Language policy execution: The case of South African universities

Paul Hendry NkunaUniversity of South Africa, South Africa

ABSTRACT

South Africa is a multilingual country with 11 official languages. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides that every learner may use the official language of his or her choice in any public institution of the country. The Language Policy for Higher Education (Ministry of Education, 2002) requires all South African universities to develop and execute language policies. This chapter focuses on language policy execution by South African universities. The emphasis is on the execution of language policy in relation to the promotion and development of the nine official indigenous languages, namely isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, siSwati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga.

Keywords: Academics, Apartheid, Colonisation, Emotional Climate, Organisational Culture, Higher Education, Indigenous Languages, Leadership, Ministry of Education, University of Stellenbosch,

INTRODUCTION

It has been 13 years since the adoption of a language policy for higher education by the South African Ministry of Education. Section 20 of the policy reads: “All higher education institutions are required to develop their own language policy subject to the above policy framework, which should be submitted to the Minister by 31 March 2003. The Ministry will continue to monitor the impact of language policy in higher education” (Ministry of Education, 2002, p.15).

1

Today “the status of languages is a political hot potato on South Africa’s university campuses. The country’s minister of higher education and training believes that all university graduates in South Africa should have learned at least one African language during their studies” (Rudwick, 2015, p.1). Not one of the country’s universities is truly executing the language policy. Where have the South African universities gone wrong? Why have the South African universities failed to implement their language policies?

Many academics respond emotionally to questions such as the above and offer self-evident excuses. They mention the impracticability of using the country’s indigenous languages in the light of their historically diminished utility and status. They say the country’s indigenous languages have not been developed to a level where they may be used for all higher education functions.

The truth is that so much time has passed since the adoption of the Language Policy for Higher Education by the Ministry of Education that the country’s universities have lost the impetus to execute their language policies as the result of their own failures. Historical powers have indeed affected the universities’ fate, especially regarding the execution of their language policies.

This chapter focuses on language policy execution by South African universities. It is divided into an introduction, a background, a case study on language policy execution by South African universities, integration and a conclusion.

BACKGROUND

In South Africa we often talk as though this is the only country in the world where “a language problem existed. Yet there are nearly a hundred different parts of the world which have to face similar problem, and any study of the conditions in this countries leads us to the conclusion that the difficulty in South Africa is exaggerated” (Mckerron 1934, p.119). Before 1994 there were widespread fears among white people in South Africa, and the University of Stellenbosch “moved swiftly and orchestrated the passing of the University of Stellenbosch (Private Act), 1992, through the last white parliament. Section 18 of this Act entrenched Afrikaans as the medium of instruction” (Verwoerd, in press, p.17). It was 58 years after

2

Mckerron’s (1934) publication. Four years after the promulgation of University of Stellenbosch (Private Act), 1992, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was published. Subsection 29(2) of the Constitution provides the following:

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account - (a) equity; (b) practicability; and (c) the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices (Parliament of South Africa, 1996, 16).

Subsections 6(1) and 6(2) recognise 11 official languages, as well as the historically diminished status and use of the country’s indigenous languages. The language problem in South Africa is genuine. There has been a three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in the country. The first part of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles involves a power struggle between the speakers of English and Afrikaans1. Kamwangamalu (2007, p.265) says for example that the history of English and Afrikaans is “known to be one of a constant struggle for power – one where at some point in their tense coexistence ‘white’ speakers of each of these two languages have sought to impose their own language on the speakers of the other”. Table 1 below outlines the first part for the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in South Africa’s education system.

Table 1: The first part of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles (Campell, 1887; Louw & Kandell, 1986; McKerron, 1934) Year

Descriptions Year

Descriptions

1652

●High Dutch became the official language of the Cape.

1891

●Commission in the Cape recommended that parents be allowed to choose medium of instruction.●Special aid was given, where necessary,

3

to provide Dutch and English teachers.1688

●Dutch was the only language used in public schools.

1892

●Ordinance laid down that only three hours per week be spent on the study of any foreign language, including English, in Standards 1 to 3, and four hours in Standards 4 to 6.

1800s

●Shaka elevated the status of his Ntungwa, which led to its spread among speakers of the other isiZulu dialects.

1902

●Lord Milner promoted Anglicisation through education.

1806

●The Cape was taken over by the English. ● Dutch was used by both church and state.

1903

● Lord Milner2 made English the sole medium of instruction in state schools.

1813

● Governor Cradock announced that all future appointments would depend on knowledge of English.

1905

●Selborne Minute distinguished between the use of a language as a subject of study, and its use as medium of instruction.

1814

●From 1814 onwards English-speaking officials were appointed in increasing numbers and favoured in many ways.

1907

●The Smuts Act provided the choice between Dutch and English as medium of instruction up to Standard 3; knowledge of English remained a condition for promotion.

1820

●5 000 English people immigrated to the Cape.

1908

●The Hertzog Act stipulated that instruction was to be given through the medium of the mother tongue3 up to Standard 4.

1822

●English became an official language of the Cape.

1909

●Dutch and English became the official languages of the Union government4.

1834

●The Great Trek by Dutch to escape English rule began.

1914

●Afrikaans was accepted5; gradually the use of Afrikaans came to be recognised for any grade of education from the earliest stages to the most advanced university level.

1865

●English became the medium of instruction in A1, A2 and A3 schools; A3 Schools Act was

1925

●Act 8 of 1925 provided that the term Dutch in section 137 of Act 53 of 1909 would also include Afrikaans6.

4

passed.1875

●Die Genootskop van Regte Afrikaanders7 was founded in the Cape.

1961

●Afrikaans and English were declared official languages.

1881

●The use of Dutch as an official language was permitted.

1975

The Department of Bantu Administration and Development resolved to enforce the 50–50 rule for Afrikaans and English as languages of instruction in schools for mother tongue speakers of indigenous language in South Africa.

1884

●Dutch became recognised as an official language by the Cape Parliament.

1983

●The co-official status of Afrikaans and Dutch was repealed; Afrikaans retained its status as official language.

The second part for the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in South Africa’s education system was the transfer of the struggle to the education of indigenous people. The 50–50 rule for Afrikaans and English was a case in point. Table 2 below outlines the second part for the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in South Africa’s education system.

Table 2: The second part for the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles (African National Congress, 1992; Giliomee, 2003; Junod, 1905; McKerron, 1934; Nkuna, 2010). Year

Descriptions Year

Descriptions

1658

●Dutch was the only medium of instruction at a school for slaves’ children. (The school was only open for three weeks, because the children ran away.)

