Language Planning, Policy and Implementation in South Africa

Mtholeni N. Ngcobo University of South Africa

Abstract This paper addresses the issues of language planning and implementation in South Africa. After considering the relationship between status and corpus planning, I argue that status planning should be complemented with corpus planning as this is the most accepted modern first step to address the problem of policy implementation. Corpus planning involves developing corpus or body of a language and the development of teaching material. Status and corpus planning are closely linked since languages need to be accorded a certain status in order to be developed properly. Corpus planning is also associated with modernizing a language in order to be used in all domains, including science and technology. Therefore, in this article I also argue that creating new terms and encouraging the use of languages in all domains require the use of modern conventions. Key words: Status planning, corpus planning, policy implementation, language cultivation, language management

Abstracto Esta investigación trata el tema de la planificación y la implementación de idioma en Sudáfrica. Se tomó en cuenta la relación entre planificación de estatus y de corpus y mi argumento señala que la planificación de idioma debe ser complementada por la planificación de corpus, ya que este último constituye el primer paso hacia la solución del problema de la implementación de política. La planificación de corpus involucra el desarrollo del corpus o el cuerpo de un idioma y el desarrollo de material de enseñanza. La planificación de estatus y de corpus están íntimamente ligados ya que los idiomas tienen la necesidad de obtener un cierto estátus para poder desarrollarse justamente. La planificación de corpus por otra parte está también asociada con la modernización de un idioma para poder ser usado en todo su dominio, incluyendo en el ámbito de la ciencia y tecnología. Es por esta razón que en este artículo también surge un argumento en cuanto a la creación de nuevos términos y la fomentación del uso de idiomas en todos los dominios requiere el uso de convenciones modernas. Palabras clave: Planificación de estatus, planificación de corpus, implementación de política, cultivación de idioma, manejo de idioma

1

Mtholeni N. Ngcobo is a lecturer at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in the Department of Linguistics. His research interests include language planning and policy, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, development and policy in Africa, and literature.

Introduction South Africa has produced a policy that is considered appropriate in addressing language problems in a multilingual society. The policy replaced the former language policies that contributed to the uplifting and development of English and Afrikaans as the only official national languages in South Africa. As a result of such policies, all other African languages in this country were marginalized. To address the issue of previous imbalance, the government declared 11 languages as the official languages of the country to be used at all levels. This decision was influenced by the politics of compromise that led to the formation of a democratic South Africa (Ngcobo, 2003). A compromise, as defined by Bellamy (1999), reveals conflict of values. The aim of a compromise is to integrate various interests and ideals and to reach mutual agreements. The art of compromising consists in negotiation and accommodating others as far as possible (Ibid.). Although language planning in South Africa could be considered one of the best in the world, one may argue that language policy implementation is still the most problematic area of language planning in this country. This is because implementation involves many things including concrete steps, the allocation of financial resources, devising time schedules for completion, evaluation, and assessments. In this paper I address the question of implementation in the light of its failures and successes as far as the South African language policy is concerned. I argue that implementation should

2

consider both sides of language planning, i.e. status planning and corpus planning. The discussion here is based on the analysis of the South African language policy and relevant legislative documents.

Theoretical framework The scholarly debate on language planning has produced two theoretical approaches. These include the rational model and the alternative model (Rubin, 1973, 1983). The rational model is also referred to as the canonical model (Bamgbose, 1987) or the ideal planning model (Chumbow, 1987). The policy aspect of language planning is referred to as allocation by Gorman (1973), (language) happening by Jernudd and Das Gupta (1971, p.199), and language treatment by Neustupný (1974). The canonical model considers the choice of the national/official language as properly a government decision. On the other hand, the alternative model argues that an adequate model of language planning should accommodate several types/levels of governmental or non-governmental decision-making and implementation, and several planning mechanisms (Antia, 2000, p. 2). The supporters of this model argue that besides government “there are less organized and less coordinated sources of change” (Alisjahbana, 1971, p. 186). Jernudd and Neustupný (1987, 1991; Jernudd, 1993, 1997) proposed the concept of language management as a reaction against central imposition. They describe language planning as a type of language management. According to Jernudd (1993, p. 140), language management focuses on discourse and this “provides a basis on which to relate language planning to other language management systems such as language cultivation, terminology, language teaching, among others.” This approach is crucial in the discussion

3

of this paper and it highlights a trend that should be followed in the implementation of a multilingual language policy.

