South Africa: All languages equal but English (and Afrikaans?) more equal?

Source:http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=530

All languages equal but English (and Afrikaans?) more equal?
Posted on Language Policy list April 30th, 2008 by Pierre De Vos

Is it not strange - as a writer asks in an interesting piece in The
Herald newspaper - that 14 years after the advent of democracy in
South Africa, “the language spoken in our courtrooms still resembles
the apartheid era and in no way does it reflect the demographics of
this country”? While witnesses and accused persons can testify in one
of the eleven official languages and can rely on the services of a
translator when doing so (as Jacob Zuma did to great effect in his
rape trial) lawyers, magistrates and judges may speak only English and
Afrikaans (with less and less Afrikaans being spoken). This happens
even when all the parties before the court speaks a first language
other than English or Afrikaans.

Does this not make a mockery of the provisions of the Constitution
that recognises that the official languages of the Republic are
Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans,
English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu? And what does it say about
the much bandied about need for transformation of the legal system in
South Africa? The problem is that our Constitution is as clear as mud
on the issue of language rights. Trying to strike a compromise between
what is practical and what is ethically demanded, it contains a rather
muddled provision that in effect allows for English to be treated as
more equal than the other ten official languages (as George Orwell
might have said). Section 6 of the Constitution recognises “the
historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of
our people”, and places a duty on the state to “take practical and
positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these
languages”.

This is a rather broad injunction and it is not so clear exactly what
practical steps should be taken by the state to give effect to it.
Section 6 does seem to give some clues on what would be required when
it states that both the national 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” - which normally
means that because of the expense involved in using other languages
English wins out.

At the heart of the language provision in the Constitution is an
understanding (as stated in section 6(4) of the Constitution) that
“all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be
treated equitably”. This does not mean that all languages must be
treated equally or even that all the dominant languages in a region
must be treated equally. It only means that they must be treated
fairly “taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional
circumstances”. But because English is such a dominant language and
because it is also the aspirational language of most people in our
country, even second language speakers of English often do not insist
on fair treatment for their indigenous language. English is seen as
the language of money and status and often amongst lawyers and
magistrates and judges (as well as most others in the professional
classes) this means that it is taken for granted that everyone will
speak English and if they cannot or will not speak it well, that they
are stupid.

The water is further muddied by the fact that the only South Africans
who actively promote and fight for their indigenous language are white
and Afrikaans and often do so in ways that seem to have more to do
with a disappointment about the loss of power and status and with
racism than with a genuine concern for the indigenous languages of
South Africa. Maybe it is time for people who do not speak English (or
Afrikaans) to put pressure on the government to deal more pro-actively
with the language issue and to develop a language policy for our
courts. Perhaps this policy could allow for regional differences as
suggested by the Constitution. This would mean, for example, that in
the Western Cape lawyers and magistrate and judges would be allowed to
speak not only English and Afrikaans but also Xhosa in court and to
draft documents in any of these languages.

Lawyers trained in the Western Cape could then be required to take a
non-English language course of at least one of the other two regional
languages to qualify as lawyers. This would not be very popular with
white lawyers I would imagine, but if we want to start somewhere to
respect the language diversity of South Africa, we will have to be
forced to do it. As someone who has twice started taking Xhosa lesson
only to abandon them, I know I will probably not learn the other
language of my region unless I am forced to. So what we need is a bit
of government intervention to force us to do the right thing -
otherwise everyone will just revert to English.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=530

South Africa: Proper use of mother tongue the way forward

Posted by sociolingo on April 29, 2008

Proper use of mother tongue the way forward

(This article was originally published on page 9 of The Cape Times on
April 21, 2008 )
http://www.eltworld.net/news/tag/use-of-english-in-south-africa/
In this article in our series, Neville Alexander, director of the
project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa at the
University of Cape Town, argues that to ignore the language issue is
to entrench the domination of powerful elites. South Africa has
arguably the most progressive language policy on paper. This fact is
acknowledged by most people who are familiar with the sociology and
the politics of language.
n spite of this, however, if one reads only the Afrikaans press, one
would have to conclude that this language policy is a total failure
and that we are moving rapidly to a situation where the de facto sole
official language is the “hated” Queen’s English.

