Sociolinguistic ISSN: 1750-8649 (print) Studies ISSN: 1750-8657 (online) Article

Residents’ perceptions on Sepitori, a mixed language spoken in greater ,

Pedro Álvarez-Mosquera, Elirea Bornman and Thabo Ditsele

Abstract This article investigates, from the residents’ viewpoint, perceptions on the role and usage of Sepitori, a mixed language which originated in greater Pretoria (South Africa). Based on the thematic coding of two focus group interviews (18 participants in total), our data show that although Sepitori acts as a salient urban marker, important differences are observed between insiders (brought up in greater Pretoria) and outsiders (brought up outside greater Pretoria). While insiders corroborated that Sepitori is the L1 of many residents regardless of their age or social status, outsiders tended to regard Sepitori as any combination of languages associated with stereotypical features of gangsterism and Tsotsitaal. Significantly, testimonies underlined a prevalent use of this variety in a growing number of social contexts due to its important role in facilitating intergroup communication.

KEYWORDS: MIXED LANGUAGE, URBAN MARKER, SOCIAL PERCEPTION, , SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA

Affiliation

University of Salamanca, Spain; University of South Africa, South Africa email: [email protected]

University of South Africa, South Africa email: [email protected]

Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa email: [email protected]

SOLS VOL 12.3-4 2018 439–459 https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.33643 © 2019, EQUINOX PUBLISHING 440 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

1 Introduction

Contact among different speaking communities may alter the existing linguistic possibilities in many communicational contexts (Rampton, 1995; Hill, 1999; Meakins, 2013). This phenomenon is even more relevant if it is taken into account that each community of speakers already presents internal variation and that languages, as living entities, are continually being shaped by their speakers while accommodating new situations and their social implications. Rampton (1995:61) asserts that ‘language varieties associated with different social groups often become the site of diverse and conflicting symbolic meanings […W]ords “are not simple acts of reference” but seen as carrying an “ideological burden”’. This idea highlights the potential symbolic, indexical and/or ideological load attached to the use of language varieties by members of different speaking communities in contact. At a basic level, language uses can be an important identity marker (see section 2.1) which can help individuals identify insiders from outsider speaking members (Morgan, 2002:73–74), a relevant socio-cognitive factor in densely populated areas such as cities. As opposed to most rural areas, city dwellers usually have social contact with individuals from diverse cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds, resulting in the proliferation of linguistic resources with significant linguistic and identity implications (Montaruli, Bourhis and Azurmendi, 2011; Beyer, 2014). In this context, the notion of linguistic repertoire (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972), that is, the totality of linguistic resources available to members of any community, becomes relevant. More specifically, recent studies (Bush, 2012; Blommaert and Backus, 2013) have looked at this concept in a more subjective, individual and dynamic way and they even demonstrate how people use various linguistic resources to construct multiple identities within urban settings (Bristowe, Oostendorp and Anthonissen, 2014). Relevantly, urban varieties often involve the creative mixing of styles, linguistic codes and registers from available linguistic repertoires, giving rise to new linguistic forms. Due to the complexity and richness of this urban linguistic phenomenon, this article investigates perceptions on the role and usage of Sepitori, a mixed language originated in Pretoria (South Africa) from the residents’ point of view (see section 2.2). To this end, we will explain the nature of mixed languages (including Sepitori in the South African context) and describe the methodological procedures adopted in the focus group sessions. Special attention will be given to the perception of residents who were not born in greater Pretoria and came into contact with Sepitori later in their lives. This novel approach in the study of Sepitori will allow us to learn about the speakers’ own understanding of their use and characteristics of this variety.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 441

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 An overview of mixed languages In the field of , language contact studies have traditionally revolved around pidgins, creoles, and to a lesser extent, mixed languages. Researchers have extensively described many of these language varieties, which do not fit under the traditional concept of a family tree, because of their high scientific, social and historical value (Mufwene, 2001; Aycard, 2010; Velupillai, 2015:3–4). While pidgins and creoles, which develop in situations where groups of people do not share a common language, have been studied in postcolonial contexts to a large extent (Velupillai, 2015:4), the present study focuses on a mixed language. More specifically, we will pay attention to the case of mixed languages in urban contexts. The actual concept of a mixed language is, to a certain degree, controversial since it might appear under different names or even refer to different linguistic phenomena. A central concern in this regard is the extent to which mixed languages constitute new languages and not a mere continuation of their ancestor language(s) (Matras and Bakker, 2003:12). According to Matras and Bakker (2003:1), a mixed language can be defined as a variety that emerged in situations of community bilingualism, and whose structure shows an etymological split, but involving one ancestor language only (related linguistic parentage). Velupillai (2015:69–70), however, emphasises that they can have two or more identifiable parent languages, although very often mixed languages only have two source languages and the source of both the lexicon and the structure of the language are identifiable (see Meakins, 2013:180; Ditsele and Mann, 2014:161). The role and function of mixed languages as lingua francas in multilingual environments should not be underestimated (Rudwick, 2005:314; Aycard, 2010:58–61; Ditsele and Mann, 2014:161–162). Vellupillai (2015:77–79) points to two possible sociolinguistic types of mixed languages, namely: those spoken by new ethnic groups (marker of a new identity); and those spoken by minority ethnic groups who strive to hold to their old cultural identity, resisting total linguistic assimilation to a dominant group. Relevant for this study is that, in any of these two situations, the mixed language remains a salient in-group (language) marker. In-group markers are highly informative in social terms. They not only reinforce the identity of the members of a given group (disambiguation), but they also have social value in that out-group members ascribe characteristics that apply to the members of such a group (Coupland, 2007:180–181; Beal, 2009:229; Bristowe, Oostendorp and Anthonissen, 2014:230). In urban areas, for instance,

