Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication

A South African Perspective

Christine Anthonissen, Bassey E Antia, Ken Barris, Rebecca Domingo, Jeanne Toit, Regine Fourie, Nompumelelo Frans, Wanga Gambushe, Eunice Ivala, Michael Joseph, Gregory Kamwendo, Russell Kaschula, Hleze Kunju, Noleen Leach, Linda Manashe, Koliswa Moropa, Andre M Mostert, Ndimande-Hlongwa, Dion Nkomo, Russell Kaschula, Pamela Maseko, H. Ekkehard Wolff, Pamela Maseko, Russell H Kaschula, Pamela Maseko, H. Ekkehard Wolff, Christine Anthonissen, Bassey E Antia

• Publisher: Wits University Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781776140282
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

To date, there has been no published textbook which takes into account changing sociolinguistic dynamics that have influenced South African society. Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication breaks new ground in this arena. The scope of this book ranges from macro-sociolinguistic questions pertaining to language policies and their implementation (or non-implementation) to micro-sociolinguistic observations of actual language-use in verbal interaction, mainly in multilingual contexts of Higher Education (HE). There is a gradual move for the study of language and culture to be taught in the context of (professional) disciplines in which they would be used, for example, Journalism and African languages, Education and African languages, etc. The book caters for this growing market. Because of its multilingual nature, it caters to English and Afrikaans language speakers, as well as the Sotho and Nguni language groups – the largest languages in South Africa [and also increasingly used in the context of South African Higher Education]. It brings together various inter-linked disciplines such as Sociolinguistics and Applied Language Studies, Media Studies and Journalism, History and Education, Social and Natural Sciences, Law, Human Language Technology, Music, Intercultural Communication and Literary Studies. The unique cross-cutting disciplinary features of the book will make it a must-have for twenty-first century South African students and scholars and those interested in applied language issues.

Part One

African language empowerment:
concept formation and intellectualisation

1

Researching the intellectualisation of African languages, multilingualism and education

Russell H Kaschula and Pamela Maseko

Since 1994, South Africans have conscientiously placed much value on and effort into policy creation at national, provincial and local government levels. This includes the Constitution, policies that are underpinned by the Constitution, policies which dictate how business is to be done, how we receive social welfare and under what guidelines we are to be educated – policies that dictate how we live, how we prosper or otherwise, and what happens when we die. We are now arguably at the point where the country suffers from policy fatigue. We find ourselves speeding along a national policy autobahn highway where there are few rest stops allowing us to pause, to think about the consequences of these policies and how to put them into motion. Our policy fatigue results from the lack of policy implementation. Arguably we are a nation of debaters, a strength proven in our own negotiated political settlement. However, implementation is about getting things done and this is now the challenge that faces language policy and planning initiatives.

The necessity for the intellectualisation of our African languages falls directly within this paradigm of implementation. One must nonetheless also acknowledge that there can be no successful implementation without firm policy in place. According to Finlayson and Madiba (2002: 41), ‘with … a clear policy framework, language intellectualisation … is more likely to succeed’. The chapter starts by discussing what is meant by ‘intellectualising’ African languages, then briefly highlights the relevant policy framework within which that happens. (This is dealt with in further detail in chapters 2 and 3.) Best practice in terms of policy implementation is then discussed against the backdrop of new developments such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) SARChI Chair in the Intellectualisation of African Languages, Multilingualism and Education, as well as the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences’ (NIHSS) Catalytic Project in Concept Formation in African Languages.

Defining intellectualisation

The term ‘intellectualisation’ could be considered a controversial one when it comes to African languages. One may well ask: Are not all languages equally intellectualised, underpinned by sophisticated, rule-governed and elaborate grammatical and sociolinguistic systems, regardless of whether or not they are used as languages of learning and teaching (LoLT) or in high-status domain areas such as politics? The answer to this is probably affirmative. However, one cannot deny the years of neglect and the lack of both corpus and status planning from which these languages suffer. Hence it can be argued that at this point in our history the intellectualisation of African languages is imperative if we are to develop the education system appropriately and respond to Minister Blade Nzimande’s call to encourage the use of our languages as LoLT, at least at the tertiary levels. Alexander (2013: 81), in his final and posthumously published book, states in this regard: ‘The case for the use and development of African languages as languages of tuition in tertiary education can be made in terms of a five-dimensional argument that relates the matter to (bio-cultural) diversity, (economic) development, (political) democracy, (human) dignity and effective didactics.’ In relation to didactics it is clearly important to intellectualise our languages so that our tertiary institutions feed into the basic education system teachers who understand the notion of mother-tongue and mother-tongue-based bilingual education (Alexander 2005). The intellectualisation of languages and promotion of multilingualism therefore needs to occur on both sides of the education spectrum, a contrary view to that held by some scholars, such as Turner (2016), who argue that this initiative needs to be driven by the Department of Basic Education and not by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).