1856

● An ordinance dealing with native education was passed, but it had little practical effect.

1661

●Dutch was the only medium of instruction at the reopened school for slaves’ children.

1884

●Two persons acquainted with the isiZulu language and native habits and customs had taken an interest in native education and were added to the ten members of the Council of Education

5

appointed in 1877.1663

● Dutch was the only medium of instruction at a newly opened multiracial school.

1905

●Two methods of educating the natives were proposed: (1) “English only, all through, from beginning to end”; (2) “Vernacular at the base and English at the top”8.

1685

●The year from which instructions were issued by the colonists on equal education, but Dutch was the only medium of instruction.

1930

●Indigenous people began to reject the colonial aspirations of their own parents forcefully.

1686

●Dutch came into contact with indigenous Africans (speakers of isiXhosa, isiZulu and Sesotho).

1955

●Freedom Charter called for language rights.

1819

● Between 1819 and 1823, Brownlee of the London Missionary Society, and Thomas, Bennie and Ross of the Glasgow Society began work which was destined to be of the greatest importance for indigenous people’s education.

1968

●Afrikaans as a Second Language for the Bantu was secretly compiled9.

1792

●Representatives of many different missionary societies began to arrive in South Africa.

1974

●Afrikaans was made the compulsory medium of instruction in schools for indigenous learners.

1831

●The first isiXhosa primers and reading sheets were printed, and periodicals, tracts, and translations began to appear.

1975

●A conference of white Afrikaans cultural organisations accepted a motion calling on the government to promote Afrikaans in all possible ways to achieve its “rightful position” in schools for indigenous South Africans and Asians.

1841

●Government began to supplement the educational work of the missions; the English language was taught and became a medium of instruction.

1976

●Soweto uprising against Afrikaans as compulsory medium of instruction.

1850

●The American Mission obtained a printing press and published isiZulu

1992

●The African National Congress introduced the concepts “practical

6

literature in Natal. constraints” and “impracticable” in relation to language of education10.

Lastly, the third part of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles was sown in the country’s higher education system. The first two parts were at the basic education (school) level and supported by government legislation. Van der Walt (in press, p.30) writes: “We all know that higher education differs from school education: by the time students enter a higher education instruction, they will have developed advanced academic literacy in a particular language.” Table 3 outlines the third part of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in South Africa’s education system.

Table 3: The third part of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles (Heyns, Pietersen & Erasmus, 1988; McKerron, 1934; Ministerial Committee, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2002; Parliament of South Africa, 1996) Year

Descriptions Year

Descriptions

1829

●The English-medium South African College11 opened in Cape Town. ●The Department of General Literature taught in English and Dutch; even Latin and ancient languages12 were taught through the mediums of English and Dutch.

1951

●English-medium Rhodes University College, founded in 1904, was incorporated as an independent university on 10 March 1951 under the Rhodes University Act, 1949.

1873

● The first university, the University of the Cape of Good Hope, opened. It was modelled13 on the University of London.● It was an examination centre; all examinations were written in English.

1959

●Two more universities for indigenous South African people were founded in terms of the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, namely the University of the North and the University of Zululand.

1910

●The responsibility for higher education14 was entrusted to the Union Parliament and a minister of education was appointed. Dutch and English were the official languages of

1964

●The only dual-medium residential university, namely the University of Port Elizabeth, was founded. The mediums of instruction were Afrikaans and English.

7

the Union. ●Most colleges became constituent colleges of the University of the Cape of Good Hope.

1916

●The University Act, 1916, provided for the establishment of three universities: the English-medium University of Cape Town; the Afrikaans-medium University of Stellenbosch; and the dual-medium University of South Africa15.● The English-medium University College of Fort Hare16 opened at Alice.

1966

●The large Afrikaans-speaking population of the Witwatersrand was given an Afrikaans-medium university, namely the Rand Afrikaans University (RAU).

1917

●Norton17 published a paper entitled “The Need and Value of Academic Study of Native Philology and Ethnology”, in which he reasons that “the study of language was the best index to their [natives’] psychology”.

1996

Subsection 29(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, declared that everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable.

1921

●An English-medium institute in Johannesburg became the University of the Witwatersrand.●The Afrikaans-medium Theological School of the Dutch Reformed Church became Potchefstroom University College. ●Norton was initially appointed as Professor in Bantu Philology, but for financial reasons he was eventually employed as a lecturer in Bantu Languages and Literature. In 1921, the position was converted to a Professorship of Bantu Philology at the University of Cape Town.

2002

● The Report on the Position of Afrikaans in theUniversity System was published.●The Language Policy for Higher Education was published.

8

1930

●The Afrikaans-medium Transvaal University College became the University of Pretoria.

2005 ●The report by the Ministerial

Committee (appointed by the Minister of Education in September 2003 to advise on the development of indigenous African languages as mediums of instruction in higher education) was published.

Linguistic power is at the centre of the three-fold seed of language policy execution troubles in South Africa’s education system. Such power manifests itself by adding a code to the linguistic repertoire of a speech community or a speech fellowship, and by suppressing a particular language variety and elevating another variety (Kachru, 1986). For the whole of 19th century, English represented the elevated language, while the South African indigenous languages – isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga with Afrikaans (Dutch) – remained the suppressed languages. As early as 1903, a lieutenant-governor said that the English language is, if not the commercial language of every part of the world, “most certainly that of South Africa, and consequently a thorough knowledge of it is of the first importance to the rising generation of the Colony. For these reasons, if for no others, English has been adopted and must be retained as the principal medium of teaching” (McKerron, 1934, p.125). Strategies such as persuasion, regulation, inducement and force, which add a code to the linguistic repertoire of a speech community or a speech fellowship, “have been used in the case of the spread of English” (Kachru, 1986, p.123). These strategies were used to promote English in South Africa and in the South African education system. At a later stage, the rise of Afrikaner nationalism triggered by the South African War (1899–1902) and widespread Afrikaner poverty in the early decades of the 20th century “created the conditions for the rapid growth of Afrikaans as public language. It is one of only four languages in the world that in the course of the twentieth century was standardized and used in all walks of public and private life, including post-graduate teaching” (Giliomee, 2003, p.1). Afrikaans advanced to the level of elevated language variety. Hence Rudwick (2008, p.106) says: “The

9

apartheid years in South Africa created a reasonably comfortable socioeconomic position for (white) speakers of English and Afrikaans. This was not the case for (black) African language speakers, who were kept at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic empowerment ladder.” The country’s universities have hitherto been “regarded as autonomous bodies run by governing councils on which various interests were represented and which determined the policy of the universities on all matters, including the admission of students. This has applied not only to the English-speaking, but also to the Afrikaans-medium universities” (Matthews, 1957, p.33). “English and Afrikaans became an essential part of university education” (Nkuna, 2010, 35). The country’s indigenous languages were annihilated. Today, “an individual has little prospect of finding a well-paid position in South Africa’s job market without English proficiency. Although job advertisements increasingly call for proficiency in an African language, proficiency in English remains the unspoken prerequisite” (Rudwick, 2008, p.107).

