Multilingualism from below. Really? In South Africa?
Vic Webb, CentRePoL, University of Pretoria
1. Introduction
In their call for papers for the MIDP symposium, the organisers make the following
statements about language political change:
(a) That language users are not ‘passive receivers’ of linguistic decisions taken at
the highest levels of state organization
(b) That they never submissively ‘implement’ language policies, but appropriate
them and then steer them in novel, unforeseen directions
(c) That their role in the implementation of language policy occurs through their
everyday language practices and their discursive perceptions and
interpretations of linguistic realities
(d) That these dialectic processes of interaction between what is designed from
above and how it is responded to from below give shape to societies’ overall
patterns of multilingualism
(e) That subalternity involves, rather than excludes, agency.
In this paper I wish to test these hypotheses with reference to the language politics of
South Africa and, particularly, with reference to the likelihood that multilingualism
can be established in the country “from below”.
The following issues will be discussed:
 Top/down language political change in SA
 Bottom/up language political change in SA
 The relationship between these two types of language change processes
 The likelihood that multilingualism can be established from the bottom/up,
and
 The validity/applicability of the hypotheses proposed by the MIDP conference
organisers
2. Top/down language political change in SA
Top/down language political change: See LP definitions:
Language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behaviour of others
with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their
language codes (Cooper, 1989: 45)
Language planning refers to deliberate and future-oriented activities aimed at
influencing or modifying the language behaviour of a speech community or
society (Swann et al: 2004: 173)
Language planning is a systematic, rational, theory-based effort at the societal
level to solve language problems with a view to increasing welfare. It is typically
conducted by official bodies or their surrogates and aimed at part or all of the
population living under its jurisdiction. (François Grin, 1996: 31)
1
to deliberate and future-oriented activities
typically conducted by official bodies or their surrogates and aimed at part or all of
the population living under its jurisdiction.
So: Government is directed at achieving its political goals by using language as an
instrument: E.g. promoting Afrikaans.
2.1 Examples
The very successful elevation of Afrikaans in the 20th century, on the other hand,
was clearly also a top/down process, with Afrikaans used by the government in all
domains of public life and at all levels to gain control, to ensure that the sectional
interests of the Afrikaner community were met and to establish their views and
beliefs, attitudes, values and norms. (English was, of course, used in the same
ways in South Africa.)
Also (possibly arguably) top/down, though not a case of “linguistic decisions taken at
the highest levels of state organization”, are the forces operative in public language
behaviour in South Africa: globalisation, a market-driven economy, the insistence of
public authorities for centralised political and social control,1 the dominance of the
elite and the reigning language ideology of English-only monolingualism.2 (Remark:
these forces cannot be regarded as “bottom/up, community forces because
communities have no control over them.)
Successful top/down processes
(i) The promotion of Afrikaans as an official language
(ii) The “invention/construction” of the 9 Bantu languages; the “divide and rule”
ideology
Unsuccessful top/down processes:
(i) The imposition of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in “black” schools in
1976
(ii) The imposition of English and Dutch as only official languages in South
Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries
(iii)Effecting bilingual language policies at the universities of Pretoria and
Stellenbosch
(iv) The implementation of a policy of multilingualism in post-1994 South Africa
2.2 Factors
In the case of the top/down dimension one can consider the forces operative in public
language behaviour in South Africa: globalisation, a market-driven economy, the
insistence of public authorities for centralised political and social control, the
1
Leading figures in the ruling ANC have made it clear that, in order to achieve their goal of ensuring
black political and economic control, they need to control every decision-making body in the country at
national, provincial and local government levels. (Pieter du Toit, Beeld, 10 June, 2009, p. 13).
2
It is possible that the preference for English is a pragmatic, not an ideological matter, and that
language is only seen as an instrument of communication.
2
dominance of the elite and the reigning language ideology of English-only
monolingualism. (Remark: although these forces are not a case of “linguistic
decisions taken at the highest levels of state organization” they cannot be considered
as bottom/up, since communities have no control over them and are therefore, albeit
arguably, top/down” processes.)
Question: were these “choices” of language users made out of free will? Did they
have any choices?