442 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES mixed languages can be seen as a shortcut to acquire an urban identity (versus a rural one), as detected in previous studies (Rudwick, 2005:309; Ditsele and Mann, 2014:164). However, only people who come from a particular urban context (where the mixed language is spoken) or have enough exposure to it will be able to fully develop the language practices associated with this variety which, in turn, will prove them to be authentic in-group members. A sign of the vigorousness, stability and social value of mixed languages is the fact that they are often spoken outside the bilingual context in which they arose (Meakins, 2013:200). As will be shown in this study, this might have profound social implications in that it can have an impact on the status of these (mostly) oral varieties, resulting in an even more prominent position in the community of speakers. Mixed languages can then start to be used in domains typically reserved for standard languages (e.g. schools, court, etc.) and, over time, the first generations of native speakers in these varieties might appear (Meakins, 2013:200–202; see Calteaux, 1996:53).

2.2 Mixed languages in South Africa In South Africa, mixed languages have gained academic attention over the last few decades. Tsotsitaal and Iscamtho in the area (e.g. Slabbert, 1994; Aycard, 2010); Tsotsitaal in KwaZulu-Natal (e.g. Rudwick, 2005); Tsotsitaal in Cape Town (Hurst, 2008); and Tsotsitaal in the North West (Ditsele and Hurst, 2016) are a few examples of the complex linguistic reality in many cities of this multilingual country. As such, mixed languages represent a characteristic pattern of language use among Black township residents in South Africa, and may well include words or full constituents from several languages (Finlayson, Calteaux and Myers-Scotton, 1998:395). In this study, we will pay particular attention to Sepitori, a mixed language primarily spoken in greater Pretoria (or Tshwane), as well as surrounding areas (Schuring, 1985; Malimabe, 1990; Calteaux, 1996; Nkosi, 2008; Ditsele and Mann, 2014). When it comes to Sepitori’s linguistic composition, Schuring (1985:x) states that Sepitori represents basically the once-dominant Sekgatla of Setswana spoken in (a region north of Pretoria), with additions mainly from Northern Sotho (also known as Sepedi), and English. Webb, Lafon and Pare (2010:281) add that Sepitori has elements of . Ditsele (2014:220) argues that Sepitori has had many generations of first language (L1) speakers because it developed soon after 1855, the year in which Whites – known as the Voortrekkers – established the city of Pretoria.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 443

While the historical, contextual and structural aspects of Sepitori have been studied to various degrees, there is still a significant lack of research on the speakers’ own understanding of the use and nature of this variety. Therefore, in this article focus group interview data will be analysed to explore city residents’ perceptions on the role and use of this mixed variety in its context today. Due to its role as a potential salient in-group (urban) marker, special attention will be given to outsiders’ views (residents who were not born and raised in greater Pretoria) so as to make a new contribution to research on Sepitori, which thus far focused on what this variety is about (Schuring, 1985), as well as its linguistic composition (Ditsele, 2014; Ditsele and Mann, 2014).

3 Methodology

A qualitative research design was employed by using the method of focus group interviews (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The main reason for choosing this design was the fact that we were mainly interested in the views and perceptions of the Black residents of greater Pretoria on the role and place of Sepitori in their daily lives. The focus group interviews encouraged participants to speak freely and openly about their feelings and opinions, in order to make it possible for them to confront hidden issues and excavate other ideas diverging from the standard topics (see Adams, Van de Vijver and De Bruin, 2012). The research assistant in this study, a Black Pretoria resident that matched the participants’ sociolinguistic profile, was requested to recruit Black participants who resided in greater Pretoria and its surrounds. This student also co-ordinated the focus groups under our guidance (he is referred to as M, for Moderator, in section 4). The fairly unstructured interviews focused on the following broad research questions related to the exposure to and use of Sepitori:

Have you been exposed to Sepitori? For how long? What do you think Sepitori is? In which contexts do you use Sepitori? How often do you use it? Are there circumstances under which you will not or never use Sepitori? What characteristics do you ascribe to a Sepitori speaker? Do you ever write in Sepitori? Are you aware of the use of Sepitori on television, in music and in the media? When and how do you use Sepitori instead of other official languages?