CASE STUDY: EXECUTION OF LANGUAGE POLICY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

The case study pertaining to the execution of language policy for higher education covers six aspects: the problem; steps taken to sensitise management to language policy execution; results; challenges; lesson learned; and future progress.

The problem

South African universities are failing to execute their language policies. The country’s universities fail to prioritise and focus on South Africa’s democratic relaxation of the rules and socioeconomic needs. They are upholding the colonial and apartheid higher education system, and claim to be chasing international “ranks that are generally out of touch with local conditions” (Marrian, in press, p.1). The failure to diminish the colonial and apartheid linguistic discrimination in the country’s universities is the result of the failure of universities to execute their language policies.

Steps taken to sensitise management to language policy execution

10

To provide comprehensive advice on the importance of language policy execution is an important part of the fourfold mandate of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996:

●Official status: In terms of subsection 6(1) of the Constitution the official languages of the Republic of South Africa are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.●Elevation: In terms of subsection 6(2), practical and positive measures should be taken to elevate the status and to advance the use of historically diminished languages such as Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.●Parity of esteem: In terms of subsection 6(4), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably. ●Medium of instruction: In terms of subsection 29(2), learners have the right to choose their medium of instruction in any public educational institution where practicable. The state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, taking into account equity, practicability and the need to redress the results of the past racially discriminatory laws and practices (see subsection 29(2)(a–c)). Two steps were taken to help the South African universities to execute their language policies:

Step 1: The language policies of South African universities were explored. Activities included identifying the following: aspects characterising the recognition of official languages; the elevation of the status and use of the historically diminished indigenous languages, especially isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, and Koi and San languages; parity of esteem among the languages; and the medium(s) of instruction. The emphasis was on supplying information on how South African universities execute their constitutional mandate.

Step 2: The execution of language policies by the country’s universities was evaluated. Activities included analyses of the following: the status and use of the

11

official languages by the university administrations; medium(s) of instruction; and the teaching and learning of official languages and other recognised languages.

Results

Results of step 1: Figure 1 outlines the percentages of South African universities with and without language policies.

Figure 1: Percentages of South African universities with and without language policies

Universities that have language policies Universities that have no

languages policies

56%

44%

The percentages in Figure 1 reveal that only 14 of the 25 universities in the country have published their language policies and made them available. 11 of the 25 universities have not published their language policies. However, section 27(2) of the Higher Education Act, 1997, states that “subject to the policy determined by the Minister, the council, with the concurrence of the senate, must determine the language policy of a public higher education institution and must publish and make it available on request” (Ministry of Education, 1997, p.24)18. Thus, 18 years after the publication of the Higher Education Act, 1997, and 13 years after the publication of the Language Policy for Higher Education, not all the universities in the country have implemented both the Higher Education Act (in respect of languages) and the Language Policy for Higher Education. Table 4 below outlines the number of languages recognised in each of the 14 universities language policies.

12

Table 4: Number of languages recognised in the different universities’ language policies (University of the Free State, 2015

University No. of Languages

University No. of Languages

Central University of Technology

3 University of Johannesburg

4

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

3 University of KwaZulu-Natal

3

Rhodes University 3 North-West University 4Stellenbosch University 3 University of Pretoria 3Tshwane University of Technology

4 University of South Africa

4

University of Cape Town 3 University of the Western Cape

3

University of the Free State 3 University of the Witwatersrand

3

Table 4 shows that none of the universities historically established for South Africa’s indigenous language communities form part of the 14 universities. For instance, the University of Fort Hare, the University of Limpopo, the University of Zululand, the University of Venda and Walter Sisulu University are not on the list of the 14 universities with language policies in Table 4. Only two universities of technology, namely the Central University of Technology and the Tshwane University of Technology, are among the 14 universities with language policies. Four of the six universities of technology in South Africa do not have language policies. The four universities of technology without language policies are the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, the Durban University of Technology, the Mangosuthu University of Technology and the Vaal University of Technology. Two newly established universities, the University of Mpumalanga and Sol Plaatje University, do not have language policies.

Results of step 2: All 14 universities in Table 4 have progressed from monolingualism or bilingualism to multilingualism, but none of them recognise all 11 official languages.

13

“Bilingualism is simply about two languages. Multilingualism is then about three or more languages” (Baker, 2007, p.2). Monolingualism is only about one language. Both monolingualism and bilingualism were common at South African universities during the colonial and apartheid eras.

All the universities fail to to recognise all 11 official languages. In addition, the 14 universities with language policies also fail to adhere to their fourfold mandate contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, concerning the languages they recognise. Table 5 outlines the status of each of the 14 universities in relation to the four-fold mandate as deduced from their language policies. The symbol (√) shows that a specific aspect of the fourfold mandate has been considered in a university’s language policy and the symbol (x) shows that an aspect has not been considered.

Table 5: Status of each of the 14 universities in relation to the fourfold mandate as deduced from their language policies

University Official status

Elevation

Parity of esteem

Medium of instruction

Central University of Technology

√ x x √

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

X √ x √

Rhodes University √ √ x √Stellenbosch University √ √ x √Tshwane University of Technology

√ √ x √

University of Cape Town X x x √University of the Free State √ √ x √University of Johannesburg √ √ √ √University of KwaZulu-Natal √ √ x √North-West University √ √ x √University of Pretoria √ x x √University of South Africa √ x x √

14

University of the Western Cape

√ √ x √

University of the Witwatersrand

√ √ x √

All 14 universities address the choice of medium of instruction in their language policies, but 13 or 92.9% of those universities do not consider parity of esteem. Hence, there are contradictions in the choice of medium of instruction. All 14 universities have English as medium of instruction. Six or 42.9% of the 14 universities have a monolingual medium of instruction, in all cases English. Another six or 42.9% of the 14 universities have two mediums of instruction, either Afrikaans and English or isiZulu and English19. Thus, 12 or 85.7% of the 14 universities do not aim for multilingualism. Two or 14.3% of the 14 universities use more than two mediums of instruction. They are the University of Johannesburg and the University of the Western Cape. The status of two Nguni languages (isiZulu and isiXhosa) and three Sotho languages (Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana) have been elevated at the 14 universities. The other two Nguni languages (isiNdebele and siSwati) and Tshivenda and Xitsonga are not recognised in the language policies of any of the 14 universities.

