questionnaire

Using both closed-ended and open-ended questions through a questionnaire
scheduled at the end of the reading comprehension reading task, all the 12 discussants
were individually asked to give feedback on the interactions with Speakers of other
related language varieties. This phase involved the same 12 participants. The questions
were similar to the ones used in the pro-task attitudes questionnaire (open- and closed-
ended questions with a focus on four strands: language clustering, use of Sotho languages
in post primary education, mutual intelligibility and harmonization proposal). This post-
task attitudinal questionnaire was meant to provide data that could be used to answer the
fifth question of the study: does immersion in actual interaction with Speakers who use -
Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho reinforce or change preconceived attitudes about the

varieties?

Delayed Interview

One to two weeks after a review of the scenes from the camcorder was made, and
responses on the questionnaires read, a follow up interview was arranged with some of
the participants in order to clarify some of their paralinguistic expressions and to attain
explanations of some of the issues they had raised in their responses to the open-ended
questions. A Short time between the data collection and delayed interviews was preferred
Since it guarded against a maturation period that could have developed over a much
longer time. Notes were taken for use as a supplementary source to the data already

collected. Only four follow-ups were actually carried out. The rest of the participants

83

were called by telephone to clarify some of the statements they made. This information

was needed to supplement the qualitative data.

Personal Observations

Another method of data collection used in the study was personal observation.
The researcher, who is proficient in all three dialects used in the interactions, observed all
the discussions, taking notes and noting particularly cases of mutual understanding and
' misunderstanding. Words, phrases and expressions, such as idioms that affected the flow
of communication from one group of speakers to another, were noted so that they could

be followed up after the discussions.

DATA ANALYSIS

Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis procedures were carried out in the

study.

(a) Qualitative Data

There were two qualitative measures used: content analysis for open-ended
responses to the questionnaire and discourse analysis for focus group discussion and
information gap activity.

Content analysis was used for the open-ended part of the questionnaire. The
questionnaires were organized and grouped according to dialect strata and assigned
identification numbers. A codebook was used to code each variable and to write a brief

description under each variable. This analysis was divided into two phases. First, the

84

factual information employed a coding frame so that the responses to these questions
could be coded into distinct categories and then treated later as nominal data. Second, all
other open-ended answers were subjected to systematic content analysis in two ways (see
Domyei, 2003): (1) informant’s responses were turned into distinct content elements,
substantive statements or key points, and (2) categories obtained in phase two (focus
group discussions and information gap task) were numerically coded and entered into a
data file. Some of the key points in (1) are quoted verbatim for illustration.

The video-clips and interactions from the focus group discussion and information
gap activity needed an analysis that focused on utterances exchanged among the three
dialect groups. Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) was adapted for analysis on the
premise that mutual understanding does entail a high degree of cooperation. The maxim
of relation, i.e., how relevant the Speech of one interlocutor is to another one, proved a
useful tool to measure cases of (a) understanding and (b) misunderstanding. Additional
maxims of quantity, quality and manner helped in consolidation of the analysis of mutual
intelligibility. Analyses for each of the speech types (interventions levels) are

individually explained in (i) and (ii) below.

(i) Focus Group Discussion

Utterances exchanged among the three dialect groups were divided into two
subfieldsz bi-dialect interaction and tri-dialect interaction. Bi-dialect interactions included
all instances of communication between Speakers of two different dialects. Tri-dialect
interactions involved all instances where speakers from all three dialects exchanged

utterances on a common theme (negotiation). CP principle was used in this case to Show

85

cases of (a) mutual intelligibility and (b) unintelligibility. In analyzing the data,

appropriate vignettes from the video tapes were captured to support cases of (a) and (b).

(ii) Information Gap Task

Analysis of the data collected through the information gap was analyzed in the same
way as the focus group discussion as described above. Over and above this, judgment as
to whether the discussants reached the communicative goal was based on the participants’
ability to discover exactly what they wanted and to arrive at a conclusion of sharing the
orange by dividing it into the rind, the juice and pips. This conclusion was considered
important in making arguments for or against mutual intelligibility considering that three
dialects (encoded as distinct languages) were employed throughout the discussion.
Examples of such interactions are quoted verbatim in order to support the case developed
in the analysis.

In addition to adaptation of Grice’s Cooperative Principle in analyzing the video-
recorded speech tokens, native Speaker intuitive judgments were used to assess cases of
understanding and misunderstanding in the conversations. The researcher who personally
observed the interactions had a vantage point in making judgments based on his intuition
as a native speaker of Sepedi (with full proficiency in Setswana and Sesotho). The field
notes taken during the interactions were scrutinized and factored in the frnal assessment
of the interactions. Furthermore, two research assistants who were also proficient/native
Speakers of these dialects were asked to playback the Videocassettes and make personal

judgment on degrees of mutual understanding. Their observations were compared with

those of the researcher to ensure interrater reliability on the Speech tokens evaluated.

86

b. Quantitative Data

Quantitative data generated in this study involve YES/NO binominal scaled closed-
ended responses, post-coded responses from follow-up questions and scores from the
reading comprehension passage. The closed-ended responses were further divided into
three categories: (a) pre—task responses from the whole group (48), (b) 12 participants’
responses in both pre-and post-tasks, and (c) reading comprehension scores. Analyses for

each of these data are presented below:

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics

The following data were subjected to measures of central tendency and measures of
dispersion, using means, Standard deviations and frequency counts. Inferential statistics
were carried out in order to assess whether the finding could be generalized to the whole

population, using probability/Significance tests based on the alpha value of 0.05.

(i) Reading Comprehension

Responses from the reading comprehension passage were scored out of 40 points for
each of the 12 participants. Due to extremes in the scores, median was preferred as the
measure of central tendency. Frequency counts were used to account for distribution of
the scores between and within the three groups, using percentages. A chi-square test was
used to assess whether differences individual scores within each of the three language
varieties were statistically significant. One-Way AN OVA was used to compare mean

differences between the language varieties and to measure the significance level.

87

(ii) Pre-task Responses

The pre-task questionnaire responses from the large group of 48 participants were
analyzed on a bi-nominal scale of Yes (positive) and No (negative). Scores for each of
these scales were counted as frequencies among the dialects and the four themes on
which the questions were based: language clustering, use in post-primary education,
mutual intelligibility and harmonization. Totals of scores for each strand were calculated
per dialect, using descriptive statistics (percentages). A chi-square and one-way ANOVA
tests were used to determine degrees of difference within and between groups and
themes, and whether such differences were Statistically Significant. It was necessary to
Show confidence level through this measure so that generalizations to the larger student

population could be made (i.e., compared the frequency of YES answers across the

groups).

c. Comparison of Pre-task and Post-task: The Experiment

Since the design of the study was mainly experimental in nature, it was necessary
to compare the results of the pre- and post-task attitudes based on the responses of the
participants who underwent the experimental process (intervention tasks). These
participants were exposed to Speakers of sister dialects through inter-dialect interactions
and to orthographic representations of both their Sister dialects and a sample of
harmonized Sotho. This comparison sought to assess both qualitatively and
quantitatively whether the exposure had an impact on the participants’ initial attitudes

(pre-task).

88

(i) Qualitative Data
Comparison of qualitative data generated from responses in both pre-and post-
task stages involved pairing of the answers from each of the 12 participants. This
procedure sought to assess whether what was said in the pre-task was Similar to the
reactions given in the post-task. Content analysis was used on each paired response to

establish patterns of Similarities and differences.

(ii) Quantitative Data

A matched t-test was used to compare scores for each individual participant in
pre-task and post-task responses (from questionnaires). Due to the requirement for
normal distribution of the data, Anderson-Darling Normality test preceded all matched t-
test analyses. The means were compared using this test in order to assess whether there
was a change and whether such change, if any, was statistically Significant at the alpha
value of 0.05. A test of significance was necessary in this analysis in order to Show if the
probability of the observed results occurred by chance (random selection process) or
whether some mechanism was at work (i.e., the intervention tasks truly changed the
attitudes of the speakers). Answers to this statistical test were expected to induce practical
significance to the proposal for harmonization. Because statistically significant results do
not necessarily entail that they are important, a strength of association test was conducted
on the statistically significant cases to assess the importance of the differences in post-

task and pre-task means.

89

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing three Sotho
languages varieties (Sepedi, Sesotho, and Setswana) through a common orthographic
representation. Attitudes of the Speakers and the degrees of mutual intelligibility in both
Spoken and written registers were used as variables to assess the extent to which

harmonization is feasible. This chapter presents the analysis of the quantitative data and

interpretation of the results.

PRE-TASK ATTITUDES

F orty-eight speakers of the Sotho language varieties were given a pre-task
questionnaire that sought to elicit the Speakers’ preconceived attitudes toward the
harmonization process. There were 29 closed-ended questions based on the following
themes: (a) clustering of the languages on national TV, (b) attitudes toward Sotho
language varieties as languages of instruction in post-primary school education, (c)
degrees of mutual comprehensibility among the Sotho varieties, and (d) the proposal to
harmonize three differentiated orthographic representations into a unified writing
standard. The questionnaire also consisted of Six open-ended questions that were
designed to elicit input on these themes and to allow the respondents to express their
feelings with depth, and offer clarifications, which could not be captured with closed-
ended questions. This section reports on the findings observed from the closed-ended

questions on each of the themes across the three language varieties.

90

11 Official Languages Policy and the Clustering of the Sotho and Nguni
Languages

The constitution of South Africa recognizes 11 languages as official: Sepedi,
Setswana, Sesotho, isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, English
and Afiikaans (RSA, 1996). For practical purposes, however, Pan South Afiican
Language Board (PAN SALB) and the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)
have a propensity for clustering Nguni languages (isiXhosa, isiZulu, isiNdebele and
Siswati) and Sotho languages (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho) into two broad categories
as Nguni and Sotho, respectively. Using their mother tongues, the respondents in this
study were asked if they believed that the 11 official languages policy could promote the
use of indigenous African languages in public domains and if they approved of the Nguni

and Sotho clusters. The questions collapsed into this theme involved the following:

1) Indigenous African languages can be promoted through the 11 official languages
policy.

2) We need to retain the clustering of Sotho languages on Channel 2 of the South
Afiican Broadcasting Cooperation.

3) Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho) Should be grouped
under one category for administrative and educational purposes.

4) Nguni language varieties (isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati) should be

grouped under one category for administrative and educational purposes.

91

Sixteen respondents from each of the Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana,
and Sesotho) answered the above four questions on a binominal scale based on YES/NO

alternates (see Appendix C). The results of the survey are summarized in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Attitudes toward Language Clustering and 11 Official Languages

 

 

 

 

 

Language Positive scores % Negative %
variety (YES) Scores (NO)

Sepedi 43 67.1 21 32.8
Setswana 46 71.8 18 28.1
Sesotho 42 65.6 22 34.3
TOTAL 131 68.2 61 31.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho speakers toward the clustering of their
language varieties according to Sotho and Nguni channels on national television were
largely positive. There was a notable consistency of positive ratings across the three
language varieties. As Shown in Table 2, Sepedi respondents gave 43 (or 67.1%) positive
responses, which are contrasted with 21 (or 32.8%) negative answers. Setswana
respondents had a total positive rating of 46 (or 71.8%) and a negative rating of 18 (or
28.1%). 42 (or 65.6% positive) responses and 22 (or 34.3%) negative responses were
observed among the Sesotho speaking respondents. Collectively, there is an intervariety
positive response rated at 131 (or 68.2 %) and a negative rating of 61 (or 31.7%). These

results allow the interpretation that the respondents across the language varieties favor

92

grouping their languages into one television channel as it is practiced in the SABC
Channel 2.

While the findings Showed a strong support for language clustering, it was
necessary to assess differences between the language groups in order to Show whether
Similar confidence level Could be claimed across the groups. AS a result, a chi-square test
of probability, set at an alpha value of 0.05, was conducted to assess whether the
differences between language varieties responses were statistically Significant. The chi-
square results showed that the differences (of 67%, 71.8%, and 65.6%) among the three
Sotho language varieties were not statistically Significant (x2=0.51, df—‘2, P>0.05). The
null hypothesis, which predicted no significant differences among the Sotho groups, is
supported while the alternative hypothesis, which predicted significant differences, is
rejected. The inference drawn from this finding is that all three groups equally support
the clustering practices in current multilingual policy and that their attitudes are about the

same.

Attitudes toward Sotho Language Varieties as Media of Instruction in Post-primary
Education

The next group of questions on the questionnaire sought to ascertain the attitude
of the respondents toward Sotho varieties, including their own, as the media of learning
and teaching in post-primary school education. The questions revolved around the

following sub-themes (Appendix C):

1) Sotho language varieties as the media of instruction beyond

primary school education

93

2) Suitability of the Sotho language varieties for scientific and technological
subjects

3) Improving understanding of the subject matter

4) General interest in the language varieties or their harmonized form taught at

universities

Because the harmonization proposal further implied use of the new harmonized
orthographies for education purposes, attitudes of the speakers on these questions are
integral to the feasibility of the harmonization proposal. Altogether, there were six
questions on the questionnaire for each of the 48 respondents (16 per language variety)
from the three Sotho varieties. From these questions, a total number of 96 (16 x 6)scores

per group were anticipated. The results of the survey are presented in the following table:

Table 3: Attitudes toward Use of Sotho Language Varieties for Post-primary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language Positive scores % Negative %
group (YES) Scores (N O)

Sepedi 56 58.3 40 41.7
Setswana 52 54.1 44 45.8
Sesotho 54 56.2 42 43.8
TOTAL 162 56.2 126 43.8

 

 

Attitudes toward use of Sotho language varieties or their harmonized form in

post-primary school education Showed to be positive. There were no major differences in

94

the ratings per language variety. Table 3 Shows that Sepedi respondents gave 56 (or
58.3%) positive responses and 41.7% negative answers. Setswana speakers provided 52
(or 54.1%) YES responses and 44 (or 45.8%) NO responses. Sesotho respondents gave
54 (or 56.2%) YES and 42 (or 43.8%) NO responses. For all three groups, 162 (or 6.2%)
of the total scores were rated positively (YES) while 126 (or 43.8%) of the total scores
were negative (N O).

In order to test whether there were real differences among the three groups and
whether the positive rating of 56.2% was reflective of the intergroup attitudes, a chi-
square test was carried out. The results of the test Show that the differences among the
groups were not statistically Significant (x2=0.199, df-‘2, P>0.05). These results allow for
acceptance of the null hypothesis, which predicted no Significant differences among the
three groups. The alternative hypothesis is consequently rejected. In this connection, it
can be concluded that the positive responses obtained were not skewed by any particular
group and that the attitudes of the speakers are about the same irrespective of their

language background.

Mutual Intelligibility

The next group of questions sought to evaluate the students’ belief about the
degrees of mutual intelligibility among Sotho language varieties. These questions sought
to assess whether students believed that they understood Sister language varieties and
whether they thought they would be understood in turn by speakers of Sister varieties. It
should be stressed that these respondents did not have prior conversations with any

speakers of the sister dialects (language varieties). Their perceptions were solely based on

95

what they hear through national television. For example, televison Channel 2 from the
SABC alternates the news-reading program in Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho.
On a binominal scale of YES or NO, all 48 participants responded to 12

statements on mutual comprehensibility (see Appendix C) as restated below:

1) Sotho languages have more similarities than they have differences.

2) I like watching the news or movies in other Sotho languages (other than my
own).

3) I can understand when I listen to Sepedi (e.g., on TV).

4) I can understand when I listen to Setswana (e. g., on TV).

5) 1 can understand when I listen to Sesotho (e.g., on TV).

6) I believe Sepedi Speakers can understand when I use my own language.

7) I believe Setswana speakers can understand when I use my own language.

8) I believe Sesotho speakers can understand when I use my own language.

9) Conversations among Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho speakers can go on
without major difficulties in understanding words or phrases used by Speakers.

10) I will be able to understand most of the written words/phrases used in

Sepedi

11) I will be able to understand most of the written words/phrases used in
Setswana.

12) I will be able to understand most of the written words/phrases used in

Sesotho.

96

The results of the survey are presented in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Attitudes toward Degrees of Mutual Intelligibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language Positive scores % Negative %
variety (YES) Scores (N O)

Sepedi 155 79.4 37 19.3
Setswana 159 82.8 33 17.2
Sesotho 144 75 48 25
TOTAL 458 79.5 118 20.5

 

Results of the survey on degrees of mutual intelligibility Showed the highest
positive ratings among the four themes developed from the pre-task questionnaire with
observable consistency across the three Sotho varieties. This finding was corroborated by
the figures displayed in Table 4 above. First, the table Shows that Sepedi Speakers
provided 155 (or 79.4%) positive responses and 37 (or 19.3%) negative responses.
Secondly, Setswana speakers gave 159 (or 82.8%) of positive ratings and only 33 (or
17.2%) negative attitudes on mutual intelligibility. Sesotho speakers attained 144 (or
75%) positive responses while only 48 (or 25%) responses were rated negatively. In sum,
all three language varieties combined amounted to 458 (or 79.5%) YES responses with

only 118 (or 20.5%) NO answers. These results support the interpretation that the

Speakers in all the Sotho language varieties answered favorably on the mutual

intelligibility questions.

97

 

A chi-square test was carried out to assess whether the differences in attitudes
observed between the three groups were statistically significant. The results Showed that
the difference in attitudes from the Speakers. of the three varieties’ evaluation of mutual
intelligibility was not statistically Significant (x 2=1.333, dfi2, P>0.05). This allows the
interpretation that the 79.5% positive rate on the mutual intelligibility questions is a real
representation of all three language groups under study. The respondents therefore had
homogenous preconceived notions that their language varieties would be mutually
' comprehensible - a chief determining factor for the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho

language varieties.

Harmonization

The last group of questions on the questionnaire sought to assess the participants’
beliefs and opinions on the possibility of uniting orthographies of the three Sotho
language varieties: Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho. The questions are restated below

under 1-7.

1) Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are so close that they can be treated as a single
language.

2) I think these languages can be unified in writing.

3) Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho should be grouped in one TV channel.

4) I will be happy to have Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho unified in writing as in the

national anthem.

98

5) The Sotho version of the national anthem: Morena boloka sechaba sa hesu forms

part of my home language.
6) I will be able to understand the unified Sotho writing.
7) Harmonized Sotho language can be used as a standard written variety among

speakers of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho.

A summary of the responses is presented in the following table of frequencies:

Table 5: Attitudes toward Harmonization

 

 

 

 

 

Language Positive scores o/o Negative %
group (YES) Scores (N O)
Sepedi 82 73.2 30 26.8
Setswana 82 73.2 30 26.8
Sesotho 72 64.2 40 35.7
TOTAL 236 70.2 100 29.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes toward harmonization of Sotho language varieties were consistently
positive across the three language varieties. This means that the respondents from all the
three language varieties favored the notion of uniting their language orthographies
through the process of harmonization. Table 5 above shows that Sepedi participants
provided 82 (or 73.2%) positive responses and only 30 (26.8%) negative responses.
Similar distribution of scores was obtained from Setswana Speaking participants. Sesotho

participants gave 72 (or 64.2%) positive responses and 40 (or 35.7%) negative answers.

99

Therefore, the group shows a total of 236 (or 70.2%) positive responses while only 100
(or 29.8%) responses on the harmonization pr0posal were rated negatively. 70.2% of
positive responses on the harmonization proposal allow the interpretation that the
participants were largely in favor of the proposal.

While Sepedi and Setswana participants’ responses had exactly the same patterns,
responses from Sesotho participants Showed a Slightly different frequency distribution. A
chi-square test was carried out to assess whether the 70.2% approval rate was
representative of the group. The results showed that the differences between the Sepedi
and Setswana participants’ responses, on the one hand and those from the Sesotho
participants, on the other hand, were not statistically Significant (x 2=0.846, df=2,
P>0.05). These results allow acceptance of the null hypothesis, which predicted no
significant differences among the groups, and rejection of the alternative hypothesis with
its prediction for Significant differences. Therefore, there is confidence that 70.2% is a
true representation of positive responses by the whole group of participants and that
harmonization of Sotho language varieties was equally favored across the three language

backgrounds.

Comparison of Attitudes across Themes

The results of the survey have Shown that the respondents in all the language
varieties are generally positive toward (a) the 11 official languages policyand language
clustering as used on national television, (b) use of Sotho language varieties in post-
primary school education, (c) degrees of mutual intelligibility and (d) the proposal to

harmonize orthographies of Sotho language varieties. While the chi-square results

100

showed that there is no statistical difference in attitudes among the three language groups,
it was necessary to assess whether there are Si gnificant mean differences between the four
themes. Having met the assumptions of ANOVA test, the individual ratings across the
four themes were entered into AN OVA table and analyzed. The results of the one-way

AN OVA are presented in Table 6 below:

Table 6: Across Theme Comparison

 

 

 

 

Source of Df Sum of Mean F. Ratio F. Remark
Variation squares squares Probability

Factor 2 1 10 55 0.02 0.978 Retained
Error 9 2 1 869 2430 ’ P>0.05
TOTAL 11 21978 - ----- ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Factor= means between themes

The results of one-way ANOVA Show that there were no statistically Significant
differences across the four themes discussed above (p>0.05). As illustrated in Table 6, the
results allow retention of the null hypothesis, which predicted no Significant differences
in the attitudes of the speakers of the three Sotho language varieties across the themes
presented in the questionnaire. This finding supports the consistent results of the chi-
square that the participants across the three Sotho language varieties formed a
homogenous group with regard to their attitudes and that such homogeneity was

consistent across the four themes.

101

EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION TASKS

The second phase of data analysis involved a comparison of the responses from
12 participants in both pre-task and post-task questionnaires. Between the pre-task and
post-task questionnaires, 12 respondents (four from each language group) participated in
an experiment that required inter-variety interactions and reading texts written in all the
three Sotho language varieties and in a sample of Harmonized Sotho. A matched t- test
was used to assess pre and post-task attitudes and an alpha value of 0.05 was set to
measure the confidence level (statistical significance). The test was preceded by the
Anderson-Darling Normality test for each theme in order to assess the normality curve of
the data as required of the matched t-test. Because matched-t test, like other statistical
measures, only Shows whether differences are significant, a firrther strength of
association test was carried out to determine the importance of mean differences, when
applicable. Therefore, there was a three-layered analysis providing an account of data
normality, significance of the mean differences, and importance of the mean differences
in pre-task and post-task scores.

Because differences between responses from the Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho
responses were not Significant (p>0.05) in the preceding analyses as shown, the language
variable was dropped in subsequent analysis on the assumption that the 12 participants
selected for the experiment formed a homogenous group, not differentiated according to
their vernacular dialects. Four themes: (a) language clustering, (b) use of Sotho language
varieties in post-primary education, (c) mutual intelligibility and (d) harmonization were,

however, retained in order to provide a systematic account of pre-task and post-task data

102

and to assess whether different aspects of the questionnaire would produce different or
contradictory results before and after the intervention tasks (treatment).

The hypotheses developed for this analysis were three-pronged. The null
hypothesis (H0) predicted that there would be no change in attitudes afier the participants
were involved in the intervention tasks. In order to predict direction of change, if any,
two alternative hypotheses were developed. Alternative hypothesis one (H1) predicted
more positive responses in the post-task, suggesting that the interventions impacted on
the participants positively. The alternative hypothesis two (1-12), on the converse,
predicted low positive responses in the post-tasks, which would imply that the

intervention tasks induced negative responses.

Language Clustering on National Television

Twelve participants provided data on four items that dealt with clustering of
language varieties on national television. Analysis of data on this theme showed that
there were more positive responses in the post-task questionnaire than they were in the
pro-task questionnaire. This finding meant that the intervention tasks carried out during
the experiment (i.e., focus group discussion, information gap task, and reading judgment
test) had an impact on the attitudes of the participants toward the clustering of their
language varieties on national television.

In order to assess the degree of attitudinal change, a matched-t test was carried out
Since the normality of data distribution was met. The results of the test Showed that the
differences in the pro-task and post-task means were statistically Significant (tobs= 2.12,

df=11, p< 0.05). Consequently, the null hypothesis (H0), which predicted no change of

103

attitudes, is rejected while alternative hypothesis one (H1) is supported for predicting
more positive responses in the post-task. Alternative hypothesis two (H2), which
predicted for reverse change (i.e., less positive responses in the post-task than in the pre-
task), iS also rejected. The matched t-test results imply that the change in attitudes among
the participants is positive and statistically Significant.

Because the Significance of the change in attitudes does not necessarily entail that
the difference is important, a test of strength of association (etaz) was carried out to assess
the importance of change. The results of this test Showed a strong association level of
0.992 (eta2= 0.992) between the pre-task and the post-task, which supports the match-t
test finding that the intervention tasks had an impact on the change of attitudes. These
results allow the interpretation that the interactions among the speakers increased their
positive view of the need to cluster their language varieties into one category (i.e., Sotho)
such as occupying the same television channel as it is currently practiced. This change in
attitudes afier intervention task augurs well for the proposal to unite the languages

varieties through the harmonization process.

Use of Sotho Language Varieties in Post-Primary School Education

The second group of questions (questions 5- 8c, see Appendix C) sought to assess
the participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and perception about the use of Sotho dialects and their
harmonized form as the media of teaching and learning in post-primary school education
and as school subjects at the university level. Analysis of data grouped under this theme

showed that there was change of attitudes in the post-task. Unlike in the preceding theme,

104

however, the change showed that there were low positive responses in the post-task,
suggesting that there was a negative influence of attitudes by the intervention tasks.

The above observation was assessed for significance through the matched Host.
The results of matched t-test Showed that the differences in the pre-task and post-task
means were not statistically significant (tab,= 1.07, df=11, p>0.05). The null hypothesis,
which predicted no change in attitudes, is supported whereas both alternative hypotheses
(H1 and H2) are rejected for predicting negative and positive changes, respectively. It is
' however noteworthy that there has been a mean decrease instead of a gain in the post-
task; it changed toward the negative direction even though such a change is not
statistically significant. The results of the test allow the interpretation that the
intervention task did not impact on the participants’ attitudes toward the use of their
languages in post-primary education.

