The aim of this paper is to present a critical overview
of language policy development in South Africa. Three issues will
be discussed: the current state of language policy development
in South Africa; the challenges and tasks of language planning
in the country; and an evaluation of the process of language policy
development.
The current state of language policy development
in South Africa
The discussion of language policy development
in South Africa will be handled from the point of view that language
planning is part of the strategic planning for a country, and
that language planning should thus be evaluated within the framework
of strategic planning, which can be represented as in Figure 1:
Viewing language planning as part of the strategic
planning of a country means that it is regarded as an instrument
in the development of the human resources of the national state,
and is subordinate to the policies directed at the realisation
of the state's national ideals. It is therefore necessary to take
note of the country's national ideals, its vision.
South Africa's national ideals are expressed in
the founding provisions of the SA Constitution, and include the
following:
-Establishing democracy
-Promoting equality and human rights
-Developing the people of the country
·-Implementing affirmative action
-Administering the country effectively
-Developing national integration and promoting mutual tolerance
and respect among the different cultural, linguistic, religious,
racial and socio-political groups
-Retaining the country's cultural diversity
The basic question an evaluation of language policy
development in South Africa thus has to answer is how the country
has set out to achieve these ideals. In order to respond to this
question, two language policy development documents need to be
considered: the Constitution, with its language stipulations,
and the proposed SA Languages Bill.
The constitutional language stipulations
The constitutional language stipulations can be
regarded as a statement of the "mission" which the SA
government has set itself in order to give expression to its visions
and values, and the tasks it wants to perform in the language
management of the country. The constitutional language stipulations
are as follows:
(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi,
Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English,
isiNdebele, isiXhoza and isiZulu.
(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of
the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical
and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use
of these languages.
(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may
use any particular official languages for the purposes of government,
taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances,
and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population
as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government
and each provincial government must use at least two official
languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and
preferences of their residents.
(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative
and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official
languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection
(2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must
be treated equitably.
(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national
legislation must -
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use
of -
(i) all official languages;
(ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and
(iii) sign language; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for -
(i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa,
including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telugu
and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages
used for religious purposes in South Africa.
As is clear from these stipulations, eleven languages
can be used for official functions in the country. These eleven
official languages include the two official languages of the apartheid
era (Afrikaans and English) and the nine major Bantu languages
of the country. The Constitution prescribes parity of esteem and
equitable treatment for all eleven official languages, includes
linguistic human rights as a cornerstone of public life, prohibits
discrimination, commits the government to the promotion of all
non-official languages commonly used by communities (including
sign language, religious languages, and the country's first languages
- Khoi, Nama and San), and gives explicit recognition to the principle
of linguistic diversity. Together, these constitutional stipulations
express a philosophy of political pluralism.
Following the announcement of the decision to recognise
11 languages as official languages, a committee was appointed
(called the Language Task Group, or LANGTAG committee) in 1996
to produce a framework for the development of a comprehensive
national language policy. Their report was submitted in August,
1996. Subsequently, several workshops and seminars were presented
by the government to discuss national language planning issues.
Concurrently, a national body was established to promote the country's
languages and to monitor the implementation of the country's language
stipulations. Since its inception this body, called PanSALB, has
established national and provincial language committees, as well
as lexicographical units, has commissioned a language survey and
has funded research. Furthermore, DACST, the state department
tasked with managing language policy development, appointed a
special language planning Advisory Body to propose a national
language policy. This committee produced their proposals in March
2000, and their proposals have now been formulated as the SA Languages
Bill, which will be presented to the Cabinet and the National
Assembly in the current session of the National Assembly.
The constitutional language stipulations have been
criticised in at least three ways.
