Early Literacy and Official Languages: Training Teachers in Mother-tongue Education in Post-apartheid South Africa.
In 1994, with the victory of the African National Congress (ANC), Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first president of the Republic of South Africa. The country ratified a new constitution that stipulated 11 official languages. Since the 1994 independence, South Africa has had a single Department of Education, which has enacted a series of laws and policies that legislate learners’ rights regarding instruction (with)in language and literacy. The purpose of this policy paper is to synthesize the available research on the implementation of language policies and literacy education in post-apartheid South Africa with a goal of understanding how national language and literacy policy in a multi-lingual society manifest.
South Africa’s Linguistic History and Background
Prior to colonialization, the region of the African continent that is now South Africa was (and is) populated by several, separate, indigenous African culture groups, each with a separate, though often mutually comprehensible, languages. These were oral languages. In the mid-seventeenth century the region was colonized by Dutch immigrants. Dutch rule continued from mid-seventeenth until the late nineteenth century, when the impact of British immigrants and interests (beginning in the late eighteenth century) began to make a presence in the region. The increasing tensions between the British and former Dutch South Africans eventually lead to the Anglo-Boer Wars. A negotiated settlement resulted in the Union of South Africa with two official languages, Dutch and English. In 1925, Afrikaans replaced Dutch as an official language. The 1948 elections brought the National Party to power and introduced formal apartheid to the country. Apartheid was defined along territorial and linguistic lines. In this vein, bilingual education (e.g., Afrikaans with tribal language) was actively discouraged. Mother-tongue-education (i.e., initial instruction in home talk) was extended to eighth grade (Heugh, 2007), with the effect of infantilizing native education. The requirement for African citizens to be educated in tribal language through the eighth grade, perceived by heritage Africans as an unproductive and hegemonic imposition, is credited as the major cause for a rebellion of Black Consciousness Movement in Soweto in 1976. The “Soweto Riots” are understood to be a major event in the developments that lead to a democratic, post-apartheid South Africa. Prior to the “new” post-apartheid South Africa, the 1979 (pre-democratic) government was forced to change its language-in-education policy, reducing mother-tongue-education requirements to four years instead of the previous eight. More importantly, students were then allowed to transition to a choice between Afrikaans or English in their advanced years of education (Heugh, 2004; du Plessis, 2003 note go to Ransool refs.). These changes in language-in-education policy reveal the pervasive effects of official language policy in the historical development of South African values and beliefs regarding language and literacy.
Official Languages and Linguistic Desire
The southern tip of Africa is home to a great variety of cultural and linguistic groups. Prior to western colonialization, the region was typified by a rich linguistic diversity. Buekes (2004) reports that the original inhabitants were the Khoe and San peoples (also referred to as Khoesan by Mesthrie [2008]). Later, the Bantu tribes settled in the region. Then, beginning in the Seventeenth Century, European settlers began living in the Southern Cape area, followed by English settlers in the following century. See Mesthrie (2008) for a more detailed description of the development of South African linguistic groups. Today, more than twenty-five languages are regularly spoken in South Africa (Beukes, 2004), with about 80% of the population speaking one of the African languages in their homes. Thirteen percent of South Africans use Afrikaans as a home language. Afrikaans is a local, African language derived from a creole of Dutch and African languages, which was then pidginized, and ultimately legitimated as an independent language. A total of 8% of South African speak English (Statistics South Africa, 2003). The Constitution of the “new’ South Africa stipulates eleven official languages. Of these, two (Afrikaans and English) are non-African languages. The other nine languages are African (IsiNdebele-1.6%; IsiXhosa-17.6%; IsiZulu-23.6%; Sepedi-9.4%; Sesotho-7.9%; Setswana-8.2%; SiSwati-2.7%; Tshivenda-2.3%; Xitsonga-4.4) where percentages equal proportion of speakers in the total population. It is clear that the modal language is IsiZulu, but frequency does not indicate the relative influence and situated power held by the 11 different “official” languages.