The reader would be surprised, therefore, to hear that some of us hold
the unpalatable view that, because of what we call our “languish
policy”, this country is in fact simply carrying out in practice a
neo-apartheid language policy. For, in spite of the fact that
Afrikaans is being driven out of many domains of social life and being
replaced by English, it is still the most favoured official language
next to English. Why is language policy important? And why is it a bad
idea that we should all be forced to operate in English only when we
transact business or are involved in any public domain?

The simple way to answer this is by means of a five-dimensional
argument. Incidentally, although there is a very important polemic
taking place among linguists about the exact meaning and even the
validity of a word such as “a language”, this is not the place to
enter into that debate. Suffice to say it is an important debate that
may eventually lead to significant changes in the ways we speak or
write about the language question. The fact is that I am writing this
article in Standard South African English, and expect to be read and
understood by hundreds of South Africans and other users of a notional
international standard written English.

Many of these readers, I expect, will tell others, who either have not
read or cannot read the article, about its contents in whatever
linguistic means they have in common. And, somehow, for my current
communicative purposes, this seems to be in order. The
five-dimensional argument refers to the relationship between language
use and language policy with the social processes of diversity,
development, democracy, dignity and didactics.

It is generally accepted that cultural diversity, which includes
linguistic diversity, is as necessary an aspect of human survival as
is biological diversity. This point is the subject of much
controversy, but it is bound to prove useful for our understanding of
the continuum between “nature” and “culture”. This debate, which is as
yet confined to a small group of linguists concerned about the rapid
disappearance of “languages” on Earth may yet turn out to be one of
those revolutionary moments in humanity’s self-understanding such as
the, initially quite esoteric, discussions that led to the Copernican
Revolution, as a result of which we now know that the Earth revolves
around the sun and not the other way around. In this regard, because
of our constitutional commitment to the promotion and maintenance of
multilingualism, South Africa is, in principle, on the side of the
angels.

It is also accepted that language policy at the workplace and in
business transactions generally is a vital aspect of economic success.
Languages have market value - hence the desirability of English as the
most important of the global languages today - and it is one of the
tasks of any national or regional government to frame language policy
and use it in such a way that the populace at large is empowered by
the fact that the linguistic resources which they possess become
“cultural capital” that they can use to earn their livelihood and to
improve their life chances.

Much detailed research is essential in this regard since politicians
tend to “find” the will to act once they are convinced that there is
real economic benefit in a given policy approach. Our score in this
area is quite bad since, with some notable exceptions in both the
public and the private sector, there is a very strong tendency towards
an English-only policy, although it self-evidently restricts the
productivity, efficiency, creativity and job satisfaction of those
engaged in the economic processes of production, exchange and
distribution. It is probably useful to remind ourselves here that it
is a myth that only “unilingual” countries have become economically
successful in the modern world. If you study the question seriously,
you will find that it is the levels of literacy that determine
economic success in the modern world.

Democratic polities require the full participation of the citizens in
the important decision-making processes. It is axiomatic that such
participation is only possible when these processes are conducted in
languages that the citizens understand and are able to use. This is
the very foundation of freedom of speech. Again, our balance sheet is
patchy, even though I believe there is a genuine commitment on the
part of government to move in the right direction. Parliament and the
SABC are examples where, recently, major steps have been taken towards
treating the official languages as well as sign language equitably.

However, because of a simplistic, short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to
Afrikaans (as the “language of the oppressor”), many obvious steps
that ought to, and can, be taken are skipped. It is incomprehensible,
for example, that we still do not use African languages on our
airlines or on our beaches (except when we need to warn people about
dangerous circumstances or behaviour); why can we not also have road
signs and official instructions in numerous contexts in the relevant
African languages? That difficult decisions would have to be made is
clear, but we have to make these all the time, whether it is in the
domains of transport, health, crime fighting or education. Much more
urgency is required.