The first, rather commonly expressed criticism,
is that it is impossible to implement a policy of 11 official
languages because it will cost too much and cannot be implemented
in practice. These critics obviously assume that the intention
of the constitution is that all 11 languages must be used in all
official domains for all official functions. However, this is
clearly not the intention. Firstly, the stipulations state explicitly
that both the national government and provincial governments must
use at least two official languages for government business, and
secondly, the stipulations include a number of qualifying conditions
(such as usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances,
and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population),
which must be considered in deciding on specific policies. In
the case of third-level government, no number of languages is
specified, suggesting that they may use only one language for
official purposes. Therefore, whilst full multilingualism is in
the spirit of the constitution, the language stipulations also
recognise the principle of functional and demographic differentiation,
and recognise the need to separate domains and levels of language
policy development.
A second criticism of the language stipulations
is that the principles they espouse (parity of esteem, equity,
language promotion) are in potential conflict with the qualifying
clauses (sometimes negatively called "escape clauses"),
making it possible for state institutions to avoid adopting and
implementing language policy in the spirit of the constitution.
The third criticism is that state institutions are
becoming more monolingual in practice (that is, becoming more
English), which means that the government is acting contrary to
the spirit of the constitution.
The SA Languages Bill
The second document which must be considered in
deciding how SA wants to achieve its national ideals, is the proposed
SA Languages Bill. This bill begins with a list of its strategic
goals:
(a) To facilitate individual empowerment and national
development
(b) To develop and promote the Bantu languages
(c) To provide a regulatory framework for the effective management
of the official languages as languages of the public service
(d) To facilitate economic development via the promotion of multilingualism
(e) To enhance the learning of the South African languages
(f) To develop the capacity of the country's languages, especially
in the context of technologisation
The bill proposes the following policy decisions:
¨ the national government to use not less than four languages
for official work
¨ these languages to be selected from each of four categories
of official languages on a rotational basis, namely:
- the Nguni languages (Ndebele, Swazi, Xhosa and Zulu), the Sotho
languages (Pedi, Sotho and Tswana), Venda and Tsonga/Shangaan,
Afrikaans and English
¨ governments at provincial and local levels as well as institutions
which perform public functions to be subject to the policy provisions
of the bill
¨ the policy to be applicable for legislative, executive and
judicial functions
¨ language units to be established for each department of
the national government and each province, to implement and monitor
policy implementation, to conduct language surveys and audits
in order to assess existing language policies and practices, and
to inform the public about the policy
¨ regulations concerning a language code of conduct for public
officials to be produced
The bill also proposes a plan of implementation
(what has to be done, by whom, for whom and when) for selected
core activities, such as the establishment of language units,
the development of a language code of conduct, and language audits.
An important facet in the preparation of the bill is, of course,
the question of costs, and cost-estimation has been undertaken
for selected state departments.
The proposed bill is obviously not intended as an
explicit policy for individual state institutions. At most it
provides a framework within which further policy development must
take place. Each state department (at whatever level) will need
to determine its own specific policy and plan of implementation
on the basis of the functions it has to perform and the types
and levels of communication in which it needs to be engaged in
fulfilling its functions.
Acceptance of the bill by the cabinet and the national
assembly will not of course imply its immediate and full implementation
at all three levels of government and in all state departments.
In fact, effective policy implementation could take several years,
depending on the political commitment of the heads of state departments,
and national and provincial budgetary constraints.
It is not possible, as yet, to evaluate the proposed
bill fully since it is still in proposal format. It does, however,
seem fair to comment that the bill is not explicit enough regarding
the specific strategies which need to be adopted to achieve the
stated strategic goals. For example: it states that economic development
must be facilitated through the promotion of multilingualism,
but provides no indication as to how this goal can be achieved.
The bill should, one can argue, trace the planning process from
goal to implementation strategy to specific plans of implementation.
This has only been done partially for two of the goals.
These two language planning documents, the constitutional
language stipulations and the SA Languages Bill, then, constitute
the statutory framework, the legal infra-structure, for language
planning in SA. On the basis of these documents (as well as the
work being undertaken by DACST and PanSALB) SA can claim to have
achieved a degree of success. However, before any meaningful judgement
can be made meaningful language policies have to be developed
for each of the state institutions, and explicit plans of implementation
need to be put in place. In order to develop these policies and
establish the necessary plans of implementation, the strategic
planning model needs to be followed, which means taking note of
the external and internal environments relevant to further language
planning.