The text of the Constitution that attends to language policy follows:
6. (1) The languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.
(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous language of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.
(3) National and provincial governments may use 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 respective provinces, provided that no national or provincial government may use only one official language. Municipalities must take into consideration the language use and preferences of their residents.
(4) National and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor the use of those governments of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.
(5) The Pan South African Language Board must –
(a) promote and create conditions for the development and use of
(i) all official languages
(ii) the Khoi, Nama, and San languages; and
(iii) sign language
(b) promote and ensure respect for languages, including German, Greek,
Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, and others commonly used by communities in South Africa, and Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, and others for religious purposes.
Even the most cursory look at the policy must admire its comprehensiveness and the obvious focus on inclusion and respect for linguistic diversity. However, after nearly two decades since the Constitution of 1994, the success of this bold linguistic experiment remains mixed. In fact, Webb (2002) and du Plessis (2006) both argue that the language provisions in the Constitution are more of a mission statement than a policy. In contrast, the Language Task Group (LANTAG, 1996) formalized the language of the Constitution regarding language planning and made recommendations to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology for language planning. Similarly, the Pan South African Languages Board (PANSALB) is a permanent body charged with being the “watch dog” for linguistics rights of the citizens (Mesthrie, 2008). Government is expected to publish in all 11 languages, and in no case fewer than six of them (designated as Tsonga, Venda, Afrikaans, English, a Nguni language and a Sotho language). For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the apartheid associations with Afrikaans, English has emerged as a lingua franca, “at the expense of other languages” (Mesthire, 2008, p. 329). English currently dominates in parliament, higher education, local government, police, defense forces and the courts.
According to the Implementation Plan (DAC, 2003b), “the costs of implementing the proposed policy by government departments were sustainable and could be accommodated with minor adjustments to planned potions.” (Beukes, 2004, p. 12) The impact of implementation was estimated at less than 1% over 10 years (Emzantsi Associates, 2001). However, such estimates have not assuaged critics who argue that implementation has been less than anticipated (Moodley, 2000; Kamwangamalu, 2000; Alexander, 2000 & 2002; Heugh, 2003; and Brand, 2004). According to Beukes (2004), who cites Alexander (2000 & 2002) “the promise of ‘liberation’ through English has not materialized” but has “remained ‘unattainable’ for the majority of South Africans and has instead become part of the ‘cultural capital’ of the cultural elite” (p. 17, single quotes replicate Bueke’s use of Alexander).
In 2003, fully nine years into post-apartheid government, the National Language Policy Framework (NLPF) was approved. Among other objectives, the NLPF is to: 1.) promote equitable use of the 11 languages, 2.) assure access to government, 3.) redress past inequities for marginalized languages, 4.) promote multilingualism, 5.) encourage language learning, 6.) promote good language management (DAC 2003, 13).
Yet the reality of the multilingual experiments is captured in the following quote:
The work of our government is conducted virtually entirely in English and the language of our culturally diverse Parliament is almost exclusively English. Many senior politicians stay away from African languages on the radio stations, presumably because they perceive those audiences as not sophisticated enough … Universities are battling to keep African language departments open as student numbers dwindle, … book publishing in indigenous languages is on its deathbed, and … the use of these languages among native speakers is becoming unfashionable. (Sunday Times, 25 April, 2004, italics mine).
The implied devaluing for Africans who speak African languages is present. And according to Beuke (2004), the South African language policies
“ha[ve] resulted in a retrogressive situation which, notwithstanding the admirable aims of the NLPF, has delivered the following outcomes in the first decade of democracy:
(a) Language domination with no delivery in respect of language equality for the indigenous languages.
(b) Inequality of opportunity as regards access to government services, knowledge and information.