Two independent focus group interviews were conducted on 5 and 6 March 2015. All participants were Pretoria residents, which was a pre-requisite for selection. Each focus group had nine participants. All of them signed a form indicating that

444 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES they were participating voluntarily in the discussions. They were furthermore reminded that they were free to leave the discussions at any time. Although participants agreed that the discussions would be conducted in English, they were told that they could use any language they desired at any point during the sessions. In such cases, other participants or the moderator offered translations. Demographics of participants as indicated in a pre-group questionnaire are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

Gender Age groups First languages Residence1 (in years) (L1s) Female 9 18–20 6 Sotho-Tswana 6 Pretoria 11 Male 9 21–25 9 Nguni 6 3 26 and older 3 Xitsonga 2 Mamelodi 2 Tshivenda 2 GaRankuwa 1 English or Afrikaans 1 Not indicated 1 Sepitori 1

The proceedings of the focus groups were recorded and later professionally trans- cribed. Thematic coding was employed in analysing the data (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In order to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, each researcher first analysed and coded the data independently. The identified themes and possible interpretations were then circulated and discussed among the researchers until reaching an overall (unbiased) consensus. The unstructured nature of our data (i.e. overlaps, interruptions, etc.) hindered the individual identification of each partici- pant in the recordings, relying on our own observations and notes to accomplish the analysis. Quotations from the focus group discussions are given in the present article in order to illustrate the themes identified and the conclusions drawn. Six overarching categories (sections 4.1 to 4.6) and various subcategories have been identified and are discussed in the sections that follow.

4 Findings

4.1 Participants’ perceptions about Sepitori Our data show that location of nurture (or where participants spent their formative years) had a major influence on participants’ perceptions about Sepitori. Two types of participants were identified. The first type pertains to participants who were born in greater Pretoria and/or who had lived in the area since childhood, and thus generally considered to be L1 speakers of Sepitori. An example is the

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 445 participant who indicated in the pre-group questionnaire that his home language was Sepitori (see Table 1). This group of participants strongly considered Sepitori as part of their identity, while the officially recognised languages played a lesser role in this regard. The following examples illustrate the favourable attitudes that the first type of participants displayed about Sepitori.

Example 1: G1:2 I grew up in Pretoria, I originally grew up with that language [Sepitori] … So … I know it. G2: I am born and bred here and I speak Sepitori because … I have been exposed to, it has always been there. And I think it is also influenced by the fact that my parents came to Pretoria at a very young age. My father and my mother attended school here in Pretoria, so they have also been exposed to Sepitori. So, the people who speak proper [standard] Sepedi would be not even my parents but my grandparents. … my parents … have also been influenced by Sepitori, they have also forgotten the native proper you know, proper Sepedi.

Other participants also acknowledged that Sepitori has L1 speakers.

Example 2: G2: I have heard people who are much older [than me] who speak Sepitori and from what I heard they speak it natively. It’s their language.

The second type refers to participants who came into contact with Sepitori when they moved to greater Pretoria later in life. In order to fit in, they had to learn to speak Sepitori.

Example 3: G1: First time I was in high school, it was weird actually when I came, because at home we speak like this one [an official language], then when I heard it [Sepitori] I was like what, what’s this now, I didn’t fully understand. I understood it but not fully … Then after that I was like, okay, it’s another language I guess. In Pretoria … Then when I got here, that’s when I got exposed to it. G2: I think I speak Sepitori … because where I live and was born so I have always been exposed to different languages, so it is, but for me what is important, I might not speak it well but I am learning it.

Generally, the second type of participants was indifferent when it comes to the attitudes they held towards Sepitori.

446 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

4.2 Sepitori’s composition 4.2.1 Views regarding the nature of Sepitori Participants used different labels to refer to Sepitori, such as the ‘Mamelodi [a township in Pretoria] Lingo’ (see Ntuli, 2016). Most participants furthermore perceived Sepitori as a mixture of various languages, as is the case below.

Example 4: G1: We speak the ‘Mamelodi’ [Lingo], … It’s a mix of everything … but Tswana and Pedi the most. Zulu also? [Zulu] not in Pretoria. In Pretoria it’s Tswana and Sotho. Ja, it’s a mixture of all the languages, including Afrikaans.

Similar comments were made by participants in Group 2. It is furthermore of interest to note that at least one participant indicated that by learning Sepitori, they also learned to understand and use Afrikaans due to the Afrikaans words in Sepitori.

Example 5: G2: I think Sepitori is a mix [mixture] of all different languages … even my name says it [all]; the fact that I am a Mopedi, but I have a Tswana name says a lot about Sepitori. As much as my parents are both Pedi, they gave me my name because they are also influenced by other languages … So Sepitori it is a mix of everything … So just use … a Zulu word and then a Sotho word and a Tswana [word]. G2: It started from maybe like social somewhere there, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, Mamelodi because our parents came from wherever went to those places and then they started mixing up everything because they want to understand each other. G2: Since I was raised like in Mamelodi where they are speaking Sepitori, I know this language very clearly, and since like they are mixing all these languages of which I know them so it’s easy for me to like speak Sepitori, because like they are mixing Pedi, Swati, Zulu they are mixing it including Afrikaans. That’s where like, that’s where I get Afrikaans from, because of from like Sepitori they are mixing English, Zulu, Pedi and Afrikaans and then like, my friend, when you say ‘Is waar’3 what do you mean? Then they translate and they tell me that when I say ‘is waar’ I mean like ja [yes] you are right …

One participant believed that since they regarded Sepitori as a mixture of languages, speakers cannot make mistakes.

Example 6: G2: There is no mistake … anything goes. When you speak like eh my friend … it’s Sepitori you have talked, you are done, there is no mistake.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 447

Another participant pointed out that Sepitori may have variations across greater Pretoria’s townships. This is reasonable because it is inevitable that if the demo- graphic make-up of one township or section of township differs from another, the Sepitori spoken in the two townships or sections would be influenced differently.