Status versus corpus planning Language planning is a social construct that may involve the discursive production of a language policy (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Alexander and Heugh, 1999; Jernudd and Neustupny, 1991; Blommaert, 1996). The term language planning was first used by Haugen (1957, 1966) in his introduction of a fourfold planning model, where he described the stages of language planning as involving selection of the norm, codification, implementation, and elaboration (see Table 1). According to Antia (2000, p. 1) Haugen’s scheme of language development or planning comprises four dimensions forming a two-by-two matrix. In this scheme language is viewed in terms of norm and function, and the object of the planning is seen in terms of society and language.

Table 1 Haugen’s (1983, p. 275) revised language planning model (in Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 29) Form (policy planning)

Function (language cultivation)

Society (status planning)

1. Selection (decision procedures) a. problem identification b. allocation of norms

3. Implementation (educational spread) a. correction procedures b. evaluation

Language (corpus planning)

2. Codification (standardization procedures) a. graphisation b. grammatiction c. lexication

4. Elaboration (functional development) a. terminological modernization b. stylistic development c. internationalization

4

A compartmentalized distinction between status planning and corpus planning, however, was first made by Kloss (1969). This compartmentalization suggests that a particular language or variety may be chosen for specific purposes and given official status. This may result in a language policy which is a product of language planning and can be comprehended within the discourse of language politics and society or the more informal but powerful political and social aspects of language planning (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p. xiii). In this view, one can argue that language status planning issues are related to political issues as status planning focuses on legislative decisions that affect the reallocation of language functions (Cobarrubies and Fishman, 1983, p.13). Corpus planning on the other hand focuses on changes by deliberate planning to the actual corpus or shape of a language. According to Haugen’s model, a norm is selected, and then codified through orthography, grammar and lexica (Antia, 2000, p.1). While status planning mainly deals with the selection of a norm, corpus planning deals with codification, and can play a significant role in implementation and elaboration stages. Elaboration can be considered as a language task resulting in increased sophistication of the chosen code (Antia, 2000, p.1). Since corpus planning focuses on the development of the body or form of a language, provisions concerning scientific and technological terminology relates to the corpus of the language (Cobarrubies and Fishman, 1983, p.13). Although status planning and corpus planning involve different activities, the relationship between these two types of planning processes could be considered as dichotonomous. In other words, status planning and corpus planning are usually complementary (Clyne, 1997, p.1). There is some degree of inseparability between these types of language planning.

5

Policy approach versus cultivation approach in South Africa It is important to note that language planning in the developing countries or developing speech communities has been characterized by the policy approach as opposed to the cultivation approach. However, Antia (2000, p.15) affirms that the development of a language also depends by and large on the planning of its corpus. Even if the policy can elevate the status of languages, corpus development of languages is a major step that will bring practical experience in the implementation process. According to Fishman (1996, p. 95) the “sense of moral obligation that under girds efforts to elevate the status of the beloved language also extends to efforts to beautify, amplify and dignify it as a linguistic corpus.” This means the development of a language as a written and literary vehicle. He argues further that an “impressive status cannot be achieved or retained, at least not by any language in an interlinguistically competitive market place, without an impressive form to accompany it and to protect it from derision” (Ibid.). He also views corpus planning as an “inevitable desideratum and as the well-deserved confirmation” and “implementation of a model of beauty which is already in the eye of the beholder.” This is also a strong point in the South African language policy’s Implementation Plan as it places emphasis on “terminology development, interpreting and translation, language technology issues, etc.” (Mesthrie, 2006, p.153). The de jure (or policy) emphasis on language as a point of focus is a recent phenomenon in South Africa. In 1822 the British authorities issued a formal declaration based on language use in the Cape colony as part of Anglicization where English was declared as the only official language (Lanham, 1978, p. 21). The Dutch speaking community resisted this policy and the resistance laid the foundation of language