There are two possible interpretations for the results explaining the effects of the
intervention tasks in changing attitudes. First, attitudes toward use of Afiican languages
may be too deep to be changed in a Short space of time allocated in the intervention tasks.
This explanation may hold especially with the general observation in the literature (e.g.,
Thiba, 2000) that the attitudes toward the use of these languages as the media of
instruction are low among teachers, students and parents. The findings reveal that
changing attitudes toward the use of Afiican languages as the media of instruction might
be a challenge for firture attempts and debates on the issue. The next possible explanation
has to do with the intervention tasks themselves. Since there was no direct teaching of the
content of discussion through these languages in the intervention tasks, the connection

between medium of instruction and attitudes of the speakers was so remote to trigger any

105

changes in attitudes. In this way, the interventions failed to affect the attitudes regarding
the use of Sotho language varieties as the media of instruction in post-primary school

education. Both factors point out to a potential area for firture studies.

Mutual Intelligibility
The degree of mutual intelligibility among the three Sotho dialects was the third

theme of the closed-ended questionnaire. Questions 9-14c (see Appendix C) were
designed to elicit perceptions of the respondents on the degree to which they thought they
would understand their Sister dialects and beliefs on the degree they thought they would
be understood by speakers of their sister dialects. The questions included the ability to
speak and to read texts written in Sister dialects, inter-dialect communication, judgments
on most of the vocabulary in the Sister dialects, and general opinion on Sotho mutual
intelligibility among Sotho language varieties. Analysis of the data elicited showed that
there were more positive responses in the post-task than they were in the pre-task.

A matched t-test was applied to assess whether the differences observed in the
means of the pre and post-tasks were statistically Si gnificant. The results of the test
showed that the differences in the responses were statistically significant (tob,= 3.58,
dfil 1, p<0.05). Here, the null hypothesis (H0) is not supported for predicting no change
in attitudes. Because there were more positive responses in the post-tasks than they were
in the pre-task, the alternative hypothesis one (H1) is supported. On the converse, the
alternative hypothesis two (H2), which predicted reverse or negative change, is rejected.

Therefore, the results point out that there was significant change of attitudes and that such

a change is a positive one.

106

A further test of strength of association (etaz) was carried out to make inference
about the importance of the change in attitudes. The test showed a strong association
value of 0.992 (or 99%) of the changes. It therefore appears that the interactions
(intervention tasks) increased the level of positive ratings of mutual intelligibility and that
such an increase is both statistically significant and important. Discussions with speakers
of sister language varieties in their own respective languages made the participants

realize the extent to which they understood and were understood by the interlocutors

° from other Sotho language varieties.

Harmonization of Sotho Language Varieties

The last questions (questions 15-21 as in Appendix C) on the questionnaire tested
the participants on their attitudes toward the possibility of uniting their dialects in writing
(orthographic representations). The questions involved unification of the writing system,
use of Harmonized Sotho as one language on national television, and use of written
version of the national anthem as a model, among others (see Appendix C). Analysis of
the responses elicited showed that there was a difference in the mean scores between the
pre and post-task responses.

To assess whether the differences in pre and post-task means implied change in
attitudes, a matched t-test was conducted for statistical significance. The results of the
test showed that the differences in pre and post-task mean responses were statistically
Significant (tob,= 3.14, df=11, p<0.05). This means that that the null hypothesis (H0) is
rejected while the alternative hypothesis one (H1), which predicted for positive change in

attitudes is supported because the direction of change favored the post-task responses.

107

The alternative hypothesis two (H2) is rejected for incorrect prediction on the direction of
change. In this way, an interpretation can be made that the intervention tasks have
impacted on the participants to the extent that they had to change their preconceived
attitude.
A further test of strength of association (etaz) was performed on all the scores.
The results showed a moderate association level of 0.472 (or 47%) between the pre-task
and post-task responses. This level support the matched t-test results that the intervention
tasks had an impact on attitudes of the participants toward the harmonization proposal.
The significant change in attitudes toward positive responses and the moderate
association level between responses in pre-task and post-task questionnaire allow the
interpretation that the intervention tasks enabled the speakers to realize the possibility of
harmonizing their languages. The increase in positive responses after the intervention
bodes well for the harmonization proposal as far as the speaker attitudes are concerned.
In brief, the results of the matched t- test and strength of association test show a
pattern suggesting that the interactions among Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho participants
have modified their perceptions about the clustering of their dialects as seen through
national television, degrees of mutual intelligibility, and harmonization of the sister
dialects. Whereas the results found from three of the themes showed positive direction of
change, the results from the use of Harmonized Sotho in education theme did not show
statistically significant change. As stated above, the difficulty of attitudes toward use of
Afi'ican languages as the media of instruction and inability of the interactions to trigger
instruction-based scenarios may have contributed to the lack of change in attitudes. Since

the findings of the matched t- test analysis, overall, reveal that the interactions among

108

three groups of Sotho language varieties accelerated the participants’ positive rating of
harmonization, it seems possible to conclude that the language harmonization among

Sotho groups may be feasible as far as the attitudes are concerned.

READING COMPREHENSION ACROSS SOTHO VARIETIES

Since harmonization of Sotho language varieties, as proposed, would mainly
involve unification of the orthographies, this study included reading judgment tests based
on texts written in the three language varieties and one in the harmonized version. The
test was intended to show the degree of mutual reading among the three groups of Sotho
language varieties and to make predictions about challenges and prospects of the
harmonization proposal. The passages were also used as a part of the intervention tasks
so that the participants could have an idea of what harmonization might entail. As
reported in the matched t- test findings above, the intervention tasks increased in the post-
task questionnaire.

Twelve participants were given three passages written in each of the varieties:
Sepedi, Sesotho, and Setswana, and the fourth one written in a combination of vocabulary
items and orthographies from the three language varieties. The latter was developed from
the text designed by Jacob Nhlapo in the 1950’s. The aim of this experiment was to test

whether speakers of one dialect could read and demonstrate understanding by correctly
answering questions based on texts from sister language varieties. The medium of the
questions was each of the participants’ home languages (i.e., the three Sotho varieties).

Each of the respondents read all four texts and answered 20 questions (five from

each of the three dialects and five from the harmonized text). The questions had mixed

109

question types: short one-word answers and true or false alternates (see Appendix F).
With assistance from one native speaker from each of the varieties, an interrater
reliability of 99% from three raters was reached. Each of the correct answers was given 2
scores (2 x 20=40) and then converted into percentages (frequency counts). A 60% pass
rate was set for the reading comprehension. The reading scores within each language
variety were tested for significance of differences, if any, through a chi-square analysis
set an alpha value of 0.05. Although the sample was relatively small, it was necessary to
assess mean differences between groups and between texts through one-way AN OVA
whose assumptions were met. In this way, the analysis would show whether there was
mutual comprehension among the participants and whether the performance on each text
was similar or significantly different. The following subsections present the findings of

the analyses:

Sepedi Reading Scores

There were four Sepedi respondents who participated in the reading judgment
test. Their reading scores make up 144 points from the total possible scores. The

distribution of the scores among the participants is represented in Table 7:

110

 

Table 7: Sepedi Reading Scores

 

 

 

Respondent Reading Scores
1 36

2 34

3 4O

4 34

Total= 4 144 (90%)

 

 

Results of the reading comprehension test showed that Sepedi participants passed
the reading comprehension test and that individual pass scores were consistent. As shown
in Table 7, respondents 2 and 4 got 34 points each while 1 and 3 got 36 and 40,
respectively. The four scores shown in this figure make a total of 144 points, which is
90% out of a total of 160 that was expected of the group performance. These results
allow the interpretation that the Sepedi speakers can read and comprehend texts written in
their sister language varieties and in the harmonized text.

In order to test whether there were significant differences between individual
cases and to assess whether the 90% pass rate was a true representative of the four
participants, a chi-square test was conducted. The results of the chi-square test showed

that the differences among the four participants were not statistically significant (x2=0.66,

df=3, p>0.05). Thus, 90% pass rate is a true reflection of the Sepedi group performance.

111

 

Setswana Reading Scores

Four Setswana respondents participated in the comprehension test. They read four
passages and answered 5 questions on each passage. The results of the ratings showed
that the participants had a cumulative total of 128 scores out of a possible total of 160
(i.e., 40 points per participant). The following table summarizes the distribution pattern of

scores within this language variety:

Table 8: Setswana Reading Scores

 

 

Respondent Reading Scores
1 38
2 36
3 1 6
L4 38

 

 

 

Eotal= 4 128 (80%)

 

 

112

The result reading judgment test showed that Setswana speakers passed the test,
but individual scores were not consistent. Table 8 shows that respondents number 1 and 4
obtained 38 points on the reading test each while respondents 2 and 3 got 36 and 16
points, respectively. Collectively, these scores make 128 group scores that translate into
80% of the expected grand total of 160 points. Therefore, it can be concluded that
Setswana group got a pass rate of 80%, which is 20% above the set minimum pass rate of
60%.

A chi-square test was carried out to assess the level of individual differences in
the Setswana group. The results showed that the differences within the Setswana group
were statistically significant (x2 =9.73 75, dfi3, p<0.05). The results allow the
interpretation that the group differences are real, and that the 80% pass rate is not
representative of the whole group. Even though 80% exceeded the pass rate, it cannot be
concluded that the Setswana group passed the reading comprehension test. The Setswana

group results remain inconclusive, therefore, at this stage of analysis.

Sesotho Reading Scores

As with the previous two groups, four Sesotho respondents participated in the
reading comprehension test that involved 4 written texts with 5 questions each. The
maximum scores for this group also totaled 160 (40 points per participant). Distribution

of the scores obtained by Sesotho participants is summarized in Table 9 below:

113

 

Table 9: Sesotho Reading Scores

 

 

 

Respondents Reading scores
1 36
2 I 34
3 34
_ 4 32
Total= 4 136 (85%)

 

 

 

Sesotho participants passed the reading comprehension test with consistent
individual scores. ‘As illustrated, Table 9 shows that respondents 2 and 3 got 34 (85%)
points each. It also shows that respondent 1 got 36 (90%) points while respondent 4 got
32 (80%) scores in the reading comprehension test. Added together, a group total of 136
points (85%) out of the possible score of 160 was obtained. This clearly exceeds the
minimum of 60% required for a pass with 25%.

Differences among the participants were noted and tested through a chi-square
test in order to determine individual differences in the performance. The results of the
showed that differences among the four Sesotho respondents were not statistically
significant (x2=0.23, df=3, p>0.05). Because there are no significant individual
differences in the Sesotho group, a conclusion can be drawn that Sesotho is a

homogenous group, and that the 85% pass rate is a true representative of the group

Performance.

114

In brief, the results of the frequency counts based on the 60% minimum
comprehension rate per group show conclusive pass rates for Sepedi participants with
90% and Sesotho with 85% group rates. The chi-square test for individual differences
within the groups showed that both groups do not have significant differences within the
individual scores. The test results provide confidence that the Sepedi and Sesotho pass
rates are representative of their respective group performance on the reading test. On the
contrary, Setswana results do not give the same confidence observed in Sepedi and
Sesotho groups. The Setswana group has showed a group performance of 80%, which
exceeds the minimum 60% pass rate set. However, this group average is not
representative of the entire group. One participant got 16 points out of possible 40 points,
which translates into 40% pass rate—a failure to attain the minimum of 60% as an
individual. A thorough investigation of this participant shows that he did not pass the
questions from his own language variety (i.e., the Setswana text), as the one-way
AN OVA results will reveal in the next section. Language does not seem to be a major
contributing factor for the failure in this particular case. Because the findings based on
frequency counts and chi-square do not provide conclusive answers on whether the
reading levels across the group varieties are the same, there was a need for further
statistical tests that provide a larger picture on textual performances. The one-way
ANOVA test, as discussed below, provided powerful measures to assess between group

performances.

115

Comparison of Reading Comprehension Scores

While the frequency test and chi-square analysis showed that all the groups have
generally passed the reading comprehension tests, it was necessary to compare the group
means in order to determine whether there were group differences on reading
comprehension and, as a reliability measure, to assess whether the level of
comprehension across the four texts groups was equal. As a result, two separate one-way
ANOVAs were conducted: (a) comparison of mean differences for each language variety
and (b) comparison of mean differences for each of the four texts.

With regard to the mean differences among the three dialect groups, scores on
each of the texts were combined into a single category and added together for each
language variety. Sepedi had a total of 144 scores with a mean score of 36; Setswana had
a total of 128 scores and a mean of 32, while Sesotho got a total of 136 that converted
into a mean of 34. The raw data were entered into the AN OVA table in order to
determine whether differences between language varieties performance on the reading
comprehension test were statistically significant. The results of the one-way ANOVA are

presented in the table below:

116

Table 10: Performance per Language Variety

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Df Sum of Mean F. Ratio F. Remark
Variation squares squares Probability

Factor 2 32 16 0.383 0.692414 Retained
Error 9 376 41 .778 P>0.05
TOTAL 11 408

 

Note: F actor=mean differences across three language groups

The results of the One-way ANOVA test show that the differences between the

three groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). This means that the null

hypothesis, which predicted for no statistically significant differences between across

Sotho language varieties, is supported. The results allow the interpretation that the

reading comprehension ability of texts written in Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho among

the groups is about the same, irrespective of the speakers’ individual language varieties.

In this connection, a claim for mutual comprehension can be made.

The second one-way ANOVA sought to assess differences in the degree of

performance per each of the four texts: Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho, and Harmonized

Sotho and whether such differences were statistically significant. The results of the one-

way ANOVA analysis are summarized in the following table:

117

 

Table 11: Reading Performance per Text

 

 

 

 

Source of Df Sum of Mean F. Ratio F. Remark
Variation squares squares Probability

Factor 3 0.9167 0.3056 0.0669 0.977185 Retained
Error 44 201 4.5682 P>0.05
TOTAL 47 201.9167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Factor = Language of the texts collapsed across speakers

The results of ANOVA test showed that there were no significant differences
between the texts means (P>0.05). Consequently, the null hypothesis, which predicted
that there would be no major differences between the texts, is retained, while the
alternative hypothesis is rejected. The results imply that the performance on each of the
texts did not yield differences and that the participants performed equally on all four
texts. This finding supports the one above that showed that different performance ratings
per language variety are not significantly different.

Collectively, the results of the one-way AN OVAs show that there are no
statistically significant differences on how each language group performed (p> 0.05) and
that there are no statistically significant differences on the performance scores across the
texts (p>0.05). This means that the groups performed equally on their comprehension test
and that different texts did not produce statistically different results. The most interesting
finding worth noting is that the participants not only performed similarly irrespective of

dialect group, they also performed equally on the harmonized text. As a result, the

conclusion drawn from here is that harmonization of Sotho dialects may not disadvantage

118

one group over another because there is already a high degree of mutual comprehension.
Unification of the written forms, therefore, would not require major changes in the
already existing orthographies.

To sum up the chapter, the results of the pre-task attitudes, matched t-test, and
reading judgment test corroborate each other to show that harmonization of Sotho
language varieties is feasible at least in two respects: (a) positive speaker attitudes and (b)
mutual comprehension in written registers. Based on the improved attitudes observed in
the post-task, it appears that harmonization of Sotho varieties may be a favorable
linguistic path among Sotho speakers without serious risks for ethno-linguistic hostility.
Such a path may require minimal adjustments to the current orthographies, which are

mutually comprehensible across the three language varieties.

119

CHAPTER 5: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA

This study sought to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho language
varieties by investigating practices and attitudes of speakers of these language varieties.
In order to realize this objective, an in-depth analysis of language harmonization
phenomena through multiple sources of data was undertaken. This chapter presents and
analyzes qualitative data collected through the open-ended questionnaires and the

interdialect interactions observed among the participants of the study.

CONTENT ANALYSIS: RESPONSES TO THE PRE-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

The open-ended responses elicited in the pre-task questionnaire were subjected to
content analysis. These open-ended questions covered items from 21 through 27 of the
queStionnaire and other additional questions that sought further information from the
closed-ended questions. In terms of scope, the open-ended questionnaires were centered
on three of the four themes as presented in the quantitative section: use of Sotho
languages beyond primary school education, the degree of mutual intelligibility, and
unification of Sotho dialects orthographies (harmonization). Whereas the questions were
listed as questions 21 through 27 on the questionnaires, they were re-numbered as 1

through 6 for purpose of this analysis as follows (See Appendix C: )

1. There is a pr0posal to unify the written forms of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho

for educational purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this

120

proposal? Give your answer and reasons for it below.

2. Can Sotho languages be used as the media of learning and teaching in higher
levels of education? Please give your answer and reasons below:

3. Would it be easy for speakers of Sotho languages to read texts written in a
Harmonized Sotho language? Support your answer.

4. Do you think communication among the Sotho language speakers is possible,
without translators? Give your answer and reasons thereof:

5. Would you be interested in having your language unified with languages in the
Sotho group? Give your answer and reasons below:

6. Are there any other issues on uniting writing systems of the Sotho languages?

Please use the space below.

These questions elicited responses that further clarify the participants’ feelings and
attitudes on the harmonization question in addition to the restrictive closed-ended
questions that gave them the Yes or No options. All the responses were classified broadly
under these themes (a) harmonization, (b) mutual intelligibility, and (c) use of
Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction in post-primary education. Each of these
thematic concerns (arguments for and against) is presented below with elaborations

quoted verbatim from the respondents.
Harmonization

Questions # 1, 5 and 6 specifically sought to assess the participant’s views and

beliefs on the possibility of uniting differentiated orthographies of Sepedi, Setswana, and

121

Sesotho dialects into one written form. Based on the quantitative responses calculated on
Yes or No scale, the responses showed 70.2% positive rating and 29.8% negative rating.
Qualitative analyses of the responses provide an additional measure to assess reasons for
the responses made. These reasons were categorized as arguments for and arguments

against harmonization, which are separately presented below.

Arguments for Harmonization

The majority of the responses (236 or 70.2%) as shown in the quantitative data
analysis favored the need to harmonize Sotho language varieties: Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho into one written form with a common orthographic representation. The
respondents provided arguments for harmonization, which were centered on the
following themes: group unity, modeling the national anthem, reduction of the number of
languages and costs associated with translation, and formation of a strong written
language that would not face extinction in future, as the separate dialects are. These

themes are discussed and illustrated under (i) through (iv) below.

i) The Need for Unity

One of the recurrent themes that emerged in the open-ended questions among the
participants who supported harmonization of Sotho language varieties was the need to
establish group unity among the speakers of these three language varieties. The proposal
for unifying Sotho dialects into a common written standard received overwhelming
support partly due to the feeling that people speaking Sotho dialects were viewed as a

Single ethnic group by the participants. The participants further pointed out that there are

122

dialect stereotypes that emerged due to historical separation of these speech forms.
Unification of the Sotho dialects was therefore perceived as an opportunity to overcome
the current negative stereotypes that continue to divide people who speak mutually
intelligible language varieties.

The respondents who supported the harmonization proposal based on group
solidarity decried the fact that the Constitutional provision for Sotho dialects as distinct
languages is faulty. They argued that enshrining the dialects of Sotho as distinct
languages in the Constitution does not help to cement group cohesiveness that was
impeded in the past. Although historical division of the varieties was cited as being
problematic, the respondents did not make any link to the work of missionary linguists.
Instead, they made reference to Bantustan homelands that were based on dialect
differences during the Apartheid era. It is worth noting that ten years after the first
democratic elections in 1994, the participants still shared very strong feelings about the
need for unity through language, which once were the symbols of division and oppression
among the indigenous people. A prototypical case for harmonization based on group

solidarity is presented in extract # 1 below:

#1. Seo se ka thusa gore rena ba go somisa maleme a Sesotho ka moka re kopane
goba selo se tee ka gore re na le go go tseelana fase le gomono ge re kopane re
bolela. Rena baswa kudu re na le gore ge motho a bolela leleme le lengwe la
Sesotho re mmotse gore “ga ke kwesise selo seo 0 se lekago go se bolela.”

Mohlala, Motswana 0 re “ke fihlile ntshe,” mopedi a re “Ke fihlile gona.”

123

[That would help us use Sotho languages being together because we regard each
other as inferior or superior when we are engaged in conversations. We, the youth
in particular, have a tendency of telling other speakers from the Sotho variety “I
don’t understand what you are trying to tell me”. The Tswana speaker would say

“I arrived there” and a Pedi speaker would say, “I arrived there].

This respondent reveals that there are socially ingrained stereotypes about the
speakers’ language varieties that undermine mutual respect and understanding within the
Sotho language community. It appears from this speaker’s assertion that
misunderstanding among people who speak Sotho dialects has very little to do with the
actual differences between the dialects themselves. Rather, the stereotypes that are
attached to speakers of a particular dialect create an environment for misunderstandings.
To a large extent, these stereotypes instigate some degree of hatred toWard speakers of
sister dialects. In order to illustrate the point, the speaker cites the words, gona and ntshe,
which are both translated as “there” as markers of stereotypes even though they are
mutually intelligible to speakers of various Sotho dialects. Furthermore, the speaker
contends that the geographical location through which these Sotho groups were divided
during the Apartheid government accounts for the deepened stereotypes. During the
Bantustan homelands in the early 70’s, these three groups were geographically separated
from one another due to the Apartheid laws of separate development (Prah, 2001). The
unification of the Sotho dialects would, according to this respondent, help to diffuse

negative stereotypes among people who speak these closely related dialects.

124

The need for establishing group unity is shared by a number of Sesotho speakers,
who held the view that ethnic stereotypes are fermented based on the dialect one speaks.

One of the Sesotho respondents said:

# 2. E ka ba ntho e ntle ha li ka kopangoa ho bontsha kutluono ea rona batho ba
lipuo tsa sesotho.
[It will be a great thing to unite them [Sotho dialects] to show our common

understanding as speakers of Sotho language varieties]

As stated in #2, unification of Sotho language varieties is necessary because there
is common understanding across speakers of Sotho dialects. The Sesotho speakers
consistently argued that knowledge of their dialect allows them full understanding of the
other two dialects: Sepedi and Setswana. As students, the respondents felt that a common
writing system could even help them in their study groups where they could collaborate
in their studies. The idea of collaboration in study groups is forcefully argued in extract

#3 below:

#3. E, ke a lumela hobane o tla fumana hore likolong tse phahameng hobane re
qetella re iketsa lihlopha re re Basotho 1e Bapedi le Batswana empa re bua
puo e tsoanang joale ho kopana ha lipuo ho ka etsa hore re kopane re be ntho
e lengoe re khone 1e ho ithuta re thusana 1e ho sebetsa ha mmoho. . .nka
thabela ha di ka kopangoa hobane ha se puo tse fapaneng haholo me ha ho no

bale phapang e kholo hjoalo ka puo tsa rona li arohane.

125

[Yes, I agree (to the harmonization proposal) because you’ll find that at
tertiary institutions we end up creating small .groups as Sesotho, Sepedi and
Setswana even though we speak the same language. Now, writing the
varieties will help us to unite as one, to collaborate in our studies and work
together. . .I’ll be happy if they are united because these language varieties
are not drastically different, thus they won’t have a big difference as our

dialects are (now) separated]

Extract # 2 and # 3 reiterate the argument advanced by the speaker in #1 above.
These respondents see the harmonization process as an opportunity to unite the people
who were ethno-linguistically divided and to help them as students collaborate in their
studies instead of being segregated along dialect lines as seems to be the case at their
present university. The university dialect segregation is as stated, “. . .uniting the varieties
will help us to unite as one, to collaborate in our studies and work together...” (Extract #
2). The main problem articulated by these respondents is that there are negative attitudes
toward each variety even though the dialect varieties are mutually intelligible. For the

sake of unity, it was felt necessary to unite the orthographies of Sotho language varieties.

ii) Modeling the National Anthem

Ten respondents viewed language as the symbol of national identity of every
nation state. Making reference to the national anthem sung in Harmonized Sotho and
Hannonized Nguni already, these respondents argued that initial harmonization practice

was already demonstrated. To this effect, harmonization would be feasible if the national

126

anthem model can be followed. A prototypical argument for the national anthem as the

basis for harmonization is illustrated below:

# 4. Ke dumellana le yona ka gone pina ya setshaba e tlhakantswe ka maleme a

mararo

[I agree with this because the national anthem shows a combination of these three

dialects. . .]

The quote in Extract #4 above justifies unification of the three Sotho language
varieties as a necessity for nationalism that has already found its way in the national
anthem. The South African national anthem has verses written and sung in 4 languages:
English, unified Nguni, unified Sotho, and Afrikaans. The Sotho version reads as:
Morena boloka sechaba sa heso. Ofedise dintwa Ie matshwenyego. 0 se boloke, 0 se
boloke, which translates: “God bless our nation, stop fights and sufferings. Bless it, bless
it!” Because all the Sotho dialects are represented in the lyrics, the anthem creates
grounds for an argument that there can be further harmonization practices that go beyond
what has been done in the national anthem. It is in this context that this respondent
connects the national anthem to the possibility of uniting orthographies for use in all

spheres of language use so that the number of written languages is substantially reduced.

iii) Reduction of Languages and Costs

The South African Constitution recognizes 11 official languages for use in all

SPheres of the South African life, but the respondents in the study do not believe that

127

there are 11 languages in practice. They believe that the number of languages accorded in
the Constitution is exaggerated and that it would not facilitate the use of indigenous
African languages, which were previously segregated. Given this background, the
respondents felt that there is a need for harmonization so that the number of languages

could be scaled down to a manageable number, as argued in extract #5 below:

#5. Lipuo tsena ka botsona lia tsoana ha ho phaphang e kaalo, joale ho kopangoa
ha tsona ke ho fokotsa lipuo tse ngata.
[These languages themselves do not have big differences, and then uniting them

will reduce the multiple languages]

This quote begins with an argument that Sotho language varieties are similar and
that triplication of the same language is a redundant act. The respondents subscribed to
the view that multilingualism as presently conceived in South Afiica is exaggerated.
Furthermore, the use of three instead of one language is costly in terms of language
amenities including material production and teacher training. The unified Sotho, on the
other hand, would reduce the costs associated with three languages and increase
readership market where an all-inclusive Sotho text can be distributed across a wider
spectrum of the Sotho communities. This view reiterates one of the chief arguments for
harmonization articulated in the literature on the harmonization proposal (e. g., Nhlapo,

1944; Alexander, 1989).