Challenges

Various challenges complicate the execution of the language policy for higher education in South Africa. Power, elite closure, the emotional climate, organisational culture and a lack of leadership are the main factors that contribute to the poor execution of the policy.

Power: Broadly speaking, power is “an ability to do things and control others, to get others to do [what] they otherwise could not” (Nye, 1990, p.154). It is “the ability to affect the behaviour of others to get the outcomes you want” (Nye, 2006, p.2). Nye also identifies three basic ways to exercise power: people can be coerced with threats; they can be induced with payments; or they can be attracted and co-opted.

15

Language in general “does not have power (or rather, it has a potential power which will be considered in due course); it is rather specific languages, located in specific societal contexts, which exercise power” (Kadt, 1993, p.159). In South Africa, the history of English and Afrikaans is “known to be one of a constant struggle for power – one where at some point in their tense coexistence ‘white’ speakers of each of these two languages have sought to impose their own language on the speakers of the other” (Kamwangamalu, 2007, p.265). According to Fairclough (1989, 35) “language is both a site of and a stake in class struggle, and those who exercise power through language must constantly be involved in struggle with others to defend (or lose) their position”. Hence, the language policies of the 14 universities are shielded with persuasion, regulation, inducement and force strategies that “have been used in the case of the spread of English” (Kachru, 1986, p.123). These strategies were used to promote English in South Africa and in the South African education system. Afrikaans speakers adopted the struggle from the Dutch fights against the British rule. Thus, the power of languages at the heart of the language policy execution troubles in South Africa. It poses serious challenges to language policy formulation and execution by the South African universities.

Elite closure: Khoza (2012, p.488) says that “an elite is the select few who represent the best in a society, community or corporate group … [E]litists make use of education, wealth and power to advance themselves, and are vain, snobbish and materialist”.

“Carol Myers-Scotton coined the term ‘elite closure’ to describe a type of social mobilization strategy by which those persons in power establish or maintain their powers and privileges via linguistic choices” (Tonkin, 2006, p.5). Therefore, elite closure is “the widening gap between the haves (the elite) and the have-nots (the masses)” (Kamwangamalu, 2013, p.327).

In Africa, elites were drawn from local intermediaries such as court interpreters, teachers, medical orderlies and agricultural extension workers, “who provided a line of communication between the colonisers and the colonised and transmitted some necessary skills, such as a knowledge of the European languages needed to follow the colonialists” (Mbeki, 2009, p.7). “Therefore, in many newly independent states a

16

tiny English-speaking elite controls state policymaking organs while the masses of the people remain excluded” (Alexander, 2012, p.3).

The elites are dubbed amakholwa and amogqoboka (the civilised ones) in KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape respectively. “[T]hey were employed in the then emerging colonial state and its supporting missionary enterprise as teachers and priests... [They] dressed up in Western clothing; embraced English culture; prided themselves in their command of the English language and familiarity with its literature; and reveled in playing cricket and tennis” (Ndletyana, 2014, p.5).

Independence did not bring about linguistic transformation in Africa in general and in South African universities in particular. English and Afrikaans as mediums of instruction are promoted at the expense of indigenous languages, resulting on elite closure. The elites and their preferred language, English or Afrikaans, are isolated from the lower strata of the population and the country’s indigenous languages. Thus, elite closure is also at the heart of language policy execution troubles in South Africa. It poses a serious challenge to language policy formulation and execution by South African universities.

Emotional climate: Emotions play an important role in policy execution, because “whether or not the members of an organisation understand its direction and put their energy behind achieving the tasks needed to reach the enterprise purpose depends entirely on its socio-emotional climate and culture” (Garratt, 2010, p.109). Härtel, Gough and Härtel (2008, p.21) say that “the emotional characteristics of organisations and groups affect and are affected by the emotional characteristics of the individuals comprising them”. Frijda and Mesquita (1994, p.51) write the following: “Emotions are complex, structured phenomena that are affective responses to what happens in the environment and cognitive representations of the event’s meaning for the individual.”

Climate is defined as the “incumbents’ perceptions of the events, practices, and procedures and the kinds of behaviours that get rewarded, supported and expected in a setting” (Schneider, 1990, p.384). It represents “the norms, attitudes, feelings and behaviours prevalent at the workplace” (Nicholson, 1979, p.20). It is “an

17

intervening variable which may be affected by a set of external and structural variables, and simultaneously has an influence on organisational outcomes such as firm performance and employee-related performance and behaviour” (Dastmalchian, McNeil, Blyton, Bacon, Blunsdon, Kabasakal, Varnali & Steinke, 2015, p.399).

Emotional climate refers “to the predominant collective emotions generated through the social interaction of a group’s members in a particular milieu” (Rivera & Páez, 2007, p.235). It pervades “every level of human interaction inside any organization” (Tran, 1998, p.2). Hence, emotional climates involve the relationships between group members. “They involve feelings such as the collective fear used by a dictatorship to ensure order … the trust essential to the formation of social capital, the security provided by an adequate attention to human rights, or the anger or despair aroused by pervasive corruption” (Rivera & Páez, 2007, p.234). In South Africa, languages have been “sites of resistance, empowerment and discrimination, and ... the apartheid regime used language as one of the yardsticks, besides skin color, to engineer and promote its divide-and-rule ideology against the black population” (Kamwangamalu, 2007, p.263). Thus, like power and elite closure, emotional climate are central to language policy execution troubles in South Africa. It poses a serious challenge to language policy formulation and execution by South African universities.