6

planning in a strict sense after the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910. The total control of the country and the transformation of Dutch to Afrikaans led to a new perspective in language planning as English and Afrikaans were legislated as the sole languages of the Union. The legislated language use incidentally led to the standardization of certain indigenous languages through the system of “divide and rule”, the politics that allowed indigenous languages to be used within ethnic designated areas (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 80). This politics gave rise to ethnolinguistic vitality that would influence local politics and language planning at a later stage. The social engineering undertaken during the colonial and apartheid periods did not only institutionalized political ethnicity, but it also created grounds for linguistic conflict. The Afrikaans-English language policy caused resentment from the indigenous people and resulted in the Soweto youth demonstrations against Afrikaans in 1976.

Status planning in the democratic South Africa The difficulties involved in language planning decisions compelled the democratically elected government of 1994 to reach a compromise in the language issue. The then department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology formed the Language Action Task Group (LANGTAG) as a forerunner to the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) to bring a solution to language issues. LANGTAG compiled reports and made recommendations for the work of PanSALB. Later, LANGTAG was replaced by PanSALB which serves as an Advisory Panel for language development. PanSALB was granted constitutional powers to ensure that all languages are developed and properly represented in the language policy (SA Constitution, 1996). The board’s duty is to

7

promote the use of all official languages and to oversee the development of minority languages. PanSALB completed the final draft of the National Language Policy Framework, and submitted it to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology who then submitted it to the parliament for the necessary legislative Act. This language policy represents a cooperate effort involving members of the Advisory Panel and all interested bodies. Such participation ensures that the language policy is consistent with political developments in the country, especially regarding the notions of democracy, equality and rights as stated in the South African Constitution (1996). Several policy documents have been produced since the beginning of the debate around language question. The National Language Policy Framework (NLPF) is the major document and it binds all government structures to a “multilingual mode of operation” (Mesthrie, 2006, p.153). The Implementation Plan document followed after the NLPF and focuses on the implementation of the NLPF. The other important document is the Language in Education Policy issued by the Ministry of Education in 1996. This document puts emphasis on two languages for performance assessment promotion (Ibid.). The Ministry of Education has another document called the Language Policy for Higher Education which places power to determine language policy in higher education with the Minister of Education. At the provincial level only the Western Cape has managed to produce a document called The Western Cape Provincial Languages Act of 1998. The document acknowledges English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa as the languages of the province. All these documents are important in the development of South African languages.

8

The nature of the new South African language policy According to Hartsthorne (1987), language planning in South Africa takes into consideration an understanding that official language policies were used by the apartheid ideology to establish and consolidate Afrikaner nationalist hegemony, ethnic separation and institutionalized inequality. It is in this regard that the first draft of the language policy document begins with a following quote:

(The) history of language is not separate from the rest of human history: on the contrary, it is an essential aspect of it. Human history is as much as history of semiotic activity as it is of socio-economic activity. (M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin, 1993 in Language Policy and Plan for South Africa, 2000).

The language policy is objectively designed to maintain ethnic diversity and the politics of compromise (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 86). Following these politics, the policy reflects various voices and interests. This is a deliberate and political policy of multilingualism aimed at the creation and strengthening of national identity in close association with national political power (Ibid.). It is argued, however, that the successes of the policy to date have been symbolic rather than material (Mesthrie, 2006, p.151). The aims of the language policy are in line with the constitutional provision Chapter 1, Section 6 Subsection (5) of the national Constitution which states that a Pan South African Board established by national legislation must:

1.

Promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (a) All official languages; (b) The Khoi, Nama and San languages; and

9

(c) 2.

Sign languages; and

Promote and ensure respect for: (a) All languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (b) Arabic, Hebrew, Sankrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.