128

iv) Language Preservation and Extinction

One of the arguments that ensued from the responses was that division of Sotho
dialects renders them weak and vulnerable to infiltration of loan words from Afrikaans.
Use of Afrikaans in Sotho language varieties is not seen as politically appropriate given
the general negative evaluations of Afrikaans, which was historically associated with
Apartheid. If the Sotho language varieties are united, they could loan from within their
own sister dialects instead of outside of their language parameters. A prototypical case
for the need to preserve pure Sotho with no influence from Afrikaans is illustrated in the

following extract:

#6. Dipuo ka ofela tsa Sesotho di ka kopangoa ho dira puo elenngwe hobane puo
ya Southern Sotho e nale maadingwa a puo ya Afrikaans. Mme ha re bapisa le
puo ya Sepedi le Setswana puo tsena din ale mabitso a ka tlosang maadingwa a
puo ya Afrikaans. Ha dipuo tsena di se di kopantswe di ka tlisa puo e hlwekileng
e senang maadingwa a dipuo tse ding.

[All the Sesotho dialects can be united to form one language because Southern
Sotho has loan words from Afrikaans. But when we compare with Sepedi and
Setswana we find that these varieties have words/concepts that can substitute for
the Afrikaans ones. When these dialects are unified they can bring a pure

language without too many loan words from other languages]

The argument advanced in the extract above is both a purist and a conservative

one. Because of the subdivision and the lack of an appropriate environment where these

129

dialects are co-used, they become susceptible to external influence that threatens their
survival. The fear of having these dialects that may not develop, but face extinction in the
future makes a solid case for the need to harmonize them. Harmonization is therefore
seen as an interventionist strategy to create a stronger language that may be developed
and saved from extinction given that there are already signs of extinction seen in the

Sotho language varieties.

Arguments against Harmonization

As stated above, there was a minority of the respondents who argued against
harmonization of Sotho dialects. These formed 100 (or 29.8%) of the total responses in
the sample. Their arguments against harmonization revolved around these themes: loss of
identity and culture, differences between spoken and written registers, formation of a new
language and risk for ethnic conflicts due to power struggle over the harmonized form.

Presentation and illustration of these themes are made in (i) through (iv) below:

i) Loss of Identity and Culture

The issue of identity emerged as one of the key factors among the respondents
who do not support the unification of the three Sotho dialect orthographies. The
respondents felt that that they would lose their identities that have been formed around
the present dialects. Loss of identities was considered possible especially if one of the
dialects would emerge as the most powerful of them all. The powerful variety could then

exert its influence on others; consequently, the less dominant sub-cultures may be forced

130

into extinction. A prototypical argument against harmonization based on language

identity and loss of culture is presented in extract #7 below:

#7. Puo ya me ke e rata entse elejwalo. Ha eng ka kopana le tse ding ho ka ba
kotsi. Nka se thabele hore puo ya aka e kopantswe le puo tse ding. ...dipuo
tsena di fapane.

[I like my language the way it is. If it were combined with other languages, it

would be dangerous. I will not be happy to have my language combined with

others. . .these languages are different]

Unlike the respondents who argued for harmonization based on mutual
intelligibility among the three dialects, the respondent quoted in extract #7 above
provides an opposite view. First, he does not think that the dialects are similar when
stating “. . .these languages are different”. The respondent would prefer that the language
varieties be left the way they are because combining them would inadvertently make one
predominant. This is an argument for retention of language identity as revealed in the
sentence, “I like my language the way it is”.

The question of culture and identity was also connected to children and future
generations whose dialects would be subsumed under the harmonization process. The

respondent in #8 put forth the negative impact of harmonization on children as follows:

131

#8. Bothata kc gore bana ba santheng ba gola batlile go amega that gone e tlabo
ele serutwa se sengwe sa eleng gore ba tshwanetse go se ithuta. Gape setso le
ngwao ya bona e tlile go latllhega.

[The problem is that the children will have difficulties because it would be new

thing (writing) they need to learn. Again, their culture and identities will be lost]

This respondent complains that children may have to learn a new writing system
that is different from that of their parents. Due to the generational gap that might result
from the new writing system, parents would not be able to help their kids with
schoolwork because the general adult population would be illiterate in the new writing
system. As inferred from the concern about children learning a new writing system
altogether, the harmonization undertaking might have huge implications for parents and
their kids who learn a writing system different from the conventional one. Not only will
parents not participate in the education of their children under the new writing standard,
as stated by the respondent in #8, these children will also lose rich cultures that are
embedded in the dialect used by their parents.

A third factor related to the argument on retention of culture and identity is that
unification of the Sotho dialects might decrease one’s proficiency in the local variety.
The respondents argued that it is important to intensify knowledge of one’s own language
variety instead of expanding toward knowledge of other varieties as implied in the
process of harmonization. This view is presented in the light of the observation that
knowledge of African languages is diminishing among a group of metropolitan children

who attend English medium schools before they acquire their own languages.

132

Harmonization, according to these respondents does not address this problem; it rather
exacerbates it. Extract # 9 below captures the idea that harmonization does not encourage

acquisition of one’s own variety as stated:

#9. Ke bona kopanyo ya maleme ese bohlokwa ka ge etlo hlola hlakalrlakano
magareng a merafe. Ge motho ele mopedi o swanetse go bolela polelelo ya gabo a
be a ikgantshe ka yona. Le gone 0 swanetse go tseba dilo kamoka mabapi 1e
leleme la gabo go feta maleme kamoka.

[I do not see unification of these languages as important because it will cause
confusion among the ethnic groups. If someone speaks Sepedi, one should speak
that tongue and be proud of it. Also, he/she should know all things about his/her

language more than he /she does on other languages]

The respondent in extract #9 emphasizes that unification of Sotho dialects is an
unnecessary endeavor since it would bring about more confusion on acquisition of
indigenous African languages. The confusion referred to in the first sentence of the
extract is loss of proficiency in one’s mother tongue as implied in the last sentence.
Additionally, unification would signify lack of pride in the local variety among those who
opt for the harmonized form. It is noteworthy that although harmonization proposal
intends to strengthen African languages, which were weakened by differentiation of their
written forms, the respondent holds an opposite view that harmonization will instead

weaken these languages.

133

ii) Differences in Written and Spoken Registers

Differences between the written and spoken registers of Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho provided some respondents with enough ground to argue against the
harmonization proposal. Whereas they agree in principle that spoken varieties of Sotho
are mutually understandable, they worry that the writing systems among the three dialects
have taken divergent paths, which would force all speakers to re-learn the new code of

Harmonized Sotho. The respondent in extract # 10 states this problem as follows:

#10. Ho ka se be bobebe ho batho ba buang dipuo tsa sesotho ho bala sengolwa se
ngodilweng ha puo ya Sesotho e kopantshweng.
[It will not be easy for people who speak Sotho language varieties to read written

texts from Harmonized Sotho]

The basis of the argument presented in extract #10 is that mutual understanding,
as may be perceived from the spoken registers of the three dialects, should not
necessarily be viewed as a marker of mutual intelligibility in writing. Re-leaming a new
orthography might be a daunting task and as this respondent predicts, the harmonized text
may require a long process of re-learning to read. However, it is noteworthy that the
reading comprehension test carried out in this study showed that the speakers could read
each other’s dialects and the harmonized text (eventhough this was only one example)

without major problems. So this respondent’s pereception cannot be confirmed.

134

iii) Formation of a New Language

Some of the respondents felt that the languages are different and attempts to unify
them would be equivalent to forming a new language altogether. This reflects a pattern of
thought that the proposal to harmonize mutually intelligible “languages” implies
formation of a new language that will be derived from uniting the current ones. The
response shows a deep misconception about the proposal whose tenet is to re-standardize
the current orthographies without deliberate change of the spoken register. The fear of a
new language or the 12‘h language in the Constitution is instructive to policy makers and
proponents of harmonization who should address this view adequately. As seen with the
mutual comprehension across the three Sotho varieties, it should be stated that
harmonization of present orthographies does not create a new writing system or language,

but that it reshapes what the speakers already use in writing.

iv) Risk for Ethnic Conflicts

A small number of the respondents feared that the harmonization process might
instigate ethnic conflicts as one group may have its variety advantaged or disadvantaged.
Struggle over power and domination could result in certain groups feeling insecure.
Linguistic insecurities expressed by these respondents are rooted in the view that
selection of codes for the unified form might not be dialect neutral. This idea is captured

in the following extract:

135

#11. Go ka nna le bothata go tlhakanya dipuo tse go bongwe ka ntlha ya mabaka a
semorafe le ka ntlha ya gore bangwe ba tla be ba lebeletse gore dipuo tsa bona di
tla nyelela fa bangwe mo tsarnaisong ba ka dirisa se go godisa dipuo tsa bona. '

[It will be problematic to unite these dialects into one because of ethnic reasons
and because of the fact that some will look at their dialects as being segregated

while others may use this to promote their own dialects]

Extract #11 points out that harmonization may promote one dialect and make it
the dominant group in the harmonized form. On the other hand, other dialects may be
demoted and not fully represented in the harmonized form. For fear of being dominated
by speakers of sister dialects, the harmonization proposal is not a worthy project to be
undertaken, as far as this respondent is concerned. Whereas one of the goals of
harmonization is to avoid future conflicts rooted in the current language boundaries, the
view presented in this extract shows that counter-productive results might also unfold.

Reflecting on the arguments for and against harmonization as discussed above, it
is evident that harmonization is a very complex phenomenon that requires caution. The
main arguments in support of harmonization include the need for group unity, national
symbolism as reflected through the national anthem, reduction of a number of languages
for economic reasons, and saving these language varieties from extinction. Negative
aspects of harmonization, on the converse, are loss of identity and culture, creation of a
different language, and learning a new form of writing. Whereas the majority of the

respondents supported the harmonization proposal, it seems crucially important to

136

consider both pros and cons when policy-makers advance toward the harmonization

process.

Harmonized Sotho as the Medium of Instruction
The participants were specifically asked to comment on the possibility of using
Harmonized Sotho language as the medium of instruction beyond primary school
education. This specific request is portrayed in question 2 from the list of questions as

restated below:

Question 2: Can Sotho language varieties be used as the media of learning and
teaching in higher levels of education? Please give your answer and reasons

below.

Unlike the harmonization questions, this question sought to evaluate the
responses’ perception about the possibility of using the Harmonized Sotho language as
the medium of instruction beyond primary school education. From a glance of the
quantitative responses, this is the theme that got the lowest approval rate with 56.2%
positive responses and 43.8% negative responses (see Table 8). The aim of this analysis
was therefore to elicit reasons for approval or disapproval of the idea of using
Harmonized Sotho for education. The reasons are categorized as arguments for and
arguments against the use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction in post-

primary education.

137

Arguments for Use of Harmonized Sotho in Post-primary School Education

Arguments for use of Harmonized Sotho in post-primary education are based on
two factors: improvement in pass rate and reduction of misunderstanding and code
switching that is so pervasive in the classrooms. Each of these factors is discussed

separately below:

i) Improved Pass Rate

The respondents who argued for use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of
instruction in post-primary education indicated that the use of an African language as the
medium of instruction could drastically improve the pass rate among students in post-
primary school education. This argument is premised on the view that there is a high
failure rate in the schools due to the use of English as the medium of instruction.
Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction among Sotho speakers is seen as a part

of the need for literacy development as succinctly articulated in extract #12 below:

#12. Go ka kgonagala ebile barutwana ba tla la tswelela kudu gobane bat la
kwesisa leleme la gabo bona. . .o kgona go kwesisa ebile 0 ka se lahlegelwe ke
ditsebiso.

[It is possible and students will perform better because they will understand their
own language for instruction. .. one will understand and will not miss

announcements]

138

This respondent argues that the use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of
instruction among the Sotho speaking people would help students increase their
performance scores and succeed in school. Secondly, the students would understand the
course content and will not miss important announcements, which are often made in
English. Both factors expressed in this extract lament the use of English as the medium of
instruction among kids who do not have functional literacy in it. As indicated, English
had always had a negative impact observed through lower pass rates, and
misunderstanding of course contents. The argument for harmonization regards the
Harmonized Sotho as an alternative medium of education that would substitute English
among Sotho speaking communities.

Extract #13 reinforces the argument made in #12 on the use of Sotho language in

education as presented:

#13. Be, gone dipuo tsa seeng go ba bang ba rona di dithata go tlhaologanyega,
mme tsa itsa bangwe go tlhaloganya dirutwa tsa bona se se dira bangwe go se me
le kgatlhego mo thutong.

[Yes, the foreign languages are difficult to understand {learn through}, therefore
they cause misunderstanding for lessons among others and this makes others lose

interest in education]

This quote restates the plight of students who learn through English as the

medium of instruction. Due to the lower proficiency in English, there are

misunderstandings in the classrooms and there is a general lack of interest in education.

139

This explains in part why there is a high attrition rate among African students who are

taught in English.

ii) Minimizing Misunderstanding and Code Switching

Most of the students who argued for the use of African language as the medium of
instruction in high schools and tertiary institutions based their arguments on two
interrelated factors: misunderstandings and code switching. Because the students have
lower proficiency level in English, they claim that their teachers were forced to code-
switch in order to get their points across. One respondent put the case succinctly in

extract #14.

#14. Di ka kgona go tsebosa le go diriswa gore morafe o mongwe le 0 mongwe o
itse mosola wa puo ya gabo, mo 0 fitlhelang go le gantsi barutwa ba tlhoka go ka
tlhalosetswa ka dipuo tsa gabo. Ke seo re sebetsing “Code-switching in English”.
Go 1e gantsi barutwa ba retetelwa ke go falola ka ntlha ya go se utlwiseseng
serutwa English kgotsa Afrikaans.

[They can be used so that every ethnic group knows the use of their language as
you find that students do not get clear explanation in their languages. That is why
we use “Code-Switching in English”. In many instances, students fail to

understand when lessons are carried out through English or Afrikaans]

This respondent argues that code-switching practices in the classroom

environment are a compromise to curb communication breakdowns in classes that are

140

taught in English or in Afrikaans. This situation convinced this respondent that the use of
Harmonized Sotho would resolve some of the classroom problems and reduce high
attrition and failure rates. It is also added that the use of Harmonized Sotho will enable
every ethnic group to have pride in their language when they see it having a functional
role such as the medium of learning and teaching. Given that mother tongue education is
difficult within the context of 11 official languages in South Africa, the respondents who
argued for Harmonized Sotho see it creating an opportunity to have an African language

used in education.

Arguments against Using Harmonized Sotho as the Medium of Instruction

A disapproval rate on the use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction
was observed as 43.8% in the quantitative analysis (Table 8). The reasons enumerated in
the open-ended questionnaire included (a) the view of English as an international
language and (b) the lack of market value among African languages. Discussion of each

reasoning is made in the following subsections (i) and (ii).

i) English as an International Language

When some of the respondents were asked about the possibility of using the
Harmonized Sotho in tertiary institutions, they felt that English should be used instead
because it is the international language. For these respondents, leaming through English
necessarily entails acquisition of English, which has value in the international world.

Extract #15 below presents this argument:

141

#15. Mo Afrika Borwa go na le molao wa dipuo tsa bosechaba jaanong go ra gore
fa dipuo tse di ka dirisiwa go ithuta kwa dikolong tse kgolwane ga go ne go nna le
nako ya seesemane, se eleng sona puo tota ya bosechaba.

[In South Africa there is a multilingual policy, now it means that if these
languages are used in tertiary education there will be no time for English, which is

an international language]

Extract #15 argues that the multilingual policy that accorded 11 languages an
official status may not give the opportunity to learn English, which is regarded as both
the national and international language. According to this respondent, 11 official
languages should not mean using all those languages, except English. Attempts to use
any one of them other than English would reduce the amount of time needed to spend on

acquiring English. This argument is briefly restated as follows:

#16. Ga ke dumele ka ge leleme leo le somiswago bjalo ka medium of instruction
ele sejahlapi.
[I do not agree because the language that is used as the medium of instruction is

English]

This respondent, like the one in extract #15, sees English as the only legitimate
medium of instruction; as a result, any language that seeks to replace English should be
opposed. The argument for English is not surprising from these respondents. It is

concomitant with findings of other studies on attitudes of the people toward using an

142

African language or English as the medium of instruction (e.g., Thiba, 2000, Verhoef;
1998). What the respondents believe is that one learns a language better when one learns
through it. In this case, learning through English is the best possible way of acquiring it

so that people can have access to upward social mobility.

ii) Market Value of Harmonized Sotho as Instructional Medium

The lack of market value for the Harmonized Sotho is seen as a barrier to the
possibility of using it as the medium of instruction. This is even more complicated when
this language has to substitute for English, which is already associated with upward social
mobility. The Harmonized Sotho, on the other hand, would not be tied to economic
success and job market, which concern most of the new graduate students. The argument
on the lack of market value in Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction is

presented in the following extract:

#17. Hobane mosebetsing puo e sebediswang ke English/ Afrikaans, ka hoo puo
ya Sesotho ha e no thusa letho hobane tekong ya mosebetsi puo eo ha e sebetse.
[Because the work environment requires the use of English/Afrikaans, the Sotho
language (learning through) will not help anything, as it is not used in job

interviews]

In extract #17 above, the respondent argues that learning through a Sotho

language is irrelevant because the economy is structured around Afrikaans and English,

which can better serve as the media of instruction. To illustrate the importance of having

143

a medium that is connected to the job market, the respondent argues that even job
interviews are carried out either in Afrikaans or English; the use of an indigenous African
language may prove neither realistic nor beneficial in the short-term. While it is not
impossible to learn English as a subject in preparation for the job market and to use an
indigenous African language as a medium to enhance understanding and pass rate as
stated above, it would require a lot of economic incentives to encourage people to use
indigenous African languages. This is one of the strong challenges against the use of

Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction.

Mutual Intelligibility
The 48 respondents were asked to indicate if they believed that there is any degree of
mutual intelligibility among the three Sotho language varieties under study: Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho. According to the results observed from quantitative analysis, this
theme received the most favorable rating with 79.5% positive responses and about 20.5%
of the total responses with negative rating. The open-ended questions were developed to
seek reasons for the respondents’ belief or disbelief in mutual intelligibility. These

questions involved questions 3 and 4, restated as (a) and (b) below:

a. Would it be easy for speakers of Sotho languages to read texts written in a
Harmonized Sotho language? Support your answer.
b. Do you think communication among the Sotho language speakers is possible,

without translators? Give your answer and reasons thereof:

144

There was virtually no disagreement among the respondents that the Sotho dialects
are mutually comprehensible. The respondents who constituted the 20% disapproval rate
did not give reasons why they thought the Sotho language varieties are not mutually
intelligible. For this reason, only responses from those who are on the positive side of the
questions were elicited and analyzed. A prototypical argument for mutual intelligibility is

stated in extract # 18 below:

18. Ke a dumela. Phapano ya maleme a ga se ye kgolo le gona ke kwesisa gore
phaphano ye e no tlisa ke gore re dula mafelong a go fapana. Bjale re swanet§e go
laetsa gore go dula mafelong a go fapafapana a go re gore a re sale bana ba mpa e
tee. Ke kwesisa gore maleleme a a tswa polelong e tee.

[I agree. Differences are so minor and I understand that these small differences
are brought about by different localities we were placed. We have to illustrate that
staying in different places does not mean that we are not the same (local proverb
used: children of the same stomach). I understand that these varieties are from the

same language]

The respondent in extract # 18 argues that the three dialects are similar and that
their degree of similarity is so close that inter-dialect communication could proceed
smoothly. The respondent goes further to make a profound argument that the minor
differences observed today have resulted from a long history of linguistic tribalization
that was effected through the Bantustans homeland system during the Apartheid regime.

Staying in different homelands, according to the respondent, should not necessarily be

145

viewed as a signal for differences. The three dialects were accorded three different
homelands where the speakers of each variety were barred from intermingling with
speakers from any of the sister dialects. The respondent repositions the argument in this
perspective, which is to say that the homeland barriers have not diminished the high
degree of similarities these dialects share. Maintenance of mutual intelligibilities for over

a long period of time therefore provides a case for harmonization.

Summary of Content Analysis

The open ended-questions designed in the study sought the respondents’ opinions,
feelings and attitudes toward the proposal for harmonizing Sotho dialects into a common
written language, using the Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction in post-
primary school education, and degrees of mutual intelligibility among the dialects. The
content analysis carried out showed a number of reasons thematized into binary
opposition on harmonization and use of harmonized form in education. Because the
results are overwhelmingly supportive of the mutual intelligibility category, such a binary
opposition did not emerge.

Strong arguments for harmonization involved the need for unity, development of
national consciousness as modeled by the national anthem, reduction of costs associated
with many languages and saving these dialect varieties from extinction. On the other
hand, a few respondents dissented from these views and opposed the harmonization
proposal on account of the loss of identity and culture, risk for ethnic conflicts caused by
unequal adoption of words from each dialect, differences between spoken and written

registers, and formation of a new language. Whereas arguments against harmonization

146

are not very strong because they represent a minority view represented by 100 (or
29.8%), they are important factors to take into account for a smooth harmonization
process.

On the use of the Harmonized Sotho in education, the majority still favors the
proposal. Arguments for use of the Harmonized Sotho involved improvement in pass rate
and minimizing classroom problems such as misunderstanding and code switching. On
the other hand, use of Harmonized Sotho was not favored because it is not as
international as English is and that it does not have market value for upward social
mobility. Taken together, there is a great need for harmonization and use of the
harmonized form as the medium of instruction. While there are dissenting views
expressed by some of the respondents, such views tended to change after the respondents

were immersed in inter-variety interactions and the reading judgment test.

FOCUS GROUP CONVERSATIONS: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Twelve respondents who were selected from the large pool of 48 respondents
participated in a focus group discussion on the topic: ethnic stereotypes. The discussion
lasted for an hour with each of the groups stressing their discussion points in their
respective foci. 1n the order given to the respondents, the Sepedi group talked about
causes of ethnic stereotypes that predominate in some parts of South Africa; the Setswana
group focused their presentation on the dangers of ethnic stereotypes; and the Sesotho
group focused on the possible solutions to ethnic stereotypes. In each of the

presentations, there were questions, requests for clarification and rebuttal when it was

147

necessary (See group instructions in the Appendix) so that the discussions could be
interactive.

The video episodes that were captured in the conversations were transcribed and
categorized into bi-dialect interaction (when two speakers of different dialects interact)
and tri-dialect interaction (when speakers of three dialects interact) segments, and then
subjected to discourse analysis. Grice’s rubric of conversational analysis referred to as
the Cooperative Principle (CP) was used in analyzing utterances. As is well known in the
field of Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics, the CP operates on four maxims that were
fully explored in analyzing the data: quantity (be as informative as required), quality (be
truthful), manner (avoid obscurity of expression) and relation (be relevant). These
maxims were necessary analytic tools to deduce cases of mutual understanding and cases
of misunderstanding in line with the research question: Can speakers communicate
without major barriers in inter-dialect interactions? Prominence was particularly given to
the maxim of relation in the analysis on the assumption that interlocutors can only be
relevant to and stay on the discussion topic if they understand each other. In addition to
the CP, the pragmatic notion of implicature under Speech Act Theory was adapted to
assess the level of mutual intelligibility in the discourse segments. The utterances were
subjected to three levels of meaning: locutionary (literal meaning), illocutionary (implied
meaning) and perlocutio'naryforce (the action or response based on the illocutionary
meaning). In other words, the analysis not only focused on whether there is mutual
intelligibility, but also on the depth of intelligibility usually attained by interlocutors who

speak the same language. Both factors, CP and implicature, were necessary in making

148

interpretations on whether the Sotho language varieties satisfy a classification of
distinctive languages or dialects of the same language.

The following subsections present prototypical cases of mutual intelligibility and
misunderstandings through an analysis of bi-dialect interactions between speakers of (a)
Sepedi and Sesotho, (b) Setswana and Sepedi, and (c) Sesotho and Setswana. This
analysis is followed by a presentation of two cases of tri-dialect interactions, involving a

series of utterances across the three Sotho varieties.

Bi-dialect Interaction l: Mopedi and Mosotho

The discussion on ethnic stereotypes provided ample opportunities for bi-dialect
interactions between Sepedi speakers and Sesotho speakers. For the purpose of this
analysis, the Sepedi-speaking respondent is referred to as Mopedi, meaning speaker of
Sepedi or Sepedi speaker. The Sesotho-speaking respondent, on the other hand, is
referred to as Mosotho, which means a speaker of Sesotho.A prototypical case of bi-

dialect interactions is illustrated in the following episode:

# A. (Mopedi): Gape nka re lena batho ba Lesotho le swanetse le nyake tsebo
pele ke ra ditaba ka moka gore 1e se ka no re felo mo go na le boloi. . .le swanetse
gore 1e nyakisise gore ka nnete felo mo bo tletse boloi ke ra gore go nale batho
bao ba diago ka nnete naa ka gore ke kwesisa gore a se kamoka akere le gona ke
gohle mo go na lego boloi as bo mo fela.

[You people of Lesotho (not necessarily referring to Lesotho as a country, but an

area occupied by Sesotho speakers), need to find information first, 1 mean all

149

sides of the story so that you do not generalize that there’s witchcrafi here. ...you
should find out whether it is true that there is witchcraft, I mean, there are people
who are really doing this because I understand that it is not everywhere (in the
Province) where there is witchcraft].

#B. (Mosotho): Ena ho tsho bjalo le ha re batlisisa re ba tla ho tseba hore nnete ke
hore ba loya batho ba Limpopo ha ba re fe tlhaloso ye eleng yona hobane
honabjalo. Motlhala, ngwanesomane o itse ho nna ha ke mmotsa hore naa boloi
bo tletse Limpopo. . .0 re ha dio dintho tseo bjalo mo re tswang teng naa. . .ka fao
ha a ntlhalosetsa, ene nna ke tlo qeta ka hore boloi bo teng ka hobane .....a
ntlhalosetsa hore boloi bo hona kappa che o tla re honna: “Tloha wena mosotho
wa ho ja pere o aparang kobo 1e motshehare. Bjalo a ke na tsebo, ke tla nka qeto
ya hore boloi ke nnete ho a loyiwa Limpopo.