Organisational culture: The emotional aspects of the language policy have links with organisational culture of universities. An organisational culture is “a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid” (Schein, 1990). Härtel et al (2008, p.22) say that “culture focuses on understanding how social contexts in organisations evolve over time, whereas climate focuses on what impact the social contexts in organisations have”. So, “climate” is how people perceive their work environment and “culture” is how things are done in an organisational unit; and “climate is defined as a property of the individual and culture is defined as a property of the organisation” (Glisson & James, 2002, p.769). Together, climate and culture are

18

influenced by linguistic rights that are “individual and collective at one and the same time” (Follow-up Committee, 1998, p.23). The University Act, 1916, and the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, created separate social contexts such as Afrikaans-medium and English-medium universities; as well as universities for the diverse cultural groups. The Basotho cultural groups, Vatsonga and Vhavenda, had their own University of the North, the amaZulu and Maswati had the University of Zululand, and the amaXhosa and amaFingo had Fort Hare University. English was almost exclusively used as medium of instruction at the University of the North, the University of Zululand and Fort Hare University, although these three universities we established for indigenous languages communities. Today, South Africa’s universities are multilingual. They cater for students from diverse cultural groups and should offer instruction in all 11 official languages. The organisational culture extends to employees or work-group culture. The influence of emotions is “considered in an appraisal of work-group climate” (Härtel et al, 2008, p.30). Likewise climates of communication at the group level “have a stronger relationship to organisational identification than the department-level communication climate… [P]rocesses within an individual’s immediate work group or team should be of particular importance in the formation of shared perceptions” (Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad 2013, p.662). “People’s feelings and actions are influenced by those they interact with, such as their work-group” (Härtel et al, 2008, p.30). Hence, “work-groups are often the most difficult cultures to penetrate and influence” (Garratt, 2010, p.114). If there is a climate of limited trust and communication among groups, work-group involvement in the language policy execution may be set aside. Thus, organisational culture, especially the work-group culture, is at the centre of language policy execution troubles in South Africa. It poses a serious challenge to language policy formulation and execution by South African universities.

A lack of leadership: Execution is “a leader’s most important job” (Bossidy, Charan & Burck, 2002, p.1). Khoza (2012, p.490) defines leadership as “the quality

19

exhibited by person at any level in society who gathers a following and succeeds in winning their trust”. Ayalew (2010, p.3) refers to transformational political leadership and defines this type of leadership “as any leadership that brings about fundamental change in the political, economic, or social institutions of a polity. It is an amoral force that is utilised for the purpose of a fundamental alteration of the existing status quo”.

The English word “hegemony” refers to “the leadership one nation displays among others over others” (Adair, 2002, p.8). Today “the hegemony of English in South African education is a new form of oppression that has not yet received adequate or focused attention… [T]he country has tried to uphold human rights and advocate for language equality and educational opportunity; however, these efforts too often fall short” (Figone, 2012, p.3). It results in elitism – “a feature of misleadership” (Khoza, 2012, p.488). Hence, “the lack of a meaningful political will in the political (and educational) leadership of the country is the chief obstacle to giving substance to multilingualism in South Africa” (Webb, 1999, p.351). For example, “only very few non-Afrikaner scholars and political or cultural leaders have written extensively on the issue, more especially on the relationship between language, identity and citizenship education” (Alexander, 2003, p.7). Thus, leadership, especially, political leadership, is at the heart of language policy execution troubles in South Africa. It poses a serious challenge to language policy formulation and execution by South African the country’s universities.

Lesson learned

Will Rogers says: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” (Allen, 2015, p.64). The fourfold mandate given by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, has already dug the hole, and government sectors are in this hole. However, people in those government sectors are not doing the things they are supposed to do to execute the fourfold mandate. “They desperately want to make changes of some kind, but what do they need to change? They don’t know” (Bossidy et al, 2002, p.7). This is the lesson learned from this study. Officials of the Ministry of Education engage in “The Reactive Planning Model” (Allen, 2015, p.64). The

20

Higher Education Act was promulgated on 19 December 1997. This Act instructs councils of public higher education institutions on the issue of language policy. However, for a period of four years after the promulgation of the Act, officials in the Ministry of Education made no comment on language policy. Historically white Afrikaans-medium institutions were fast to adopt English and Afrikaans as mediums of instruction. Hence, the Ministry of Education (2001, p.38) says:

Although the historically white Afrikaans-medium institutions are gradually moving towards the adoption of a combination of dual- and parallel-medium language strategies, language continues to act as a barrier to access at some of these institutions. This is especially the case at the undergraduate level within some of the universities. Furthermore, even where a dual- and parallel-medium language policy is in place, its implementation remains uneven as not all the courses within a degree or diploma programme are offered in dual- and parallel-medium mode. This is unacceptable.

The document which contains these words was published in February 2001 by the Ministry of Education in reaction to the work of historically white Afrikaans-medium institutions. The Ministry of Education continued to dig a hole instead of executing its fourfold mandate. It had not yet published a language policy for higher education that the councils of all public higher education institutions had to follow. Five months after the Ministry of Education’s comment, in July 2001, the Council of Higher Education (CHE)20 published the Language Policy Framework for South African Higher Education. Subparagraph 6.1 of this document reads as follows:

In this document no specific comments have been made on the use of either English or Afrikaans in Higher Education, because legally their status is no different from the other languages recognised by the Constitution. However, as South Africa is emerging from a culture of colonial bilingual education, reference to the status of the two languages and their role in education is appropriate… The survey conducted by the Task Group in April 2000 revealed that the number of Higher Education institutions using Afrikaans was decreasing whilst those using English was increasing. Research needs to be conducted to establish what learner groups are responsible for the increase

21

in the use of English, and what has happened to the learners who are Afrikaans-speaking. In the absence of this data, hasty decisions and policies are inadvisable (Council on Higher Education, 2001, p.9).

The above information was used to advise the Ministry on the formulation of a language policy for higher education. It encouraged the Minister to continue digging for the next six months until January 2002, when the Report on the Position of Afrikaans in the University System – an extension to the Language Policy Framework for South African Higher Education – was submitted to the Minister of Education. Paragraph 1(3) of the report states it has been compiled to

... provide the Minister with advice and recommendations about ways in which Afrikaans, whose achievements as scientific and academic language have been recognised as a national asset by the National Commission on Higher Education, can be assured of continued long term maintenance, growth and development as a language of science and scholarship in the higher education system without non-Afrikaans speakers being unfairly denied access within the system, or the use and development of the language as a medium of instruction wittingly or unwittingly becoming the basis for racial, ethnic or cultural division and discrimination (Gerwel, 2002, p.3).