The formulators of the language policy acknowledged the fact that the policy could only be developed if there was a broad agreement on linguistic diversity, social justice, the principle of equal access to public services and programmes, and respect for human rights (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 88). According to Chick (1992, p.17), the important challenge is the promotion of the notion of “language ecology in which all languages are viewed as national resources needing to be preserved and developed so that the talents of their native speakers may be optimally utilized for the good of all.” As a result the policy plan is designed to ensure that all languages are used at all levels and they are grouped together to be used on rotational basis. Nguni languages as well as Sotho languages are grouped together according to mutual intelligibility. English and Afrikaans are grouped together because the assumption is that their speakers are bilingual. This leaves out the Tsonga and Venda languages since they do not fall in either each of the groups and they are considered not mutually intelligible. The model is simplified so that one can learn at least five or six languages.

The problem of implementation and the “Escape Clauses” The main challenge to the South African language policy is the problem of implementation. According to Currie (1996, pp. 37.3-37.4), the actual content of the official language policy is determined by specific regulation of language use in

10

interactions between the state and the subjects. However, there is a continuing use of English at the national level. Even if other languages are promoted to be used at this level, certain considerations on usage, practicability, expense, and regional circumstances should be made, as well as the balance of the needs and preferences of the population (Ibid.). The practicability depends on the number of people who speak a particular language in a particular area. Associated with the problem of implementation is the discourse used to mobilize people of various language groups behind language planning initiatives in the country. The emphasis is on equality and equity, language rights versus language and other use, and practicability. The concepts of equality and equity refer primarily to the status of the official languages. This is reflected in the statement: All official languages must enjoy “parity of esteem” and be treated equitably. Webb (2002, p. 52) has noticed that the use of the term “equitable” is one of those differences between the interim and the final Constitution. The “equity” in the 1996 Constitution replaced “equality” which appears in the interim Constitution (“equal use and enjoyment”). This is viewed as an improvement since “equality” is impossible to implement if it is interpreted literally while “equitable” on the other hand makes explicit that there is, in view of the history of “official denigration and neglect of the indigenous languages, a need for differential and preferential treatment” and not merely equal treatment (Currie, 1996, p. 37.5). According to Currie (1996, 37.5), “parity of esteem” would imply that considerations of practicality can be put aside and a sincere effort made to ensure that no particular languages dominate at the neglect of others. This also ensures the protection of minority languages.

11

“Equitable use” of the official languages is also related to the freedom to exercise language rights. The concept of language rights is crucial since freedom of language choice is related to universal human rights which imply recognition, protection and promotion of languages (Blajberg, 2000, p. 145). These rights are however individualized to avoid the problem posed by groups. According to Wardhaugh (1987, p. 61) the shift from ‘group rights’ to ‘individual rights’ suggests that an alternative policy should stress that the state treats all individuals equally. It also suggests a denial to acknowledge that groups, as opposed to individuals, can have grievances. Even if they do, then such grievances are best dealt with by ensuring that everyone benefits from the equal protection of the law. As Chick (1992, p. 2) points out, the two previously accepted ideologies, namely, ethnic nationalism and liberalism, have to be seen as unacceptable in the execution of the new language policy. It is however difficult to ignore the relationship between language use and the set of beliefs and values of a speech community or cultural groups. According to Mesthrie (2006, p. 151), African languages are positively associated with tradition and culture. Ethnicity is a symbol of individual’s identity and intimate social relations (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 92). The solution to the problem is tolerance as opposed to struggle. While struggle is more destructive, tolerance on the other hand is seen as an acceptable value of democracy. Integration and tolerance are believed to be the foundations for the true national policies, including language policy (Blajberg, 2000, p. 141). The new language policy could therefore be seen as having a potential for a single language situation. While encouraging equal use of languages, this language policy also makes a provision for a contextual language choice (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 94). Linguistic