(a) Power of agencies
(i) Strong political control: SA in apartheid / pre-1994 SA
(ii) Powerlessness of (white) Afrikaans speakers in post-1994 SA
(iii)
2.3 Conditions / requirements / limitations
Authority; need for relevant authoritative agencies
Need for power: financial; political. Support of political leadership. Funding
Capacity
Support of social, cultural and political contexts
Limitation: regime of human rights (especially individual rights)
Problem of implementing a policy of group rights
2.4 Mechanisms
PanSALB; DAC’s NLS and Research and development centres; lexicography units
2.5 Steps
3. Bottom/up language political change in SA
Nature of B/U process. Individuals become aware of threats / disadvantages /
unfairness. So activists.
Establish organisations directed at promoting the interests of community.
Support of the church, school, family.
Language becomes a pol;itical instrument.
3.1 Examples
Successful bottom/up processes:
(i) Afrikaans in the 19th and 20th century
(ii) The rejection of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in “black” schools in
1976
(iii)Post-1994 LiEP
3
(iv) Court ruling regarding governmental attempts at imposing their interpretation
of the LiEP
(b) Unsuccessful bottom/up processes:
(i) Re-establishing Afrikaans as a language of tertiary education
(ii) The retention of single-medium Afrikaans schools
In the case of Afrikaans, bottom/up factors included the need of the Afrikaansspeaking community to express social identity, the struggle against discrimination,
marginalisation and exclusion, the need to have access to educational, economic,
political and social opportunities. In response to these needs Afrikaans was
consciously developed as a symbol of group identity (to the level of nationalism) and
used as an instrument in the struggle for political power. Thereafter, it was
consciously developed as an instrument of communication in formal public contexts
(i.e. standardised).
The current, post-1994 movement in response to the public decline of Afrikaans has
also been mainly a bottom/up process, driven by community organisations.
Language behaviour in post-1994 South Africa also provides support for both
categories of linguistic transformation processes.
As regards the bottom/up dimension one can consider the failure of national language
policy implementation which is (at least) partly due to the language practices of the
communities as well as the language-in-education situation. Language users have
refused to implement the proposed national LP. (Provide information regarding
choice of medium of instruction; the study of African languages as subjects of study;
and the training programmes for teachers of African languages. See also attitudes of
learners and students towards African languages. Reasons for this situation: lack of
economic value, and so forth.)
Question: were these “choices” of language users made out of free will? Did they
have any choices?
3.2 Factors
Communicative needs of speakers
Needs, wants (social, educational, economic)
Socio-political identity
Need for recognition
Regime of ethni-political nationalism
As regards the bottom/up dimension one can consider the failure of national language
policy implementation which is (at least) partly due to the language practices of the
communities as well as the language-in-education situation. (Provide information
regarding choice of medium of instruction; the study of African languages as subjects
of study; and the training programmes for teachers of African languages. See also
4
attitudes of learners and students towards African languages. Reasons for this
situation: lack of economic value, and so forth.)
factors (forces) operative as part of these processes will be considered, for example:
the need for expressing social identity, the struggle against discrimination,
marginalisation and exclusion, the need to have access to opportunities, the need to
establish control, the need to promote sectional interests and the need to impose
particular norms, attitudes and patterns of behaviour; and the need for the recognition
of (language) rights. In response to these needs Afrikaans was consciously developed
as a symbol of group identity (to the level of nationalism) and used as an instrument
in the struggle for political power,3 and thereafter consciously developed as an
instrument of communication in formal public contexts. The current, post-1994
movement in response to the public decline of Afrikaans has also been mainly a
bottom/up process, driven by community organisations. (Still unsuccessful.)
As regards the bottom/up dimension one can consider the language-in-education
situation: Information regarding choice of medium of instruction; the study of African
languages as subjects of study; and the training programmes for teachers of African
languages. See also attitudes of learners and students towards African languages.
Who are “the language users”? In what “format” do they operate in establishing new
linguistic realities?
Leaders of the community (teachers, church leaders), organised into NGOs. Also
acted as implementers of the selected norms of the standard variety
In what way do they “appropriate (language policies) and steer them in novel,
unforeseen directions”?