The external environment
The external environment consists of factors beyond
the control of the SA government, but which impact directly on
language planning in the country, either as obstacles to pluralist
language policy implementation or as serious challenges to it.
These factors include:
§ globalisation (particularly the powerful controlling and
normalising role of the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Europe, economically, politically and through the media)
§ Westernisation
§ technologisation
§ the power of the countries and institutions which control
the global economy, and
§ the knowledge era
This last factor poses a particular challenge to
language planning in any developing country such as SA. Modern-day
political, economic and social forces mean that if states wish
to remain a meaningful part of the global economy they will need
to become highly competitive, requiring their citizens to be well-trained
and in possession of multiple skills. The work place has increasingly
become knowledge-driven and knowledge-dependent, and state training
institutions must therefore produce "learning individuals"
equipped with broad, generic and transferable skills which will
enable them to deal flexibly with varied tasks and new technologies,
and equip them to handle problems and new and unpredictable developments.
If South Africa wants to become globally competitive, it must
obviously make certain that its training programmes produce such
"learning individuals", who possess highly developed
knowledge bases and high levels of transferable skills. Education
has an enormous task, and language, as the fundamental instrument
in learners' educational development requires serious and informed
attention. Language-in-education policy practice must therefore
ensure that the languages of instruction used facilitate effective
educational development, and do not obstruct it.
The internal environment
The internal environment that has to be considered
in strategic language planning is constituted by the language
character of the country, the language political situation, language-related
problems of the country and language problems.
The language character of SA
According to the LANGTAG Report, there are 80 languages
used in SA. Table 1 contains the numbers of speakers of the main
South African languages.

Besides the main South African languages, Portuguese
is said to be spoken by 57,080 persons, German by 11,740, Greek
(16,780), Dutch (11,740), Italian (16,600), French (6,340) Hindi
(25,900), Urdu (13,280), Gujarati (25,120), Telegu (4,000) and
Tamil (24,720).
Two indigenous languages, Zulu and Xhosa, are the
most widely-spoken languages of the country with Afrikaans third
and English fifth. English is in second position as non-primary
language. There is no general national lingua franca, but English
is the lingua franca of various high-level contexts.
Functionally, English is the major language in the
country, being almost the sole language of formal public contexts,
with Afrikaans still a factor in the workplace, but with the Bantu
languages used almost only for low-level functions, such as personal
interaction, cultural expression and religious practice.
Afrikaans has the widest geographical, demographic
and racial distribution, with 81.4% of the so-called coloured
community (South Africans of "mixed" racial origin)
using it as home language, 57.7% of the white population, 1.5%
of the Indian population and 0.7% of the black population. English
is mainly an urban language, being used in most of the major cities
of the country, where it is distributed across racial groups to
some degree. The Bantu languages, on the other hand, are used
mainly by black South Africans as home languages (1996 census),
with reasonably well-defined geographical distributions.
Table 1 also suggests the widespread incidence of
individual and societal multilingualism in South Africa. Indeed,
the majority of black South Africans are functionally highly multilingual
(and probably know about four languages each), with the rest of
the population bilingual, that is, they know Afrikaans and English.
As regards the knowledge South Africans have of
the country's languages (see Webb 2002b, d), the following observations
can be made:
§ An adequate knowledge of the Bantu languages as primary
and non-primary languages is largely restricted to black South
Africans
§ English is probably known by more than 50% of the SA population
at a very basic level of communication, and
§ Afrikaans by about 40%.