(c) The marginalisation of the indigenous languages and (arguably also increasing marginalization of Afrikaans)” (pp. 14-15)
Language in use and languages as content within schools
Implementation of the Constitution’s language policy within the field of education is not without its own complexity and contention. Frequently referred to as Language-in-education policy, the implementation has generated many responses and perspectives. First a look at the exact policy. The Language in Education Policy Act (Act 27 of 1996) directs the Minister of Education to determine and maintain a national policy for language in education. The Language-in-education policy was adopted in 1997. According to SAlanguages.com, a service of the Department of Education, the language-in-education policy operates within a framework of:
1. In terms of the new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the government, and thus the Department of Education, recognizes that our cultural diversity is a valuable national asset and hence is tasked, amongst other things, to promote multilingualism, the development of the official languages, and respect for all languages used in the country, including South African Sign Language and languages referred to in the South African Constitution.
2. The inherited language-in-education policy in South Africa has been fraught with tensions, contradictions and sensitivities, and underpinned by racial and linguistic discrimination. A number of these discriminatory policies have affected either the access of the learners to the educational system or their success within it.
3. The new language in education policy is conceived of as in integral and necessary aspect of the new government’s strategy of building a non-racial nation in South Africa. It is meant to facilitate communication across the barriers of colour, language and region. While at the same time creating an environment in which respect for language other than one’s own world be encouraged.
4. This approach is in line with the fact that both societal and individual multilingualism are the global norm today, especially on the African continent. As such, it assumes that the learning of more than one language should be general practice and principle in our society. That is to say, being multilingual should be a defining characteristic of being South African. It is constructed also to counter any particularistic ethnic chauvinism or separatism through mutual understanding.
5. A wide spectrum of opinions exists as to the locally viable approaches toward multilingual education, ranging from arguments in favor of cognitive benefits and cost-effectiveness of teaching through one medium (home language) and learning additional language(s) as subjects, to those drawing on comparative international experience demonstrating that, under appropriate conditions, most learners benefit cognitively and emotionally from the type of structured bilingual education found in dual-medium (also known as two-way immersion) programmes. Whichever route is followed, the underlying principle is to maintain home language(s). Hence, the Department’s position that an additive approach to bilingualism is to be seen as the normal orientation of our language-in-education policy. With regard to the delivery system, policy will progressively be guided by the results of comparative research, both locally and internationally.
6. The right to choose the language of learning and teaching is vested in the individual. This right has, however, to be exercised within the overall framework of the obligation on the educational system to promote multilingualism.
The immediate implications of this policy statement are that the parents have the right of language choice for their children. They must, in fact, choose their particular language of instruction upon school entry. If the chosen language is not immediately available, parents may request it from the provincial educational authority. Likewise, schools are tasked with proactively stipulating how their particular agency will promote multilingualism. In early grades, students are guaranteed instruction in their local language. From grade 3 onward, all students will also received instruction in a second language as well as study the language in which they are being taught. Failing a required language (language of instruction) results in failing the grade.
Reliance on African languages as media for instruction is not without issues. During the time of the Bantu Education Act, African languages were used for instruction for the first six years of schooling. Yet, the linguistic resources created for this forced use of African languages as language of instruction fell into disuse with the scaling back of the Bantu Education Act, and no doubt in part because of the hegemonic rationale for their use at the time. At this point, in the “renewed” call for African heritage languages as language of instruction, Wildsmith-Cromarty (2009) notes that updating of both terminology and orthography is needed. And when those terms, new to the native discourses, are introduced to teachers who have not previously used them, the teachers struggle to communicate with their students even in home talk. This is the reverse of Wildsmith-Cromarty’s findings for formal presentation of content in English, with follow up clarification in home talk.