The words of Gerwel (2002) and his committee, and those of Ministry of Education (2001) and the Council on Higher Education (2001), go against the fourfold mandate given by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, concerning language policy execution. They were used by the Ministry of Education to produce the Language Policy for Higher Education in November 2002. Paragraph 21 of this document says it has been designed to promote multilingualism and to enhance equity and access in higher education through

... the development of strategies for promoting student proficiency in designated language(s) of tuition; the retention and strengthening of Afrikaans as a language of scholarship and science; the promotion of the

22

study of South African languages and literature through planning and funding incentives; the promotion of the study of foreign languages; and the encouragement of multilingualism in institutional policies and practices (Ministry of Education, 2002, p.15).

None of the points in the above quotation directly address the development of South Africa’s indigenous languages as academic or scientific languages. The first three or 50% of the points signify the government’s commitment to strengthen and improve English and Afrikaans as academic or scientific languages. We may assume that South Africa’s indigenous languages have been considered in two or 33.3% of the given points, where the concept “South African languages” have been used. However, “assumptions are external factors for which the intervention is not responsible, but ... are very important for the realisation of the results, the project purpose and the overall objective. They are outside direct intervention control, but vital for achieving a successful implementation” (MDF, 2005, p.1). Therefore, South Africa’s indigenous languages are factors external to the Language Policy for Higher Education. Foley (2004, 58) concludes that “from a theoretical point of view, it is of course possible to develop these languages (like any other languages) in this way. From a practical point of view it is not going to happen, definitely not in the short term, and not even in the medium- to long-term”.

Therefore, the Ministry of Education was now in a very deep hole, because the above policy is similar to the Union and apartheid governments’ bilingual policy. “[T]here is no reason to ever have the same thought twice, unless you like having that thought” (Allen, 2015, p.24). The Ministry of Education had the same thought twice and it did not stop digging a deeper hole. Ten or 12 months after the publication of the Language Policy for Higher Education, in September 200321, a Ministerial Committee was appointed to advise the Minister on the development of South Africa’s indigenous languages as academic or scientific languages. The Ministerial Committee published its report 2005 – three years after the publication of the Language Policy for Higher Education. The report explains the following:

To develop official indigenous languages as mediums of instruction in higher education requires systemic undergirding by the entire schooling system and

23

the enhanced public and social use of these languages in the daily lives of South Africans. [The Ministerial Committee] ... recommends that each higher education institution should be required to identify an indigenous African language of choice for initial development as a medium of instruction (Ministerial Committee 2005, p.20).

In addition to the above, the Ministerial Committee outlines eight recommendations. One of the recommendations produced Table 6.

Table 6: Distribution of the languages at various universities (Ministerial Committee, 2005)University Languages Universit

yLanguages

Cape Town isiXhosa; Sesotho Rhodes isiXhosaFort Hare isiXhosa South

AfricaisiNdebele; isiXhosa; isiZulu; Sepedi; Sesotho; Setswana; siSwati; Tshivenda; Xitsonga

Free State isiXhosa; Sesotho Stellenbosch

isiXhosa; Sesotho

Johannesburg isiZulu; Sepedi North22 Sepedi; Tshivenda; XitsongaKwaZulu-Natal isiZulu Venda Sepedi; Tshivenda; XitsongaNelson Mandela Metropolitan

isiXhosa Western Cape

isiXhosa

North-West isiZulu; Setswana Wits isiZulu; SesothoPretoria isiNdebele;

Sepedi;Setswana

Zululand isiZulu; siSwati

It is impractical to incorporate the recommendations of the Ministerial Committee in the policy. The data were not taken into account when decisions were made about the Language Policy for Higher Education, which represents a rejection of the development of South Africa’s indigenous languages as academic or scientific languages. Hence, their development remains theoretical. For instance, ten years after the recommendations, Nkhwashu, Madadzhe23 and Kubayi (2015) write:

24

The majority of Xitsonga speakers at UL reject the use of Xitsonga as a MoIL24. The major reasons for the state of affairs are economic in nature: it is English that promotes employability and provides access to the international and globalised world. Unless Xitsonga and other African languages25 acquire the requisite capacity to empower students to gain employment and be relevant to the current social and political context in the world, it will be the tall order to use them as MoIL in higher education (Nkhwashu et al, 2015, p.20).

Academics are also digging a deeper hole. They fail to link the recommendations by the Ministerial Committee (2005) to the Language Policy for Higher Education. Universities enjoy the deep hole. For instance (see Figure 2 as one of the examples.

Figure 2: Percentage used on how often Afrikaans, English, isiXhosa and Sesotho mentioned on the 2014 language policy of Stellenbosch University. (Stellenbosch University, 2014)

Afrikaans English isiXhosa Sesotho

100% 100%

81%

0%

Afrikaans and English are each referred 16 times, isiXhosa 13 times and Sesotho zero times. The policy gives equal status to English and Afrikaans as academic or scientific languages; languages of various usage configurations; languages to receive special considerations in the development of students’ academic language skills; and languages for documentation. IsiXhosa is equal to Afrikaans and English concerning the language support and language services offered. It is considered in

25

the promotion of multilingualism where necessary; and feasibility is first tested to advance the isiXhosa language. Sesotho is not considered at all. Schoeman (in press, p.1) says that Stellenbosch University Executive’s “proposal is an effort towards extreme political correctness. It should simply not be allowed that a university's management succumbs to political pressure, as happened in this case”.

FUTURE PROGRESS “Our job requires us to think, assess, decide and execute” (Allen, 2015, p.19). Universities cannot execute a language policy “unless the right people, individually and collectively, focus on the right details at the right time” (Bossidy et al, 2002, p.33). The Ministry of Higher Education (MHE) requires rapid language policy reform in line with the fourfold mandate given by the Constitution. People involved in language policy reform should choose how universities should progress. A best-practices model is required. Figure 3 outlines two possible ways in which the MHE may progress in the future.

Figure 3: Two possible ways of progressing in the future (Thiele & Masters, 2014, p.3).

Natural planning techniques, as proposed by Allen (2015), are suitable for the whole process of the language policy reform since they cover purpose, principles, vision (outcome), brainstorming and organising. Purpose provides motivation and direction to the people involved in language policy execution; principles define the

26

Vertical or intensive progressDoing new things

Horizontal or extensive progressCopying things that work

parameters of action and the criteria for excellence of conduct; vision (outcome) helps stakeholders to think of something unique and positive that South Africa’s higher education system have not had before to develop South Africa’s indigenous languages as academic or scientific languages; brainstorming helps them to figure out how to get from one phase to the next; and organising happens when they identify components and subcomponents, sequences of events and priorities.