Example 7: G2: In Mamelodi we have two sections: Mamelodi East and Mamelodi West. If you go to the West you will find people speaking pure, pure like Sepitori … they are mixing Sepedi, Zulu, English and Afrikaans. But if you go to the East section, you will find that only a few people are speaking that language [Sepitori].

Sepitori was furthermore regarded as mainly a spoken and not a written language. Participants stated that they experienced difficulty in reading and understanding Sepitori texts.

Example 8: G2: Sepitori like in the manner of … pronouncing or speaking it, you can hear [understand] that person, but then when it comes to writing it’s a different story. G2: You don’t write it anywhere then I think for a lot of us we can’t write Sepitori here even though maybe that’s what we speak [it]...

Participants furthermore remarked that Sepitori is mainly spoken in informal contexts.

Example 9: G2: It’s just not a formal language. It’s an informal language, actually. G2: You get me so like it’s a street language [by means of] which people can understand each other easily.

4.2.2 Associations between Sepitori and other varieties In identifying Sepitori as a mixed language, the participant below associated Sepitori with Tsotsitaal.

Example 10: G2: Sepitori is a tsotsitaal … Ja, I think it’s a tsotsitaal because there is a lot of mixtures like, I think from Jozi, they are speaking tsotsitaal, and also Pretoria it’s tsotsi like Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, … they mix it together then it becomes a tsotsitaal.

There were, however, differences of opinion when we asked participants whether older people who speak Sepitori should be regarded as Tsotsitaal speakers or even typified as tsotsis (thugs). One participant regarded Tsotsitaal as a ‘real’ language, while Sepitori was said to be merely a mixture of languages, thus not a ‘real’ language.

448 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

Example 11: G2: I mean if someone is talking about their friend in church and they speak Sepitori and it’s an 80-year-old woman, she cannot be a tsotsi, we can’t say she is a grandmother tsotsi, but you still say it’s limited to a particular age. G2: I think there is a difference between Tsotsitaal and Sepitori, because if you say it’s Tsotsitaal, it’s a particular language used by certain people, and if you are talking about Sepitori, it is just a mixture of different languages.

4.3 Sepitori as an urban marker of greater Pretoria 4.3.1 Sepitori as a lingua franca in greater Pretoria Participants were unequivocal about Sepitori being a lingua franca4 mainly of the Black residential areas of greater Pretoria. In other words, it is a language spoken by people from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. In this sense, Sepitori was perceived in a positive light – as ‘cool’ – as it enabled not only communi- cation, but also the formation of intercultural friendships.

Example 12: G1: Like each and every one in Pretoria understands Sepitori. Ja. G2: Sepitori actually helps like in terms of friends, because like when you speak Sepitori, there is no other way like we can say this guy is a Pedi … he did not hear [understand] me; this guy is a Zulu he did not hear me, like he will pick up somewhere … so it is easy for someone to understand when you speaking like Sepitori, you see this language. That’s why I love it because like when you are speaking it, someone can pick up someone … say this guy meant to say this. And then ask where he or she did not understand and ask my guy okay I heard you said, you said this, what did you mean in this case? G2: I think Sepitori is really cool … because I mean it’s a way of trying to communicate to understand each other.

Although some participants said that they could not speak Sepitori, the majority indicated that it was a social necessity to be able at least to understand Sepitori.

Example 13: G1: I understand Sepitori and I think I can speak it. G1: It’s like because most of the people in Pretoria speak Sepitori then we will just try to manage. G1: Yes we just have to adjust to it.

Some participants furthermore indicated that it was relatively easy to learn Sepitori.

Example 14: G1: It doesn’t take long … 2 weeks is enough … it’s too easy that, it’s the easiest one.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 449

Other participants indicated that it was difficult for them to learn Sepitori.

Example 15: G1: Ja, I do, but it was difficult. Coming from like I didn’t speak, like speak … ja … then people like, it’s more like they used and all that and then you try and figure out what’s happening.

However, one participant indicated that he deliberately chose not to speak Sepi- tori in order to be different from everybody else. An important motivation was the fact that most people tended to speak Sepitori and not their ethnic languages. He felt that Sepitori was supplanting and/or displacing ethnic languages.

Example 16: G1: Because I believe if most … a lot of people do the same thing, you have to do something different because they’re doing the same thing. So there’s everybody speaking Sepitori, only a few they will say something in Venda in amongst the group, or only a few say something in his language, her language amongst the group.

Although Sepitori is generally spoken in the traditionally Black residential areas, a participant living in Pretoria’s central business district (CBD) indicated that Sepitori was also widely spoken in mid-city areas.

4.3.2 Social costs of being unable to speak Sepitori Being able to speak Sepitori was, however, not only regarded as convenient, but a social necessity. People unable to speak Sepitori were often stereotyped as being ignorant. The inability to speak Sepitori was furthermore strongly associated with people coming from rural areas, who had not (yet) adapted to city life.

Example 17: G1: When you come from home [rural area in this sense] … and then you don’t understand that thing [Sepitori], you can’t speak it, they laugh at you. Very horribly or like the laugh is, ‘You, where do you come from?’ That’s how they identify [you], ja they laugh at you. G2: I remember the first time when I moved to Pretoria, I was speaking like deep Sepedi, but then I realised that like when I am talking to like girls, they will be like: ‘Come on where are you from?’ And I will feel down because they shut me down. Then I realised that I just have to talk Sepitori and then since I started talking Sepitori, ai! [you know] it's cool, everything is running smoothly. G2: And then when you come speaking Sepedi it’s like no you are a stupid guy from a rural area. G2: They will think he is a ‘moggo’ [foolish, naïve or gullible person].