In apparent contrast to the linguistic egalitarianism of the Language-in-education policy, parents are reported as demanding that even their young children be taught in English rather than in their own home language (SAlanguages.com), though this pattern is contested by Heugh (2007). Citing Krashen (1996), Heugh points out that when parents are given an “either/or” choice, they are likely to choose the language with the higher prestige. When a bilingual option is presented, the parents will likely choose this alternative. Nevertheless, there exist several possible reasons for parents’ English preference. Parents may believe that their children’s future economic success depends on facility with English. They may also believe that the immediate job market and global economic positioning are leveraged toward competence with English. It is also true that parents know that studies cannot be completed in tertiary education in African languages. English or Afrikaans is required. African languages are associated with injustices and unequal resourcing in the past. Finally parents may perceive that schools do not possess the resources, and disciplines of inquiry may not be translated into traditional African languages.
To understand the apparent contradiction in parents’ choices, it is productive to revisit education policies during the National Party’s period of apartheid. First of all, from this previous perspective, Afrikaans is viewed by African heritage parents “as a language of vertical control and political exclusion” (Heugh, 2007). In Afrikaner moves to preserve Afrikaans for Afrikaners, speakers of African languages and speakers of English were effectively excluded from power, linguistic and otherwise. Therefore Afrikaans has significant baggage for African-heritage South Africans, and will likely not be chosen as a language for instruction, even at the present time. Secondly, the Bantu Education Act of 1955 proposed that education for Africans be provided in “mother-tongue” and that this provision be extended into upper grades. Elsewhere in this paper, mother-tongue instruction is supported as an appropriate medium for initial school learning, for literacy as well as for other subjects. But the rationale behind the Bantu Education Act was interpreted critically (Probyn, 2005) as a means to keep Africans from power by restricting their access to Afrikaans. Therefore, parents who remember or have heard about the Bantu language scandal, might prefer English to home talk, and certainly not Afrikaans even in the initial years of their children’s education, so as not to be “duped” by what they may perceive as linguistic paternalism.
So parents’ African parents’ understandings about language preferences, languages of instruction and language policy may be at odds with the intentions of government policies. Another area of difference that may also impact the literacy teaching the children receive may be located in the differing sets of beliefs about the very children shared between government and parents. Many of South Africa’s educational and government elite are schooled in western intellectual traditions which may inculcate very different notions of childhood, children and learning.
Children and their Development Across Cultures
Recommendations for early and emergent literacy have much to do with how the one recommending understands youngsters, how they learn, and how they are understood to “develop.” Development itself is an assumption that may or may not transfer across cultural borders. In claiming the potential for difference between western notions of child development and African-heritage notions of children and how they exist in the world, it is not necessary to invoke “exoticism of the dark continent” (Brock-Utne, 2005) Rather, it is appropriate to consider the transferability of assumptions that permeate western philosophies about childhood. Kincaid (1998) points out the alarming ways adults construct childhoods for what are revealed to be problematic motives. In as much as children are not agents in the policies we construct about (for) them, it is therefore imperative to examine child development from a cross-cultural perspective.
Arguing for the importance of African perspective on child development, Super, Harkness, Barry and Zeitlin (2011, p. 119) write “Because the environments for children’s development are culturally structured, local knowledge is necessary to understand development and to devise social program to promote healthy outcomes”. Like the construct of local literacy, ideas of “local child” (in contrast to the “universal child”) are paramount. The authors point out cross-cultural differences in understandings and practices in motor development, cognitive growth, attachment, and “socially responsible intelligence.” This final factor points to the importance of what the authors label an “eco-developmental niche.” Interestingly, the authors for this particular call to respect local knowledge on child development are all non-African researchers and scholars. In contrast, Serpell (2011), a researcher at the University of Zambia, also writes about the uniqueness of African children’s adept social responsibility, recommends it as an educational goal, and advocates for additional research on socially responsible intelligence. According to Marfo (2011), outside-in advocacy (such as Super, et al) is the result of many factors. First of all, research by native scholars is, at present, limited. Secondly, most current native scholars are frequently educated at European and American universities, and return with western philosophies about childhood and literacy. Third, the development of indigenous psychologies and literacies faces the immediate task of establishing legitimacy. Such questioning does not necessarily invalidate westernized versions of African child development or literacies. But the interrogation is critically important for a representative understanding of literacy development in African heritage contexts. Is an “African psychology” a part of global psychologies (now largely western), or is it to an exotic species, ignored by others. Similarly, are African literacy practices inclusive of local literacies (as promised by the Constitution), resulting in Africanist literacies as part of globalized notions of what world literacy might mean, or is Africanized literacy a quaint, exotic, localized phenomenon, easily ignored for its “irrelevance.” It is the second scenario that is currently embracing the use of English as a lingua franca, dismissing Afrikaans as the language of the former oppressor, speaking and using native African languages at home, and then using African languages as a bridge to English in the schools. According to Serpel (2011), rural schools in Africa derive their effectiveness from local accountability. In contrast, design and management of these schools may be based on an academic account of children’s development, and what counts as intelligence. Consequently, accounts of what is taken to be literacy must be mindful of the internal diversity of literate practices, the source of the thinking of indigenous scholars, the depiction of both “childhood” and “literacy” as they are represented in policy documents.