[It is like that even when we investigate, we need to know whether it is really true
that the Limpopo people are bewitching. . .let them give us the real explanation
because, now, for example, this brother/sister of mine said to me when I asked
whether there’s witchcraft in Limpopo. ...He asks me if we don’t have these
things from where we come from. . .therefore refusal to explain this to me brings
me to a conclusion that there is witchcraft because. . .he did not explain to me
whether or not there is witchcraft ...he’ll say to me “Get lost you Mosotho who
eats a horse and dress on blankets during the day." Now, I do not have knowledge

(I sought for), I will conclude that it is true there is witchcraft in Limpopo].

150

The utterance in #A responds to an earlier charge in the conversations that one of
the chief stereotypes the Sesotho speakers have about Sepedi speakers is that there are
pervasive witchcraft practices in the Limpopo province. As residents of the Limpopo
province, Sepedi speaking respondents felt personally attacked and then took a defensive
position throughout the discussion as articulated in utterance # A. In this utterance,
Mopedi challenges the witchcraft charges labeled against her province. She then argues
that witchcraft practices are not necessarily found in every part of the province. While
there is an implied admission that witchcraft practices may be found in other parts of the
province, the respondent charges the Sesotho interlocutors to investigate before they draw
generalizations about witchcraft among the Sepedi-speaking population.

The response from Mosotho in utterance #3 denotes a high degree of
understanding to the challenge made by #A. The speaker in #B claims that investigations
into witchcraft practices do not matter because students from the Limpopo province tend
to be defensive when confronted with questions that seek more information on the
practice. To illustrate the futility of investigations, Mosotho provides an example about a
brother (used generically to refer to any male especially within the same age group) who
was asked about the witchcraft practice prior to the conversation. Instead of giving an
honest answer, this brother asked the Mosotho speaker in #B if there were no similar
witchcraft practices in speaker #B’s hometown. According to speaker #B, when such
dismissive responses are given in the process of investigations, the logical conclusion
would be that there is witchcraft in speaker #A’s province as generalized. Moreover, the
speaker in utterance #B was told to get lost with another stereotype that people from her

own speech community (Sesotho speakers) eat horsemeat and put on blankets around

151

their bodies during the day light. Following the story presented by Mosotho in #B above,
the brother who was asked prior to this conversation ridiculed her (Mosotho in #B)
tradition of putting on blankets when they are not asleep, which was yet another
stereotype. Topically, Mosotho understands the utterance by Mopedi irrespective of the
different varieties of Sotho used in the dialogue.

Following Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP), the conversation between A and B
adheres to the maxim of relation. Speaker in utterance #B made a relevant reply to the
speaker in #A on the same topic of witchcraft and stereotyping. Although speaker #B
diverged slightly from witchcraft as an example of stereotype, she displayed how she
fully understood the topic transmitted to her in a different language variety when citing a
relevant example of stereotypes that the Sepedi speakers have about her own speech
community; i.e., eating a horse and dressing on blankets in a hot day light. Furthermore,
the maxim of quantity in the response from #B is not flouted. The utterance in #B gave
sufficient information as required by the context with the aim of rebutting the challenge
on the need to do investigation on witchcraft practices in Limpopo. She supported her
rebuttal with a relevant counter-charge that investigating among Sepedi speakers on the
witchcraft question was not helpful. Such investigations only deepen stereotypes from
one dialect to another since the speaker in #B was put off the conversation with a
stereotypical labeling as a horse-eater and day blanket-dresser in the process of the
investigations. The information was neither limited nor excessive as far as the topic of
stereotyped was concerned. It could be stated that the maxim of quality is also adhered to
in terms of the established truths. Adherence to both maxims of relation and quantity,

provide confidence that the language/dialect used in utterance #A did not impede

152

understanding by the speaker in utterance #B. The degree of understanding is captured in

the implicature observed in recorded extract below:

#A (Mopedi): ...lena batho ba Lesotho le swanetse le nyake tsebo. ..
[You, the people of Lesotho should seek to find the truth]
B (Mosotho): ...le ha re batlisisa re batla ho tseba hore nnete ba loya batho ba
Limpopo...
[Even if we need to investigate the truth, we still need to know (from you)

if the Limpopo people practice witchcraft]

The literal meaning (locutionary) of the utterance in #A is that the respondent in
#B should seek out the truth. Speaker #B draws deep into the illocutionary meaning
implying that he should not ask the speaker in #A in this particular conversation; instead,
#B should find some time and go out into the community where #A comes from (Sepedi
community in Limpopo province). Speaker #B who understands the illocutionary
meaning of #A’s utterance chooses to insist on getting answers from speaker #A before
any involvement with the community because the speaker in #A is one of the community
members herself. This dialogue demonstrates that Sesotho speakers not only understand
words in their literal (locutionary) meanings, they are also able to get the implied
meaning (illocutionary), make relevant interpretations, and act on the interpretations
(perlocutionary force).

Because accurate interpretation of intended meaning requires a full understanding

of the language through which the message is sent, the episode allows a linguistic

153

interpretation to be made that the focus group discussion showed that Sesotho speakers
can understand Sepedi speakers in conversations without linguistic impediments. One of
the research questions as to whether intervariety communication can go on without major
linguistic barriers is partly answered with this exposition. In particular, it answers the
sub-question that sought to find out if Sesotho speakers could understand Sepedi speech
tokens in real life conversations.

Whereas the utterances in #A and # B show that Sesotho speakers understand Sepedi
in the interactions, they do not necessarily show that the converse is true: Sepedi speakers
understand utterances expressed in Sesotho. The following episode shows response of the

Sepedi speaker toward a Sesotho speech token:

#C (Mopedi): O dirileng ge o tseba ka taba ye ya boloi?
[What did you do about the witchcraft information?]

#D (Mosotho): Ke a botsa. Tjhe ha ke re ke a ga gabotse nna ke tsebile ha ke tloha
hae hore mo
Limpopo boloi bo teng ke bo bontshi.
[I asked. No, well, I knew about the pervasiveness of witchcraft in Limpopo since
I was home]

#C (Mopedi): Ke bona bothata bona boo ka gore o tlogile ka gae ba go botsa gore
boloi. Limpopo ke bjo bontshi. Jwale wena wa tseba ge o tloga gae gore Limpopo
ke boloing ke bothata ba gona. Letéwa magaeng a bo lenba 1e tseba gore mo

Limpopo dilo tse dimpe ke tse dintshi goba boloi ke bo bontshi.

154

[I see that that is exactly the problem because you left home with knowledge that
Limpopo has many witchcraft practices. Now that you left with this knowledge
back home, this is the core of the problem. You left your homes with the

knowledge that Limpopo has evil practices or that witchcraft is the order of the

day]

This interaction begins with Sepedi speaker as in utterance #C asking what Sesotho \
speakers did when they heard about the information about witchcraft in the Limpopo
province. This refers to the period of two weeks that the Sesotho respondents had spent in
Limpopo. Sesotho speaker in #D responds directly to the question by saying that she
asked for more information to verify the hearsay. However, this speaker expands her
answer when claiming that she knew about witchcraft while she was still in her
hometown. The new information on the topic has implications that one did not need to go
to the Limpopo province to know that there is witchcraft there because it is a well-known
fact. The response from the Sepedi speaker shows that the speaker in #C understands the
shift of information from the given answer “I asked” to the new information. Speaker in
#C challenges this new information about prior knowledge about witchcraft practice
because it perpetuates the stereotypes. In other words, the speaker in #C has followed the
shift in topic without difficulties. It is for this reason that the speaker in #C insists on the
view that home developed stereotypes about witchcraft do cause stereotypes among
Sesotho speakers and make them believe without further investigations even when they
had arrived in the province. The Sepedi speaker’s ability to shift the response to follow

the new information provided in the discourse suggests that this speaker has a high

155

command of the utterance in #D. This respondent has successfully explicated the
illocutionary meaning that it was not necessary to do an investigation if the stereotypes
are well known.

Subjecting utterance #C to the Gricean maxims indicates that the maxim of relation is
not violated. Speaker in #C did not say something that is irrelevant to the topic introduced
in utterance #D. Following the maxim of relation is demonstrated in the Sepedi speaker’s
ability to shift the topic to a much more relevant response in accordance with the change
'of focus in utterance #D. That is, the fact that the Sesotho speaker knew about witchcraft
while she was home enabled the Sepedi speaker to counter this information
spontaneously without being lost in the dialogue. By the same token, there is no evidence
in the utterance that shows violation of the maxims of quantity, quality and manner. With
this wide ranging response to the utterance expressed in Sesotho, the Sepedi speaker’s
linguistic repertoires are advanced to follow an argument (maxim of relations) and draw
appropriate inferences from Sesotho utterances. Therefore, Sepedi speakers understand
the Sesotho speakers in conversations.

The discussion of utterances A, B, C and D shows that the speaker who produced
utterance # A (Sepedi) is fully understood by the speaker who produced utterance #B
(Sesotho). Likewise, utterance # D demonstrates that the speaker (Sepedi) has a high
command of the dialect used in # C (Sesotho). The discussion has also shown that the
speakers observe an important Gricean maxim of relation, which is given prominence in
marking degrees of mutual understanding. In both cases, Sesotho and Sepedi speakers
have shown that they not only take the literary meaning of the speech, they read the

illocutionary meanings and drew accurate inferences from the implicatures. These

156

interactions allow a conclusion to be drawn that Sepedi and Sesotho are mutually

intelligible and that their speakers can communicate without major linguistic barriers.

Bi-dialect Interaction 2: Motswana and Mopedi

The second sub-question on mutual intelligibility sought to investigate whether
Setswana and Sepedi speakers mutually understand each other without major linguistic
barriers. In order to illustrate the extent to which these dialect groups understand each
other, two episodes represented in utterances E and F, on the one hand, and G and H, on
the other hand are used for illustrations. The first pair of interactions (#E and #F) shows

the Setswana speaker’s (Motswana) level of understanding Sepedi:

E (Mopedi): Bothata bjo bongwe ke gore go se ete ga batho go se etele dinaga tée
dingwe ka mo ntle. O tle o kgone go bona 1e go kwesisa gore boloi bo mo a ga bo
gona, bj alo ka ge ba re lesogana 1e 1e sa etego 1e nyala kgaetsedi.

[Another problem is that people do not visit, they do not visit other communities
outside theirs. So you can see and understand whether or not there is witchcraft
because they say (quoting a proverb): “The young man who doesn’t visit marries
his sister”].

F (Motswana): E, fela hjaka ga se fela mona ke beneng gore ke tswe kwa
Bokone-Bophorima, fa Lehurutse Sefahlane ke tle fa, wa bona gore ke tsela e telle
jang, ke bone gore ka ditsela tse dingwe ja ka 0 re batho ga ba ete, ka ditsela tse

dingwe nka kgona gore ke tsebe bophelo ba Limpopo, ke se ke ka itsa ba ko

157

Bokone-Bophirima feela. F ela ka ge ke ntse ke ipuetse gore ke batla gore a ke
nnete boloi bo mo Limpopo bo a phela.

[Yes, as I come from North-West at Lehurutse Sefahlane and came here, do you
see how long the road is? I realized that as you say people do not visit, I visited so
that I know about life in Limpopo and not confine my knowledge to North-West.
But my issue is that I have already said that I needed to know (now that I am here)

whether witchcraft exists in Limpopo].

The Sepedi respondent in utterance # E points out that lack of traveling
experience is the major cause of ethnic stereotypes. The speaker argues that the
stereotype about witchcraft in his home province Limpopo is exacerbated by the lack of
traveling experience on the part of the Setswana-speaking respondents. A Sepedi proverb,
“the young man who does not travel ends up marrying his sister” is cited to augment the
point of committing errors of j udgment. The Setswana speaker in utterance # F responds
to this charge by telling the Sepedi speaker that she has traveled way over hundreds of
miles from North-West, her home province, to come to Limpopo. Therefore, the idea of
traveling experience expressed by the Sepedi interlocutor does not hold.

In terms of the Gricean CP, these interactions reveal a great deal of cooperation ’
that requires a high degree of proficiency in the language varieties used. First, the maxim
of relation is observed through the Setswana speaker in utterance #F. Without directly
saying that the implication of Sepedi speaker in utterance #E is invalid, the Setswana
speaker says that she is from a distant province and asks the Sepedi speaker in a question

form to imagine the distance she traveled to the Limpopo province. This answer is not

158

only relevant to counter the charge of the lack of traveling experience as the main cause
for Setswana speakers to be stereotyped about the witchcraft practices in the Limpopo
province, it also shows a high degree of understanding of the utterance expressed in #E.
Likewise, it is true that the Setswana speaker comes from the Northwest province, and
she gave sufficient information needed for the speaker in #E to get the idea that he was
wrong in making the assumption about lacking travel experience. The maxims of quality
and quantity were therefore observed. Even though the Sepedi speaker used a proverb to
explain his point, it did not hinder understanding by the Setswana speaker (observation of
the maxim of manner). In fact, the Setswana speaker shows that she understood the
illocutionary meaning embedded in the proverb about the young man who marries a sister
when she responds that she was then in a different province (Limpopo) from her own
(North West). The Setswana speaker’s ability to observe the maxims of relation, quality,
quantity and manner, and to make correct interpretation of the illocutionary meaning
embedded in proverbs provide enough evidence that the Setswana speaker in utterance #F
understands Sepedi speech represented in utterance #E.

The next set of interactions was intended to show the degree to which the Sepedi

speaker in utterance #H understands the Setswana speaker in utterance #G.

G (Motswana): Go reng batho ba nale tlhaologanyo ya gore Limpopo go tletse boloi.
Ee, nna ga ke gane gore boloi bo gona ko gohle. Le ko Lehurutse bo bontshi ko ke
tswang. Ha 0 ka mpotsa ka bona nka ho hlalosetsa. Nna ke kopa fela hore 1e
ntlhalosetseng gore ho reng Basotho ba na 1e hlaologanyo ya gore mo Bopedi go na le

boloi, le Batswana ba nale hlaologanyo ya gore mo Bopedi ho na 1e boloi.

159

[Why do people have the understanding that Limpopo is full of witchcraft practices? I
do not deny that there is witchcraft everywhere. There is too much of these practices
even in my hometown, Lehurutse. If you ask me about it, I will explain. I am only
asking for explanations why both Sesotho and Setswana speaking communities have
a common view that the Sepedi predominant area has a lot of witchcraft]

H (Mopedi): Le gotse ba le botsa ka wona mokgwa woo. Ke di stereotype ke moka
ge le fihla mokhi ale kgone go lebelela mathoko a rena a lokileng. Ge le fihla mo, 1e
lebelela fela t§e dimpe. E re ke go hlalosetse

[You grew up being told it is so. It is stereotypical; when you arrive here, you do not
look at our good sides. When you arrive here you are only looking for bad things [to

confirm your stereotypes].

The Setswana utterance in #6 begins his input to the conversation about

witchcraft in Limpopo by asking a question why the idea of witchcraft is so dominant in

the Limpopo province. This speaker gives a general view of witchcraft when pointing out

that his own home town does have witchcraft practices (the belief in). However, the

practices in the Limpopo province call for attention because they are so well known

countrywide. This is the context in which Motswana above seeks some explanations from

the people of Limpopo themselves. The response from the Sepedi speaker in #H is rather

dismissive. This speaker points out that the reason these groups got to know about

Limpopo witchcraft practices while they were still in their home provinces only shows

the depth of the stereotype. This kind of stereotype is dangerous, according to Sepedi

speaker in #H, because visitors from other provinces tend to overlook all other positive

160

aspects of the Limpopo province. In other words, the Speaker in #H feels that there is a
need to correct these stereotypes instead of explaining why the stereotype is popular.
Following the maxim of relation, the Sepedi utterance in #G has observed this
maxim notwithstanding the fact that it is not a satisfying response to the question. The
speaker in utterance #G‘needed to know about the popularity of witchcraft practices in
Limpopo, and the respondent in #H argues that such popularity was instilled much earlier
in the lives of Setswana speakers who think that there are witchcraft practices when there
are none in practice. It appears a bit irrelevant in content, but the response was not
irrelevant to the question posed in #G. Further, the Sepedi speaker articulates what he
believes to be true: Setswana speakers were stereotyped while they were young in their
home province. Added to the observation that Setswana speakers entered the
conversation with background information that Limpopo has witchcraft practices, there is
a truth-value in #H because Setswana speakers had only two weeks in the province to
have knowledge about witchcraft practices believed to be predominant in the Limpopo
province. Likewise, the information given in #H is as required to satisfy the question
asked in #G. Both maxims of quality and quantity were, therefore, observed in this
utterance. This Sepedi speaker’s ability to read the illocutionary meaning that suggested
there is something particular about the witchcraft popularity in the province proves that
#H has a high command of the utterances in #G at both literal and implied meanings.
Taken together, the first set of interactions represented in utterances #E and #F have
showed that the speaker in #F understands the utterance in #E through a close observation
of the maxims of relation, quality, quantity, and manner as well as making appropriate

inferences of the illocutionary meaning embedded even in localized speech forms like

161

proverbs. In the same token, the second set of interactions showed that the speaker in #H
understands the utterance in #G, and correctly inferer the illocutionary meaning that
suggested that witchcraft is very special in Limpopo as opposed to other areas where
Setswana and Sesotho speakers come from. As a result, the speaker in #H relevantly
answered with sufficient information that satisfied the question posed in #G. Overall,
these two sets of interactions allow an interpretation to be made that Setswana and Sepedi

speakers mutually understand each other when engaged in bi-dialect interactions.

Bi-dialect Interaction 3: Motswana and Mosotho

The third research sub-question with regard to inter-dialect communication was to
find out whether or not bi-dialect interaction between Setswana speakers and Sesotho
speakers could proceed without major language barriers. The first part of this analysis
focused on the extent to which Setswana speakers understand the utterances made by

Sesotho speakers. This set of interactions is presented in utterances # I and # J below:

I (Mosotho): Janong nna ke kopa ho botsa hore ha ele hore ke mosadi wa
Motswana wo utlwang le yena ha ka ho roba pelo o tla kgotlella o utlwane le
mosadi wo mongwe wa Motswana hape o ntse 0 le Motswana jwalo. Jwanong
why ha ele hore ke mosadi was Mosotho o sa kgotlellane le Mosotho o mong
hape?

[As for me, I need to question that if it is a Motswana woman who gets hurt you

will get another Motswana woman because you are Motswana. Then, why do not

162

you do the same (tolerating) if you are married to a Mosotho woman (in other
words why are not you treating the two ethnic groups equally?)

J (Motswana): Tle ke go arabe. Ke bo stereotype. 0 ka se ke wa bolella monna
wa Mosotho ka hore ke monna wa Mosotho ke morafe o mobe. Ke se se bakang
bo stereotype, ga se kotsi ke se se sebediswang jwalo.

[Let me answer you. This is stereotype. You will not ask that to a Mosotho man
because a Mosotho man is a bad ethnic grouping (that is, you will not think the
Sesotho speaking men are as bad as you now think of Setswana speaking men).

This is what causes stereotype; it is not accidental, it is how things work out].

The speaker in utterance #1 attempts to find out why women of different ethnic
groups would be treated differently if they were married to one man at different times.
The context of this question is that a Motswana male respondent had said that if he were
married to a Setswana-speaking woman, and they got into marital problems that
eventually breaking the marriage, he would likely marry another Setswana-speaking
woman. On the contrary, if he were married to a Sesotho-speaking woman, and they got
into exactly the same problems, he would not marry another Sesotho speaking woman.
The question from utterance # I concerned the unequal treatment of marital problems
based on the woman’s language background. The response from the Setswana speaker
who happened to be a woman respondent in #1 provides an answer that shows how deep
both groups live with stereotypes. This respondent acknowledges that their deep belief
systems about themselves and other ethnic groups do cause stereotypes that have

permeated their societies.

163

With regard to the CP, there is an observation of all the four maxims in the
utterance: Relation, quality, quantity and manner. First, the respondent in #J begins with
a relevant answer to the question posed in utterance # 1. The speaker in utterance #J
relevantly states with confidence: “Let me answer you. It is stereotype” when asked by
the speaker in #I on the question of why two women of different language backgrounds
would be treated differently in exactly the same condition. In order to explain the
stereotype as an ethno-dialectally induced phenomenon, this speaker tells the respondent
in utterance# I that she (#1) would not complain about Sesotho-speaking men or think of
them as being unfair when they do not marry a Setswana-speaking woman after the failed
marriage with the Setswana-speaking woman. This satisfies the maxim of relation. The
maxims of quality, quantity and manner have also been observed. For example, it is true
that a bad experience with one encounter from one ethnic group might breed stereotypes
that force one to withdraw completely from the ethnic group as opposed to one’s own
ethnic group where there might be more attempts. The response by the speaker in #J is
succinct, correct and devoid of obscure expressions.

In addition to the observation of the four maxims under CP, the speaker in #1
showed an ability to explicate implicatures in utterance #1. The speaker in utterance # J
made appropriate inferences of this illocutionary meaning that Sesotho men are biased
and then responded directly to it instead of the locutionary one that was not intended by
the speaker in utterance #1. Therefore, the speaker in utterance #J ’5 ability to read the
intention of the utterance in #1 allows the interpretation that Setswana speaker in
utterance #J understands both the locutionary and illocutionary meanings of the Sesotho

speaker in utterance #1. Observably, the idiomatic expression “ho robja pelo”, meaning

164

‘to break the heart’ did not hinder the interpretation arrived at by the respondent in
utterance #J. It was interpreted accurately within the context of the marriage breakup.
The second set of interactions were analyzed to show whether the Sesotho
speakers, apart from being understood by the Setswana speakers as shown in utterances
#1 and #1 above, have a high degree of intelligibility to make appropriate judgments
about utterances produced by Setswana speakers. Utterances #K and #L below exemplify

a prototypical interaction pattern:

#K (Motswana): Ne ke kopa ho hlalohanya gore mantatale ke eng.
[1 was asking to understand what “mantatale” is]
#L (Mosotho): Mantatale ke ngatha tsa pere ngwaneso

[Manatale are the horse hoofs, my sibling (used as a term of endearment).

The speaker in utterance #K asks a question that needs clarification on an
unfamiliar concept “mantatale” (horse hoof) used previously by the speaker in utterance
#L. This question is presented in an indirect way that the bearer who does not have a full
understanding may not interpret it as a question. The indirect question formulated as a
request made in utterance #K (“I was asking to understand. . .”), was given due attention
by the speaker in utterance #L. The speaker in #L uses a term of endearment “my
sibling”, and explains that the concept, mantatale, means the horse hooves.

In terms of the maxim of relation, a number of factors need explaining. First, the
utterance in #L is relevant to the expression made in utterance #K because it gave an

explanation of the concept, mantatale, as expected by the speaker in utterance #K.

165

Secondly, the speaker in utterance #L relevantly interpreted the statement of request as an
honest need for further clarification usually by someone who is less knowledgeable. To
this end, she deemed it fit to use the word of endearment, “my sibling” in order to
establish rapport. These factors involved in the response indicate that the maxim of
relation is observed in this utterance. Similarly, the answer in #L was straight to the
point, devoid of obscure expressions, and accurate on the definition of mantatale.
Beyond observation of all the CP maxims in utterance #L, the speaker in utterance #L
demonstrates high command of direct and indirect forms of questioning from the dialect
used in utterance # K. The illocutionary meaning of the statement “what is mantatale”
was correctly inferred and responded to in a succinct way. To do this, one would need a
high command of understanding in the dialect of the expression used to draw correct
inferences and to provide accurate answers.

The interactions between Setswana and Sesotho speakers showed that the speaker
in utterance #I was understood by the speaker in utterance # J irrespective of the
idiomatic expression used by the speaker in #I. The speaker in #J observed all the CP
maxims and demonstrated the ability to make inferences of illocutionary meanings
embedded in utterance #1. Similarly, the second set of interactions showed that the
speaker in utterance # L understood the contents and implications of the utterance in #K.
The speakers’ ability to provide relevant answers that are devoid of obscurity and their
ability to infer implicatures to arrive at the illocutionary meanings denote that the
Setswana speaker in utterance # J understands the Sesotho utterance in #I in the same

way that the Sesotho speaker in utterance #L understands the Setswana utterance in #K.

166

This allows the interpretation that Setswana and Sesotho are mutually intelligible
dialects.

In brief, the discussion on bi-dialect interactions between Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho speakers showed that there is a high degree of mutual intelligibility that cuts
across dialect differences. Observation of the CP maxims: relations, quality, quantity,
and manner as well as accurate inferences of the implicatures: locutionary, illocutionary
and perlocutionary force, as discussed, provide sufficient evidence that there were no

linguistic barriers in conversations carried out in three different language varieties.

Tri-dialect Interaction: Conversational Repairs

While the questions on mutual intelligibility were answered in interactions # A
through #L above, the analysis went further to draw cases of tri-dialect interactions to
assess degrees of mutual intelligibility when three speakers of different dialects are
involved in a dialogue. The analysis showed that there were conversational repairs and a
smooth flow of the topics from one speaker to another. The following tri-dialect

interaction demonstrates the strategy used to repair the conversation at the brink of

breakdown:

#A (Motswana): 0 ka re ba e tsea hore re nyefola Bapedi. Ha re nyegole re batla
ho hlalohanya.

[It looks like they think we are ridiculing Sepedi speakers. We do not ridicule;
we need to understand.

#B (Mopedi): Ee, lebaka la gore lena 1e jese pudi leotsa ke gore gale nyakisise.

167

Ke gore ditaba t§a lena le dikwa go tswa mothong o motee.
[Yes, it is because you generalize (literal meaning of the proverb: to let goats eat
millets) without investigating.
#C (Mosotho): Ho jesa pudi leotsa ke eng?
[What does letting goats eat millets mean?]
#3 (Mopedi): Ke stereotype go fetetsa ka Sepedi.