Human dignity, the right to use the language of one’s choice and not
to be discriminated against on the basis of language, is inscribed in
the Bill of Rights and there are institutions such as the Pan South
African Language Board, the Human Rights Commission, the Cultural,
Religious and Linguistic Commission and, in the final analysis, the
judiciary, that have been given the powers to enforce these
provisions. Despite this, however, and in spite of numerous
complaints about the violation of language rights, mainly from
organised Afrikaans-speaking and other smaller African
language-speaking communities, these provisions remain a dead letter.
The example of the European Union and the Council of Europe, in spite
of a yawning disparity of resources, is there to show the way and we
have in fact learnt much from post-war Europe in this regard. There
are close connections at all levels between Europeans, Asians,
Americans and South Africans who are committed to the implementation
of a consistently democratic language policy.

A mother tongue-based bi- or multilingual educational system, the
didactical dimension of the language question, is the sine qua non for
all development in South Africa. Space does not allow any further
explanation of this proposition, but it is essential that it be seen
as the challenge it is intended to be. Besides the obvious pedagogical
issue of teaching children in languages they understand rather than in
those they do not understand, this question involves the critical and
urgent question of early literacy learning which, if you think about
it carefully, is the basis of economic success or failure in the 21st
century. The Western Cape Education Department has begun to take this
challenge seriously and is involved in numerous initiatives to find
out what the problems and the most effective approaches to solutions
would be. The national Department of Education supports these moves in
principle.

However, language policy in education is a sensitive matter, and most
parents do not have the necessary information at their disposal in
order to make the most appropriate decisions in this regard. A major
advocacy campaign is imperative. In conclusion, beyond the issue of
political will and the prioritisation of the language question, we
should be looking more carefully at how language policy and use are
being managed currently. The Asmal Commission that considered the
efficacy of the Chapter 9 institutions has not been very kind to the
Pan South African Language Board, which was intended to be the
keystone in the linguistic architecture of the new South Africa.
Whether one agrees with all its recommendations or not, I believe that
a case can be made out for a radical redrafting of this entire
complex.

Without language communication, hardly any complex operations are
possible for human beings. To ignore the language question or to take
it for granted is merely to entrench the domination of the powerful
elites in our society. Above all, let us agree: it is not a question
of the highest levels of competence in either English or the mother
tongues. It is a question of all individuals having the power to
communicate, learn, work and be creative in both the mother tongue and
English. Many, of course, will want - and be able - to function in
more than two languages.

This article was originally published on page 9 of Cape Times on April 21, 2008

South Africa: Proper use of mother tongue the way forward

Source: IOL (via lg-policy list)

Proper use of mother tongue the way forward

In this article in our series, Neville Alexander, director of the project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa at the University of Cape Town, argues that to ignore the language issue is to entrench the domination of powerful elites.

South Africa has arguably the most progressive language policy on paper. This fact is acknowledged by most people who are familiar with the sociology and the politics of language.

In spite of this, however, if one reads only the Afrikaans press, one would have to conclude that this language policy is a total failure and that we are moving rapidly to a situation where the de facto sole official language is the “hated” Queen’s English.

The reader would be surprised, therefore, to hear that some of us hold the unpalatable view that, because of what we call our “languish policy”, this country is in fact simply carrying out in practice a neo-apartheid language policy. For, in spite of the fact that Afrikaans is being driven out of many domains of social life and being replaced by English, it is still the most favoured official language next to English.

Why is language policy important? And why is it a bad idea that we should all be forced to operate in English only when we transact business or are involved in any public domain?

The simple way to answer this is by means of a five-dimensional argument. Incidentally, although there is a very important polemic taking place among linguists about the exact meaning and even the validity of a word such as “a language”, this is not the place to enter into that debate. Suffice to say it is an important debate that may eventually lead to significant changes in the ways we speak or write about the language question.

The fact is that I am writing this article in Standard South African English, and expect to be read and understood by hundreds of South Africans and other users of a notional international standard written English.

Many of these readers, I expect, will tell others, who either have not read or cannot read the article, about its contents in whatever linguistic means they have in common. And, somehow, for my current communicative purposes, this seems to be in order.

The five-dimensional argument refers to the relationship between language use and language policy with the social processes of diversity, development, democracy, dignity and didactics.