450 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

4.3.3 Sepitori as a marker for people from greater Pretoria Some participants submitted that the ability to speak Sepitori was regarded as a marker that a person comes from greater Pretoria, and had been in the city long enough to adapt to city life.

Example 18: M: So basically if you go back home [rural area] and you speak Sepitori they will laugh at you? G1: No not really, they will just know that you are from Pretoria. G2: It’s like you have been here around for long. G1: I have some other friend, he’s like that now, he’s speaking it [Sepitori] like fluently, because like he wants to fit in.

Other participants noted that the ability to speak Sepitori is furthermore a marker that a person has changed to become an urbanite, and by default, streetwise as well. The urban environment is also associated with access to technology and other resources.

Example 19: G1: Ja, he [someone originally from a rural area] just went to Pretoria, now he’s changed. G1: She [someone originally from a rural area] thinks she’s better than us, whatever, and all that, it’s like that. G2: I think people have realised that this whole thing of living in Pretoria like we get people who live in Pretoria have access to technology and everything and that people who come from rural areas you know who speak proper [standard] language you know, that they don’t have … they are uncool, they don’t have the same … like people living in Pretoria.

4.4 The image of Sepitori speakers Sepitori was strongly associated with a particular class and lifestyle, clothing, music tastes, as well as a particular demeanour. Although the clothing described as being associated with typical Sepitori speakers appeared to be neat, the typical ‘Sepitori lifestyle’ was associated with a very specific informal style. Some outsiders associated Sepitori with ‘gangsterism’ or ‘language of the tsotsis’ (see section 5.2.2).

Example 20: G1: They don’t wear the casual thing, they wear the shirts… it had to be clean and ironed, they’re always cleaned, ironed. G1: The one I want to add onto that thing, the music is totally different. Ja, the music is different. They don’t listen to music we listen to, they listen to other one. Like jazz for example, they like jazz, and then the disco. They want Brother Phasi, Chico, Yvonne Chaka Chaka, they listen to such music.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 451

G2: Looking at that person you can see that this person is a formal person, though you cannot use Sepitori. But then looking at the person and he is wearing All Star sneakers, a Chino, and something and there I can use Sepitori, because I can see that this guy is living a Sepitori lifestyle.

When participants were asked to summarise the characteristics of a Sepitori speaker, they gave the following responses.

Example 21: G1: The outfit. And the movement, you can tell. And the of voice. But if your shirt … tucked in, and the belt I can see your belt… Even the hairstyles. Ja. Young. But it’s more like the way you dress, how you dance. Ja, the type of music you listen to. G2: Well, when you are speaking Sepitori you are like becoming gangster according to my senses. G2: At the same time since you are a gangster freak like they salute you, you are the top dog ... G2: I am not saying like when you speak Sepitori you are a gangster, no. it doesn’t mean like when I am speaking Sepitori. I am also a gangster now, but then …how can I put this? It’s just not a formal language. It’s an informal language actually.

4.5 Sepitori in music and the media As depicted in previous works on mixed languages, we obtained several instances of how Sepitori is used in a wide range of everyday situations including at schools, at banks, with the police, etc. (see Calteaux, 1996). However, partici- pants also gave various examples of the common and frequent use of Sepitori in songs and the media.

Example 22: M: Right, so would you say that there are some songs out there with Sepitori words? G2: Kwaito songs. Some of them. Ja, all those songs … Kwaito songs, the Zola songs.

According to participants, Sepitori was also used frequently on Black radio stations and in particular in television soap operas. Participants also mentioned a newspaper which used Sepitori especially in its gossip pages. In doing so, the particular newspaper became more accessible to ordinary people. A further interesting comment was that even in soap operas, language was used to draw a distinction between characters from rural and urban areas. Whilst characters from rural areas would usually speak a more standard variety of their ethnic language, characters from greater Pretoria and its neighbouring areas would speak Sepitori. Even in soap operas, Sepitori speakers tended to display an attitude of superiority towards characters from rural areas.

452 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

Example 23: G1: But a lot of people buy the newspaper because a lot of people understand the language [Sepitori]. If you write it in Sepedi, she can’t read Sepedi at all. G2: Over the radio it’s … they are using Sepitori but then here at town … Ja it’s a community radio. So that’s, and then they also use Mams FM [Mamelodi FM]. G2: It depends on what you are looking at and the particular soapie [soap opera] where maybe they use the language … use Sepedi only, like … because [if] it’s based in Limpopo, you will find them speaking a lot of Sepedi, but then as soon they bring in characters from around, ja, then you start hearing the language Sepitori. You can even see the comparison when they interact, the one from Pretoria still thinks that they are more upper [superior] than the ones who are coming from the other provinces.