Proficiency in Afrikaans and English among black
South Africans, however, generally only allows for basic social
interaction, and is not at a level which allows their effective
use in higher functions, such as educational development. A recent
sociolinguistic survey commissioned by PanSALB (2001), for example,
reported that 49% of their respondents often did not understand
or seldom understood speeches in English. This lack of English
language proficiency rose to 60% among speakers of Tswana, Ndebele
and Venda, particularly among less educated respondents, respondents
in rural areas, and respondents in semi-skilled or unskilled communities.
The lack of English comprehension skill is also apparent in informal
contexts. Respondents rated their ability to follow a story on
radio or television in English as follows: Sotho: 28%, Tswana:
14%, Pedi: 19%, Swazi: 27%, Ndebele: 3%, Xhosa: 24%, Zulu: 32%,
Venda: 0% and Tsonga: 24%.
The language political situation
The main South African languages are deeply embedded
in the political history of the country. Colonialism and apartheid
have meant that all of the languages have acquired socio-political
meanings, with English currently highly prestigious, Afrikaans
generally stigmatised, and the Bantu languages with little economic
or educational value. In fact, the Bantu languages are said to
be viewed by many of their own speakers as symbols of being "uneducated,
traditional, rural, culturally backward people with lower mental
powers", and as languages which are "sub-standard"
and less capable of carrying serious thought". Though the
Bantu languages, as well as Afrikaans, are numerically "major"
languages, they are "minority languages" in language
political terms. In terms of power and prestige, English is the
major language of the country, with Afrikaans lower on the power
hierarchy, and the Bantu languages effectively marginalized.
This means that the South African languages are
engaged in asymmetric power relations, with English and the Bantu
languages at opposite sides of the equation. This also means that
English can be used for discrimination and manipulation, and may
even already have become a vehicle for the struggle for power
between the different socio-economic groups.
Such a language political situation is clearly a
serious obstacle to achieving the type of world envisaged by South
Africa's national ideals and constitution, and needs to be radically
transformed. In order to begin doing so, however, it is essential
that far more information on the SA languages, in particular the
Bantu languages, be collected systematically through language
audits on issues such as the incidence of language shift and attrition,
language attitudes, the linguistic needs of the different communities,
ethno-linguistic awareness in indigenous communities, cultural
diversity in the country and the country's ecolinguistic realities,
including the interrelationship between the languages of the country
and communities' social and cultural character, and the demographic,
economic, political and educational realities.
Language-related problems
The test of SA language policy development and implementation
ultimately lies in the country's ability to resolve its language-related
problems.
Language-related problems are problems which are
non-linguistic by nature but in which language plays some causal
role. Examples of such problems in South Africa are:
· The educational underdevelopment of many South Africans
(which is a direct consequence of apartheid education - Webb &
Kembo-Sure 2000; Webb 2002a, b and d)
· Non-competitive performance in the workplace, with low
productivity and inefficient work performance, and generally unfair
economic conditions, in particular poverty, the skewed distribution
of wealth, and restricted occupational opportunities, which are
all partly due to inadequate educational development, which, n
turn, is a consequence of the language factor in formal education
and training
· Inadequate political participation (partly due to the
fact that the main language of political discourse is English),
and the continuance of linguistic discrimination and inter-group
conflict;
· Cultural alienation and the possible threat to the country's
rich diversity, through ethnolinguistic shift and cultural assimilation
to the Western world.
Language plays a fundamental role in each of these
problems, and language planning in the country thus has to develop
policies and strategies which will address the role of language
in their resolution, ensuring that language is a facilitator rather
than an obstacle to development in all these domains.
These language-related problems can obviously
not be discussed fully (but see Webb & Kembo-Sure, 2000, and
Webb, 2002b, in press). However, some information on the role
of language in educational development is provided in Tables 2
and 3 on literacy and numeracy levels in the country, obtained
in an all-African survey in 1999:


In these two tables, columns two
to six contain the distribution of learners evaluated for literacy
and numeracy in percentages in selected provinces. In the Northern
Province, for example, only 4.93% of the total number of learners
evaluated for literacy scored more than 75% for the task, while
only 0.69% of them obtained scores above 75% for numeracy. Of
all learners in the Northern Province, 71.35% and 94.66% scored
lower than 50% for literacy and numeracy respectively, and thus
cannot be regarded as adequately literate or numerate.