[It means stereotype when translated in Sepedi]

In this interaction, there is a flow of ideas from-one speaker to another. The
Setswana speaker starts with an apologetic statement that they were not ridiculing Sepedi
speakers about witchcraft. Their goal was rather to understand the depth of witchcraft in
the Limpopo province. Secondly, the Sepedi speaker understood the apology and
explained using a proverb that they (Sepedi group) felt personally attacked. The use of
the proverb that translates “to make goats eat millets” brought in the third group of
speakers into the discussion: Sesotho speakers. The Sesotho speaker sought clarification
on the use of this proverb; otherwise she would miss the gist of the argument. The Sepedi
speaker again was prompted to explain that the proverb simply meant the act of
generalizing. In brief, the three speakers understand each other on the main focus of the
discussion: the generalization that there is a lot of witchcraft in Limpopo. This satisfies
the maxim of relation, quantity, and quality. Violation of the maxim of manner through
the use of obscure expression by the Sepedi speaker nearly resulted in a communication
breakdown. It is, however, noteworthy that the speakers were able to repair their

conversations when such expressions were used. The speakers were able to use neutral

168

expressions to explain dialect-specific phrases as seen in #L on the concept mantatale in
order to bring the conversation back to a mutually intelligible level. The flow of the topic
across three dialects and the speakers’ ability to repair their conversations show that the
speakers in this interaction communicate in ways that are similar to speakers of the same
language. In conclusion, there were no linguistic barriers observed in the tri-dialect
interactions; instead, a strategy of repairs was used to ensure the smooth flow of the

conversation, as is usually the case among native speakers of one language.

Tri-dialect Interaction: Mutual Intelligibility

Another example of tri-dialect interaction that showed a smooth flow of the topic
across the three dialect utterances was analyzed further to demonstrate the degree of
mutual comprehension when the speakers are using their respective dialects in the same

commrmicative event.

#A (Mopedi): Ke kgopela go botsisa ka ye ya boloi, ntho ye ya boloi 1e tsebile ka
yona ge le tloga gae goba 1e tsebile ka yona ge le fihla mo.

[1 request to ask about the witchcraft one, did you know about this witchcraft
issue when you were still at your homes, or did you get to know about it once you
arrived here?]

#3 (Mosotho): Ha ke tswa hae ne ke sa tsebe selo ka Limpopo, ne ke sa tsebe
letho ne ke tseba hore ho nale Province entsha e bitswa Northern Province
ebitswang Limpopo eseng e tshentshilwe lebitso, ha ele tsa boli be teng ke ne ke

sa di tsebe. Ke utlwile ha ke fihla mona.

169

[When I came home I did not know anything about Limpopo (the province
believed to have witchcraft practices). What I knew was that there is a new name
attached to the Northern Province called Limpopo. I virtually knew nothing about
witchcraft]

#A (Mopedi): O dirile eng ge o tseba ka taba ye ya boloi?

[Upon understanding that there is witchcraft, what did you do?]

# B (Mosotho): Ke a botsa. Tjhe ha ke re gabotse nna ke tsebile ha ke tloha hae
hore mo Limpopo boloi bo teng ke bo bontshi?

[I asked. No actually; I knew that there is a lot of witchcraft practice in Limpopo
when I left home.]

# A (Mopedi): Ke bona bothata bona bo ka gore o tlogile ka gae ba go botsa gore
boloi Limpopo ke bo bontshi. J wale wena was tseba ge o tloga gae hore Limpopo
ke boloing ke bothata ba gona. Le tswa ka magaeng a bolena le tseba gore mo
Limpopo dilo tse dimpe ke tse dintshi goba boloi ke bo bontshi le tse dingwe.
[That is the problem because you left home already with the information that
there is a lot of witchcraft in Limpopo. Leaving home with this knowledge is the
root cause of the problem. You left your hometowns knowing that here in
Limpopo there are so many bad things or that there is too much witchcraft and
other negative things]

#C (Motswana): Ee, re tlogile re ntse re itse gore boloi bo teng. Re tlohile re ntse
re itse ne re batla go netefatsa bore a naa ke nnete boloi bo teng ko Limpopo ke

mo re tlileng gompieno.

170

[Yes, we left home with full knowledge that there is witchcraft. We came with the
knowledge; we just want to confirm if there is witchcraft in Limpopo; that is why

we are here today.]

This interaction shows a discussion that was initiated by the Sepedi-speaking
respondent. This respondent asked a question if the belief that the Limpopo province had
witchcraft practices developed while the other discussants were in their hometowns or if
it emerged in the two weeks following their arrival in Limpopo. The Sesotho respondent
first stated that she did not know anything while she was at home, but later said that she
had prior knowledge about witchcraft in Limpopo. The Sepedi respondent then used this
‘ latter point to make a case that prior knowledge had played a role in cultivating the
stereotype among the respondents from the sister dialects. The Setswana-speaking
respondent, on the other hand, said that he had prior knowledge about witchcraft in
Limpopo; he only needed to confirm what he already knew before coming to Limpopo.

The conversations in the above tri-dialect interactions proceeded smoothly from
speakers of one dialect to another. All the CP maxims were observed in the interactions:
relation, quality, quantity and manner so that the speakers remained focused on the same
topic of witchcraft and the source of stereotypes about the Limpopo province. Therefore,
in addition to the bi-dialect interactions discussed above, tri-dialect interactions showed

high levels of mutual understanding across the three dialect groups.

171

ORANGE GAME: INFORMATION GAP TASK

The same participants who were engaged in the focus group discussion were
given an information gap task in order to evaluate whether the three Sotho groups could
reach a communicative goal and resolve problems while using their respective dialects.
The chief focus of this activity was not to assess mutual intelligibility, per se; it sought to
evaluate the degree of intelligibility with regard to the speakers’ ability to resolve
conflicts and cooperate in real-life situations. The three groups were presented with
different problems that required that they compete for the orange, which was imagined to
be the only one remaining in the country. In this hypothetical context, the Sepedi group
had to find a solution that they needed only the rind for the sick Queen, the Setswana
needed the pips for the farmer, and the Sesotho group needed the juice from the orange
for the sick water engineer. They had to discover what exactly they needed from the
orange and how they could get it without making their counterparts lose anything.

The conversation took approximately one hour and had interactions that in the end
brought a win-win situation for all the groups, which relates to the idea of unity and
harmonization. The following extracts illustrate the speaker’s problem-solving skills

while communicating with speakers who do not speak the same variety.

# (Sesotho): Puo ya hae ha ke e utlwisisse ka hore wena ha re utlwisise wena 1e
Batswana ba bang ba re le batla namune kaofela, rapolase wa lona kappa yena. ..
o itse le tle le yona kaofela la kgutla la re ditholana fela. Laborarao jwalo le re le

batla namune kaofela. Hantle hantle le re 1e batlang?

172

[Your talk is not understandable because you and other Setswana speakers say
you need the whole orange. Did your farmer tell you to bring the whole orange or
just the pips? You said that you need just the pips later one. Thirdly, you tell us

that you need the whole orange. What do you really need?]

In this extract, the Sesotho-speaking participant analyzed the demands made by
Setswana speakers in their quest to get the orange. This respondent is able to show that
the Setswana speakers moved in three positions. First, they claimed that they needed the
whole orange. Next, they said that they needed just the pips, and then reverted to the
original demand. The Sesotho respondent finds this change of positions confusing and
harder to resolve. Irnportantly, the Sesotho respondent is able to synthesize main issues
presented by Setswana group and show that the solution to the problem is unlikely to be
reached as long as the Setswana speakers keep changing positions.

The Setswana respondent complicates the problem further by making a demand to
bring together all the key individuals for whom the cases were made: the traditional
healer (for the sick Queen), the doctor (for the sick water engineer) and the farmer as

presented in the following extract:

#A (Motswana): Kitso ya rona ya gore namune gore re jwale re batla ditholwana
ga re itse se rapolase a se batlang, janong se se siameng ke gore Queen Modjadjai
a ka fodiswa ke namune a tle mo. Motho war eng rra Badiki a ka fodiswa ke

namune a tle mo.

173

[Our knowledge about growing oranges through pips is limited, as we do not
know exactly what the farmer wants. Then whoever said Queen Modjadji would
be healed by an orange should come here. The person who said the technician

would be healed by an orange should also come here.]

As illustrated in this extract, the respondent says that they do not know if the
farmer just needed the pips. Consequently, the respondents would like to have the
traditional healer who prescribed the orange healing remedy for Queen Modjadji to come
along and the doctor who claimed that the water technician could be cured by an orange
should also come over so that they could both be interrogated. This demand, however,
makes it impractical to bring the imagined people to the discussion table. In this regard, a
Sepedi speaker intervenes with a proposal that proved worthwhile in the end. The

proposal is represented in the extract below:

#8 (Mopedi): Le a tseba gore ke nagana gore re dire eng. Akere ka moka re
nyaka namune, re ka e ngatha mo gare rena (Bapedi) ra tsea seripa se sengwe,
Basotho ba tsea seripa se sengwe lena la tsea dithapo (Batswana) la di bjala, kgosi
a nesa pula, rra tegnieki a ntsha meetsi dinamune tSa mela—ge a lwala a ja
dinamune.

[You know whatI think we should do. Because we all need the orange, we can
cut it in the middle so that we (Sepedi speakers) take one piece, the Sesotho

speaking group takes another piece, and you (Setswana-speaking group) take the

174

pips to grow them, the queen will bring about rain, the technician will bring about

water for the orange trees to grow-«when he’s sick, he could eat oranges].

The Sepedi respondent proposed that they cut the orange into two pieces. Sepedi
group would take one piece, the Sesotho group take another part while Setswana group
would take the pips. The farmer would plant the pips; the rain Queen Modjadji could be
healed to assume her spiritual obligations of bringing rain, and then the technician would
have even have more water on the ground. He would eat the orange when he is sick and
pump more water for the people affected by drought.

The last response brought the discussion to a close: the Sepedi takes one part of
the orange with the rind, the Sesotho group takes away one part that has some juice while
both groups give away the pips to the Setswana group. This proved satisfactory for each
group that initially wanted to have the whole orange. The participants realized that they
needed each other much more than they had thought in the beginning of the conversation.
Based on the shift from wanting the whole orange to sharing in ways that complement
one another, the goal of this conversation was reached. This allows an interpretation that
speakers of these dialects not only have mutual understanding as the focus group
discussions have demonstrated, they also have the ability to reach a communicative goal.
Because reaching a communicative goal requires a high degree of mutual understanding,
it is further concluded that the harmonized form of Sotho could allow speakers of these

three dialects to perform other social functions that require high-level negotiations.

175

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS: NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVER

There were a number of observations made by the researcher and his two research
assistants who have proficiency in the three Sotho language varieties. In both the focus
group discussions and information gap activity, we observed that three stereotypes were
explored in the discussions. The first was the witchcraft practices believed by Setswana
and Sesotho to be predominant in the Limpopo province. This dominated the discussions,
as it was a topic that all the respondents were interested in and had many issues to say
about it. Even though Sepedi speakers vehemently opposed the view that their province
was full of witchcraft practices, they were understood to have contradicted themselves
when making a case for the orange to save Queen Modjadji who is believed to posses
deitic powers to bring about rain. The Sepedi respondents were pressured to defend their
province by making counter-charges about their own stereotypes against Setswana and
Sesotho speakers. Setswana discussants were charged with their inability to travel far
away from their homes. This stereotype has historical connection with their proximity to
Johannesburg. These other groups travel as far as 500 miles for work in Johannesburg
while most Setswana speakers hardly travel 150 miles to go to Johannesburg. On the
other hand, Sesotho speakers were portrayed as horse-eaters and day blanket-dressers
(i.e., traditional Sesotho speakers have a tendency to put on blankets instead of sweaters).
This resonated with the reference to the concept mantatale when referring to a horse’s
hoof. In addition, the lively discussion that drew interest from all the respondents was
later reinforced by the arguments made about the orange in the information gap activity.

The second observation made in the discussions was the participants’ ability to

use conversational repairs when dialect-specific words or phrases were used. For

176

example, mantatale (horse hoof), go jesa pudi leotsa (to generalize - stereotype),
lesogana le sa eteng le nyala kgaetsedi (the young man who does not travel manies his
sister) were all cases of dialect-specific usages used in the conversations. The participants
were able to repair conversations with requests for clarification and explanations in
common phrases used across the dialects. Because the respondents used the same
languages without assistance of another language, it can be concluded that indeed these
language varieties have only slight differences as found in any dialects of the same

’ language. Using native speaker intuition, there was no case in the conversations that had
communication breakdown. In this connection, the respondents displayed the highest
degree of mutual intelligibility that changed some of the negative attitudes toward

harmonization, as discussed in the next section.

MATCHED QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

In order to provide a comprehensive account of the attitudinal change answers after
the 12 respondents went through the inter-dialect interactions, the answers prior to the
experiment carried out in the study were compared with the answers given in the post-
task questionnaire. The comparison was primarily meant to draw qualitative inferences as
to whether the inter-dialect interactions had any impact on the respondents’ attitudes.
This comparison was based on the open-ended questions of the questionnaire, which are

repeated below in (a) through (f) (See Appendix C):

a. There is a proposal to unify the written forms of Sepedi, Setswana and

Sesotho for educational purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with

177

this proposal? Give your answer and reasons for it below:

c. Can Sotho languages be used as the media of learning and teaching in higher
levels of education? Please give your answer and reasons below:

(I. Would it be easy for speakers of Sotho languages to read texts written in a
Harmonized Sotho language? Support your answer.

e. Do you think communication among the Sotho language speakers is possible,
without translators? Give your answer and reasons thereof:

f. Would you be interested in having your language unified with languages in the

Sotho group? Give your answer and reasons below:

Respondent # 1

Respondent #1 gave negative answers on almost all the questions listed above (a-
f) in the pre-task questionnaire. The main reason for objecting to the harmonization
proposal was that the process 'of harmonizing the Sotho language varieties would
destabilize the already existing traditions. This means that there was a fear that the people
whose varieties would become unified in writing would lose their identities that are
already based around the present language forms. Contrary to this objection in her post-
task responses, the same respondent agreed that communication among Sotho language
varieties could go on without major difficulties in understanding. The idea of using Sotho
language varieties as languages of instruction was still viewed in a negative light in the
post-task. The respondent believed that the use of Harmonized Sotho in education might
prove difficult for speakers of non-Sotho language varieties. Obviously, the respondent

misunderstood the question of using the Sotho language for education; she was convinced

178

that the use of the Sotho language would necessarily be imposed on speakers of other
African languages. This goes beyond the scope of language of instruction as suggested:
Harmonized Sotho among speakers of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho. It is, however,
noteworthy that the respondent shifted away from total opposition to harmonization in the
pre-task to acceptance in the post-task even if the issue of the language of instruction was

still contestable.

Respondent # 2
Unlike respondent #1, # 2 agreed that Sotho language varieties could be used as
media of instruction in post-primary education level in the pre-task questionnaire.
Secondly, this respondent agreed that the readability of the Harmonized Sotho would not
be problematic to speakers of this language group. While this respondent felt that there is
a high degree of mutual intelligibility, he was skeptical about the harmonization process

when stating:

#1 Go ya ka nna polelo ye nngwe le ye nngwe e ikemetse ka bo yona ebile motho
yo mongwe le yo mongwe o nale ditokelo tsa go somisa polelo ya gabo e le tee e
se ya kopantshwa le polelo ye nngwe.

[According to me, every language is self-standing and every individual has the

right to use his/her language without combining it with any other]

The view expressed in this extract advocates for separation of the dialects instead

of their unification. Maintenance of one’s local speech form is regarded as a right that

179

should not be impinged upon through the unification process. After the intervention tasks,

however, this respondent changed his views on harmonization as follows:

#2 Kopano ya maleme a Sesotho e bohlokwa ka ge dipolelo tse di swana. A go
bohlokwa gore re be le dipolelo tse tharo go laetsa molaetsa o tee.
[Unification of the Sotho language varieties is important because these varieties

are similar. It is not necessary to have three languages in sending one message]

The argument for harmonization in the post-task questionnaire is premised on the
high degree of similarities that this respondent noticed while involved in inter-dialect
interactions. The issue of language rights was then subsumed by the realization that these
dialects are very close during the interactions. The focus group discussions, information
gap activity, and reading activities had influenced respondent #2’s attitude toward

harmonization of the Sotho language varieties.

Respondent #3
On the pretask questionnaire, this respondent did not agree with the proposal to
harmonize the Sotho language varieties and the possibility of using this Harmonized
Sotho as the language of learning and teaching beyond primary school education.
However, she agreed that it would be possible for speakers of these varieties to read texts
written in united Sotho and that communication among Sotho language speakers is
possible because these languages are similar. Despite the perceived degrees of mutual

intelligibility, harmonization and the use of Sotho languages varieties as the languages of

180

instruction was found objectionable. In the post-task questionnaire, this respondent
changed her disapproval of harmonization and the use of united Sotho in post-primary
education. Harmonization was seen as an opportunity for learning each other’s variety,

without necessarily losing one’s own. This view is expressed in the following extract:

#3 Ke bona ele bohlokwa gore motho a ithute leleme la gabo a le tsebe a be ale
kwesise gore a tle a kgone go ikgantsha ka lona ge a nale diboledi tse dingwe.
Efela ka nako e nngwe motho o swanetse go ithuta gaope le maleme a mangwe
gore a tle a kgone go kwesissa batho ba bangwe.

[I see it necessary that one should learn his/her own language so that he/she can
be proud of it whenever he/she is with speakers of other languages. But at some
stage, it is important that one needs to learn other languages so that one can

understand others].

This extract shows that harmonization could be a catalyst in enabling people of
diverse language backgrounds to learn each other’s dialect while maintaining their own
dialect variety. In this way, speakers would be proud of retaining their own way of
expression instead of using a foreign language. For the purpose of this study, it is noted
that the focus group discussions, the information gap activity, and the reading exercises
created a positive impact on this respondent toward the need for harmonization of Sotho

language varieties.

181

Respondent #4

This respondent made two crucial points in the pre-task. First, using Harmonized
Sotho as the language of teaching and learning would be problematic because there are
other groups in South Africa, which do not speak any of the Sotho language varieties.
Second, the respondent saw harmonization as a necessity in improving levels of
understanding among speakers whose languages share one channel on national television.
Comparison of the post-task views showed that the respondent still held the same view
that harmonization would enhance the level of understanding and reduce the need for

translations among languages that are otherwise similar.

Respondent #5
Respondent #5 provided a pessimistic view of the harmonization of the Sotho
varieties and doubted if there were any mutual intelligibility between these varieties. As
far as this speaker is concerned, harmonization is dependent on the degrees of proficiency
among the speakers of one language toward another. This view is captured in the

following extract:

#4 Ga ke na karabo e e totobetseng, eya kgotsa nyaa, go tla ya le gore dibui di
tlhaologanya dipuo tse jang.
[I do not have a right answer whether it is a yes or a no. It depends on one’s level

of proficiency in each of the dialects]

182

In this extract, the speaker warned of over-generalized assumption about mutual
intelligibility. The respondent argues that the levels of proficiency would need to be taken
into account when harmonizing Sotho language varieties. However, there is a remarkable
change of attitude observed in the post-task response. The respondent argued that she
would be happy if her language were harmonized with other Sotho language varieties
because there is a high degree of mutual intelligibility. Instead, she preferred English
because it has international value. The fact that the respondent changed her view and
recognized that the Sotho language varieties are mutually intelligible to the extent that
they need to be unifled in writing bears testimony to the view that the interactions had a

positive impact on the respondents.

Respondent #6
In the pretask questionnaire, respondent # 6 opposed the view that Harmonized
Sotho could be used as the language of instruction in post-primary education and that
these Sotho varieties are mutually intelligible. The problem with harmonization,
according to this respondent, is that it creates a 12th language when there are already 11

as quoted in the following extract:
Nyaa, ga go ya simama gone se se raya gore go dirisiwa puo enngwe ye e seng

gore ga e a letlelelwa ke molao wa Afrika. Go tlabo go diriwa puo ya

bosomepedi, me go letleletswe dipuo di le somelebongwe.

183

[N o. it is not right because this means that a new language not approved by the
Constitution of South Africa. This means that a 12th language will be created

when, the constitution recognizes only 11.]

Harmonization of the Sotho language variety is understood by this respondent to
mean a creation of another language in addition to the three existing varieties. This adds
to the already stated view that the harmonization concept is misunderstood. But in the
' post-task questionnaire, this respondent changed this view and saw the need for

harmonization as long as it would not imply creating a new language.

Respondent # 7
Respondent #7 agreed to the harmonization proposal and the use of such a
harmonized form as the medium of instruction in post-primary education. Believing that
indeed the three language varieties are mutually comprehensible, this respondent states a

reason for harmonization as follows:

Kc a dumela gore Mopedi, Mosotho 1e Motswana ba kgone go buisa sentle ebile
ba kgone go tlhaloganya sentle.
[I agree that Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana speakers can communicate with each

other and understand each other very well.]

This respondent gave a consistent answer both in the pre-task and post-task

questionnairesThe inter-dialect communication reinforced the respondent’s preconceived

184

attitude on mutual intelligibility and the feasibility of uniting Sotho language varieties

into a common written form.

Respondent #8
The responses given by Respondent # 8 depict a pattern already observed with
other respondents in the pre-task answers. Like the preceding respondents, Respondent
#8 agreed that the Sotho language varieties are mutually intelligible, but he is opposed to
the harmonization pr0posal on the basis that the already formed identities would be

threatened. This view is encapsulated in the extract below:

Ke a ganetsa- puo enngwe 1e e nngwe e tshwanetse go ikemela gore batho ba tle
ba tlhaologanye segabona.
[I do not agree. Every language should stand on its own so that people do not lose

their culture/customs]

The respondent in the above extract feels that harmonization would result in the
loss of cultures, customs and identities. The interactions, however, seem to have changed
his views in the post-task. The respondent took a position that there is no problem with
harmonization so long as the combined words and phrases still remain understandable to
all members of the harmonized form. Since this view emerged after the interactions, it
can be concluded that the treatment carried out in the experiment affected this

respondent’s preconceived attitude toward harmonization.

185

Respondent #9
Respondent # 9 provided affirmative answers to all the questions covering the
harmonization proposal, use of Harmonized Sotho in post-primary education level, and
mutual intelligibility of both oral and written registers. In giving a reason for

harmonization, the respondent stated:

Nka thabela ha di ka kopangoa hobane ntho eo etla etsa re tlohele ho ikarohanya
re be ntho e lengoe joalo ka puo tsa rona.
[I will be happy if they get harmonized because this will make us stop dividing

ourselves and become one just like our language varieties are.]

Respondent # 9 articulated one of the key reasons for harmonizing indigenous
African languages with a high degree of mutual intelligibility. Harmonization is
perceived as being of national importance in uniting the ethno-dialectly divided people of
South Africa. While the same opinion was expressed on harmonization in the post-task,
the respondent changed her view on the use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of
instruction in post-primary education. The reason for the change of views was that the
respondent felt that there are other groups that do not necessarily speak Sotho language
varieties. This reasoning demonstrates the fear that the Harmonized Sotho would be

imposed on all speakers outside of the Sotho language communities.

186

Respondent #10
Respondent #10 gave negative answers in the pre-task. He argued that Sotho
language varieties are different and that they should be left in their current form. In the
post-task questionnaire, he conceded to the view that the varieties are mutually
intelligible. While there is no objection to mutual intelligibility, the respondent still felt
that there is no need for harmonization of Sotho language varieties because such a
process might cause conflicts. Such conflicts could be sparked by the lack of equal

representation of words, phrases, and other language matters across the three varieties.

Respondent #11
Pre-task answers for Respondent #11 were negative to the harmonization proposal
and to the use of the harmonized form as the language of learning and teaching. This
respondent believed that English should instead be used because it is an international
language. Sotho language varieties, on the other hand, do not have the same international
status as English does. On the contrary, the post-task responses showed a more positive
attitude toward harmonization and a general change of opinions as reflected in the

following extract:

Di ka kopangoa hobane dipuo tsohle tsa Sesotho ha di na phapang haholo le hore
di ka sebediswa e 1e puo e le nngwe dithutong tsa university.

[They can be harmonized because all the Sotho language varieties do not have big
differences and then they can be used as one language in the university

curriculum]

187

The extract shows a completely changed view toward Sotho language varieties
when the respondent expressed the view that the Sotho varieties are not different and that
the unified form could be used in the university curricula. The case for Respondent #11
shows that the interactions during the intervention stage of the study made this speaker
realize that the varieties are closer than previously thought. Importantly, the respondent
expressed the view that the harmonized form might be a resource for use at university

levels.

Respondent #12

Respondent #12 was very negative to all the questions asked in the pre-task. She
feared that people speaking other language varieties would lose their cultural identities
and that group conflicts might erupt because these language varieties are different from
one another. The post-task response was different in two ways. First, the respondent
agreed that there is a high degree of mutual intelligibility among speakers of Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho. In this connection, it was possible to unite these varieties in
writing. Secondly, the respondent felt strongly that a Harmonized Sotho can be used as .
the medium of instruction in post-primary school education in order to resolve problems
of illiteracy, high failure rate, and attrition, which are attributed to the use of English as
the medium of instruction among Afiican children. Given the changed attitude toward
harmonization and use of Harmonized Sotho in education, it can be inferred that the

interactions had a positive impression on this respondent.

188

Analysis of the open-ended answers in the pre-task and post-task of the 12
respondents shows an interesting pattern. Most of those who had preconceived negative
responses changed their views to supporting: (a) harmonization proposal, (b) use of
Harmonized Sotho in post-primary education and (c) high degrees of mutual
intelligibility in both spoken and written registers. This analysis supports the quantitative
analyses that showed that there was a change of attitudes in a positive direction in the
post-task. This allows the interpretation that the interactions carried out during the
experiment did have an impact on the respondents’ views on the harmonization question.

Taken together, the results presented in this chapter showed that there are
arguments for and against harmonization of Sotho languages, which highlight the
complexities involved in the harmonization phenomena. On the basis of conversational
interactions, there is sufficient evidence that speakers of Sotho language varieties
communicate in mutually intelligible ways that enabled them to negotiate for meaning,
repair conversations, and reach communicative goals. Conclusions drawn from the

analysis are enumerated in the next chapter.

189

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing Sotho
language varieties by assessing attitudes of university students who speak these language
varieties and immersing them in inter-dialect interactions. Speaker attitudes and linguistic
practices, as measures of harmonization, were tested through triangulated methods that
yielded comprehensive results on the harmonization question. The purpose of this chapter
is to provide a synopsis of the study, involving a chapter-by-chapter summary,
description of major findings from chapter 4, conclusions from the findings, implications
for language planners and policy makers, and suggestions for further research that

replicate and expand on the methodologies developed in the study.

