[lg policy] South Africa: Language and transformation at Stellenbosch University

[Harold Schiffman]

Language and transformation at Stellenbosch University

   - L HILL & S ROBINS

[image: Photo: Students march with a banner during a protest at South
Africa's Stellenbosch University in Stellenbosch, in this picture taken
September 1, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings]
<http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-11-30-op-ed-language-and-transformation-at-stellenbosch-university/>

Practical problems associated with academic reading and writing tend not to
feature prominently in the language debate at Stellenbosch University.
Arguably, the most pressing pedagogical issue in the current debate is the
role of written language, and increasingly English, in fostering academic
literacies across a range of knowledge areas, or domains, not just
nationally but globally. The argument that universities need to reflect
regional demographics and promote “mother tongue instruction” rides
roughshod over this issue. By LLOYD HILL and STEVEN ROBINS.

*Dr Lloyd Hill and Dr Steven Robins are lecturers in the Department of
Sociology and Social Anthropology at Stellenbosch University.*

On Monday 30 November, the Council of Stellenbosch University, will face a
critical decision; whether or not to support a proposal by the Rector,
Professor Wim de Villiers, to make English the “primary language” of
communication, administration and teaching. Earlier in the months, the
Rector’s Management Team (RMT) released a statement, in which the key
section reads as follows:

“Since English is the common language in South Africa, all learning at
Stellenbosch University will be facilitated in English, and substantial
academic support will be provided in other South African languages,
according to students’ needs.”

Within days the Executive Committee of Council responded with a statement
affirming that the RMT proposal was “a discussion document and not a policy
statement” and that “the approved minimum offering in Afrikaans and English
will be applicable at Stellenbosch University (SU) in 2016.”

Language is a very sensitive issue at Stellenbosch. While acknowledging
this, we aim to unpack the current debate by way of an analysis that
focuses on the ideological, policy-related and experiential aspects of
language as a medium of teaching and learning at Stellenbosch. We begin by
emphasizing the tension between the formal articulation of language
policies (at different levels) and actual everyday pedagogical practices in
the classroom. We, along with more than 200 other staff members at
Stellenbosch, have openly supported the Rector’s statement, based largely
on our first-hand experiences as lecturers at the university. The views
expressed here are our own, but we draw on and situate our experiences
within a specific academic department, Sociology and Social Anthropology,
and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

The *taaldebat,* or language debate, has been simmering at Stellenbosch for
years, but the key events of 2015 – the launching of the Open Stellenbosch
movement, the Luister video, the appearance of the RMT before Parliament’s
Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, and the #FeesMustFall
campaign – have brought this matter to a head. Next week the University
Council will have to choose between an “inclusivity imperative” (in Wim de
Villiers’ words) and what many see as the imperative to “safeguard” the
academic status of Afrikaans at the University. We write in support of the
former, but in order to make this case it is necessary to trace the recent
history of the language debate at Stellenbosch.

The focus of the current debate is a policy adopted by the University’s
Council in December 2014. Where previously Afrikaans was the “default”
language of instruction, the current policy gives English and Afrikaans
equal status as “languages of undergraduate teaching” at Stellenbosch. The
motivation for this change came a year earlier. In April 2013, in what he
termed “the most historic Council meeting of my term as Rector”, then
Rector, Russel Botman, announced the core components of the University’s
Vision 2030. These included a new residence placement policy and an
enrolment target of 50% coloured, African and Indian students by 2018.
While Professor Botman argued that the University needed to “continue to
support Afrikaans”, he also identified “language accessibility” as a key
objective and the increased use of English as a means of achieving this.

It was, however, only after Russel Botman’s untimely passing – in June 2014
– that the process of reformulating the University’s language policy was
announced. The defining feature of this policy-revision was the haste with
which it was pursued. Documents outlining the new approach, policy and plan
were circulated on 30 July 2014 and interested parties were given less than
two weeks to submit comments. The intention, it seemed, was to “fix” a
policy position prior to the appointment of a new vice chancellor. The
broad intent was purportedly to align the University’s language policy with
the transformation commitments that Professor Botman had made a year
earlier. But the University’s Council inserted a commitment to
“safeguarding” the development of Afrikaans as an academic language – a
formulation that in 2015 has been challenged by both Open Stellenbosch and
the Students Representative Council.

The current language policy is framed in terms five options with respect to
medium of instruction: Afrikaans only (A); English only (E); dual medium or
use of both languages in the same class (T); parallel medium (P); and, the
most recent addition, English or Afrikaans used in conjunction with
simultaneous interpreting. Where until recently Afrikaans and dual medium
instruction (T-option) were considered to be the “preferred options”, the
current policy prioritizes “parallel” instruction, either in the form of
duplicated lectures or by means of simultaneous interpretation during
lectures.

The official position, until recently, has been that these options offer a
means to balance demands for the retention of Afrikaans as a medium of
instruction with demands for transformation and greater access. The
Rector’s statements on 12 November, and in an email on 18 November, would
seem to reflect a commitment to change the current policy. While conceding
that the policy will remain unchanged in 2016, he draws a distinction
between “changes to the language policy” and “language implementation.” The
following flows from this position: a tacit recognition within the RMT of
problems with the current language policy and plan; an overt commitment to
reviewing the current policy; and a suggestion that “implementation
measures” needed to address the “inclusivity imperative” can be introduced
in 2016. But what are the problems with the current policy of maintaining
the relatively equal status of English and Afrikaans as undergraduate media
of instruction?