5 Discussion

5.1 Perceptions about Sepitori In this study, we found that participants who grew up in greater Pretoria closely identified with Sepitori and held favourable attitudes towards the language, as opposed to those who grew up elsewhere. Thus, location of nurture was a factor in participants’ perceptions about Sepitori (see section 5.3). Examples of this dichotomy can be seen in section 4.1 where participants from the first group explained how they naturally learned Sepitori from their childhood. These testimonies differ from examples of the second group which include a participant who refused to speak it so as to be different from everyone else in this context (see sections 4.3.1 and 5.2.1). Outsiders’ perceptions are also noticeable when they tended to confuse Sepitori with Tsotsitaal (see section 5.2.2) or when they described the prototypical image of a Sepitori speaker as associated with gangsterism (see sections 4.4 and 5.5). Our data, however, show that both groups regarded Sepitori as a relevant urban marker (see section 5.3) and a useful tool for intergroup communication (see sections 5.2.1 and 5.3). In fact, it is important to acknowledge that outsiders also affirmed using Sepitori outside the boundaries of greater Pretoria (see sections 4.3.3 and 5.3). Participants noted that Sepitori is not a written language. Ditsele (2014:222) shows, however, that its syntax is the same as that of Setswana and Northern Sotho; the two languages are mutually intelligible and fall under the Sotho- Tswana language group, which also includes Southern Sotho (Matubatuba, 2002:253). Practically, then, Sepitori can be written by people who can write Setswana, Northern Sotho, and Southern Sotho. We can deduce that any person who found it difficult to read or write Sepitori would equally struggle to read and write any of the three languages, and the opposite holds true as well.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 453

5.2 Generalisations and misconceptions about mixed languages 5.2.1 Impressions about Sepitori versus the literature Most of the participants did not grow up in greater Pretoria, and some of them grew up speaking languages that are not mutually intelligible with Sepitori (viz. Nguni languages, Xitsonga, and Tshivenda). Their lived experience in greater Pretoria is that they found themselves in a setting where people came from dif- ferent linguistic backgrounds. Sepitori is perceived as a compromise to facilitate communication, and for them, this constitutes the motivation to speak Sepitori. The literature indicates that Setswana and Northern Sotho form the base of Sepitori, and are still overwhelmingly dominant in this language (Schuring, 1985; Ditsele and Mann, 2014). While vocabulary from other languages is present in Sepitori (Malimabe, 1990; Webb, Lafon, and Pare, 2010), such vocabulary is so negligible that it cannot be equated with that of Setswana and Northern Sotho. In South Africa, linguistic and ethnic identities are still commonly defined in terms of the officially recognised languages. There is little recognition or acknowledge- ment of the fact that there are many citizens who have multiple linguistic identities or that mixed languages can represent L1s of at least some South Africans. To elaborate this point, citizens may only tick one of the 11 official languages when filling out official forms. So in greater Pretoria, an L1 speaker of Sepitori would be forced to tick Setswana, Northern Sotho, Xitsonga, etc. even when they lack L1 speaker competence in these languages. Some participants noted that Sepitori is not a written language, indicating beliefs that as a mixed language it has no grammar (i.e. it does not follow any grammatical rules).

5.2.2 Blurring the line between Sepitori and Tsotsitaal Sepitori, unlike Tsotsitaal, is neither a hidden language nor a ‘stylect’, and as Ditsele (2014:220) puts it, Sepitori can be traced back to the mid-1800s, and has had many generations of L1 speakers, as opposed to a less than a century-old Tsotsitaal. We need to reiterate the point that outsiders’ generalisations and misconceptions were that all mixed languages are the same; it is reasonable to accept that they were not aware of mixed languages’ etymologies.

5.3 Sepitori as a lingua franca and urban marker of greater Pretoria Schuring (1985:104) submits that Sepitori is the lingua franca of greater Pretoria, a linguistic practice also observed by participants. Some of them remarked that the inability to communicate in Sepitori had the potential to isolate one socially as it is the dominant language spoken in greater Pretoria. In addition, such an inability would expose that they were not from greater Pretoria, and by default would attract attributes such as being stupid (or a ‘moggo’ [see Ditsele and Hurst,

454 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

2016:6; Mojela, 2002:205]) and unsophisticated. These findings corroborate Calteaux’s (1996:53) viewpoint that communicating in a mixed language of a particular area is not only a marker of urbanisation, but also an indicator that the speakers are streetwise. Khumalo (1995:13) furthermore observes that mixed languages allow residents to keep up with innovations in their environment. With regard to Sepitori, Malimabe (1990:13) remarks that it is a prestigious language, and people who migrate to greater Pretoria quickly learn to speak it to avoid being labelled ‘country bumpkins’. In some instances, the newly arrived to greater Pretoria were able to conceal their places of origin and/or ethnic backgrounds through speaking Sepitori. In our study, one participant remarked that Sepitori speakers classified someone who speaks Northern Sotho as unsophisticated and from rural areas. This is significant because Sepitori and Northern Sotho are mutually intelligible. What was also interesting about participants who were not originally from greater Pretoria was that when they went back to the areas from which they came and started speaking Sepitori, they were immediately associated with greater Pretoria, and thus regarded as sophisticated and streetwise. Some remarked that this also had the potential to land them in trouble because some locals felt threatened by this new linguistic behaviour and/or status, and thus reacted in a hostile manner towards them. Participants’ experiences and/or observations illustrate the point that Sepitori enjoys overt prestige within and outside greater Pretoria, and it is a marker of urbanisation, sophistication, and being streetwise. Webb (2010:161–162) argues that there are societal perceptions in urban areas that speaking near-standard varieties of Southern , particularly at a social level, is associated with backwardness, inferiority, and that such languages are symbols of traditionalism. Relative to Sepitori, there are perceptions that are inferior, as the experience of one participant suggested about Northern Sotho.