SUMMARY ,OF THE STUDY

Chapter One presented the problem as the lack of progress with regard to the use of
indigenous African languages in official domains of the South African society in a period
of 10 years since the first democratic elections in 1994. The reason for the unchanging
status of indigenous African languages, apart from negative attitudes toward Afiican
languages as documented elsewhere (e.g., Verhoef, 1999, Thiba, 2000), was identified as
misrepresentation of the status of these languages as stipulated in the Constitution (SA,
1996), where dialects of the same language (referred to as community speech forms,
(Makoni, 1999) were accorded official status as distinct languages. In so doing, the
Constitutional provisions have inadvertently entrenched the linguistic differentiation of

indigenous African languages that was sanctioned through the work of the missionary

190

linguists and later on formalized by the Bantustan homeland policies of separate
development during the Apartheid regime. Given this background, Chapter One provided
a rationale for harmonization of mutually intelligible languages despite many years of
deliberate and systematic divisions that were wrought in the South African political life.

It outlined the purpose of the study and set out the following specific goals:

° To assess the preconceived attitudes of native speakers of Sotho language varieties
toward other varieties in the same language cluster (i.e., Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho).

° To investigate the extent to which communication without major linguistic barriers
(mutual intelligibility) is achievable when speakers of the Sotho language varieties
are involved in interactions in which all their vemaculars are used (inter-variety
communication).

0 To assess whether Sotho inter-variety communication can accomplish a set
communicative goal.

° To explore the extent to which reading and understanding of written texts from
varieties of Sotho other than the informants’ own can be achieved.

0 To examine the degree to which preconceived attitudes are changed or reinforced
after the speakers were immersed in the inter-variety interactions.

The proposal to harmonize Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana, and

Sesotho), on the one hand, and Nguni language varieties (isiZulu, isiXhosa, Siswati,

isiNdebele), on the other hand, was first made by Jacob Nhlapo who lamented what he

called “the trouble of the babel of tongues” (Nhlapo, 1944, p.10). Nhlapo was concerned

191

that the speakers of mutually intelligible were re-tribalized into enclaves that countered
national unity among Black South Africans. One of the reasons he gave was that unified
African languages would have economic benefits and reduce the costs of duplicating
materials that could be written in the same orthography. Furthermore, Nhlapo believed
that readership would be enlarged by the unification process, which was necessary for
literacy development and educational advancement in the Black communities. The
proposal was ignored by the then Apartheid regime because it suggested a program that
was against the division philosophy that was embraced by the architects of Apartheid.
After more than 40 years of silence on the harmonization proposal, Alexander
(1989) revived the proposal that caused controversy as South African linguists and policy
makers were embarking on a plan for language policy in the post-Apartheid South Africa.
Alexander’s advocacy for unification of Sotho and Nguni was not recognized in favor of
the 11 official languages policy. The proposal however remained topical and gained
momentum after it increasingly became evident that the 11 official languages policy had
not been successful in promoting indigenous African languages (IALS). Because
harmonization is seen by some linguists as the alternative path to the use of indigenous
African languages (e.g., Alexander, 2001; Prah, 2002a, b; Webb, 2002), it was necessary
to investigate its feasibility with regard to speaker attitudes and inter-dialect interactions.
The study was contextualized within a history of language struggle, characterized
by domination by exogenous languages (Dutch, English and Afrikaans) and ethno-
linguistic differentiation of the indigenous African languages. First, such a history
involved the Dutchification period from 1652-1874 when the Dutch settlers invaded the

Cape region and enforced the Dutch language on the local Khoisan people. The period

192

around 1820 and 1840 involved the missionary development of orthographies in order to
translate the Bible into these languages for evangelical purposes. Given that the
missionary linguists represented different denominations, they worked in isolation
without central coordination. This process culminated in nine indigenous African
languages, written in different orthographies, which often reflected the missionaries’ own
native languages.

The second period was described as the Anglicization period when the English
invaded South Africa in 1875. Like the Dutch settlers, the English promoted English and
enforced it for all official business. This was followed by the Afrikanerization period that

came with the proclamation of Apartheid laws when the Nationalist Party took power in
1948. During this period, the nine missionary ‘disinvented languages’ (Makoni, 2003),
were entrenched through the Bantustan homeland system that sought to divide the people
according to the nine missionary created languages. This implied that every language had
its own homeland. The next dramatic period was the student revolution in the streets of
South Western Townships (SOWETO) of Johannesburg, which is referred to as the 1976
Soweto Student Uprising. Unprecedented in its nature, the students fought against the use
of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in primary schools. Finally, the history of
language struggle was ended with a discussion on the democratization period that
accorded 11 languages an official status (Afrikaans and English included). This
description showed that the nine indigenous languages differentiated over time were
appropriated in the current Constitution.

Chapter Two provided a synopsis of language planning issues that pertain to the

harmonization and standardization of indigenous African languages. First, the theoretical

193

framework for language harmonization as a component of language planning was
outlined within the parameters of status, corpus, and acquisition planning (see Cooper,
1989). The second part of the chapter was a review of the literature that dealt with
attitudes toward indigenous Afiican languages, which is a topic closely related to the
harmonization of African languages. The next section reviewed the literature on mutual
intelligibility and the harmonization project canied out by the Centre for Advanced
Studies in African Society (CASAS).

It was concluded in Chapter Two that the present study is empirically significant
in expanding the body of knowledge that exists on language harmonization in South
Africa. Although there are volumes of literature showing higher degrees of linguistic
similarities (linguistic intelligibility) (e. g., Nakin, 2002; Matubatuba, 2002), no similar
studies known to date carried out experiments on mutual intelligibility involving actual
speech interactions among the speakers of these languages (i.e., intelligibility through
interactions that involved actual speakers). Similarly, it was pointed out that although
research is replete with findings that speakers of African languages prefer using English
to their own languages, there are few, if any, studies that have focused on attitudes of
speakers of one African language toward a sister African language, especially using
research instruments designed in these languages. On these two accounts (discourse
intelligibility and attitudes within), the chapter concluded that this present study of
language harmonization, with its focus on inter-variety interactions and inter-variety
attitudes is the first of its kind to fill in the existing body of knowledge on mutual
intelligibility, attitudes within sister African languages, and harmonization of Sotho

language varieties of South Africa.

194

Chapter Three presented the methods of the study and the rationale for their
relevance to the study of practices and attitudes among native speakers of languages that
were proposed to undergo the process of harmonization. First, it was emphasized that due
to the complexity of assessing mutual intelligibility and testing the feasibility of
harmonizing Sotho language varieties, a multilayered design was preferred. As a result,
methods of study, data collection procedures, and analysis techniques were triangulated.
There were six phases of the design: pilot test, pre-task questionnaires, intervention tasks
(focus group discussion, information gap activity, reading comprehension texts), and
post-task questionnaires in a within-subject experimental design (i.e., the same
participants were used in the pre-task and the post-task questionnaires). In order to
analyze both qualitative and quantitative data, frequency counts for the pre-task surveys,
inferential chi-squares, matched t- test, one-way ANOVAs, content analysis, discourse
analysis and native speaker intuition were used to provide a comprehensive view of the
harmonization phenomenon.

Chapter Four presented and analyzed data in several stages: preconceived
attitudes, effect of intervention tasks through matched t- test, and reading judgment test.
The first part of data analysis showed that the 48 participants representing three varieties:
Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho had positive attitudes on all the four themes outlined in
the questionnaires. First, responses on the clustering of Sotho language varieties on TV
showed a positive rating and that the differences between the three groups were not
statistically significant. Secondly, attitudes toward the use of Harmonized Sotho as the
medium of instruction in post primary education yielded the positive ratings in all the

three language varieties. Differences between the language varieties were not statistically

195

significant. The third theme, mutual intelligibility, had the highest rating with no
statistically significant differences between the three language groups. Finally, the
harmonization theme was rated positively with no statistically significant differences
between the groups. The results are conclusive that pre-task attitudes of the 48
participants were positive, and that there were no statistically significant differences
between the three Sotho language groups. The findings were corroborated by the one-
way ANOVA analysis that sought to assess group differences on all the four themes
combined. The results showed that there were no statistically differences between the
language groups and between the themes. These results allowed the interpretation that
Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho participants involved in the study constituted a
homogenous group with regard to their positive attitudes toward harmonization.

The second part of data presentation and analysis involved the use of matched t-
tests that compared the attitudes of selected participants (N =12) in the pre-task and post-
task questionnaires. In order to meet the prerequisite for this parametric test, Anderson-
Darling Normality test was carried out, and it confirmed that the data were normally
distributed. The matched t-test results showed that the mean differences in three of the
four themes were statistically significant with post-task positive scores modified toward
more positive responses. These three themes are: (a) the clustering of languages, (b)
mutual intelligibility, and (c) the harmonization. On the converse, the results on the use
of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction in post primary education showed that
there were no statistically significant improvements after the intervention. It is however
noteworthy that the attitudes, which were positive already in the pre-task, did not change

toward a negative direction. Because the positive responses generally increased after the

196

intervention tasks, it seems possible to project that harmonization of Sotho language
varieties may not trigger negative attitudes that could hamper the unification process.

The next research question sought to determine whether the speakers of one
language variety could read and understand texts written in sister language varieties and
the harmonized form. A pass rate of 60% was set to measure the degree of mutual
comprehension of the texts. Through frequency counts and chi-square analysis, the study
sought to uncover if the speakers would pass the test and assess whether such a pass is
representative of the whole group.

First, Sepedi participants got 90% pass rate on the reading comprehension test and
different individual scores within the group were not statistically significant. This finding
allowed the interpretation that Sepedi speakers formed a homogenous group with regard
to their comprehension of the four texts used in the study. Contrary to the Sepedi
findings, the Setswana participants got a total group pass rate of 80% on all the texts
combined. The differences of individual scores within the group were statistically
significant. A close scrutiny of individual performance showed that one Setswana
participant got the lowest score (40%), which affected the whole group. A third group,
Sesotho participants, performed with a high score of 85%. Individual scores showed that
the differences within the Sesotho group were not statistically significant. The results
supported the null hypothesis and the interpretation that Sesotho participants
comprehended the texts in the same way.

Two separate one-way AN OVAs were carried out on the test scores in order to
assess differences between language groups and across the four texts (three written in

each of the Sotho language varieties and one written in Harmonized Sotho). The first

197

ANOVA test results showed that the differences between the Sepedi, Setswana, and
Sesotho mean scores were not statistically significant. This finding showed that there was
mutual reading between the language groups (i.e., they understood each text equally
irrespective of the language the text was written in and the speakers’ own language
varieties). The second one-way AN OVA sought to test differences in performance per
individual text: Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho and Harmonized Sotho text. The results of the
one-way AN OVA showed that there were no statistically significant differences on the

- texts. The results of both AN OVA tests showed that the participants’reading judgments
were equal irrespective of speakers’ language variety and language of the text. As a result
of this finding, it may be concluded that Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are not different
not only in spoken interactions, but also in the written texts and comprehension levels of
the readers. With mutual understandings of the existing texts in the three Sotho language
varieties, it would seem that the process unifying the present orthographies might not
require drastic changes in the new harmonized form. Therefore, the overall picture points
out that harmonization of Sotho orthographies will be feasible.

Chapter Five presented the results of qualitative analyses, which corroborated the
quantitative analyses in Chapter Four. Using a content analysis procedure, the responses
were divided into arguments for and arguments against harmonization. With regard to
arguments against harmonization, the responses cited the risk of ethnic conflict that may
be fueled by the new orthographic form among the ethnic groups. Secondly, the
respondents believed that harmonization might entail a formation of a new language,

which would be an urmecessary creation of a 12th language. The idea of a 12th language

198

shows that it is difficult for the respondents to conceptualize harmonization in practice.
To some respondents, harmonization remains a misconstrued concept.

The third dissenting view against harmonization was premised on the conception
that spoken and written registers are different; as a result, mutual understanding in spoken
speech would not necessarily entail mutual understanding of the written language.
However, later in the reading comprehension tasks, as reported above, there was mutual
reading intelligibility among the various texts written in the three dialects. Another
commonly held view against harmonization is the fear of losing cultures and identities.
The loss of cultures and identities became one of the chief arguments against Alexander’s
renewed proposal for harmonization in the early 19903, and it was debated in various
contexts (Webb, 2002). Webb (2002) refuted the claim on identities and cultures when
stating that the speech communities do not necessarily lose any culture or identity; rather,
they gain one because harmonization is additive, not subtractive as commonly
misconceived.

Several positive arguments for harmonization as a useful language planning
exercise in the post-Apartheid dispensation were presented. The first argument for
harmonization was based on the view that indigenous African languages are facing
extinction as a result of being marginalized in the official domains. Harmonization was
seen as an intervention measure to save the endangered African languages. Secondly, the
respondents held a view that harmonization would be cost-effective as it would reduce
the number of languages that are currently enshrined in the constitution. Furthermore, the
respondents made reference to the usefulness of harmonization by citing the national

anthem as a leading model in this direction. The final most argued point is development

199

of national unity among the ethno-linguistically divided people, which is needed in the
framework of nation-building and national unity that are central in the post-Apartheid
South Africa. When Harmonized Sotho is developed, the ethnic differences could be
reduced, as the people would have a common tool of cultural expression.

The next theme that showed another division of opinions was the use of
Harmonized Sotho as the medium of instruction, especially in the post-primary school
education. One main argument against using Harmonized Sotho as the medium of
instruction was that Harmonized Sotho would not have the market value to ensure social
mobility among speakers who used it in school. This view led to a second related
argument that it is best to use English for purposes of education because it is an
international language. On the other hand, the arguments for using Harmonized Sotho
were equally presented. The first one was that the harmonized form would minimize the
existing classroom problem where students do not understand the subject matter
presented to them in English as evidenced by a high rate of code—switching. The second
argument related to this was that using a language form familiar to students would
improve the pass rate, which is staggeringly low. The use of Harmonized Sotho was
therefore seen as an intervention measure to redress the educational problems affecting
speakers of indigenous Afiican languages.

Chapter Five also presented an analysis of the actual utterances elicited from the
focus group and the information gap interactions. Using the Cooperative Principle,
analysis of bi-dialect and tri-dialect conversational segments showed that the discussants
observed the conversational maxims of relation, quality, quantity and manner in ways

that allow claims for mutual intelligibility to be made. Additionally, it was shown that

200

the interlocutors were able to explicate some of the implicatures during the focus group
discussions. Deeper understanding of each other’s variety was shown when the
discussants were able to act on the illocutionary meanings implied in the utterances. The
participants’ ability to differentiate locutionary from illocutionary meanings and react
relevantly to the implied meaning (perlocutionary force) demonstrated without doubt that
the language differences had no impact on mutual intelligibility.

In addition, the information gap activity, which involved an orange game, was
carried out to assess not only that the speakers mutually understood each other in the
interaction, but also that they were able to reach a communicative goal. The results of this
analysis showed that the discussants remained focused on the topic and cooperated to
bring about a satisfactory solution for every group. The results were achieved due to
observations of the conversational maxims and the discussants’ ability to explicate
illocutionary meanings, which could have led to misunderstandings if the interlocutors
had only a limited comprehension of the language in question. These findings were
supported by personal observations from native-speakers involving the researcher and
two research assistants who have proficiency in all the three language varieties. Taken
together, a coherent view was presented that Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are mutually
intelligible in terms of speaker interactions. Unlike in the previous studies where morpho-
syntactic, lexical and phonological analyses were used to assess mutual intelligibility,
discourse patterns were used in this study to show mutual intelligibility regarding speaker
interactions. This finding bodes well for the harmonization proposal and restates the view
that Sotho language varieties are variants of the same language befitting the category of

dialects, not distinctive languages.

201

The last section of Chapter Five compared and contrasted qualitative responses of
the speakers who participated in the interactions to assess whether there were changes of
attitudes in the post-task responses. The qualitative responses based on open-ended
questionnaire showed a general shift of negative responses toward more positive
responses. That is, the intervention tasks, interactions and reading tasks, have increased
the participants’ view that harmonization is a feasible project given their own experiences
during the intervention tasks. This increase in positive responses provides sufficient
confidence that Harmonized Sotho might turn out to be a favorable linguistic path in

language planning.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main conclusion of the study is that harmonization of Sotho language
varieties is feasible given the (1) positive attitudes of the student population, (2) their
mutually intelligible interactions and (3) mutual understanding of each other’s written
texts. These three factors provided evidence that Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho fit the
description of dialects of the same language, rather than three independent languages as
enshrined in the Constitution. The results also allow conclusions to be drawn that the
linguistic intelligibility observed elsewhere (e.g., Mwisa, 2002; Matubatuba, 2002;
Makalela, 2005) is reciprocated with actual spoken repertoires and language attitudes,
which all showed a strong support for the harmonization process. In accordance with the

purpose of the study, the following specific findings can be outlined:

202

a. Pre-task attitudes of the participants were largely positive toward clustering of
the languages on national TV, use of Harmonized Sotho as the medium of
instruction in post-primary education, mutual intelligibility and
harmonization. As both the chi-square and one- way AN OVA analyses
demonstrated, Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho formed a homogenous speech
community as far as their attitudes are concerned.

b. There is no communication barrier when Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho
speakers are immersed in conversations as shown with the bi-dialect and tri—
dialect interactions. The results showed that speakers do not only observe the
conversational maxims of relation, quality, quantity and manner as would be
the case in normal dialogues among native speakers, they are also able to
explicate the illocutionary meanings, and react appropriately. In brief,
communicative practices showed that Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are
mutually intelligible.

c. Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho speakers not only have a deeper understanding
of each other’s variety, they are also able to reach communicative goals. The
orange game showed that they could negotiate, repair conversations and
resolve complex situations using their own speech varieties.

(1. Speakers of Sotho language varieties can read and understand texts written in
sister language varieties and in the harmonized text. The one-way ANOVA
tests demonstrated that reading comprehension in the speakers' own language
varieties was equivalent to reading comprehension in the sister language

varieties. The high degree of mutual comprehension suggested that unification

203

'of the orthographies might turn out not to be a complex task, requiring radical
changes to the already existing orthographies.
e. The intervention tasks, which immersed the speakers in actual speech
interactions, changed the preconceived attitudes toward more positive ratings.
This finding is indicative of the feasibility of the harmonization process as it

would not trigger negative evaluations.

Based on the findings, this study can be concluded with Matubatuba’s telling

observation that:

Because of the level of mutual intelligibility of these languages, I strongly believe
that we might not even need dictionaries as a matter of urgency while doing
projects such as skill development to the illiterate masses and medium of

instruction through the special lingua franca (Matubatuba, 2002, p. 255).

Matubatuba’s (2002) view is supported by the conclusions drawn from this study
in two respects. First, speakers of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho communicated with
each other without a need for mediators or some reference book. Secondly, all the three
dialects (special lingua franca) were used as the media of communication as would be the
case among speakers of the same language. It is, therefore, noteworthy that the
differences between these varieties were exaggerated, and that their unification can
proceed without major linguistic and attitudinal problems, if any. Harmonization of the

Sotho dialects as concluded from this study remains the task of language planners and

204

policy makers who should declare the dialects a single language and develop a single
orthographic representation that would be used in all official domains. Matubatuba’s
belief for lesser work due to many commonalities in the varieties does hold.

The conclusion that the Sotho dialects are mutually intelligible and that their
harmonization can be a feasible project among South African language planners has

direct Language Planning and Policy (LPP) implications. These are described below:

(a) Since the current Constitutional provisions (SA, 1996) accorded Sepedi,
Setswana, and Sesotho separate identities and labels in its declaration of 11
official languages, there is a need for revision of these Constitutional provisions.
In the new language policy, Sotho should be stipulated as a language covering all
its dialects (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho). This first decision stage falls
squarely within the LPP procedure of status planning.

(b) Redefining the status of the Sotho language will reduce the number of indigenous
African languages accorded official status from nine to seven. With similar
harmonization practices in the Nguni languages, the actual languages proscribed
in the constitution will be reduced to 4 indigenous languages. These languages
may include Harmonized Sotho (Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho) and Harmonized
Nguni (isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, Siswati), which will become South Afiica’s
two major national languages as advocated for in the Nhlapo-Alexander proposal
for harmonization. Tshivenda and Xitsonga, which are national minorities, should
be listed as such but with a high regional status in the Limpopo Province where

they dominate.

205

(c) Deliberate political mandate should be created to support Harmonized Sotho
within the broad scope of multilingualism. For example, users of Harmonized
Sotho could be required to learn one of the Nguni languages or their harmonized
form and vice-versa. Similarly, speakers of Nguni or Sotho should be required to
learn any of the national minority languages by the time they complete their high
school. In this way, development of stronger languages through the harmonization
process would not eradicate the minority languages, especially in the Limpopo
province where Xitsonga and Tshivenda are predominantly spoken.

(d) Language planners should begin with corpus planning activities involving
development of a common dictionary and orthography suitable for the
Harmonized Sotho.

(e) Finally, the policy makers should be tasked with marketization of these languages
as goods and commodities so that they are tied to economic mobility in all

domains of South African life (education, media, politics, etc).

It is noteworthy that the conclusions drawn from this study on Sotho harmonization

have far reaching implications in changing the linguistic landscape of South Africa with

specific reference to the practices and use of indigenous African languages. As Alexander

(2001), Prah (2002a, b) and Smitherman (2000) point out, it is the political will upon

which the future of indigenous Afiican languages rests. Smitherman applauded the

recognition of indigenous African languages for the first time in the Constitution as the

first major step in decolonizing the minds, but warned that “it has to be made real (2000,

p.331). Unification of orthographies of mutually intelligible languages, as the findings of

206

this study show, could be another step forward in changing the linguistic landscape of

South Africa.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

There are far-reaching implications for further studies on the harmonization

process in South Afiica. The following research options are recommended:

(1) The results of the present study apply only to the selected language group,
Sotho, and it is not known yet whether languages in the Nguni group (isiZulu,
isiXhosa, isiNdebele and Siswati) would display similar degrees of mutual
intelligibility when their speakers are immersed in interactions and readings of
each other’s text. Research on mutual intelligibility among the Nguni speaking
population is necessary because this group went through the same disintegration
and dialect differentiation as the Sotho group. J okweni (2002) articulates this

view succinctly when stating:

Thinking about the disintegration or opting out Siswati from isiZulu and
more recently, isiNdebele from isiZulu, one cannot help imagining how
much linguistic unity would have been achieved had the disintegration

question not taken place (p. 178).

J okweni’s observation, like many others, is a speculation of linguistic unity among

the Nguni language varieties. Empirical studies in this area are urgently needed in the

207

future to assess whether the degree of unity that can be claimed and whether
harmonization is feasible through replication of the research design developed in this
study.
(2) Given the small nature of the samples used in the study, much larger samples
replicating the methodologies applied in the study would be useful to augment the
harmonization question in South Afiica.

(3) The present study used students as informants due to their likely influential role in
the future language roles and politics of their country. The findings have opened
up more possibilities for studies with other population groups like parents,
politicians, and policy-makers themselves.

(4) The mixed feelings shown in the qualitative responses (e. g., national unity versus
loss of culture and identity) need closer scrutiny in much larger studies. These
feelings show that there is a need for open discussions and clarifications on how
national unity and cultural identity are not mutually exclusive with regard to

development and functionality of mutually intelligible language varieties.

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing the
orthographies of Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho, which were differentiated by missionary
linguists in the 19th century. Different from other studies, the current study focused on
actual language practices as represented in speech through focus group discussions and in
writing through the reading comprehension task. Further, it involved the attitudes of
speakers whose languages were proposed for the harmonization process. The main

finding of the study is that these varieties of Sotho are mutually intelligible (in speech

208

and writing) to the extent that their harmonization could proceed without linguistic and
attitudinal barriers. The favorable attitudes toward this project as evidenced by the
participants’ responses offered confidence that the student population, which will
represent the adult community in the near future, approves of the merger of the Sotho
orthographies. While some attitudinal problems were highlighted such as the fear of loss
of culture and identity, arguments for national unity and development of the
harmonization adventure sampled through the national anthem may prove strong as South
Africa evolves into a leading Renaissance African state. It would seem that anything less
than harmonization in future language planning would be a betrayal of the re-making of
the African identities that were disinvented in the past through divide and rule policies.
Apart from the economic reasons of reducing the number of languages and translation
costs, and use of the harmonized form for education purposes, harmonization has political
gains of uniting the people, who had a long history of ethno-linguistic divisions during
the Apartheid era, through a common cultural means of expression. All things being
equal, however, it is incumbent on the political will to make this linguistic renaissance a

reality.

209

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: INVITATION ADVERT

Participation in Sotho Research Project

Students who speak Sepedi, Setswana, and Sesotho are invited to participate in a research
project as participants. The project involves filling of questionnaires written in any of the
three languages. A small number of the participants will be selected to participate in the
second phase of the project—focus group discussion, orange game, and reading
comprehension. You must:-

- Be a native speaker of one of the three Sotho varieties

- Be a first year student on campus

-Be from NorthWest Province if you speak Setswana

-Be from Free State Province if you speak Sesotho

-Be from Limpopo Province if you speak Sepedi

If interested, come and enlist your name in office 7008, 6th floor New K-block.

Thank you

210

APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM

This is a consent form regarding your participation in my research project entitled:
“Language harmonization in South Africa: Practices and attitudes of university
students”. The purpose of the study is to investigate the feasibility of harmonizing
languages in the Sotho cluster (Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho) into one written standard.
The study focuses on the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of the native speakers of the
three language varieties and assesses the degree to which these varieties are mutually
comprehensible. There are two phases of the study. The first one involves filling in a
questionnaire and the second phase includes verbal interactions with speakers of other
languages in the Sotho group, responding to reading passages, filling in a post-test
questionnaire and participating in a final interview. You may be selected to participate in
the second phase of the project. If you are selected, you will be asked to travel to
Johannesburg (Wits University campus) to meet and interact with speakers from other
Sotho language varieties. This will take place over a weekend (leaving your campus on
Friday evening and returning on Sunday morning) for an estimated total of 36 hours.
With funding from Compton Peace Fellowship, your transportation, 2-day hotel
accommodation (single room) and meals for the entire duration will be paid for. Avis
Rental car will be used for transportation, with travel insurance included for your return
trip. All your verbal interactions during the focus group discussions and information gap
activities will be video—recorded.