CONCLUSION

It is evident that the language policy for higher education (2002) could not be adequately executed. It was not properly formulated and developed. Therefore, the MHE should develop a new language policy. This requires political leadership committed to linguistic transformation, especially in the country’s education environment.

REFERENCES

Adair, J. (2002). Effective Strategic Leadership: An Essential Path to Success Guided by the World’s Great Leaders. London: Macmillan.

African National Congress. (1992). Ready to Govern: ANC Policy Guideline for Democratic South Africa. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://www.anc.org.za.

Alexander, N. (2003). Language Education Policy, National and Sub-National Identities in South Africa. Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe: From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic.

Alexander, N. (2012). The centrality of the language question in post-apartheid South Africa: Revisiting a perennial issue. S Afr J Sci. 108 (9/10): 1-7.

Allen, D. (2015). Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity (Revised Edition). New York: Penguin.

27

Ayalew, H. (2010). Political Leadership in the Transformation of Societies: F.W. de Klerk and Pim Fortuyn in the Multicultural Project Macalester International. 25(6):1–18.

Baker, C. (2007). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Michigan: Multilingual Matters.

Bossidy, L., Charan, R. & Burck, C. (2002). Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. London: Random House Business Books.

Campbell, C.T. (1887). British South Africa: A History of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope from its Conquest 1795 to the Settlement of Albany by the British Emigration of 1819 [A.D. 1795—yJ.Z). 1825] with Notices of Some of the British Settlers of 1820. Johannesburg: Juta.

Council on Higher Education. (2001). Language Policy Framework for South African Higher Education. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Dastmalchian, A., McNeil, N., Blyton, P., Bacon, N., Blunsdon, B., Kabasakal, H., Varnali, R. & Steinke, C. (2015). Organisational Climate and Human Resources: Exploring a New Construct in a Cross-National Context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 53:397–414.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited.

Figone, K.E. (2012) The Hegemony of English in South African Education. Scripps

Senior Theses. Paper 43.

Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/43.

Foley, A. (2014). Language Policy for Higher Education in South Africa: Implications and Complications. South African Journal of Higher Education. 18(1):57–71.

Follow-up Committee. (1998). Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/versions/angles.pdf.

28

Frijda, N., & B. Mesquita. 1994. The social roles and functions of emotions. In S. Kitayama and H. Markus (eds). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence:51–87. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

.Garratt,B. (2010). The Fish Rots From the Head: Developing Effective Board Directors (3rd edition). London: Profile Books.

Gerwel, G. J. (2002). Language Policy Framework for Higher Education in South Africa: Report to Minister of Education A K Asmal by the Informal Committee Convened to Advise on the Position of Afrikaans in the University System. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://www.dhet.gov.za/Report s .

Giliomee, H. (2003). The Rise and Possible Demise of Afrikaans as a Public Language. PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 14. Cape Town: PRAESA.

Glisson, C & James, L.R. 2002. The Cross-Level Effects of Culture and Climate in Human Service Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(6):767–794.

Hamilton, N. (2003). A Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland. Stormont: Economic Policy Unit.

Härtel, C.E.J., Gough, H. & Härtel, G.F. (2008). Work-group emotional climate, emotion management skills, and service attitudes and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.46(1):21–37.

Hemmelgarn, A.L., Glisson, C & James, L.R. 2006. Organizational Culture and Climate: Implications for Services and Interventions Research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. V13.N1, Spring:73–89.

Heyns, R., Pietersen, M. & Erasmus, B.P.J. (Editors). (1988). South Africa 1987–1988 (Condensed New Edition). Pretoria: Bureau of Information.

Junod, H.A. (1905). The native language and native education. Journal of the Royal African Society, 5(17), October:1–14.

Kachru. B.B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2/3):121–140.

29

Kadt, E. (1993). Attitudes towards English in South Africa. World Englishes, I2(3):311–313.

Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2007). One language, multi-layered identities: English in a society in transition, South Africa. World Englishes, 26(3):263–275.

Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2013). Effects of policy on English-medium instruction in Africa. World Englishes, 32(3):325–337.

Khoza, R.J. (2012). Attuned Leadership: African Humanism as Compass. Johannesburg: Penguin.

Louw, L. & Kandell, F. (1986). South Africa: The Solution. Bisho: Amagi.

Marrian, N. (in press). Tertiary education needs R19.7bn More but ‘State Lacks a Solution.’ Business Day.

Matthews, Z.K. 1957. The University College of Fort Hare. South African Outlook, April–May:1–35.

Mbeki, M. (2009). Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism Needs Changing. Johannesburg: Picador Africa.

McKerron, M.E. (1934). A History of Education in South Africa (1852–1932). Pretoria: Van Schaik.

MDF. (2005). MDF Tool: Assumptions MDF Tool: Assumptions. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment.org.

Ministerial Committee. (2005). The Development of Indigenous African Languages as Mediums of Instruction in Higher Education . Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://www.dhet.gov.za/Report s .

Ministry of Education. (1997). Higher Education Act 101 of 1997. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Ministry of Education. (2001). Language Policy Framework for Higher Education in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers.

30

Ministry of Education. (2002). Language Policy for Higher Education. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Ndletyana, M. (2014). Middle-Class in South Africa: Significance, Role and Impact. BRICS Academic Forum, Rio – Brazil. March 10:1–17.

Ndlovu, S.M. (2004). The Soweto Uprising. In The Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 2, 1970–1980:317–368. Pretoria: Unisa Press.

Nicholson, N. (1979) Industrial relations climate: A case study approach. Personnel Review 8(3):20–25.

Nkhwashu, D., Madadzhe, R.N. & Kubayi, S.J. (2015). Using Xitsonga at the University of Limpopo (Turfloop Campus). South African Journal of Higher Education. 29(3):8–22.

Nkuna, P. (2014). Learning Foreign and Indigenous Languages: The Case of South African Universities. In Proceedings of Applying Intercultural Linguistic Competence to Foreign Language Teaching and Learning (1820–1831). Sarajevo: IBU.