Language use patterns in schools
Despite the reported parental preference for English, “most schools use an African language as the medium of instruction for the first 3 years only, after which English becomes the official language of instruction” (Wildsmith-Cromarty, 2009, p. 37). The general arrangement of mother-tongue (home talk) instruction through the third year of schooling has been labeled “additive bilingualism.”As a transition language to the “real linguistics of learning,” African languages are positioned in less important roles, compared to English, and to a lesser extent Afrikaans. Further complicating the use of African languages for instruction is their reported lack of vocabulary for use with scientific and mathematical concepts (Wildsmith-Cromarty, 2009, p. 38). These linguistic characteristics create an instructional mix that is differentiated by school type: rural, urban, and suburban.
In rural schools, English is used for the presentation of information in a formal instructional approach. Understanding the formal presentation is mediated by home language, which is also used for management and all other communication. Since English is used in a transmissive way, there is little opportunity for students to practice with, or otherwise learn, English. Further complicating the situation is the rural teachers’ lack of English/home language translation capability so that complex concepts may suffer in the teachers’ attempts at translation. Finally, English is only used in this one context. It is not part of the out-of-school culture.
In urban schools, home language is also used, but since these urban areas are comprised of speakers from several African languages, the use of “home talk” is in fact a multilingual effort. Yet, there is also greater exposure to English in outside-of-school contexts. Similar to the rural strategy, there is code-switching to one of the African languages to explain the material that has just been presented in English, leading to multiple code-switching inside a given classroom. But mixed code is not the same as home talk. And students do not necessarily experience explanatory language in a form that they can readily understand.
In suburban-urban schools, pupils also come from linguistically diverse backgrounds, which now include European, Asian, and African languages. Students do not necessarily share a common home language. Likewise teachers do not necessarily share the language of their students. Wildsmith-Cromarty reports that these teachers may be English or Afrikaans speaking, depending on the particular school, with little or no knowledge of African languages. English (or Afrikaans) is the language of instruction. Code-switching, when it does occur, is between pupils who translate within like language groups. Here there is adequate exposure to English both in and out of school. What may be missing here is engagement with African languages.
Patterns that emerge, based on the above description, are that English is the medium of instruction, presentation and knowledge. Therefore, African languages are secondary in schools. Yet, school populations are increasingly African-language speakers. This suggests that African languages need to be developed as languages of instruction. But Brock-Utne (2005) takes a much more critical look at the patterns of language use in schools. First, there may not be such a linguistic diversity in traditional African languages. Many of the different African “languages” are in fact often mutually intelligible, as if they were dialects of the same language, or as the following example suggests, the same language. One example is cited where a single language is given the status of two because both Finnish and German missionaries independently charted its orthography. This example suggests that the reported linguistic “difference” may largely in the minds of linguists who differentially documented languages they did not know. Regarding the inadequacy of native language to account of scientific concepts, Brock-Utne makes a differing argument for education in Tanzania. Since the English language capability of teachers is often limited, the presentation and explanation of science constructs is compromised even when it is presented in English. In effect, the students learn “bad English” and “bad science.” Better, according Brock-Utne, to teach academic content, like science, in the language the students and teachers understand and use, and simultaneously teach English as a subject.