The role of language in educational
development is also apparent from Table 4:

South Africa clearly has a long way
to go educationally if it is to develop a well educated population,
which is an essential requirement if the country is to grow
economically and become competitive in the global market. The
Department of Education thus needs to give very serious attention
to the medium of instruction policy in SA schools.
Given the vision and mission of the
SA government and the external and internal environment, it
becomes clear that language planning in SA has to address several
major challenges.
Major language planning challenges
In order to realise its basic objective
of transformation, reconstruction and development, the SA government
must obviously keep the basic language planning goal in mind,
that is, to bring about a (radical) change in the language political
realities of the country, creating a situation in which the
languages of the country co-exist in a balanced way and function
as developmental facilitators in education, the economy, political
life, state administration, and the social and cultural spheres.
Its language plan must therefore contribute to resolving the
language-related problems discussed above. The SA government
must thus not endorse a language policy proposal which will
simply lead to a reproduction of the previous (and existing)
language politics, where non-Bantu languages are dominant in
public life and are perceived as the symbols of the ruling elite,
prestige and success, and the Bantu languages are perceived
as symbols of a socio-economic underclass and as instruments
only of the low functions of public life.
To achieve the general over-all goal
of language political transformation where each of the official
languages perform meaningful functions, language planning in
SA needs to be directed at the following specific goals:
Policy development
(1) The development of far more comprehensive
language policies at provincial and local levels, and in all
state departments, indicating which languages are to be used
to perform which functions in the different institutions
(2) The provision of cost-estimates for the proposed policies,
with accompanying cost-effective plans of implementation for
each
Language politics
The power relations between the official
languages need to be balanced, so that formerly advantaged people
do not continue to have an unfair advantage. This means:
- promoting linguistic tolerance actively
- changing attitudes towards the Bantu languages
- promoting the economic value of the Bantu languages (especially
by developing them into instruments of access to material rewards
such as employment and training opportunities)
- supporting the role of language as instruments of human rights
and the construction of cultural identity, and
- maintaining the ethnolinguistic diversity of the country and
ensuring that it is utilised in a meaningful way as a national
asset and a resource in the national welfare
Language development
Developing the capacity of the Bantu
languages for use as effective instruments for high-functions,
which will necessarily entail:
- promoting their use in high-function public contexts, thus
increasing their prestige and status (the constitution refers
to parity of esteem, equity)
- ensuring their effective linguistic adaptation by promoting
their standardisation (and the use of the standard languages),
codification, technicalisation and lexicographical expansion
- increasing knowledge of these languages as L2s among non-black
South Africans, but also, importantly, as L1s, especially regarding
literacy in the L1 (so that all black South Africans possess
the ability to control their own destiny through language, to
interpret and manage the globalised, technical and competitive
world and the knowledge era)
Language maintenance
This is especially necessary in
the case of Afrikaans, which has lost most of its functional
roles in public life due, of course, to its strong association
with white dominance/apartheid. A programme of maintenance for
Afrikaans obviously does not imply that Afrikaans be restored
to its former position in high public contexts, but it does
mean it should be allowed to function as a positive factor within
the context of the over-all language plan of the country.
Language restriction
The excessively powerful public role
of English is demonstrably an obstacle to national development,
and its role thus needs to be curbed, with its role in public
life redefined.
As we know, many agencies are generally
involved in language planning programmes, ranging from bodies
with national authority to individual activists. In the South
African case, however, the central institution which should
drive language planning is the government, since they have the
moral obligation, the authority and power, and the resources.