12

differences are allowed to address the communication situation of a particular community. For the purposes of “practicality” it may be argued that the object of the constitutional language policy is to provide protection for the diversity of languages. In other words, making one or more designated languages official does not necessarily or automatically entail major legal consequences (Moodley, 2000, p. 7). The language of choice only means the language that could be used in so far as that would be “reasonably practicable”. This is what Webb (2002, p. 51) refers to as the “escape clauses” (together with usage, expense, regional circumstances, etc.), which, “in the absence of clearer definitions, could be used to undermine the language stipulations.” Alexander (2002), upon his resignation as the Deputy Chaiperson of PanSALB, asserts that the Language Board appeared to have been frustrated in its work for reasons of inadequate financial resources and by political pressure brought to bear on its decisions. As a result the South African Language Policy is politically and ideologically functional (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 98). This is typical of a rational model with its emphasis on instances of language treatment which is characterized by government’s or quasigovernmental agency’s restrictedness or elusiveness.

The strengths of the policy The status planning in South Africa has addressed issues of the history of apartheid and the birth of a democratic state. According to Sachs (1994, p. 2), the language stipulations show major strength in promoting diversity, political participation and access to services. Moodley (2000, p. 7) on the other hand has noted that the official language policy was intended to make one or more designated, or more identifiable languages official in domains of legislation, justice, public administration and education.

13

In short, the legislation is based on two principles: namely, ‘territoriality (the obligation or right to use one or more designated languages within a given territory), and linguistic personality (basically, the obligation or the right to use one’s own language or any other language)” (Ibid.). The end result of language policy and its contested position in the country allows one to look at it as the necessary project in decision-making and in the management of a multicultural society (Ngcobo, 2003, p. 105). The policy has created the space for the development of languages that were previously underdeveloped. To put it in Webb’s (2002, p. 13) words, it has created “the climate of transformation or reconstruction and development.”

Towards a successful implementation There are certain strategies that need to be followed in ensuring a successful implementation of the language policy. Firstly, it may be argued that any language can only be developed and preserved properly through corpus planning. According to Alwood and Hendrikse (2003), languages of European origin were developed through a strong focus on corpus planning. As a result, these languages are able to serve as means for communicating specialized information and knowledge, “crucial to the pursuit of goals on the global agenda, for example, the environment, international public health, empowerment, democratization and good governance, etc.” (Antia, 2000, p. xxi). Languages such as English are now seen as claiming a more and more dominant status despite of a policy that uplifts the status of languages in South Africa. Allwood, Grönqvist and Hendrikse (2003) mention socio-economic pressures, the need for international communication standards and stable geo-political relations as the contributing factors towards language death and a shift to monolingualism. They also

14

advise that “although the greatest potential for the survival of a language would be when it can function at all levels in society; this would be an unrealistic immediate expectation with regard to all languages spoken in South Africa” (Allwood, Grönqvist and Hendrikse, 2003, p. 191). However, the authors acknowledge that all these languages could exist harmoniously and without threat of extinction within a multilingual environment. This can be achieved if each language has its own high-valued functional space in the linguistic market place. The implementation of the language policy requires the development of teaching material and other applications. Since the policy is status-oriented, there is a need to focus on corpus as this is an incentive to language’s coercive status. Corpus planning involves providing terminologies to serve socio-economic development. It also involves developing new vocabulary and discourse which will in turn help in the development of teaching material and other applications. Eventually, developing corpus resources could facilitate the ultimate functioning of previously disadvantaged languages in most or even all socio-economic communicative domains in South Africa (Ibid.). Another strategic approach is with regard to the question of encouraging people to use their languages in all domains. We need to establish a context and innovative influence through information and motivation. The availability of learning material in all official languages in South Africa serves as means and provides an opportunity for development and motivation to use these languages. The systematic development of these languages needs to be pursued until people accept their languages as commonly used in all domains. This development is central to information access and dissemination which is necessary to the functioning of modern societies (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p. 48).

15

The final strategy here is that language specialists should take advantage of new and technologically-based initiatives to develop and preserve each and every language in South Africa. Computers can play a pivotal role in corpus planning especially in development of dictionaries and localizing content. The computers are also used in storing a large amount of speech-based and text-based corpora for further research in languages. The research focused to corpus development should be encouraged. This will help in designing assessment and training material for schools and speech therapy. This will also help in lifting the level of literacy in African languages of South Africa. This concurs with the concept of language management with its tendency to employ data from the way individuals cope with communication challenges as the basis for communitywide actions (Antia, 2000, p. 8). Corpus planning is also supported by the alternative model, as it has a potential of bringing various individuals and organizations to participate. Trying to avoid marginalizing languages will rely on the use of new and acceptable conventions and the involvement of the designated audience as illustrated in the following Table 2.