It is generally accepted that cultural diversity, which includes linguistic diversity, is as necessary an aspect of human survival as is biological diversity. This point is the subject of much controversy, but it is bound to prove useful for our understanding of the continuum between “nature” and “culture”.

This debate, which is as yet confined to a small group of linguists concerned about the rapid disappearance of “languages” on Earth may yet turn out to be one of those revolutionary moments in humanity’s self-understanding such as the, initially quite esoteric, discussions that led to the Copernican Revolution, as a result of which we now know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. In this regard, because of our constitutional commitment to the promotion and maintenance of multilingualism, South Africa is, in principle, on the side of the angels.

It is also accepted that language policy at the workplace and in business transactions generally is a vital aspect of economic success. Languages have market value - hence the desirability of English as the most important of the global languages today - and it is one of the tasks of any national or regional government to frame language policy and use it in such a way that the populace at large is empowered by the fact that the linguistic resources which they possess become “cultural capital” that they can use to earn their livelihood and to improve their life chances.

Much detailed research is essential in this regard since politicians tend to “find” the will to act once they are convinced that there is real economic benefit in a given policy approach. Our score in this area is quite bad since, with some notable exceptions in both the public and the private sector, there is a very strong tendency towards an English-only policy, although it self-evidently restricts the productivity, efficiency, creativity and job satisfaction of those engaged in the economic processes of production, exchange and distribution.

It is probably useful to remind ourselves here that it is a myth that only “unilingual” countries have become economically successful in the modern world. If you study the question seriously, you will find that it is the levels of literacy that determine economic success in the modern world.

Democratic polities require the full participation of the citizens in the important decision-making processes. It is axiomatic that such participation is only possible when these processes are conducted in languages that the citizens understand and are able to use. This is the very foundation of freedom of speech. Again, our balance sheet is patchy, even though I believe there is a genuine commitment on the part of government to move in the right direction.

Parliament and the SABC are examples where, recently, major steps have been taken towards treating the official languages as well as sign language equitably.

However, because of a simplistic, short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to Afrikaans (as the “language of the oppressor”), many obvious steps that ought to, and can, be taken are skipped. It is incomprehensible, for example, that we still do not use African languages on our airlines or on our beaches (except when we need to warn people about dangerous circumstances or behaviour); why can we not also have road signs and official instructions in numerous contexts in the relevant African languages? That difficult decisions would have to be made is clear, but we have to make these all the time, whether it is in the domains of transport, health, crime fighting or education. Much more urgency is required.

Human dignity, the right to use the language of one’s choice and not to be discriminated against on the basis of language, is inscribed in the Bill of Rights and there are institutions such as the Pan South African Language Board, the Human Rights Commission, the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Commission and, in the final analysis, the judiciary, that have been given the powers to enforce these provisions.

Despite this, however, and in spite of numerous complaints about the violation of language rights, mainly from organised Afrikaans-speaking and other smaller African language-speaking communities, these provisions remain a dead letter. The example of the European Union and the Council of Europe, in spite of a yawning disparity of resources, is there to show the way and we have in fact learnt much from post-war Europe in this regard. There are close connections at all levels between Europeans, Asians, Americans and South Africans who are committed to the implementation of a consistently democratic language policy.

A mother tongue-based bi- or multilingual educational system, the didactical dimension of the language question, is the sine qua non for all development in South Africa. Space does not allow any further explanation of this proposition, but it is essential that it be seen as the challenge it is intended to be. Besides the obvious pedagogical issue of teaching children in languages they understand rather than in those they do not understand, this question involves the critical and urgent question of early literacy learning which, if you think about it carefully, is the basis of economic success or failure in the 21st century.

The Western Cape Education Department has begun to take this challenge seriously and is involved in numerous initiatives to find out what the problems and the most effective approaches to solutions would be. The national Department of Education supports these moves in principle.

However, language policy in education is a sensitive matter, and most parents do not have the necessary information at their disposal in order to make the most appropriate decisions in this regard. A major advocacy campaign is imperative.

In conclusion, beyond the issue of political will and the prioritisation of the language question, we should be looking more carefully at how language policy and use are being managed currently. The Asmal Commission that considered the efficacy of the Chapter 9 institutions has not been very kind to the Pan South African Language Board, which was intended to be the keystone in the linguistic architecture of the new South Africa. Whether one agrees with all its recommendations or not, I believe that a case can be made out for a radical redrafting of this entire complex.