Media, public functions (churches); activism: How do language users act as agents of
language political change?
What, exactly, is meant by language users’ “everyday language practices and
discursive perceptions and interpretations of linguistic realities” and by the concept
“dialectic processes of interaction”?
Language choices; expressed attitudes; public support for Standard Afrikaans
Are the consequences of users’ language practices really “novel” and “unforeseen” or
can they be predicted in any way?
In the sense of opposing the state language policies; e.g. rejection of Dutch as official
language of schools, court, media; establishing Afrikaans as official language;
production of written texts, serious literature
3
It is also important to consider the relationship between ethno-linguistic movements and nationbuilding. Steyn (Beeld, 10 June 2009, p. 12) points out the opposition between what he calls supporters
of globalization and multiculturalism on the one hand, and the struggle to maintain national values and
identity on the other. (I don’t think that there is a necessary opposition between multiculturalism and
nationalism.)
5
Is it only the “dialectic processes of interaction between (policies and language
practices that) give shape to societies’ overall patterns of multilingualism” or are there
other factors (or “forces”) that “guide” or “lead” language users to “oppose” the
“linguistic decisions taken at the highest levels of state organization”?
Own interests. See Edwards (in press): points out that the language political fate of
minority languages (language promotion, language maintenance, language decline
and loss, and language revival) is determined by the needs and desires of
communities, and that only the community can save its language.
Driven by market forces; need to be part of the global world, etc. Modern,
progressive.
(a) Language as symbol of identity
(b) Language as political instrument:
(i) Struggle against marginalisation, minoritisation
(ii) Struggle against control/policy imposition (English and Dutch in early 20th
century; Soweto 1976)
(iii)Struggle against obstacles to access
(c) International economic and political forces: globalisation; power of technology
(TV, internet); market-driven economy (Attitudes and beliefs of parents, teachers
re English)
(d) The socio-cultural character of communities
(i) The Bantu-speaking communities
(e) The socio-political character of communities: absence of full democracy; absence
of a critical dispensation; bland acceptance of government leadership, an attitude
of accepting that government will make all the decisions
3.3 Conditions / requirements / limitations
Limitations: Liberal democracy; pluralism; human rights; role of intellectualisation;
culture of literacy
Supportive socio-cultural regime; Failure of French in Canada; Tamil in Singapore;
Van den Heever, Van Rensburg
Activists / agencies need strong support of the community; legitimacy; trust, right to
act on behalf of community
Workers / activists possess the required capacity: knowledge, understanding, skills
3.4 Mechanisms
Establish NGOs
Strategies: communicate with community; convince community
Sustained discourse – with government and with community organisations
Establish values, norms, patterns of behaviour
6
Promote economic value of Bantu languages: users must know: competence and use
of their languages is in their personal interests. Link: language economic development
- empowerment
3.5 Steps
Provide info on necessity of linguistic transformation – convince members of
community of necessity of language promotion
Establish network (via radio, newspapers)
Obtain co-operation of members of the linguistic community; raise consciousness
Questions: Are members of communities involved in the language promotion /
development process?
Become participants in the process; take pwnership
Drive process
4. The relationship between these two types of language change processes
Given the above overview the question is what the relationship is between top/down
and bottom/up language political processes. What are the conditions applicable in
each case? What happens if the two types of forces oppose one another? Will
bottom/up language political processes be effective in the context of strong top/down
pressure?
Generalisations
Issue of power
From the preceding analyses, it is clear that the theoretical position of the organisers
of this symposium is at least partially valid: “language users” are important roleplayers in the country’s language political processes; language users have, indeed,
appropriated (although not in an explicitly formulated way) language “policies” in
some sense and are “steering” them in “unforeseen” directions (public
monolingualism as opposed to linguistic pluralism); they are acting as subalterns (in
the sense of engaging in the struggle against their marginalisation and oppression and
are thus involved as “agents of social change”); and are giving shape to their
societies’ overall language political character.