16

Table 2 An ideal typology of language cultivation and language planning (Haarmann, 1990, pp. 120-1 in Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p. 50) Ranges of language planning Activities of Activities of government agencies Status planning Prestige planning Corpus planning

Maximum

4.1

official promotion

3.1

Ranges of language cultivation Activities of Activities of groups individuals 2.1

institutional promotion

4.2

3.2

Level 4

Level 3

pressure group promotion

1.1

individual promotion

2.2 Level 2

Efficiency in terms of the organizational impact

1.2 Level 1 Minimum

This table shows links and interrelatedness between different levels of language planning. According to Haarmann (1990), “prestige planning is a receptive or value function which influences how corpus and status planning activities are acted upon by actors and received by people.”

Conclusion This article has shown that although the status language policy in South Africa could be considered as successful, there are still questions about its implementation. The discourse used in the policy reflects conflicting ideologies emanating from the history of this country and illuminates the politics that led to the formation of a democratic state in South Africa. Ethnicity and group demands have had a significant role in language discussions that led to the formulation of the current language policy. In this article, however, I have argued that status planning should be complemented with corpus

17

planning to ensure that languages are properly developed. There is a compelling need to shift our focus from status planning and its political debates to concrete corpus planning. This indicates the need to progress from idealistic to more pragmatic part of language planning. In this way language specialists will be participating positively and actively to the space or climate of development that has been created through status language planning. Otherwise, this space will be closed if language development through corpus building is neglected. Corpus planning will address a need for localization or glocalization and term creation as a solution to a challenge of global technology and modernization (Antia, 2000). It is in this regard that Antia (2000, p. xxi) suggests a focus on details of how to create specialized discourses for functional (as opposed to mere symbolic or demonstration) purposes. Creating language-teaching resources is a major step in corpus planning, language development, and policy implementation.

References Alexander, N. (2002). Linguistic rights, language planning and democracy in post apartheid South Africa. South Africa: University of Cape Town. (www.miis.edu/docs/langpolicy/ch08.pdf, 11/18/02) Alexander, N., & Heugh, K. (1999). Language policy in the new South Africa. Culturelink Special Issue 1998-1999. In Zegeye, A. and Kriger, R. (Eds.) Cultural Change and Development in South Africa. Zagreb: Institute for International Relations. Alisjahbana, S. (1971). Some planning processes in the development of the Indonesian-

18

Malay language. In Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B. (Eds.) Can Language be Planned? (pp. 179-187). Hawaii: East West Center/The University Press. Allwood, J., Grönqvist, L., & Hendrikse, A. (2003). Developing a tagset and tagger for the African languages of South Africa with special reference to Xhosa.” In Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 21, (4), 223-237. Allwood, J., & Hendrikse, A. (2003). Spoken language corpora for the nine official African languages of South Africa. In Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 21, (4), 189-201. Antia, B. (2000). Terminology and language planning: An alternative framework of practice and discourse. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Bamgbose, A. (1987). When is language planning not planning? Journal of West African Languages xvii, (1), 6-14. Bellamy, R. (1999). Liberalism and pluralism: Towards a politics of compromise. London: Routledge. Blajberg, J. (2000). Research notes on language struggles: Language rights and political transformation in South Africa.” In Moodley, K. Politikon, v. 27. (pp. 141-149). African Renaissance and Language Policies, Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse in its own right: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 20, (3), 199-222. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