5.4 Sepitori’s domains of use In addition to everyday or common-speaking contexts, participants noted that Sepitori is used in newspapers, as well as on radio and television. With regard to radio, local stations (e.g. Mams FM, Tshwane FM, TUT FM, etc.), Sepitori is freely spoken by announcers and callers. When it comes to television, local movies with characters who speak Sepitori are broadcast on a paid channel called DStv (viz. several Mzansi channels). Increasingly, there are stand-up comedians who tell their jokes mainly in Sepitori, such as Kagiso Lediga and Shamponizer, to name but a few.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 455

One participant spoke about Sepitori being used in the lyrics of a popular music genre called Kwaito, citing the work of Zola – a Kwaito artist. Mhlambi (2004) and Satyo (2008) illustrate the close link between Kwaito and Tsotsitaal, and Ditsele (2017) argues that Jozi Sotho and Jozi Zulu are the dominant languages used in Kwaito lyrics. Furthermore, Ditsele presents evidence of Sepitori being used in the lyrics of a Motswako5 artist called JR – he grew up in Atteridgeville located west of Pretoria CBD. The example of Sepitori being used in Kwaito can be attributed to the participant’s generalisation that Sepitori is an example of Tsotsitaal. In fact, Mhlambi (2004:121) makes the point that Zola is not just a Kwaito artist, but a television personality who hosted a programme called Zola 7. In this programme, he mainly spoke a Tsotsitaal version based on Jozi Zulu.

5.5 Image of Sepitori’s speakers Participants submitted that the speakers of Sepitori belonged to a certain class and led a particular lifestyle, which included distinct choices of clothing and music. As discussed in section 5.2.2, participants compared Sepitori to Tsotsitaal. In her study, Hurst (2008) concludes that Tsotsitaal speakers belong to different groups, with each group sharing particular attributes including performance (or ‘style’) and jargon (or ‘lexicon’), a phenomenon she refers to as ‘stylect’. We need to make the point that like any urban centre in South Africa, greater Pretoria also has groups within the larger Sepitori-speaking community, and such groups inevitably would share particular attributes such as choice of clothing and music. Because they would ordinarily speak Sepitori – thought to be the Tsotsitaal spoken in greater Pretoria – outsiders thus believed a particular image could be generalised to L1 speakers of Sepitori.

6 Conclusions

A majority of participants in our study did not grow up in greater Pretoria and learned Sepitori later in life. As outsiders to greater Pretoria, they offered interesting and significant perceptions about Sepitori. Insiders confirmed what is in the literature, such as that Sepitori is an L1 to many people in greater Pretoria, regardless of their ages. Our data show that Sepitori clearly acts as a salient urban marker associated with greater Pretoria. It furthermore plays an important role in facilitating communication between people from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. However, its indexical nature appears to be distorted by the fact that newcomers to greater Pretoria tend to regard Sepitori as any combination of the mixing of languages associated with stereotypical features of gangsterism and

456 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

Tsotsitaal. The literature shows, however, that Sepitori is not a Tsotsitaal version of greater Pretoria, as believed by outsiders (our participants) to greater Pretoria, but a mixed language which has had many generations of L1 speakers (Ditsele, 2014:221–222) and which has a clear syntactic structure (Ditsele, 2014:221–222; Ditsele and Mann, 2014:160). We propose that more research needs to be conducted on the role and functions of mixed languages in South Africa, the African continent, and elsewhere. Finally, we also believe that the identity implications of speaking Sepitori or being an L1 speaker of this mixed language should be a matter of academic concern as it might partially explain greater Pretoria residents’ linguistic usage.

Notes

1. It was a pre-requisite to be a greater Pretoria resident. ‘Residence’ refers to the principal location where participants lived. Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, and GaRankuwa are mainly resided by Black people. The first is located east of Pretoria CBD; the second, west of the CBD; while the third is north-west of the CBD. 2. G1 refers to any participant from ‘Group 1’, and the same holds for G2, which is ‘Group 2’. 3. ‘Is waar’ is a common expression in Sepitori; it could mean ‘you are right’ or ‘I agree with you’. It could also be used as a form of greeting among friends and acquaintances. It is derived from Afrikaans ‘dit is waar’, which means ‘it is the truth’. 4. It is important to note that there are other people (e.g. East African and Asian migrants and traders) who can communicate in Sepitori with their employees and customers. 5. Motswako is a Hip Hop genre whose lyrics are manly code-switches/-mixes between Setswana and English, and mixed languages such as Tsotsitaal and Sepitori (Ditsele, 2017).

About the authors

Pedro Álvarez-Mosquera is a full-time lecturer at the University of Salamanca, Spain. During his academic career, he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to support his PhD thesis research at the Claremont Colleges. His main areas of research are sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, linguistic landscape, and discourse analysis. Elirea Bornman is a research professor in the Department of Communication Science of the University of South Africa (Unisa). She holds a doctoral degree in Social Psychology from Unisa. Her main research interests are social identification patterns in post- South Africa; language and identity; and nation-building in Africa and South Africa.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 457

Thabo Ditsele is a senior lecturer at Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) and holds a Doctoral degree in Language Practice from the same university. Currently, he is pursuing a PhD in Linguistics at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa. Among others, his research interests are: non-standard varieties (mainly Sepitori and Tsotsitaal), language and identity, and language attitudes.