The first colleagues to raise the issue of intellectualisation in the South African context were Finlayson and Madiba, who were optimistic that ‘intellectualisation in South Africa is more likely to succeed than in most developing countries, as it will receive increasing … momentum, support and success’ (2002: 40). Alexander further developed and championed this concept, building on the work of Filipino scholars such as Sibayan and Gonzalez (1995) who argue for the intellectualisation of languages so that they can be used in government administration, science, technology, medicine, engineering and so on. Finlayson and Madiba (2002: 40) define this initiative as ‘the planned process of accelerating the growth and development of our indigenous languages to enhance their effective interface with modern developments, theories and concepts’. This means creating a ‘counter-hegemonic’ trend in order to displace English as the only language of power and cultural capital (Sibayan 1999: 448).

Referring to the work of Finlayson and Madiba, Alexander notes that they outline ‘the technical linguistic and sociolinguistic issues with which corpus planning and the development of new registers and styles are confronted’ (2005: 20). This includes the lack of guidance when it comes to word-formation patterns and their actual use (Finlayson and Madiba 2002). We suggest that to some extent this has been considered in the 2005 spelling and orthography rules compiled by the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) for all the official African languages in South Africa. The isiXhosa rule book, for example, outlines the revised orthography rules and principles, including a guide to editing, proofreading and other editorial matters as well as notes for language practitioners (PanSALB 2005). Furthermore, the new NIHSS Concept Formation Catalytic Project, discussed in this chapter, will build on the intellectualisation so far accomplished by PanSALB. Finlayson and Madiba’s (2002) hopes that political developments such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) would contribute to intellectualisation have arguably come to nought. It remains to be seen whether the new Use of Official Languages Act 12 of 2012 will fulfil this role.

Alexander notes that one must also take into account the ‘considerable and significant contribution which creative writing and journalism are quietly making towards the intellectualisation of African languages’ (2005: 21). This is true even today, especially with languages such as isiZulu and isiXhosa in which the Isolezwe newspaper has been a great success story. Alexander (2010) also recognises the need to work with the African Academy of Languages (ACALAN) to intellectualise our languages through translation efforts across the continent. This is a process that should be revisited and re-invigorated.

Intellectualisation is a developing concept which requires refinement on an ongoing basis. It is arguably about the process of language policy implementation. It is definitely about the development of terminologies using whatever means we have at our disposal. This includes the intellectualisation represented by postgraduate research and theses in which terminologies are being developed (Sam 2010; Magagane 2011; Makhathini 2011; Nteso 2013). Furthermore, the use of human language technology to develop languages, for example the work done by translate.org, is of vital importance. This is taken up by Justus Roux in chapter 14 of this book. The use of translate@thons has also resulted in some success stories, for example the translation of Google into isiXhosa at Rhodes University. Finlayson and Madiba suggest an approach where ‘strategies are focused on how to create new terminologies within the minimum period and to maximise their acceptance’ (2002: 53). Further challenges would involve codifying ‘terms that are already in existence’ and establishing ‘how these terms should be disseminated to their target users’ (Finlayson and Madiba 2002: 53).

Alongside these initiatives would be the creative writers who continually add visibility to African languages, supported by multilingual prizes and competitions such as the M-Net book awards and the Maskew Miller Longman Awards. Intellectualisation is therefore many stitches in a single tapestry; it requires collective effort, as Finlayson and Madiba point out: ‘Planned language intellectualisation in South Africa involves individuals, quasi-governmental (parastatal) and non-governmental agencies’ (2002: 48). This would include the departments of Arts and Culture, Basic Education, Higher Education and Training as well as the Department of Science and Technology, which now funds the African Languages Chair. Intellectualisation also directly involves parastatals such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation and PanSALB.