The estimated time requested for your participation in the first phase of the study is

30 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. You can withdraw from participation at any

211

point if you wish to do so and there will be no penalty resulting from your
discontinuation. You are also free to respond to only parts of the research instruments
that you wish.

Your personal information will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. All the videotaped data will be locked in a personal computer and the tapes will be
destroyed after three months when necessary transcriptions are complete. The data you
provide for the study will be treated with strict confidentiality and no identifying
' information will be used in the writing up of the dissertation. Please ask at any stage
while you are filling in the questionnaire or participating in activities of the second phase.
Your participation will not involve any additional costs to you or your health care insurer.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact Professor Peter
Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS), Michigan State University, by phone at (517) 355 2128 or fax (517) 432-

4503, email ucrihs@msu.edu or mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.

Yours Sincerely,

Leketi Makalela

My contact information is:
Private Bag x 1106
Sovenga, 0727

Email: makalela@msu.edu

212

Cell: 0829608508

1 voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
Signature ................................ Date .............. / ............. / ................
I also agree to have my verbal interactions video-recorded.

Signature ........................ Date ........ '.../ ............... / ..................

213

APPENDIX C: PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE (English version)

Part 1:

Please say whether you agree or disagree with these statements. There are no wrong or

right answers. Please be as truthful as possible. Put an X after YES if you agree or after

NO if you disagree with the statements 1-34:

Example: English is an indigenous African language
YES[ ....... ]NO[...X....]

A. The multilingual policy

1. South Africa’s multilingual policy that recognizes 11 official languages can promote

the use of indigenous African languages in public spheres.

YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

2. I agree with the number of languages as outlined in the constitution (Sepedi,
Setswana, Sesotho, IsiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati, Xitsonga, Tshivenda,
English and Afiikaans).

YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

3. Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana and SesOtho) should be grouped under one
category for administrative and educational purposes.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ........ ]

4. Nguni language varieties (isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati) should be grouped

under one category for administrative and educational purposes.

YES[ .......... ]NO[ ......... 1

214

B. Use and attitudes toward Sotho languages
5. Sotho language varieties can be used as the media of instruction beyond primary
school education.
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ....... ]
6. Sotho languages can be used for scientific and technological subjects
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]
7. Learning in my home language can improve my understanding the subject matter.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
8. a. I am interested in learning Sepedi as a course at the university.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

b. I am interested in learning Setswana as a course at the university.
YES [ .......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

c. I am interested in learning Sesotho as a course at the university.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

215

C. Mutual comprehensibility
9. Sotho languages have more similarities than they have differences
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]
10. I like watching the news or movies in other Sotho languages (other than my
own).
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ........ ]
l 1. a. I can understand when I listen to Sepedi (e.g., on TV)
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]
b. I can understand when I listen to Setswana (e.g., on TV).
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
c. I can understand when I listen to Sesotho (e.g., on TV).
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
12. a. I believe Sepedi speakers can understand when I use my own language.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
b. I believe Setswana speakers can understand when I use my own language.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ .......... ]
1 c. I believe Sesotho speakers can understand when 1 use my own language.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ....... ]
13. Conversations among Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho speakers can go on without
major difficulties in understanding words or phrases used by speakers from all the
languages.

YES[ ...... ]NO[ ....... 1

216

14. a. I will be able to understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Sepedi.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ...... ]
b. I will be able to understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Setswana.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ....... ]
c. I will be able to understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Sesotho.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]

D. Harmonization

15. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho very close that they can be treated as a single language.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ......... ]

16. I think these languages can be unified in writing.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]

l7. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho should be grouped in one TV channel.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

l8. 1 will be happy to have Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho unified in writing as in the

national anthem.

YES[ ......... ]NO[ ......... ]

19. The Sotho version of the national anthem: Morena boloka sechaba sa hesu forms part
of my home language.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
20. I will be able to understand the unified Sotho writing.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
21. Harmonized Sotho language can be used as a standard written variety among speakers

of Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho.

217

YES [..- ....... ] NO [ ......... ]
Part II
21. There is a proposal to unify the written forms of Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho for
educational purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Give

your answer and reasons for it below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

22. Can Sotho languages be used as the media of learning and teaching in higher levels

of education? Please give your answer and reasons below:

 

 

 

 

23. Would it be easy for speakers of Sotho languages to read texts written in a

harmonized Sotho language? Support your answer.

 

 

218

 

 

24. Do you think communication among the Sotho language speakers is possible, without

translators? Give your answer and reasons thereof:

 

 

 

 

 

25. Would you be interested in having your language unified with languages in the Sotho

group? Give your answer and reasons below:

 

 

 

 

26. Any other issues on uniting writing systems of the Sotho languages? Please use the

space below (You can use the back side of the questionnaire if you need more space:

 

 

 

 

219

Part III

27. Age ....................... years old
28. Gender: Male ................... Female ...........
29. Home language/s .................. / .......................

30. Other languages you that know:

 

31. Years at university (e.g., 2nd, 3rd)

33. 1 have been in contact with other Sotho language speakers
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]

34. Would you be willing to participate in the second phase of the study
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

T hank you for your participation!

220

APPENDIX D: POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE

Part I:
Please say whether you agree or disagree with these statements. There are no wrong or
right answers. Please be as truthful as possible. Put X after YES if you agree or after NO
if you disagree with the statements 1-32:
Example: English is an indigenous African language
YES ....... NO...X.....
A. Multilingual policy and language clustering
1. Indigenous African languages can be promoted through 11 official languages policy.
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ...... ]
2. We need to retain the policy of 11 official languages.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ....... ]
3. Sotho language varieties (Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho) should be grouped under one
category for administrative and educational purposes.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
4. Nguni language varieties (isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati) should be grouped
under one category for administrative and educational purposes.
YES [ .......... ] NO [ .........
B. Use Sotho languages and their harmonized form as media of instruction
5. Sotho language varieties can be used as the media of instruction beyond primary

school education.

221

YES [ ....... ] NO [ ....... ]
6. Sotho languages can be used for scientific and technological subjects
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ........ ]
7. Learning in my home language can improve my understanding the subject matter.
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ....... ]
8. a. I am interested in learning Sepedi as a course at the university.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

b. I am interested in learning Setswana as a course at the university.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

c. I am interested in learning Sesotho as a course at the university.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]

Give reason for your answer:

............................................................................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

C. Mutual comprehensibility
9. Sotho languages have more similarities than they have differences

YES[ ....... ]NO[ ........ ]

222

10. 1 like watching the news or movies in other Sotho languages (other than my
own).
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]
11. a. I can understand when I listen to Sepedi
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ........ ]
b. I can understand when I listen to Setswana
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
c. I can understand when I listen to Sesotho
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
12. a. I believe Sepedi speakers can understand when I use my own language.
YES [.......] NO[ ...... ]
b. Setswana speakers can understand when I use my own language.
YES [.......] NO [ ...... ]
c. Sesotho speakers can understand when I use my own language.
YES [.......]NO[ ...... ]
l3. Conversations among Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho speakers can go on without
major difficulties in understanding words or phrases used by speakers from all the
languages.
YES [.......] NO[ ....... ]
14. a. I can understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Sepedi.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
b. I can understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Setswana.

YES[ ....... ]NO[ ......... ]

223

c. I can understand most of the written words/ phrases used in Sesotho.
YES [ ...... ] NO [ ......... ]

D. Harmonization
15. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho very close that they can be treated as a single language.
YES [ ........ ] NO [ ......... ]
16. I think these languages can be unified in writing.
YES [ ....... .] NO [ ....... ]
17. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho should be grouped in one TV channel.
YES [ ....... ] NO [ ......... ]
18. I will be happy to have Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho unified in writing as in the
national anthem.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
19. The Sotho version of the national anthem: Morena boloka sechaba sa hesu forms part
of my home language.
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
20. I will be able to understand the unified Sotho writing
YES [ ......... ] NO [ ......... ]
21. Harmonized Sotho language can be used as a standard written variety among speakers

of Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho.

YES[ ......... ]NO[ ......... 1

Part II:

22. There is a proposal to unify the written forms of Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho

224

for educational purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this

proposal? Give your answer and reasons for it below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Can Sotho languages be used as the media of learning and teaching in higher

levels of education? Please give your answer and reasons below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Would it be easy for speakers of Sotho languages to read texts written in a

harmonized Sotho language? Support your answer.

 

 

 

 

225

25. Do you think communication among the Sotho language speakers is possible,

without translators? Give your answer and reasons thereof:

 

 

 

 

 

26. Would you be interested in having your language unified with languages in the

Sotho group? Give your answer and reasons below:

 

 

 

 

27. Any other issues on uniting Sotho languages? Please use the space below (You

can use the back side of the questionnaire if you need more space:

 

 

 

 

Part III

28. Age ....................... years old

29. Gender: Male ................... Female ...........

30. Home language/s .................. / .......................

226

31. Other languages you that you know:

32. Years at university (e.g., 2nd, 3rd)

 

Thank you for your participation!

227

APPENDIX E: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (English translation)

1. Using your mother tongue, present your Opinions about the (a) causes of ethnic
stereotypes, (b) dangers of the stereotypes and (c) possible ways of resolving
stereotypes in South Africa. Part (a) will be answered by Sepedi participants, (b)
by Setswana and (c) by Sesotho mother tongue speakers.

2. You are expected to listen carefully when speakers from language varieties other
than your own speak so that you can ask for clarification, agree and/or disagree
with points raised.

3. Everyone should use his/her mother tongue for all communications on this

subject.

228

APPENDIX F: INFORMATION GAP TASK (English translations)

a. Instructions for Sepedi participants

Your leader is dying of influenza and, as the traditional healer instructed, he needs this
only remaining orange in the country to save his life. Negotiate with your Setswana and
Sesotho counterparts so that they allow you to get the orange. Make your case and

convince them why you, not them, should get the orange.

b. Instructions for Setswana participants:

Oranges have become extinct in the North West province. One of the farmers from
Mabopane promised you that he can help multiply the number of oranges when and only
if he could get the only remaining orange in the country. Negotiate with your Sepedi and
Sesotho counterparts so that they allow you to get the orange. Make your case and

convince them why you, not them, should get the orange.

c. Instructions for Sesotho Speakers

Your city, Phutaditshaba, is faced with drought and there’s only one water engineer
remaining for the whole city. But the engineer is very sick after he was thirsty for more
than 7 days The doctors recbmmended that he gets an orange so that he can recover to
continue with his water project to save the city. There is only one orange remaining in the

country that you should get. Negotiate with your Setswana and Sepedi counterparts so

229

that they allow you to get the orange. Make your case and convince them why you, not

them, should get the orange.

APPENDIX G: READING COMPREHENSION

Read each of the passages below and answer questions 1-6 under each. Encircle

TRUE if you agree with the statements and FALSE if you do not.

Passage 1

Ke ngola tjena ke diphateng, ha ke na le motho ya ntlhokomelang. Pelo ya ka e dutla
madi ka moo ke sa kgoneng le ho hlalosa, empa ha ke battle ho o tshwenya ka dillo tsa
ka, hobane ke a tseba hore le wenn 0 na le mathata a hao. Hoja me a ne a sa ntse a phela,
a ka be a na le nna ditsietsing tsena tseo ke leng hara tsona, a ntshedisa, moradi eo wa
Phokeng.

Mohlomomg o tla ipotsa hore aubuti Molemi o kae ha ke le mathatheng a tj ena. Tsa
hae di ngata, ke tla o bolella tsona. Nka be ke o letsetsa, empa mohala ha e sale 0
kgaolwa ka kgwedi ya Phato, lemong seo re tswang ho sona (Mangolo a nnake, N.P

Maake, 1999).

Questions (English translations)
1. Write the equivalent of “mohlomong” in your mother
tongue ............................

2. The writer is sick

TRUE ......... FALSE ...............

230

3. Why did the writer not call? ......................................................................
4. What does mathatheng mean? ..................................................................
5. The writer complains about another person.

TRUE ......... FALSE .................

6. Are there words you misunderstood? If yes, name them in the space below:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Passage 2

Mosong wa letsatsi 1e 1e latelang, Senatla o tsositswe ke Simone a kokota. Fa a bula
lebati a kopana le monko o o monate wa lengola, melodi ya dinonyane le medumo ya
diphologolo ka go farologana. Pelo ya gagwe ya be ya boela kwa Mafika.

Simone o ne a tla a phutheletse Senatla dijo tsa gagwe tse a lesetseng a di tsholetswe
go lalela. A tlhalosetsa tsala ya gagwe fa mmaagwe a letse a sa mo letla go tla go itisa le

bona. Senatla 1e ena a mmolelela thankga e a lesetseng a e duba ka Thabo.

Questions (English translations)
1. How did Simone wake Senatla up? ......................................
2. When did the event take place? .......................................
3. There were melodies of birds when Senatla got up.
TRUE ....... FALSE ..............
4. What is the word for “sun” in your mother tongue?

5. Senatla had troubles with Thabo

231 -

7.

TRUE ......... FALSE ...............

Are there words you misunderstood? If yes, name them in the space below:

...................................................................................................

Passage 3

Taba ye e ile ya bonwa ke dikgalabje le di kgekolo tse di bego di setse di palelwa, di

sepela ka a mararo. Ba ile ba thoma go makala, baswa ba thoma go ba tlaba, ba ba ba

makatsa gore na mekgwa ye mebjalo ba e nyantse kae. Ka nnete taba ye ebe ele e kgolo

mo motseng wa Maune.

Questions (English translations)

1.

2.

What is the equivalent of the word “Taba” in your mother tongue?

What are the two classes of citizens who had to see through this trouble?
There is a conflict between the youth and the elderly.

TRUE ........... FALSE ................

What is the word for “at the country”?

The elderly had three feet

TRUE .......... FALSE

Are there words you misunderstood? If yes, name them in the space below:

232

I rile bugulugulu ga bo gu li mutlhanka ya bitswang Androcles, ya neng a etswi hampi
thata ki mung wa gagwe, mmi a ikayelela gu ngwega. A tswa mo tlung ya mung wa
gagwe a nanya, mmi a ipata mo murung o kgakala le mutsi wa Carthage 00 ba agileng gu
ona. Androcles a kgarakgats'heha murung nako e telle, mmi murago a fihla lihaheng le
ligulu, ya ri ka hubani a fentswe ki mukgathala 1i tlala, a kena hu lona, a robala mmi a

tluha a thulamela thata.

' Androcles a tsuswa burokong ba gagwe ki hu pururna ha sibatana; mmi a mathela
munyako wa lihaha, a kopana li tau e tuna i emi tsileng ya gagwe. A libella huri u tla
gagautlhwa ki tau eu, mmi a ts'huha ha sibata sena si mu atamela ka bunolo si sa itshupi

ha si li buhali

Questions '(English translations):
7. The word bugulugulu means ............ in your mother tongue.
8. Adrocles was asleep
TRUE ...... FALSE ...........
9. He saw an animal running into a mountain hideout.
TRUE ............ FALSE ..............
10. The name of the animal is ................

l 1. The lion was dangerous

TRUE ...... FALSE .........

233

12. Are there words you misunderstood? If yes, name them in the space below:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

APPENDIX H: ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRES

A. SEPEDI QUESTIONNAIRE
SESOMISWA SA DINYAKISISO
I. Latlakala la dipotsiso tsa pele ga molekwana

Seripa sa pele:

ngtha ge e ba 0 a dumela goba o ganetsa seo se ngwadilwego ka mo fase.Ga go karabo
e nepagetsego goba e foéaget§egoBolela nnete ka mo 0 ka kgonago.Bont§ha karabo ya
gago ka leswao la X morago ga ge o dumela goba o ganetsa seo se ngwadilwego
mafokong 1-34:
Mohlala: English ke leleme leo le somiswago kudu mo Afrika
Ee[ ....... ] Aowa [...X....]
A. Sengwalwa sa maleme a semolao le kgobokanyo ya wona.

1. Molaotheo wa Afrika-Borwa wo o amogelago tshomiso ya maleme a lesome-tee 0 ka

hlatlosa tshomiso ya maleme a seAfrika mo mafapeng kamoka a setshaba

Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]
2. Ke dumela gore molaotheo o be le maleme a lesome-tee (Sepedi,Setswana, Sesotho,
IsiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, English and Afrikaans).

Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

234

3. Maleme kamoka a Sesotho (Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho)a swanetse go somiswa

bjalo ka polelo e tee mo mabakeng a thuto.
Ee [ ........ ] Aowa [ ........ ]

4. Maleme a Nguni ka moka (isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele, siSwati)a swanetse go
somiswa bjalo ka polelo e tee mo mabakeng a thuto.
Ee [ .......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]
B.T§homi§o le maikutlo malebana Ie maleme a dithutong
5. Maleme kamoka a Sesotho a ka somiswa bj alo ka maleme a tshedimoso(media of
instruction) ka godimo ga dithuto tsa primary
Ee [ ...... ] Aowa [ ....... ]
6. Maleme a sesotho a ka somiswa go thuto tsa mahlale le sethekgenolotsi
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ ........ ]
7. Go ithuta ka leleme la segageso go ka kaonafatsa kwesiso ya ka dithutong .
Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]
8. a. Ke na le kgahlego ya go ithuta Sepedi bjalo ka thuto kgetho unibesithing.
Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

Efa lebaka go karabo ya gago:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

b. Ke na le kgahlego ya go ithuta Setswana bjalo ka thuto kgetho unibesithi.

Ee [ .......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

235

Efa lebaka go karabo ya gago:

c. Ke na le kgahlego ya go ithuta Sesotho(Southem Sotho) unibesithi.
Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

Efa lebaka go karabo ya gago:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

C. Kwesisano ya maleme
9.Maleme ka moka(Sepedi,Setswana 1e Sesotho) a na le go swana kudu go feta phapano

ya 0 na .
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ ........ ]
10.Ke rata go lebelela ditaba goba di-movie tSa maleme a mangwe a Sesotho (Setswana
le Sesotho).
Ee [ ...... ] Aowa [ ........ ]
ll. a.Ke kgona go kwesisa Sepedi ge ke se theeleditse (mohlala, TV)
Ee [ ....... ]Aowa [ ........ ]
b.Ke kgona go kwesisa Setswana ge ke se theeleditse (mohlala, TV).
Ee [ ........ ] Aowa [ ......... ]
c. Ke kgona go kwesisa Sesotho ge ke se theeleditse(mohlala., TV).
Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

12. a. Ke a dumela gore baboledi ba Sepedi ba a kwesisa ge ke bolela polelo ya ka.

Ee [ ........ ] Aowa [ ......... ]

236

b. Ke a dumela gore baboledi ba Setswana ha a kwesisa ge kc bolela polelo ya ka .
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ .......... ]
c. Kc a dumela gore baboledi ba Sesotho ba a kwesisa ge kc bolela polelo ya ka.
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ ....... ]

13. Poledisano magareng ga Bapedi,Batswana,Basotho c ka tswela pele ntlc le ditshitiso
goba kwesisano magareng ga baboledi ba dipolelo tseo.

Ee [ ...... ] Aowa [ ....... ]
14. a. Nka kgona go kwesisa polelo yeo e ngwadilwego ka Sepedi.
Ee [ ........ ] Aowa [ ...... ]
b. Nka kgona go kwesisa polelo yco e ngwadilwego ka Setswana.
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa[ ....... ]
c. Nka kgona go kwesisa polelo yeo e ngwadilwego ka Sesotho.
Ec [ ........ ] Aowa [ ......... ]
D. Kopantsho ya maleme
5. Sepedi, Setswana le Sesotho ga di na phapano e kgolo,di ka somiswa bjalo ka leleme le
tee.

Ee [ ....... ]Aowa [ ......... ]
l6. Ke dumela gore dipolelo tse di ka kopantshwa tsa be tsa ngwalwa bjalo ka leleme 1e

1e tee.

Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ ........ ]
17. Sepedi, Setswana and Sesotho di swanetse di tswelepele go ba kanaleng e tee ya

thelebisene.

Ee [ ......... ]Aowa [ ......... ]

237

18. Nka thaba ge Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho di ka kgomantshwa ka go ngwalwa go
swana 1e ka moo di kopantswego ka gona mo koseng ya setshabaCNational
anthem).

Ec [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

19. Temana ya go emela maleme a Sesotho(Sepedi,Setswana,Scsotho)mo koseng ya
setshaba: Morena boloka sechaba sa heso”c bopa seripa sa leleme la segageso.

Ee [ ......... ] Aowa[ ......... ]
20. Nka kgona go kwesisa sengwalwa sa Sesotho sa go hlangwa ka maleme a Sesotho ao
a kgomantswego(unificd Sotho languages).

Ee [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]

21. Mongwalo wa Sesotho se hlakanego 0 ka somiswa bjalo ka mongwalo wo 0 ka

somiswago kc baboledi ba Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho mo dikolong 1e

dingwalong(literature).
Ee[ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]
Karolo ya Bobedi
22. Go na 1e tshisinyo ya go kopant§ha mcngwalo ya Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho go ba
polelo e tec.Naa o a dumela goba o ganana le tshisinyo e?E fa karabo 1e mabaka ka mo

fase :

 

 

 

 

 

238

 

23. Go ka kgonagala gore sesotho se kopantswego se somiswe bjalo ka leleme la

tshcdimo§o(medium of instruction) go ithuta le go ruta maemong a godimo a thuto?:Efa

karabo 1e mabaka a gona ka mo fase:

 

 

 

 

24. Go ka ba bonolo go diboledi t§a maleme ao a Sesotho go bala dipuka t§eo di

ngwadilWego ka Sesotho seo se kopantswego(harmonized sotho). Fahlela karabo ya

gago.

 

 

 

 

25. Na 0 a dumela gore poledisano magareng ga diboledi tsa Sepedi,Setswana,Sesotho

e a kgonega go sena ditoloki ? :Fahlela karabo ya gago

 

 

 

 

 

239

26. 0 ka rata go bona polelo ya gago e kopantswe 1e maleme a mangwe a Sesotho:

 

 

 

 

27. Bolela se sengwe mabapi le k0panyo ya maleme a Sesotho.Somi§a sekgoba sa ka

fase(O ka somisa letlakala la ka morago ge o sa nyaka sekgoba )go fahlela:

 

 

 

 

Karolo ya boraro

28. Mengwaga .......................

29. Bong: Monna ................... Mosadi ...........

30. Leleme la geno .................. / .......................

31. Maleme a mangwe a o a tsebago:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ’00.......OOOIOIOOCOCODOIOIO0.0.0,...0I....OOIOOCCOOOOOIQCCC0.00....

 

32. Mengwaga ya gago ya go ithuta (mohlala, 2nd, 3rd)
33. Ke bile le dikgokaganyo 1e diboledi tse dingwe tsa maleme a sesotho
Ee [ ....... ] Aowa [ ........ ]

34. 0 ka rata go tsea karolo legatong labobedi

240

Ec [ ......... ] Aowa [ ......... ]
Ke Ieboga ge le ts'ere karolo.I

B. SETSWANA QUESTIONNAIRE
TLHATLHOBO YA NTLHA YA DIPOTSO
@9104.
Ka kopo bua fa o dumelana kgotsa o ganetsana le mctlhala e fa tlasc. Ga go karabo e
siameng kgotsa c sa siamang. Leka go araba ka bonnete ka mo 0 ka kgonang. Baya
letshwao la X gaufi 1e Eya fa o dumelana kgotsa gaufi le Nyaa ga o ganetsana 1e mctlhala
1-34
Sekao: Sekgoa ke puo e theilweng mo Afrika. .

Eya[....] Nyaa[..X .]

A. Molao wa bontsi ba dipuo.

1. Molaotheo wa Afiica Borwa, o amogetseng maleme a 11 a semmuso, 0 ka tlhabolola
tiriso ya maleme a theilweng mo Afrika Borwa go di dirisiwa mo phatlhalatseng.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

2. Kc dumela gore molaotheo o nnc le dipuo tse 11 tsa semmuso. Re bua ka Sepedi,
Setswana, Sesotho, lsizulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele, siSwati, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, English,
1e Afiikaans.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

241

3. Dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho (Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho) di tshwanelwa ke go ka dirisiwa
jaaka puo e le nngwe mo mabakeng a metheo ya tsamaiso le a dithuto.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

4.Dipuo tsotlhe tsa ScNguni(isiZulu, isiXhosa,isiNdebcle,siSwati) di tshwanelwa ke go
jaaka puo e le nngwe mo mabakeng a metheo ya tsamaiso le a dithuto

Eya [....] Nyaa[. . ..]

B. Tiriso le maitsholo kgatlhanong le dipuo tsa Sesotho.

5. Dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho(Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho) , di ka kgona go dirisiwa jaaka
puo ya go ruta mo dikolong tse di kwa godimo tsa primary.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

6. Dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho(Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho) di ka dirisiwa mo dirutwaneng
tsa Saince le tsa Theknoloji.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

7. Go ithuta ka puo ya gaetsho go ka tokafatsa kutlwisiso ya me mo serutwancng se
serileng.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

8.a.Ke eletsa go ithuta Sepedi jaaka serutwa kwa Univesiting.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

F ana ka mabaka

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

b. Kc eletsa go ithuta Setswana jaaka serutwa kwa Univesiting

242

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]
Fana ka mabaka.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

c. Ke eletsa go ithuta Sesotho jaaka serutwa kwa Univesiting
Eya [....] Nyaa[....]
F ana ka mabaka.

C. Kamano e ikgethileng.

9. Dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho (Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho) di na lc mo d itshwana gona go
le gontsi go na le mo difapanang gona.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

10. Kc itumella go lebelela dikgang kgotsa motsarneko wa baesekopo ka dipuo tse
dinngwe tsa Sesotho (Sepedi,Sesotho).

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

1 la. Nka utlwisisa fa nka reeditse Sepedi.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

b. Ke ya utlwisisa fa kc reeditse Setswana.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

c. Kc ya utlwisisa fa kc reeditse Sesotho.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

243

12.a.Ke dumela fa Mopedi a ka nkutlwisisa fa kc bua puo ya gaetsho.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

b.Kc dumela fa Motswana a ka nkutlwisisa fa ke bua puo ya gaetsho.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

c.Ke dumela fa Mosotho a ka nkutlwisisa fa kc bua puo ya gaetsho.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

l3.Puisano magareng ga dibui tsa Setswana, Sesotho, Sepedi e ka kgona go tswella kwa
ntle ga mathata a magolwane.

Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

14.a.Nka kgona go tlhaloganya bontsi ba mafoko/mctlhala e e kwadilweng ka Sepedi.
Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

b. Nka kgona go tlhaloganya bontsi ba mafoko/metlhala e e a kwadilweng ka Setswana.
Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

c. Nka kgona go tlhaloganya bontsi ba mafoko/ mctlhala c e kwadilweng ka Sesotho.

Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

D. Kopano.

15.Sepcdi, Setswana, Sesotho di bapile mo ebileng di ka dirisiwa jaaka puo e le nngwe.
Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

16.Ke akanya gore dipuo tse di ka kopanngwa ka mokwalo,tsa dirisiwa jaaka puo e le
nngwe

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

244

17. Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho di tshwanelwa kc go dirisiwa mo tshancleng ele ngwe ya
Thelevishini.

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

18. Nka iturnela fa Sepedi,SetswanaSesotho di ka kopanngwa go kwala pina ya
bosetshaba.

Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

19. Temana ya dipuo tsotlhe Sesotho (Sepedi,Setswana,Sesotho) mo pineng ya
bosetshabazMorena boloka sechaba sa hesu kc karolo nngwe ya gaetsho.

Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

20.Nka kgona go tlhaloganya mokwalo o kopaneng wa dipuo dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho.
Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

21 .Go kopanngwa ga dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho (Sepedi,SetswanaSesotho) go ka dirisiwa
jaaka mokwalo o utlwisisiwang kc dibui magareng ga dipuo
tse(Sesotho,Sepedi,Setswana).

Eya [....] Nyaa[....]

Karolo II

22. Go na letshitshinyo ya gore Sepedi,Sesotho le Setswana di kopangwe go dira puo e le
nngwe go ka dirisiwa mo mabakeng a dithuto. A o dumelana le yona kgotsa o ganetsana

le yona tsitsinyo cc? Fana ka mabaka ka fa tlasc.

 

 

 

245

 

 

 

23.A dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho(Sepedi,Setswana,Sesotho) di ka dirisiwa jaaka dipuo tsa
go ithuta le go tsibosa 1e go dirisiwa mo dikolong tse dikgolwane tsa dithuto? Fana ka

karabo le mabaka ka fa tlase

 

 

 

 

 

24.A go ka nna bonolo gore dibui tsa dipuo tsotlhe tsa Sesotho

(Sepedi,Setswana,Sesotho) go ka buisa temana ee kwadilweng ka go tlhakangwa ga puo

tsa Sesotho? Fana ka karabo le mabaka.

 

 

 

 

 

25.A o nagana gore puisano magareng ga dibui tsa Sesotho c ka kgonagala kwa ntlc ga

toloki? Fa karabo le mabaka ka fa tlasc.

 

 

246

 

 

 

 

26. A 0 ka kgatlhega gore puo ya gago e ka kopangwa le dipuo tse dingwe tsa

Sesotho?Fana ka karabo 1e mabaka ka fa tlase.

 

 

 

 

 

27. A go na le bothata mo kopanong c ya dipuo tsa Sesotho? Dirisa karolo c e
tlogetsweng ka fa tlase.(kgotsa 0 ka dirisa karolo e e kwa morago ya bukana e e go araba

dipotso fa o tlhoka go ka kwala go le gontsi.

 

 

 

 

 

Karolo III
28.Dingwaga tsa gago .....................
29.Bong:Bonna ............. Botshadi ..............

30.Dipuo/puo tsa gaeno ...........................................................

247

31.Dipuo tse dingwe tseo o diitscng:

32.Dingwaga tsagago mo Univesiting .................. (sekao,2nd ,3rd )

33.Kc ntse ke kopana 1e dibui tse dingwe tsa dipuo tsa Sesotho.
Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

34. A 0 ka eletsa go tsaya karolo gape mo nakong e tlang ya thuto e.
Eya[....] Nyaa[....]

Re lebogela tirisano mmoho ya hao!

C. SESOTHO QUESTIONNAIRE

TOKOMANE YA DIPATLISISO (I)

KAROLO YA I:

Bolela bore 0 ya dumela kapa tjhe.Ha ho karabo c nepahetseng kapa c fosahctseng.Ka
kopo hle tshepahala.Beha letshwao la X ka pcla E ha 0 dumela kapa TJ HE ha 0 sa
dumele, ho tloha potsong ya 1-34.

Mohlala: English ke puo ya MaAfrika
E[ ....... ] TJHE [...X....]
A. Molao wa maleme a mangata

l. Molao wa Afiika Borwa wa dipuo tse fapafapancng,o amohetseng dipuo tse leshome

le motso 0 le mong 0 ka phaharnisa tshebediso ya dipuo tsa batho ba batsho.

248

E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
2. Ke dumellana le palo ya dipuo tse molaong tse hlahellang molaotheong wa naha
(Setswana, Sesotho,Sepedi,IsiZulu,IsiXhosa,IsiNdebele, siSwati,Xitsonga,Tshivcnda,
English and Afrikaans).

E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
3. Dipuo tsa Sesotho tse fapafapaneng (Sepedi,Setswana,Sesotho) di lokcla ho etswa puo

e 1e nngwe molemong wa thuto.

E[ ........ ] TJ HE [ ........ ]
4. Dipuo tsa Senguni (IsiZulu,Isixhosa,lsiNdcbele,1siSwati)di lokcla ho etswa puo e le
nngwe bakeng sa thuto .

E[ .......... ]TJHE[ ......... 1

B. Tshebediso le mekgwa kgahlanong 1e puo tsa Sesotho.
5. Dipuo tsa Sesotho tse fapafapaneng di ka sebediswa ho feta thutong ya dikolo tsa
primary.
E [ ...... ] TJHE [ ....... ]
6. Dipuo tsa Sesotho di ka sebediswa thutong tsa mahlale(science and technology)
E [ ....... ] TJ HE [ ........ ]
7. Ho ithuta ka puo ya heso ho ka nthusa ho utlwisisa dithuto tsa ka.
E [ ......... ] TJHE [ ......... ]

8. a. Nka thabela ho ithuta Sepedi jwalo ka enngwe ya dithuto university.

249

E[ ......... ]TJHE[ ......... ]

Fana ka lebaka ho tshehetsa karabo ya hao:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

b. Nka thabela ho ithuta Setswana jwalo ka enngwe ya dithuto university.

E[ .......... ]TJHE[ ......... ]

Fana ka lebaka ho tshehetsa karabo ya hao:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

c. Nka thabela ho ithuta Sesotho jwalo ka enngwe ya dithuto university.
E [ ......... ] TJHE [ ......... ]

Fana ka lebaka ho tshehetsa karabo ya hao:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

C. Kutlwisiso ya dipuo tse ding.

9. Kamano pakeng tsa puo tsa Sesotho e feta phapang pakeng tsa tsona.
E [ ....... ] TJ HE [ ........

10. Kc rata ho shcbella ditaba le dipalc tsa puo tse ding tsa Sesotho.
E [ ...... ] TJHE [ ........ ]

11. a. Kc a utlwisisa ha ke mametsc Sepedi.

E[ ....... ]TJHE[........]

250

b. Kc a utlwisisa ha kc mametsc Setswana .
E [ ........ ] TJHE[ ......... ]
c.Ke a utlwisisa ha ke mametsc Sesotho.
E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
12. a. Ke dumela hore batho ba buang Sepedi ba ka utlwisisa ha kc sebedisa puo ya ka.

E[ ........ ]TJHE[ ......... ]

b. Ke dumela hore batho ba buang Setswana ba ka utlwisisa ha kc sebedisa puo ya ka.

E [ ....... ] TJ HE [ .......... ]

c. Kc dumela hore batho ba buang Sesotho ba ka utlwisisa ha ke bua puo ya ka.

E [ ....... ] TJHE [ ....... ]
l3. Moqoqo pakeng tsa batho ba buang Sepedi, Setswana lc Sesotho 0 ka tswela pele ntle
ho mathata a kutlwisiso mahareng a batho ba buang dipuo tseo.

E [ ...... ] TJHE [ ....... ]
14. a. Nka kgona ho utlwisisa boholo ba dipolelo tse ngodilweng ka Sepedi.

E [ ........ ] TJ HE [ ...... ]

b. Nka kgona ho utlwisisa boholo ba dipolelo tse ngodilweng ka

Setswana.
E [ ....... ] TJHE [ ....... ]
c. Nka kgona ho utlwisisa boholo ba dipolelo tse ngodilweng ka Sesotho.

E[ ....... ]TJHE[ ....... ]

D. Kopantsho ya dipuo.

251

15. Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho di na 1c karnano e kgolo mme di lokelwa ho kopantshwa

hoba puo e le nngwe.
E [ ....... ] TJHE [ ......... ]

16. Kc nahana hore puo tsena(Sepcdi.Setswana le Sesotho) di ka ngolwa di kopantswe

mmoho.

E[ ....... ]TJHE[ ........ ]

17. Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho di ka tswela pele ho ba kanaleng(channel) e 1e nngwe ya
TV.

E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
18. Nka thabela ha Sepedi,Setswana leSesotho di ka kopantshwa ha ho ngolwa pina ya
sctjhaba.

E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
19. Scratswana sc cmetseng puo tsa Sesotho ho pina ya setjhaba: Morena boloka setjhaba
sa heso .ke karolo ya puo ya heso.

E [ ......... ] TJHE [ .........
20. Kc tla utlwisisa puo ya sesotho c ngotsweng e kopantswe.

E [ ......... ] TJ HE [ ......... ]
21. Puo ya Sesotho e kopantsweng e ka sebediswa boemong ba ho ngola hara batho ba

buang Sepedi,Setswana le Sesotho.

E [ ......... ]TJHE[ ......... ]

KAROLO YA BOBEDI

252

22. Ho na le tlhahiso ya hore dipuo tsa Sesotho di kopantshwe e be puo e le nngwe.Hobancng o

dumellana le taba e kapa hobancng 0 banana le yona ?Fana ka karabo lc lebaka lc e tshehetsang .

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Na puo ya Sesotho e kopantsweng c ka sebediswa dibakcng tsa thuto c

phahameng(medium of instruction)?Fana ka karabo 1c lebaka lc c tshehetsang.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Na ho tlaba bobebe ho batho ba buang dipuo tsa Sesotho ho bala sengolwa se

ngodilweng ka puo ya Sesotho c kopantsweng?Tshchctsa karabo ya hao ka

lebaka.

 

 

253

 

 

 

25. Na 0 nahana hore batho ba buang dipuo tsa Sesotho ba kgona ho bua mmoho ho

se toloko?Fana ka karabo le lebaka.

 

 

 

 

26. Na 0 ka thabela hore puo ya hao e kopantshwe le puo tse ding tsa Sesotho?Fana

ka karabo le lebaka.

 

 

 

 

27. Maikutlo a hao ke afe mabapi le taba c ya ho kopantshwa ha dipuo tsa Sesotho.

 

 

 

KAROLO YA BORARO

28. Dilemo tsa hao .......................

254

29. Bong: Motona ................... Motshehadi ...........
30. Puo ya/ tsa lapeng: .................. / .......................

31. Puo tse ding tseo 0 di tsebang:

........................ ’0'....OOUUOOOOOOCOOUOOOU.0......,...OD.IDOCUIOOO...O...‘...........

 

32. Selemo sa bokae university (mohlala, 2nd, 3rd)
33. Nkile ka qoqa le batho ba buang dipuo tse ding tsa Sesotho.
E[ ....... ] TJHE[ ........ ]
34. Na 0 ka thabela ho nka karolo mokgahlelong wa bobcdi wa thuto c?

E[ ......... ]TJHE[ ......... ]

Re lebohela tshebedisano mmoho ya hao!

255

APPENDIX 1: MATCHED T-TEST TABLES

1. Language Clustering on National Television

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairs Pre-task Post-task D D2
1 4 3 -1 1
2 2 3 l 1
3 2 1 -1 1
4 2 3 1 1
5 2 2 0 0
6 3 4 1 1
7 1 2 1 l
8 2 2 0 0
9 2 4 2 4
10 4 4 0 0
1 1 2 4 2 4
12 2 2 0 0

TOTALS 228 (x'=2.3) 234 (x*=2.83) 2D 8 20214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T m= 2.12, df=ll, P< 0.05

256

2. Use Of Sotho Language Varieties in Post-primary Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairs Pre—task Post-task D D2
1 5 5 o
2 3 1 -2 4
3 6 5 -1 1
4 3 6 3 9
5 2 3 1 1
6 5 5 o
7 2 3 1 1
8 4 4 o
9 5 1 -4 16
10 1 o -1 1
1 1 1 1 o
12 5 1 -4 16

TOTALS 42 (fr-3.5) 35 (F=2.9) = 5 ED2= 49

 

 

 

 

 

Tm= 1.07, df=ll, P>0.05

257

 

3. Matched t- test on Mutual Intelligibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairs Pre—task Post-task D D2
1 1 1 12 1 1
2 1 1 12 1 1
3 8 12 4 16
4 1o 12 2 4
5 10 12 2 4
6 1 1 1 1 o
7 6 12 6 36
8 10 8 -2 4
9 8 1 1 3 9
1o 7 9 2 4
1 1 9 12 3 9
12 7 12 5 25

TOTALS 108 (x‘=9) 135 (x’=11.25) 1)= 29 ED2= 113

 

 

 

 

 

Tobs= 3. 58, df=ll, P<0.05

258

 

4. Matched t- test for Harmonization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairs Pre-task Post-task D D2
1 6 7 1 1
2 4 6 2 4
3 2 7 5 25
4 5 5 o o
5 7 6 -1 1
6 6 7 1 1
7 3 5 2 4
8 6 7 1 1
9 2 5 3 9
1o 5 5 o o
1 1 6 7 1 1
12 4 6 2 4

TOTALS 56 (x1=4.6) 71 (x2=5.9) D=l7 ED2= 51

 

 

 

 

 

Tm= 3.14, df=Il, P<0.05

259

 

REFERENCES

Adegbija, F. (1994). Language attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. London: Kluver
Academy.

Afolayan, A. (1976). The six-year primary project in Nigeria. In A. Bamgbose.
(Ed.), Mother tongue education: The West African experience (pp.l 13-34).
London: Hodder and Stoughton; Paris: UNESCO Press.

Alexander, N. (1989). Language policy and national unity in South A frica/Azania. Cape
Town: Buchu Books.

(1992). Language planning from below. In R.K. Herbert. (Ed.), Language
and society in Africa: The theory and practice of sociolinguistics (pp. 143-149).
Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

 

(1995). Nation building and language in the new South Africa. In Putz, M.
(Ed.), Discrimination through language in Africa? Perspectives on the Namibian
experience (pp. 29-43). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

 

(1998). The political economy Of the harmonization Of the Nguni and the
Sotho languages. Lexicos, 8 (AFRILEX), 8:1-7.

 

(2001). Why the Nguni and the Sotho languages should be
harmonized. In K. Deprez. & T. Du Plessis. (Eds), Multilingualism and
government (pp. 1 71 -1 75). Pretoria. Van Schaik Publishers.

 

(2004). The African renaissance and the Afiican Academy Of languages:
Developments around the Afiican Academy Of Languages and their significance
for applied language studies. Keynote address at the International Conference of
the Southern African Aplied Linguistics Association (SAALA) on 13-15 July 2004
at the University Of Limpopo.

 

Balnaves, M. and Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to quantitative research methods.
London: Sage Publishers.

Bamgbose, A. (Ed.). (1976). Mother tongue education: The West Afi'ican experience.
Paris: The UNESCO Press.

(1991). Language and the nation: The language question in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

 

260

(2000). Language and exclusion. Consequences of language policies in
Africa. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

 

Banda, F. (2002).The curse of colonial orthographies: the case Of Sesotho. In K.K.Prah
(Ed.), Speaking in unison: Harmonisation and standardisation of Southern
Afiican languages (pp. 1-14). Cape Town: CASAS.

Barkhuizen, G. P. (2002). Language-in-Education policy: Students' perceptions Of the
status and role Of Xhosa and English. System, 30(4), 499-515.

Bokamba, E. (1995). The politics Of language planning in Africa: Critical choices
for the 21St century. In M. Putz (Ed.), Discrimination through language in Africa:
perspectives on the Namibian experience (pp. 12-27). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brock-Utne, B. (2004). English as the medium of destruction —how do teachers and
students cope? In B. Brock-Utne., Z. Desai. & M. QorrO. (Eds), Researching the
language of instruction in Tanzania and South Afi'ica. Cape Town: African Minds.

Christian, D. (1988). Language planning: The view from linguists. In F. J. Newmeyer
(Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey IV: Language, the sociocultural context
(pp. 193-209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Dc Klerk, V. and Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Language attitudes in the South Afiica
National Defence Force: Views from the Sixth South Afiican Infantry. Multilingua,
17 (2/3), 155-159.

Department Of National Education. (1994). South Afiica ’s new language policy: The
facts.

Doke, C. (1993). The earliest records Of Bantu. In H. Robert. (Ed.),
Foundations in Southern Afiican linguistics. (pp 25-32). Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.

Domyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction,
administration and processing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eastman, C. (1982). Language planning: An introduction. New York: Chandler and
Sharp publishers.

Fishman, J. A. (1971). National languages and languages Of wider communication in the

developing nations. In D. F orde. and W.H. Whiteley. (Eds), Language use and
social change: Problems of multilingualism with special reference to East A fiica (pp.

261

27-55). Oxford: Oxford University press.

Gouduah, A. (2003). Introducing an African language for teaching and learning at Wits
University. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 12 (13), 245-264.

Groenewald, H. (1995). The Afiican languages as instruments Of scientific work. In V.
Webb. (Ed.), Language in South A fiica : An input into language planning for a post-
apartheid South A fi'ica (pp. 281-282). Pretoria: Reseach and Development
Programme.

Grice, H. P.(l975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole &, J .L. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts, 3 (pp.41-58). New York: Academic.

Heine, B. (1992). Language policy in Africa. In R. K. Herbert. (Ed.), Language and
society in Africa: The theory and practice of sociolinguistics (pp. 23-25).
Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Heugh, K. (2002). Recovering multilingualism: Recent language-policy
developments. In R. Mesthrie. (Ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 449-475).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jokweni, M. (2002). Harmonizing African languages for African development: The case
Of Nguni languages. In K. K. Prah. (Ed.), Speaking in unison: Harmonisation and
standardisation of Southern African languages (pp. 177-190). Cape Town:
CASAS.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997). Multilingualism and education policy in post-apartheid
South Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 21 (3), 234-53.

(2000) Language policy and mother tongue education in South

Africa: The case for a market oriented approach. In J. Atlatis., H. E. Hamilton.
& A.Tan. (Eds) Georgetown Roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp.114-
129). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

 

(2001). The language planning situation in South Africa.
current issues in language planning, 2 (4), 361-445.

 

Kloss, H. (1978). Problems of language policy in South Afi'ica. Bonn: Wilhelm
Braumuller.

Macdonald, C. (1990). Crossing the threshhold into Standard 3. Main report Of the
threshhold project. Report SOLING-l6. Pretoria: Human Science Research
Council.

Makalela, L. (2005). We speak in Eleven Tongues: Reconstructing

262

multilingualism in South Afiica. In B. Brock-Utne. & R. Hopson. (Eds),
Language of instruction for Afiuican emancipation: Focus on postcolonial
contexts and considerations. Cape Town: CASAS & Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.

Makoni, S. (2003). From misinvention tO disinvention Of language: multilingualism
and the South African constitution. In S. Makoni., G. Smitherman, A. Ball, & A.
Spears. (Eds), Black linguistics: Language, society and politics in Africa and the
Americas (pp. 132-149). London and New York: Routledge.

Makoni S., Ridge, E., and Ridge, S. (Eds) (1999). The Emergence of a Discipline:
Essays in Applied Linguistics in Southern Afiica. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

Malherbe, E. (1977). Education in South Afi'ica, Volume 11. Cape Town: Juta.

Mansour, G. (1993). Multilingualism and nation building. Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.

Matubatuba, E. (2002). The Sotho-Tswana language group. In K.K. Prah. (Ed.), Speaking
in unison: Harmonisation and standardisation of Southern African languages
(pp.249-258). Cape Town: CASAS.

Mazrui, A. (2002). The English language dependency in African education:
dependency and decoloniza’tion. In J. Tollefson. (Ed.), Language policies in
education: Critical issues (pp.265-280). London: Lawrence Erlbarun Associates.

Mbcki, T. (2005). ANC Today. Electronic newsletter.

Miti, L. (2002). Genetic classificatiobn and harmonization Of the languages of Southern
Africa. In K. K. Prah. (Ed.), Speaking in Unison: Harmonisation and
standardisation of Southern African languages (pp. 43-62). Cape Town: CASAS.

Mmusi, S. (1996). Preliminary Report on the language Policy for the University of the
North. Mankweng: University Of the North.

Mtenje, A. (2002). Problems Of orthography standardization in Southern African
languages: The case Of Malawi. In K.K. Prah. (Ed.), Speaking in unison:
Harmonisation and standardisation of Southern Afiican languages (pp. 31-42).
Cape Town: CASAS.

Murray, S. (2002). Language issues in South African education: an overview. In
R. Mesthrie. (Ed.), Language in South Afiica. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Mwisa, P. (2002). A comparative analysis Of mutual intelligibility in the spoken and

written forms Of Sesotho, Setswana, and Lozi: A perspective on the
harmonization and standradisation of languages in the Sotho/Tswana cluster. In

263

K.K. Prah. (Ed.), Speaking in unison: Harmonisation and standardisation of
Southern African languages (pp. 259-282). Cape Town: CASAS.

Nakin, R. (2002). The Sotho-Tswana language group and harmonization. In K.K.Prah
(Ed.), Speaking in unison: Harmonisation and standardisation of Southern
Afiican languages (pp.237-248). Cape Town: CASAS.

Nhlapo, J. (1944). Bantu Babel. Will the Bantu languages live? Cape Town: The African
bookman.

(1945). Nguni and Sotho. A practical plan for the unification of the South
Afiican Bantu languages. Cape Town: The African bookman.

Ohia, I. N. (1998). Language Attitudes and the minority Status: A case study of Rivers
State of Nigeria. Ibadan: Human Research Centre.

Omer-COOper, J. D. (1994). History of Southern Afiica. Cape Town: David Phillip.

Pan South African Language Board (2000). Language, use and language
interaction in South Africa: A national sociolinguistic survey. Pretoria: PAN SALB.

Phaswana, N. (2000). The languages Of use by the South African government.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.

(2003). Contradiction or affirmation. The South Afiican language policy
and the South Afiican Government. In S. Makoni., G. Smitherman, A. Ball, & A.
K. Spears. (Eds). Black linguistics: Language, society and politics in Afiica and
the Americas. London and New York: Routledge.

 

Prah, K. K. (1995). African languages for the mass education of Afiicans. Bonn:
Education, Science, and Documentation Centre.

(Ed.). (1998). Between Distinction and Extinction. Harmonization and
standardization of African languages. Johannesburg: Wits Press.

(Ed.). (2002a). Speaking in unison: Harmonisation and standardisation of
Southern Afiican languages. Cape Town: CASAS.

(E.d.). (2002b). Rehabilitating Afiican languages. Cape Town. CASAS.

(2001). The idea Of an Afiican renaissance, the language Of the renaissance
and the challenges Of the 21St century. In K. Eisei. (Ed.), Rewriting Africa:
Toward renaissance or collapse?(pp. 173-191). Osaka: Japanese Center for Area
Studies.

(1993). Mother tongue for scientific and technological development in Afi'ica.

264

Bonn: German Foundation for International Development.

Prah, K. K. & King, Y. (Eds). (1998). In tongues: African languages and the challemges
Of development. Cape Town: CASAS.

Reagan, T. (1986). The role Of language policy in South African education.
Language Problems and Language Planning, 10 (1),l-l3.

(1988) The "language struggle" in South Africa: Emergence and
development in educational policy. 1987-1988 World Education Monograph
Series, 1.

(2001) The promotion Of linguistic diversity in multilingual settings:
Policy and reality in post-apartheid South Africa. Language Problems &
Language Planning, 25 (1), 51-72.

Republic of South Africa. (1996). The Constitution of the Republic of South Afiica (Act
108 Of 1996. As adopted on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by the
Constitutional Assembly).

Roy-Campbell Makini, Z.M. (2000). The language Of schooling: Deconstructing myths
about African languages. In K. Kamwangamalu & S. Makoni. (Eds), Language and
Institutions in Afi'ica (pp.l 11-129). Cape Town: CASAS.

Simmons, A. N. (2003). Bill promotes use of S. Africa’s native languages. Los Angeles
Times, October, 3. p. 13A.

Smitherman, G. (1998). From Hujambo tO M010: The study Of and interest in African
languages among African Americans. In K.K. Prah (Ed.), Between distinction and
extinction (pp.275-303). Johannesburg. Witwatersrand University Press.

(2000). T alkin that talk Language, culture and education in African
America. New York: Routledge.

 

Titlestad, P. (1996). English, the constitution and South Africa’s language future. In V.
Klerk. (Ed.), Varieties of English around the world: Focus on South Africa.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Thiba, T. M.(2000). The language attitudes and practices Of high school learners,
teachers and parents in the Mafikeng and Vryburg districts Of the North West
Province, South Africa. Unpublished PHD dissertation. Michigan State University

Thompson, L. & Wilson, M. (1983). A history of South Africa to 1 8 70. Cape
Town. David Phillip.

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Language planning, planning inequality. London: Longrnan.

265

Troup, F. (1972). South Africa: An historical introduction. London: Eye Methuen.

Verhoef, M. (1998). In pursuit Of multilingualism in South Afiica. Multilingua,
17, 181-196.

Webb, V. (2002). Language in South Afiica: The role of language in national
transformation, reconstruction and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Webb, V. and KembO-Surc. (2000). Language as a problem in Africa. In V. Webb. and
Kembo-Sure. (Eds), African voices: An introduction to the linguistics ofAfiica.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zotwana, S. (1989). Letter tO the editor. In N. Alexander, Language policy and
national unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape Town: Buchu BOOks.

266

 

 

   

111111111111111]1111111111