While not explicitly stated in the language policy or plan, the December
2014 documents reflected an important shift. In both the written policy and
the official discourse on language, the reformulated commitment to
“multilingualism” reflects a tacit recognition that – given the
University’s commitment to changing the demographic profile of the
undergraduate student population – both the Afrikaans (A) and dual medium
instruction (T- option) are politically untenable. The reason for this is
that both assume a minimum level of proficiency in Afrikaans as a second
language – and this presumption is exclusionary. At issue is not simply
“Afrikaans” as a spoken language, but rather the requirement of a high
level competence in *both* English and Afrikaans as academic practices.

In 2015 the new “preferred options” – parallel medium instruction and
simultaneous interpreting – have also been contested. In the current policy
a diffuse commitment to “multilingualism” tends to paper over issues
associated with resource constraints (human and material) and the
pedagogical demands that will become increasingly apparent as the
demographic profiles of the student and lecturing staff populations change.
Parallel medium instruction may be a medium term solution in some
Faculties, but it is economically and sociologically unsustainable.
Sociologically it assumes the maintenance of bilingual proficiency among
staff. In our department Afrikaans competence has for some years not been a
serious consideration for staff appointments, and we suspect this is
indicative of a wider trend.

Similarly, the simultaneous interpretation of lectures is a practice that
cannot simply be treated as a technical solution for problems associated
with language in higher education. Interpretation was a notable theme in
the Luister video, and the following quote resonates with concerns that
have been expressed by some academic staff in our Faculty:

“…also with the translation devices they are very delayed and sometimes
they use words that aren’t supposed to be… like they don’t have the correct
jargon, because they have never studied engineering, they’ve studied
language…”

The direction of translation (Afrikaans-to-English or
English-to-Afrikaaans) is an important aspect affecting the politicisation
of this issue: translation into English is contested, but translation into
Afrikaans is much less of an issue. One of us (Hill) recently opted to
lecture in English and make use of the interpreting service. The headsets
were offered to a class of about 300, but there were no takers. When asked
why they did not make use of this facility, the most common response was
because the reading material was in English. There are however two other
possible and potentially overlapping reasons for this pattern. Firstly, all
or most of the Afrikaans speakers considered themselves sufficiently
competent in English. Secondly, Afrikaans speakers – who might have been
inclined to make use of the service – may have feared stigma in a context
where English-Afrikaans bilingual competence is highly prized. For both
white and black students therefore, we need to explore the extent to which
wearing a headset marks one as a weaker student. Furthermore, some members
of our Department have been lecturing in English for many years and seldom,
if ever, encounter language complaints from their Afrikaans-speaking
students. These students are, however, given the option of writing essays
and exams in Afrikaans, but a growing number of first language
Afrikaans-speakers are opting to write in English.

Practical problems associated with academic reading and writing do not tend
to feature prominently in the *taaldebat*. Arguably the most pressing
pedagogical issue in the current debate is the role of written language
(and increasingly English) in fostering academic literacies across a range
of knowledge “areas” or domains, not just nationally but globally.

The argument that universities need to reflect regional demographics and
promote “mother tongue instruction” rides roughshod over this issue. The
mother tongue lobby tends to ignore the fact that campus populations are
increasingly diverse, not simply in terms of “home language” but also in
terms of the complex intersection of language “repertoires” and other
social markers – such as race, gender and class. Resource constraints will
increasingly bring the current policy focus on the parallel transmission of
“content” into conflict with the growing demand for top quality
domain-specific training in academic reading, writing and other
research-related skills.

The status of Afrikaans at Stellenbosch has shifted: from “official” to
“default” medium in 2002; and to a position of formal equality with English
in 2014. And 2016 seems set to usher in another round of change, which will
in all likelihood establish English as principal academic medium. This is
understandably disconcerting for many people, but it is not – as Hermann
Giliomee (Die Burger, 17 November) would have us believe – simply the
product of bad “choices.” Decisions matter, which is why the choice facing
the University’s Council on Monday will be momentous. But choices are
shaped and constrained by the abilities of leaders to recognise complex
aspects of a changing context.

At an ideological level the debate at Stellenbosch now boils down to a
choice between sustaining Afrikaans within a form of institutional
bilingualism and adopting English as a means to greater inclusivity.
Sustaining Afrikaans as an academic medium poses a particular problem for
black students who do not have the necessary bilingual competence. One
student in the Luister video put it as follows:

“Afrikaans just for conversation is something else, I like it by the way…
but when I have to go to class, and I sit with a lecturer who speaks
academic Afrikaans… I don’t get it. I don’t understand it.”

There are emerging class issues associated with the growing status of
English in South Africa, but it is simplistic to describe the use of
English as post-dated “colonialism.” More so at Stellenbosch, where black
students – still a relatively small minority – are increasingly prominent
in the transformation debate. The ideological debate is however, not simply
shifting in response to “big ideas”, but increasingly as a response to what
we would call “ethnographic realities” in the classroom.

Political pressure has played an important role in current debate, but the
fundamental issue that we have tried to explore here is the tension between
formal language prescriptions and actual classroom practices. Language
policy at Stellenbosch has tended to be reactive, lagging behind actual
practices. Given that both language maintenance and change are inherently
political, this is to some extent understandable. But, if Stellenbosch
University is to build its reputation as a top national and international
university, it must now seize this opportunity to transform and become more
inclusive. We therefore support the Rector’s initiative and hope that, come
Monday, enough Council members will recognise that broadening access and
sustaining quality learning and teaching are the overriding issues at stake
in this debate. *DM*

*Photo: Students march with a banner during a protest at South Africa's
Stellenbosch University in Stellenbosch, in this picture taken September 1,
2015. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings.*


*http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-11-30-op-ed-language-and-transformation-at-stellenbosch-university/#.VlyHs-KU2-c
<http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-11-30-op-ed-language-and-transformation-at-stellenbosch-university/#.VlyHs-KU2-c>*


-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20151130/b7a53a87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list