In order for intellectualisation to succeed, we need to see the languages of the nation as ‘part of its natural resources … on the same level as its petroleum, minerals and other natural resources’ (Wolff 2006: 2, quoting Chumbow 1987). Individuals such as translators, interpreters, writers and church leaders also play an important part in term creation and language use. In addition, one should also seriously consider the proliferation of indigenous languages being used on social network sites and more generally on the internet by individuals who are consciously and unconsciously involved in both status planning and intellectualisation (Dlutu 2012). A good example is that of Kiswahili. According to Ipara and Mbori (2009: 142) ‘it is also increasingly being used in the electronic media. In addition, there has also been the creation of a 3000-word Kiswahili computer glossary by Microsoft (Microsoft, 2004) … there exist discipline specific dictionaries’. Clearly, intellectualisation via the electronic media is an important area in need of further research.

The policy framework

As mentioned earlier, a strong policy framework is imperative for policy implementation and, as will become clear, the notion of ‘intellectualisation’ speaks directly to this implementation of policy.

According to Finlayson and Madiba, our present language policies use as a point of departure the 1995 Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG) recommendations which ‘provided a framework for the development of the indigenous languages’ (2002: 43). This group also recommended the centralisation and harmonisation of our languages as part of the intellectualisation process (Alexander 1989). Without going into this debate we would argue that what we require today is what we could term cooperative harmonious development rather than strict harmonisation, which is unpalatable to many in South Africa. Such harmonious development requires carefully nurtured cooperation between what we could term dialectal languages, for example isiZulu and isiXhosa, and is now subsumed within the work of both the African Languages Chair and the NIHSS Catalytic Project.

The Language Policy for Higher Education (LPHE) (MoE 2002) is now the national policy document guiding language use and practice in South African higher education institutions (HEIs). It makes provision for the role different South African official languages must play in higher education. It states that individual and national development should be facilitated by promoting the use of all appropriate official languages, especially in higher education (HE). Recognising the widely accepted role of universities in research, and the historical backlog in the development of indigenous African languages, it also stipulates that universities need to take the initiative in the development and use of African languages in HE. However, it is also the accepted view that English and Afrikaans, because of the state of their intellectualisation, and as a result primarily of the privileges they enjoyed in the past political dispensation, will continue to be languages of tuition for some time to come. While this is acknowledged as a trend in South African universities, the policy also makes provision that these languages should not act as a barrier to access and success in tertiary education, especially to those students for whom they are additional languages. The LPHE notes the marked disadvantages faced by students speaking African languages. It states that indigenous African languages have purposefully not been used in HEIs as languages of learning and teaching in the past and that they have not been fully developed as academic or scientific languages. Therefore, students entering university engage in that environment in a language ‘foreign’ to them (Gambushe 2012). It does not help that, because of deficiencies in the schooling system where language acquisition has been hampered by poor teaching, these students are also not academically proficient in English or Afrikaans.

The Intellectualisation of African Languages, Multilingualism and Education NRF Research Chair is directly aligned to the National Research and Development Strategy of the government, which considers the development and promotion of African languages as scientific languages to be critical within the wider role of the university in South Africa. The research is aligned to national language policy and creates a platform for the implementation of policy, building on existing research strengths and aligning these to the national strategies. It is also our view, as outlined in media articles and broadcasts, that effective multilingualism and intellectualisation of African languages will aid South Africa in creating social cohesion (cultural as well as linguistic), a national government initiative forming part of South Africa’s broader national language planning initiative (City Press 14 June 2015; City Press 7 February 2016). This research focus area has been recognised as a scarce and critical knowledge field that needs promotion and development.

Arguably, provincial language policies take their direction from the Constitution; most have three official languages. It is through these provincial language policies that South Africa’s national language policy can become a reality and universities should be taking their cue from these policies. However, not all universities have a language policy and implementation plan in place (Maseko 2008, 2011). It is essential to have these in place before any university can proceed with language intellectualisation and implementing multilingual models, which need to be sanctioned by coordinated policies and implementation plans.

The LPHE also stipulates that HEIs should, every five years, provide the Ministry of Education with a report on the extent of the implementation of its plan. While 19 of the 23 HEIs have published their policies, only one has provided the Ministry with a report on the progress of its policy implementation. The essence of the argument here, though, is that the policy may be sufficient but may lack strategies to monitor compliance. This is further explored by Maseko and Wolff in chapter 2 of this book. A ministerial advisory panel on African languages in higher education was appointed and presented its findings in 2015. These are discussed in chapter 3 of this book.

The above are just a few of the policies and promulgations that guide language use and practices in HE. It is a cause for concern, though, that implementation of the policies, grand as they are, is not effectively monitored. Bamgbose (1991) and other prominent language scholars (Alexander 2002;...