In a final consideration of the paradox that occurs between mother-tongue educational provisions within the Constitution and parents’ choice for exclusive instruction in English is the more recent research on literacy by British critical socio-linguists, such as Barton and Hamilton (1998) and Street (2001), as well as South African researchers (Prinsloo & Breier, 1996). In this line of research, participants’ informal, non-academic uses of language and literacy are documented and described. In so doing, the researchers re-construct the legitimacy and credence for these local literacies. It is interesting that the various authors in the Prinsloo and Breier (1996) volume are researching the “local literacies” of various marginalized constituencies of the Western Cape, when these same participants may be advocating for their children’s rights to be educated exclusively in English from their first day in school.
A related issue is the relative status of the constituent language and the ability of each of the languages to carry out the cognitive modeling required by the academic subjects. For example if a culture and the language that represents it do not conceive of atoms and subatomic particles, it is unlikely that the language will have specific terminology for these concepts. Further, if a culture is not accustomed to thinking in constituative ways, adding a term for p-bonding of electrons may not create the knowledge required within chemistry. At the other end of the educational spectrum, it is clear that at this point, there is lack of books for children written in mother tongue (Edwards, 2008). Literacy education in mother tongue relies on a large cache of literature, that is, if the literacy is to be functional (in contrast to prescriptive, skill-based approaches).
In the movement to raise the complexity and status of indigenous African languages, the South African language theorists cite the example of Afrikaans ascending from a patois to a modern, technical language within South Africa. However, it should be pointed out that Afrikaans had full government support for Afrikaans as the language of the government. As Granville, et al (1997) point out
After 1976, [Afrikaans] remained compulsory for white education. What this meant is that students has to pass Afrikaans in order to matriculate. As a result the prominence of Afrikaans in the school curriculum, the necessary resources, both human and material, were provided to ensure the success of the policy … what the story of Afrikaans teaches us is that a compulsory policy of teaching a language-as-subject for twelve years of schooling, even to students who are resistant to the compulsion, produces adequate levels of bilingual competence. (pp. 11-12)
The Granville, et al (1997) study group made recommendations that 1.) students have rights of access to the language of power (English); 2.) all students must learn at least 1 African language as subject; 3.) Current teachers should learn an African language; 4.) newly qualifying teachers must have an African language endorsement for certification; 5.) students have the right to choose any of the 11 official languages as language of learning and teaching (subject transmission language).
Teachers’ linguistic competence and performance
The Granville group also recommends similar changes to accommodate linguistic diversity in the preparation of teachers. An estimate cited by Heugh (2007) suggests that only 5% of rural teachers have the needed English language skills. A study by Crouch and Lewin (2000) concludes that teacher education in South Africa is both costly and inefficient. Regarding its effectiveness, Crouch and Lewin report that teachers are under qualified; unable to use English effectively to speak, let alone teach through it; do not have expertise to teach English as a subject area; and current scale-up retraining in-service teachers is inadequate. Compounding the problem of teacher flexibility with languages is the issue of student mobility and teacher stasis. According to Macfarland (2003) the formerly segregated schools for whites and coloured students are trending toward racial mixing, with learners from a variety of linguistic backgrounds. Yet, the teachers for these schools have remained largely unchanged. This means there is a propensity for a mismatch between the new students and the existing teachers. The majority of South African students (80%) in the rural and township schools, previously reserved for African learners, also remain unchanged (Probyn, 2005). Writing about similar circumstances in Tanzania, Brock-Utne (2005) summarizes the situation for teachers like this:
The situation that African teachers are forced into is tragic. Their own limited command of the language of instruction, plus great difficulties their students have in understanding what their teacher is saying when s/he expresses him or herself in the ex-colonial language, force them to use teaching strategies I have here characterized as safe-talk, code-mixing and code-switching. This gives the teachers a bad conscience since they know that they are not supposed to code-switch or code-mix but to use the ex-colonial language throughout the lesson. They also know that on examination day students who code-switch will be punished. (pp. 189-190)
References
Alexander, N (2000). English unassailable but unattainable: the dilemma of language policy in South African education. University of Cape Town: PRAESA Occasional Papers, No. 3
Alexander, N. (2002). An ordinary country: issues in the transition from apartheid to democracy in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: reading and writing in one community. New York: Routledge.