Ironically, however, the language political shape they are giving to their societies is
against their own economic, political and socio-cultural interests. They are not
contributing to the establishment of meaningful public multilingualism, but to public
monolingualism, thereby contributing towards diminishing their right of choice (e.g.
of medium of school instruction), their educational development, and their
participation in the economic and political life of their country. They are contributing
towards their continued exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination.
It is clear that bottom/up language political processes are ineffective in the context of
strong top/down pressure.
5. The likelihood that multilingualism can be established in post 1994 SA
7
Problems re ML in SA:
Absence of language awareness; that language is fundamental to transformation and
development
Literacy levels; culture of reading / writing; intellectualisation
Strength of English
Question: What is meant by multilingualism?
Knowledge of more than two languages? Levels of competency re
each?
Tolerance and respect for languages other than own?
Use of more than two languages in public domains, at the different
levels and in the major contexts?
That all the major languages of a similar status in society?
(Functional and social status)?
Given the above, SA is not a multilingual country; rather is a country with 1+10, or, at
best: 1+1+9
According to the conference organisers, SA can become multilingual from below, that
is, through the efforts of agencies from below. Question is: how likely is this to
happen?
To answer this question, ask:
What language political changes have to occur to establish true
multilingualism in SA, i.e. with linguistic equity and equality?
What are the processes which occur when these changes take place?
What factors (co-)determine language political development?
Moontlikheid dat meertaligheid in SA ‘n werklikheid sal word:
Politiek: Gumede
Ekonomies: Mbeki
Sosio-kultureel: werklikhede – vestiging van denkwyse van
meertaligheid, multukulturalisme; waardering van andersheid
Opvoedkundig:
Skole – Engels; krisis in die onderwys
tersier
The choices of language users have not led to multilingualism in SA. The language
political shape of South Africa, whether through bottom/up or top/down processes, is
that of public monolingualism. Linguistic transformation forces / processes / attempts
have not produced a multilingual reality, despite the explicit stipulations of the
constitution. This language political reality is, demonstrably, against the interests of
the people of the country, contributing towards diminishing their right of choice (e.g.
of medium of school instruction), their educational development, their participation in
the economic and political life of their country and is thus contributing towards their
continued exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination. This, it can be argued, is a
dilemma. How should language planning scholars respond to it?
The construction of a multilingual national, public reality is a complex issue. E.g.:
The role of ethnic awareness (rather than ethnic or linguistic nationalism) in language
promotion is an issue yet to be sorted out by political decision-makers in South
8
Africa. The philosophy of pluralism clearly gives meaningful recognition to ethnolinguistic diversity, yet it is not clear how such recognition should be implemented.
Steyn (Beeld, 10 June 2009, p. 12) suggests that multiculturalism stands in opposition
to the struggle to maintain the values and identity of a cultural community. (He talks
of “national values and identity”.) I would argue that there is not a necessary
opposition between multiculturalism and nationalism. The challenge to post-1994
South Africa is to find the balance between national identity and ethnic identity, that
is: giving recognition to community values and identities in a meaningful way whilst
also promoting national values and identities.
(Afrikaans; Bantu languages)
5.1 Top/down approach: all structures already exist: constitution; language
planning institutions; Lack of capacity for policy implementation (see
formerly Afrikaans universities)
5.2 Can it be a bottom/up process?
Absence of support from authorities and communities; involvement;
ownership; driven from below
Lack of power
Socio-political regime
5.3 SA will not become ML in the foreseeable future as a consequence of
bottom/up processes
Challenges / problems
Required support from communities (and government?)
Capacity?
Not via B/U processes: Choice of MoI; study of Bantu languages as home languages
1ALs, 2Ads
Didactics of BLs
Attitudes
Language practice in hffc
6. The validity/applicability of the hypotheses proposed by the MIDP
conference organisers
Views expressed in the Call for papers is probably an oversimplification
7. Conclusions
7.1 T/D and B/U processes should probably be seen as complementary processes
7.2 Language behaviour is not a free choice: power dimension determines it
(despite Edwards); effect of political, economic and social contexts;
globalisation and internationalisation; free market economy
7.3 Finally: a question to theorists regarding the Sociology of Language: should
language planning scholars be disinterested scholars (Edwards) or should they
be activists?
9