19

Chick, J. (1992). Langauge, idelogy, and social structure. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal. Chumbow, B. (1987). Towards a language planning model for Africa. Journal of West African Languages, 17, (1), 15-22. Clyne, M. 1997. Undoing and redoing corpus planning. De Gruyter: Berlin. Cobbarrubies, J., & Fishman A. (1983). Progress in language planning: International perspectives. De Gruyter: Berlin. Currie, I. (1996). Minority rights: Education, culture and language.” In M. Chaskalson, et al. (Eds.) Constitutional law of South Africa. (pp. 35.1-35.35). Kenwyn: Juta. See also Kristine, H. (2001). Language rights and minorities in South Africa. Journal in Multicultural Societies, 3, 2. Unesco. Online: www.unesco.org/most/vl3n2henrad.html. Fishman, J.A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Fishman, J.A. (1974). Advances in language planning. Netherlands: Mouton and Co. Fishman, J.A. (1996). In praise of the beloved language: A comparative view of positive ethnolinguistic consciousness. De Gruyter: Berlin. Gorman, T. (1973). Language allocation and language planning in a developing country. In J. Rubin, & R. Shuy, R. (Eds.). Can language be planned? (pp. 72-82). Hawaii: East West Center/The University Press. Haarmann, H. (1990). Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: A methodological framework. International Journal of the Sociology, 86, 103-26. Halliday, M. (1992). Corpus studies and probalistic grammar.” In B. Aijmer & B.

20

Allenberg. (Eds.) English corpus linguistics, (pp. 30-43). London: Longman. Haugen, E. (1959). Planning for a standard language in modern Norway.” Anthropological Linguistics, 1, 3. Haugen, E. (1966). Language conflict and language planning: The case of modern Norwegian. Cambridge: Howard University Press. Jernudd, B. (1993). Language planning from a management perspective: An interpretation of findings.” In Jahr, E. (ed.) Language conflict and language planning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jernudd, B. (1997). New agencies in language planning.” TermNext News, 56/57, 14-17. Jernudd, B., & Das Gupta, J. (1971). Towards a theory of language planning. In J. Rubin, & B. Jernudd. (Eds.). Can language be planned? (pp. 195-215). Hawaii: EastWest Center/The University Press. Jernudd, B., & Neustupný, J. (1987). Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge, Proceedings

of

the

international

colloquium

on

language

planning,

(Presentation). Quebec: University of Laval Press. Jernudd, B., & Neustupný, J. (1991). Multi-disciplinary language planning.” In D. Marshall, D. (Ed.). Language planning: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman. (pp. 29-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing, Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kloss, H. (1969). Research possibilities on group bilingualism. A Report, pp. 6-18. Quebec: Caval University. Lanham, L. (1978). An outline history of the languages of Southern Africa. In L.

21

Lanham, & K. Prinsloo, (Eds.) Language and communication studies in South Africa. (pp. 13-28). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Mesthrie, R. (2006). Language, transformation and development: A sociolinguistic appraisal of post-apartheid South African language policy and practice.” In Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 24, (2), 151-163. Moodley, K. (2000). African renaissance and language policies. Politikon, 27, 2. Neustupný, J. (1974). Basic types of treatment of language problems.” In A. J. Fishman, (Ed.). Advances in languagepPlanning, (pp. 37-48). The Hague: Mouton. Ngcobo, M. (2003). Language planning and the politics of compromise: A critical analysis of the South African language policy. (Dissertation) UMI: Proquest. Rubin, J. (1973). Language planning: Discussion of some current issues. In. J. Rubin, & R. Shuy, (Eds.) Planning: current issues and research, (pp. 1-10). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Rubin, J. (1983). Evaluation status planning: What has the past decade accomplished? In J. Corrubias, & J. A. Fishman (Eds.) Progress in language planning, (pp. 329343). Berlin: Mouton. Sachs, A. (1994). Advancing human rights in South Africa. Cape Town: Cape Town University Press. SAIRR. (1992). Fast facts. South African Institute of Race Relations: Johannesburg. South African Constitution. (1996). The Republic of South Africa. Wardhaugh, K. (1987). Language in competition: Dominance, diversity and decline. USA: Basil Blackwell. Webb, V. (2002). Language in South Africa: The role of language in national

22

transformation and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Received: February, 28, 2007 Published: June, 2007

23