Without language communication, hardly any complex operations are possible for human beings. To ignore the language question or to take it for granted is merely to entrench the domination of the powerful elites in our society.

Above all, let us agree: it is not a question of the highest levels of competence in either English or the mother tongues. It is a question of all individuals having the power to communicate, learn, work and be creative in both the mother tongue and English. Many, of course, will want - and be able - to function in more than two languages.

This article was originally published on page 9 of The Cape Times on
April 21, 2008

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=105&art_id=vn20080421062253449C698119

South Africa: Dr. Neville Alexander of South Africa is the recipient of the 2008 Linguapax Prize

Posted on March 1, 2008.

Source: Don Osborn

Dr. Neville Alexander of South Africa is the recipient of the 2008 Linguapax Prize:

  22.02.2008

The South African linguist Neville Alexander will receive the Linguapax Award today in Barcelona, on the occasion of the Mother Language Day. The ceremony is framed in the Intercultural Week organised by the Ramon Llull University. Alexander, who coordinates the Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa has devoted more than twenty years of his professional life to defend and preserve multilingualism in the post-apartheid South Africa and has become one of the major advocates of linguistic diversity.

http://www.unescocat.org/en/serveis/premsa.php

  For more information on the Prize, see:

http://www.linguapax.org/en/premisLPXang.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguapax_Prize

Majority and Minority Languages in South Africa.

Majority and Minority Languages in South Africa.
Alexander, Neville

This paper discusses three categories of languages in post-apartheid South Africa: high-status, low-status, and endangered. The first section presents demolinguistic profiles and their representation in the media, offering data on the relative numerical importance of the main languages used in South Africa and the average and proportional allocation at three South African Broadcasting Corporation stations in 1996. The second section examines the sociolinguistic status of South Africa’s languages, noting the processes that shaped language policy and attitudes during the past 50 years. The third section discusses language in education, explaining that most educators in South Africa continue to think of the indigenous African languages as impediments to be overcome on the way to mastering the English language. The fourth section describes prospects for African languages in South Africa and its education system. The paper concludes that a series of language planning steps is necessary to ensure that the theoretically unchallengeable policy positions of the new South Africa are realized. Recommendations include large scale generalized critical language awareness campaigns, multilingual or bilingual signposts and nameboards for all government buildings and roads, and large-scale training for interpreters, translators, journalists, media practitioners, and teachers. (SM)

South Africa: Language issues and challenges

Seen on the language policy email list

Speaking notes, Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor MP, at the Language Policy Implementation in Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) Conference,
University of South Africa, Pretoria
5 October 2006

“Language issues and challenges”

Professor Neo Mathabe
Professor Chris Swanepoel
Professor Finlayson
Members of UNISA Council
Conference participants

Universities are leading agents of social enquiry and usually leaders in the creation of new ideas and solutions. I hope that this conference will assist in the development of a reasoned and balanced deliberation on the role and place all languages should have in education, and in the social progress of South Africa.

Our constitution asserts that all our languages have equal status. But in recognition of the marginalisation of indigenous languages in our past, “the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.”

Regarding language in education, the Constitution states 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” (Section 29(2) of the Constitution). Further, it indicates that the exercise of language choices in education should not be in conflict with considerations of equity and redress within the context of our shared values and aspirations as a nation. The Department of Education has published policy to give effect to these provisions of the Constitution. The Language in Education Policy (1997) and the Language Policy for Higher Education (2002) were designed to promote multilingualism in the education sector. Their aim is to ensure that all South African languages are “developed to their full capacity while at the same time ensuring that the existing languages of instruction (English and
Afrikaans) do not serve as a barrier to access and success.”

The published policy encourages the development of indigenous African languages as mediums of instruction in the higher education system, alongside English and Afrikaans. In 2003, the Ministry appointed a Ministerial Committee, chaired by Professor Njabulo Ndebele, to provide advice for the development and use of African indigenous languages as mediums of instructions in higher education. The committee report made a startling but not surprising finding that the future of African languages as mediums of instruction is bleak if nothing is done immediately. It recommended development of a “well co-ordinated, long-range national plan that would work at national, provincial and local levels to provide adequate resources and support for indigenous African languages.”