Evaluation of the language planning
process in South Africa
First of all, in order to provide
a fair evaluation of language planning in SA one must take specific
background issues into consideration, in particular:
a) The legacy of apartheid, which led to distrust among racial
groups and to the stigmatisation of the Bantu languages as well
as concepts such as ethnicity, mother-tongue and even the notion
medium of instruction)
b) The enormous problems of national concern which the government
has to handle, such as job creation; poor economic performance;
health; housing; the land issue
c) The restrictive effect of global economic and political forces
on the promotion of the endogenous languages
d) That language planning and language policy implementation
are long-term processes, and language political transformation
and reconstruction, such as is envisaged in SA, is extremely
difficult to effect
e) The lack of empirical research findings especially concerning
the indigenous languages, through audits/language surveys
Although the country (the government)
has only been seriously engaged in implementing a policy of
pluralism for a period of seven years, there are several quite
positive signs.
Positive signs
a) Reasonable progress in the establishment
of the legal infra-structure for language planning
b) Strong public support by key cabinet ministers (Arts, Culture,
Science and Technology; Education), as well as from important
decision-makers in sectors such as the public broadcaster and
the Department of Education
c) The willingness of government to involve language planning
experts in language planning, as well as scholarly participation
in language policy workshops and conferences
d) The possible emergence of ethno-linguistic awareness
There also, however, negative signs:
Negative signs
a) Increasing institutional monolingualism
b) Level of the public debate is not very high: not rational
enough (theoretical and factual bases not strong), arguments
are often still ideological in nature, speculative, with too
little new and creative ideas
c) Too little effective language planning research and the absence
of any co-ordination of existing research projects
d) Too little effective support for linguistic pluralism from
important decision-makers at senior levels of government
e) Continued emotional resistance to the Bantu languages
f) The lack of public support among public leaders generally
for the 11 language policy
Conclusion
Though it is too early to evaluate
language planning in South Africa, one can, for interest's sake
ask whether SA could become an example of effective pluralist
language planning, and whether other equally multilingual countries
may learn from the South African experience?
These questions can't, of course,
be answered in an interesting way at the moment. All one can
say, is that, if the country does succeed in achieving its LP
goals at some time in the future, it may, possibly, contribute
in the following ways to a better understanding of LP theory
and practice:
(a) The manner in which bottom/up
language planning can be handled to complement the necessary
top/down planning
(b) The way in which an effective balance can be established
between a pluralist language policy and costs (through the practical
realisation of the principle of functional differentiation)
(c) The degree to which language can perform a role in transformation,
reconstruction and national development and in overcoming social
and econotechnical (K&B) inequalities
(d) The way in which multilingualism can be utilised as a developmental
resource
(e) How a balanced, meaningful co-existence between different
languages as expressions of differing cultural identities can
be produced
(f) How a pluralist philosophy of state can be converted into
reality/practice
But it is still too early to claim
any such contribution to LP theory and practice by the SA experience,
and to judge whether SA contains any meaningful lessons for
comparably multilingual states.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Department of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology. (1996). Towards a national language plan
for South Africa. Final report of the Language plan task
group (the LANGTAG report). Pretoria.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (2000).
Language policy and plan for South Africa. Final draft.
Pretoria.
Pan South African Language Board. (2000). Language use and
language interaction in South Africa. A national sociolinguistic
survey. Pretoria.
Webb, V. N. & Kembo-Sure. (Eds.) (2000). African Voices.
An introduction to the languages and linguistics of Africa.
Cape Town: Oxford University Press South Africa.
Webb, V. (2002a) (In press, a). Language policy in post-apartheid
South Africa. In: James W. Tollefson & Amy B.M. Tsui (Eds.).
Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Webb, V. (2002b). (In press, b). Language in South Africa.
The role of language in transformation, reconstruction and development.
Amsterdam: Benjamins
Webb, V. (2002c). Language proficiency assessment in vocational
training in South Africa. To be delivered at the annual
conference of Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics. Toronto,
Canada.
Webb, V. (2002d). (In press, c). English as a second language
in South Africa's tertiary institutions: A case study at the
University of Pretoria. World Englishes, Vol 21 (1),
49-61

|