References

Adams, B. G., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., and De Bruin, G. P. (2012) Identity in South Africa: Examining self-descriptions across ethnic groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36: 377–388. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011. 11.008. Aycard, P. (2010) How the youth of have turned language into a transformable object in the context of a changing society. In M. de Bruijn and D. Merolla (eds) Researching Africa: Explorations of Everyday African Encounters 31–55. Leiden: African Studies Centre. Beal, J. C. (2009) You’re Not from New York City, You’re from Rotherham. Journal of English Linguistics 37(3): 223–240. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0075424209340014. Beyer, K. (2014) Urban language research in South Africa: Achievements and challenges. South African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32(2): 247–254. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2014.992643. Blommaert, J. and Backus, A. (2013) Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In I. de Saint-Georges and J.-J. Weber (eds) Multilingualism and Multimodality: Current Challenges for Educational Studies 11–32. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-266-2_2. Bristowe, A., Oostendorp, M. and Anthonissen, C. (2014) Language and youth identity setting: A multimodal repertoire approach. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32(2): 229–245. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2014. 992644. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Research Methodology: Business and Management Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Busch, B. (2012) The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5): 503–523. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056. Calteaux, K. (1996) Standard and Non-standard African Language Varieties in the Urban Areas of South Africa: Main Report for the Stanon Research Programme. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Coupland, N. (2007) Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755064. Ditsele, T. (2014) Why not use Sepitori to enrich the vocabularies of Setswana and Sepedi? Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32(2): 215–228. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2014.992652.

458 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

Ditsele, T. (2017) The promotion of Setswana through Hip Hop and motswakolistas. Journal of the Musical Arts in Africa 14(1–2): 1–14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/ 18121004.2017.1410990. Ditsele, T. and Mann, C. C. (2014) Language contact in African urban settings: The case of Sepitori in Tshwane. South African Journal of African Languages 34(2): 159–165. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2014.997052. Ditsele, T. and Hurst, E. (2016) Travelling terms and local innovations: The tsotsitaal of the North West province, South Africa. Literator 37(2): 8pp. Finlayson, R., Calteaux, K. and Myers-Scotton, C. (1998) Orderly mixing and accom- modation in South African codeswitching. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2: 395–420. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00052. Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. H. (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hill, J. H. (1999) Styling locally, styling globally: What does it mean? Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(4): 542–556. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00095. Hurst, E. (2008) Style, Structure and Function in Cape Town Tsotsitaal. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town. Khumalo N. (1995) The Language Contact Situation in Daveyton. Master’s dissertation. Vista University (Soweto Campus), South Africa. Malimabe, R. M. (1990) The Influence of Non-standard Varieties on the Standard Setswana of High School Pupils. Master’s dissertation, Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University. Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. (2003) The study of mixed languages. In Y. Matras and P. Bakker (eds) The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances 1– 20. Berlin: de Gruyter. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197242.1. Matubatuba, E. N. (2002) The Sotho-Tswana language group and harmonisation. In K.K. Prah (ed.) Speaking in Unison: The Harmonisation and Standardisation of Southern African Languages 249–258. Cape Town: CASAS. Meakins, F. (2013) Mixed languages. In P. Bakker and Y. Matras (eds) Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide 159–228. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513711.159. Mhlambi, T. (2004) Kwaitofabulous: The study of a South African urban genre. Journal of the Musical Arts in Africa 1(1): 116–127. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/ 18121000409486692. Mojela, V.M. (2002) The cause of urban slang and its effect on the development of Northern Sotho lexicon. Lexikos 12: 201–210. Montaruli, E., Bourhis, R. Y. and Azurmendi, M. J. (2011) Identity, language and ethnic relations in the bilingual autonomous communities of Spain. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(1): 94–121. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010. 00474.x. Morgan, M. (2002) Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511613616.

RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SEPITORI, SOUTH AFRICA 459

Mufwene, S. S. (2001) The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612862. Nkosi, D. M. (2008) Language Variation and Change in a Soshanguve High School. Master’s dissertation, Pretoria: University of South Africa. Ntuli, N. (2016) Gesture and Speech in the Oral Narratives of Sesotho and Mamelodi Lingo Speakers. Master’s dissertation, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. New York: Longman. Rudwick, S. (2005) Township language dynamics: isiZulu and isiTsotsi in Umlazi. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 23(3): 305–317. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073610509486392. Satyo, S. (2008) A linguistic study of Kwaito. The world of music 50(2): 91–102. Schuring, G. K. (1985) Die Omgangs-Sotho van die Swart Woongebiede van Pretoria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Pretoria: University of South Africa. Slabbert, S. (1994) A re-evaluation of the sociology of Tsotsitaal. South African Journal of Linguistics 12(1): 31–41. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10118063.1994.9724344. Velupillai, V. (2015) Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.48. Webb, V. (2010) The politics of standardising Bantu languages in South Africa. Language Matters: Studies in the 41(2): 157–174. Doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10228195.2010.500674. Webb, V., Lafon, M. and Pare, P. (2010) Bantu languages in education in South Africa: An overview. Ongekho akekho! – the absentee owner. The Language Learning Journal 38(3): 273–292. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730903208389.

(Received 9th May 2017; revision received 9th September 2017; accepted 28th October; final revision received 13th December 2017)