Beukes, A. (2004). The first ten years of democracy: language policy in South Africa. Paper read at the Xth Linguapax Congress. Bracelona, Spain.
Brand, G. (2004). From racial to linguistic capitalism? LitNet Taaldebat, 30 April 2004. www.litnet.co.za
Brock-Utne, B. (2005). Language-in-education policies and practices in Africa with a special focus on Tanzania and South Africa – insights from research in progress. In A. Ling & P. martin (Eds.), Decolonialisation and globalization: language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 173-201). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Crouch & Lewin (2000).
DAC. (2003a). National language policy framework. 12 February 2003. Pretoria: Department of Arts and Culture.
DAC. (2003b). Implementation plan: national language policy framework. Final draft. 10 April 2003. Pretoria: Department of Arts and Culture.
DAC. (2003c). South African languages bill. Revised final draft. 4 April 2003. Pretoria: Department of Arts and Culture.
du Plessis
Edwards, V. (2008). The culture of reading: an evaluation of a key programme of PRAESA. Cape Town: University of Cape Town, PRAESA.
Emzantsi Associates. (2001). Costing the draft national language policy and plan for South Africa. Report to National Treasury and the Department of Arts, Culture, and Science and Technology. www.SAlanguages.com/education.
Granville, S., Janks, H., Joseph, M., Mphahlele, M., Ramani, E., Reed, Y., Watson, P. (1997). English with or without g(u)ilt: A position paper on language education policy for South Africa. Paper presented at The English Teachers Connect Conference. Johnnesburg: University of Witwatersrand.
Heugh, K. (2003). Language policy and democracy in South Africa: the prospects of equality within rights-based policy and planning. Stockholm: Stockholm University Centre for Research on Bilingualism.
Heugh, K. (2007). Language and literacy issues in South Africa. In N. Rassool (Ed.), Global issues in language, education and development (pp. 187-217). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Kamwangamalu, N. (2000). A new policy, old language practices: status planning for African languages in multicultural South Africa. South African Journal of African Languages, 20, 50-60.
Kamwangumalu, N. (2002). Language policy and mother-tongue education in South Africa: the case for a market-oriented approach. In H. Hamilton & A. Tan (Eds.), Linguistics, languages, and the professions: education, journalism, law, medicine, and technology. 2000 Roundtable on language and linguistics (pp. 119-134). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kincaid, J. (1998). Erotic innocence: the culture of child molesting. Rahleigh, NC: Duke University Press.
Krashen, S. (1996).
Macfarlane, D. (2003). Schools not yet melting pots. Mail and Guardian, May 2-8.
Prinsloo, M. & Breir, M. (Eds.) (1996). The social uses of literacy: theory and practice in contemporary South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Probyn, M. (2005). Language and the struggle to learn: the intersection of classroom realities, language policy, and neocolonial and globalisation discourses in South African schools. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonialisation and globalization: language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 153-171). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters, Ltd.
Ridge, S. (2000). Mixed motives: ideological elements in the support for English in South Africa. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: focus on English (pp. 151-175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Statistics South Africa (2003). Census 2001. Census in brief. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Webb,
Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. (2009). Multilingualism in South African schools. In M. Torres-Guzman and J. Gomez (Eds.), Global perspectives on multilingualism: unity in diversity (pp. 36-53). New York: Teacher College Press.