Certainly, the success of such a plan would require systemic under-girding by the entire schooling system and the enhanced public and social use of indigenous African languages in the daily lives of South Africans. The committee also recommended that each tertiary institution in South Africa should identify an indigenous African language of choice for initial development as medium of instruction.
Where the language of choice is a particular regionally dominant language, Higher Education Institutions in that region should utilise a regional approach.

I am pleased that a number of universities have responded positively to the language policy for higher education and some of the recommendations made by the Ministerial Committee and have developed and revised their institutional language policies to align them with the national policy. I continue to engage with stakeholders and role-players on language issues, so as to seek ways of finding a better and more effective implementation of our language policy.

On 31 July this year the Department of Education hosted a language colloquium in Cape Town. At the colloquium concern was expressed over the slow implementation of language policy and over a variety of barriers to its implementation. There was consensus that the current school language policy (1997) should be retained and that measures should be taken to ensure its implementation. Two messages, which came out loud and clear from the various inputs, were the following:

* that the Department of Education needs to encourage mother-tongue education for at least six-years
* that higher education needs to play an active role in developing and promoting the learning and teaching of indigenous languages.

As a result of the colloquium, the department undertook to develop a plan to implement the language policy. The plan will focus on the following areas of intervention:

(a) A national six-year mother tongue education programme aimed at using learners’ home languages as mediums of instruction in the foundation and intermediate phase. In this regard, the programme will make a distinction between schools serving uni-lingual and multi-lingual learner populations.

(b) A national general and further education second language programme.

(c) A national indigenous language learning programme that will focus on the compulsory achievement of communicative competence in an indigenous language by all learners. This will also incorporate the role of provinces in developing and promoting the learning of languages that are official in those provinces.

(d) A national programme to make available to learners all external assessment tools in the national Senior Certificate and later in grade
9 and systemic evaluation at grades 3 and 6 in indigenous languages.

The aim of this component of the implementation plan is to assist learners who are currently learning in a second language to understand the assessment instruments better.

(e) A national programme to revitalise the teaching and learning of indigenous languages in higher education institutions. This will focus on supporting the learning of the languages in all undergraduate programmes and also in teacher-education programmes.

(f) Launching a vigorous information and advocacy aimed at assisting parents and learners to make informed language decisions.

(g) The development of capacity at all levels of the system to implement all aspects of the language in education policy. This requires a focus on the development of the language support services of school district teams and the provision of support for school management teams and school governing bodies to implement the language in education policy.

With respect to the higher education sector, the language policy for higher education will guide activities in this area. A number of initiatives have been taken and are being planned to realise the objectives of the policy.

As part of our initiative to promote multilingualism in higher education, the Department of Education supports a number of pilot projects under the South African-Norway Tertiary Education Development programme. The focus of the pilot project is promoting multilingual proficiency for academic staff and students registered in service disciplines such as social work, law, nursing, medicine and other health sciences. Support is also provided for academic tutorials conducted in indigenous languages.

We are aware that these interventions are not enough to address the huge challenges that we face. However, we believe that they make a valuable contribution that higher education institutions can build on and consolidate to ensure that we create an environment where multilingualism will become a reality, not in the residences alone but in the lecture halls as well.

Indeed, the future of South African languages as areas of academic study and research is a matter of pressing concern for all of us. The role of language and access to language skills is critical to enabling individuals to realise their full potential to participate in and contribute to the social, cultural and intellectual life of the South African society.

I hope that by the end of this conference you will be able to make some suggestions as to how we can move faster towards creating and consolidating a multilingual environment in our higher education institutions.

Thank you.

Issued by: Department of Education
5 October 2006

Academic Paper: LANGUAGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA

The following academic paper is available from

 http://www.up.ac.za/academic/libarts/crpl/language-dev-in-SA.pdf

LANGUAGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA

V. N. Webb
Centre for Research in the Politics of Language
University of Pretoria
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.

Read the full paper