Nkuna, P.H. (2010). The Fit between Government Language Policies and Institutional Language Policies: The Case of Indigenous Languages in the South African Higher Education System. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Ntsebeza, L. (2012). Chapter 1: African Studies at UCT: An Overview. In Nhlapo, T. & Garuba, H. (editors). African Studies in the Post-Colonial University:1–22. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Nye, J.S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth Anniversary. Autumn:153–171.

Nye, J.S. (2006). Soft Power, Hard Power and Leadership. Retrieve October, 13, 2015, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J. and Muhammad, R.S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In N. Schmitt,

31

S. Highhouse and I. Weiner (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 12), Hoboken, NJ, John

Wiley and Sons: 643-676.

Parliament of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from http://inkomaticma.co.za.

Reddy, T. (2004). Higher Education and Social Transformation: South Africa Case Study. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Rivera, J & Páez, D. (2007). Emotional Climate, Human Security, and Cultures of Peace. Journal of Social Issues, 63(2):233–253.

Rudwick, S. (2008). “Coconuts” and “oreos”: English-speaking Zulu people in a South African township. World Englishes. 27(1):101–116.

Rudwick, S. (2015). Making an African Language Compulsory at University May Do More Harm Than Good. Retrieved October, 13, 2015, from https://theconversation.com.

Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45:109–119.

Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In Organisational Climate and Culture:383–412. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Schoeman, J. (in press). VC's decision to Anglicise Stellenbosch University shocking – Afrikanerbond. Politicsweb.

Stellenbosch University. (2014). Language Policy of Stellenbosch University. Retrieved November, 12, 2015, from http://www.sun.ac.za/english/Documents.

Tonkin, H. (2006). Language Equality in Europe: An Answer in Pursuit of a Question. Retrieved November, 12, 2015, from http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/tonkin/pdfs/LanguageEquality2.pdf.

Tran, V. (1998). The role of the emotional climate in learning organisations. The Learning Organisation, 5: 99-103.

32

Tshamano, M.W. (2013). The Willingness of Academics to Implement the Language Policy for Higher Education at University of Technology in South Africa. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria.

University of Free State. (2015). Language Policies in South Africa. Retrieved November, 12, 2015, from http://humanities.ufs.ac.za/content.aspx?id=535.

Van der Walt, C. (in press). Multilingualism is magic. Mail & Guardian.

Vargas-Hernandez, J., Noruzi, M.R. & Ali, I.F.N.H. (2011). What is Policy, Social Policy and Social Policy Changing? International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2(10):287–291.

Verwoerd, M. (in press). The Truth is that Many White ‘Born-Frees’ on Campus are Racist. The Sunday Independent.

Webb, V. (1999). Multilingualism in Democratic South Africa: The Overestimation of Language Policy. International Journal of Educational Development 19:351–366.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Elevation: Increasing the status of indigenous languages.

Execution: Implementation of a project such as a language policy.

Equity: Fairness in doing or executing something.

Leadership: Direction giving and guidance.

Multilingualism: Knowledge and use of three or more languages.

Policy: Guidelines document. Progress: To develop, moving steps forward and advance.

Recommendation: A proposal or suggestion.

ENDNOTES

33

1 McKerron (1934, p.129) writes: “Even by 1750 the Dutch of this country seems to have been clearly distinguishable from the Dutch of Holland. This was the germ of what we to-day call Afrikaans.” Afrikaners took over from Dutch and replaced the Dutch language with Afrikaans. 2 Lord Milner also imported English teachers and made primary education free but voluntary.3 The mother tongue was English or Dutch. 4 McKerron (1934, p.127) says that “at a very early stage the Union Government appointed a language commission to draw up recommendations for the use of English and Dutch languages at schools”.5 It was accepted together with High Dutch.6 Act 8 of 1925 technically grants official language status to Afrikaans. 7 Die Genootskop van Regte Afrikaanders or the Association of True Afrikaners was formed to campaign for the Afrikaans language. 8 Henri A. Junod of the Transvaal Swiss Mission, Director of the Shiluvane Training Institution, focused on the education to be provided to the indigenous people and annihilation of indigenous languages and cultures.9 This secret policy document was completed in September 1968 to force more indigenous people to use Afrikaans.10 Note that information has been adapted from African National Congress (1992). 11Mckerron (1934, p.8) says that “these institutions devoted themselves mainly to school work, but all apparently attempted to provide some more advanced courses. Out of these latter branch of their work developed our present university system”. Heyns et al (1988, p.496) say “between 1829 and 1874 several similar colleges were set up in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape, and one each in Pietermaritzburg, Natal and Bloemfontein, OFS”. 12 English teachers had to teach the ancient languages with the theory, history and practice of English grammar and literature to impart habits of investigation, discussion and composition in English and an acquaintance with the history and moral and civil policy of the species. Dutch teachers had to do the same for Dutch language. 13 South Africa, like some of the other colonies, modelled her first university on the University of London. It was natural that the colonies should look to the mother country for guidance (McKerron, 1934).14McKerron(1934, p.93) says that “the Government displayed comparatively little interest in higher education until 2010”. 15 The University of South Africa (based in Pretoria) was the successor of the University of the Cape of Good Hope and embraced all the colleges other than the South African College and Victoria College. 16 Matthews (1957,p.6) writes: “The University College of Fort Hare, formerly known as the South African Native College, was incorporated as a declared institution for higher education under the Higher Education Act 30 of 1923 in that year.”17Norton was a Church of England missionary who was on friendly terms with several Cape Town professors. According to Gordon, Norton was a Church of England missionary, and he assisted missionaries in overcoming barriers of misunderstanding by providing them with proper language training.18The same statement is included in the Language Policy for Higher Education published by the Ministry of Education (2002). 19 The University of KwaZulu-Natal’s choice is English and isiZulu; and three historically Afrikaans universities combined Afrikaans and English as their mediums of instruction. They are the North-West University , the University of the Free State and Stellenbosch University. The University of South Africa also uses Afrikaans and English. 20 The Council on Higher Education (CHE) was established in terms of section 4 of the Higher Education Act, 1997, to advise the Minister of Education on any aspect of higher education at his or her request. 21 There are two dates in the document: September 2003 and November 2003. 22 The University of the North is now called the University of Limpopo (UL). 23 R.N. Madadzhe was among the members of the Ministerial Committee who decided to recommend that the indigenous languages Sepedi, Tshivenda and Xitsonga be developed as academic or scientific languages at UL.24 MoIL refers to medium of instruction for teaching and learning.25 “African languages” is the term widely used by South African academics to refer to isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga.