University of Cape Town 2008 University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgementTown of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Cape Published by the Universityof of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University Affirming marginal voices: a study of a group of primary school children in an asymmetrical multilingual setting. by Aziezah Jardine JRDAZI002 Town Cape A minor dissertation submitted in partialof fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Master of Education Faculty of Humanities University of Cape Town 2008 University Declaration This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation from the work, or works, of other people have been cited and referenced. Signature: 6tV~ Date: zt fl1a;-d,{ 2008 Abstract For the majority of Xhosa speaking children at English medium schools in the Western Cape, their understanding ofliteracy as the ability to read and write is synonymous with English reading and writing. Xhosa does not form part of formal school learning, and children in many instances, have not attempted to read and write in their home language. For such children, their perceptions of their home language as being oflittle relevance to school learning form part of broader societal language attitudes and perceptions. This action research study investigates the language attitudes ofa group often to eleven year old children from a diverse range oflanguage backgrounds. The setting is an English medium, former 'coloured' school in the Western Cape. As a teacher researcher, I made use of dialogue journal writing to raise the children'sTown awareness of their linguistic abilities, as well as to provide them with the opportunity to express themselves in writing. This dialogue journal writing process forms the base of my research. Cape My study is qualitative in nature. The data consistof of written extracts and language questionnaire items selectively represented and interpreted, and constructed, rather than presented as instances of factual knowledge. It is underpinned by critical conceptions of language, literacy, discourse and voice, but I also draw on postmodern insights. Aligned to my theoretical framework, I analyse the data according to the broad framework of Critical Discourse Analysis as developed by Fairclough, and the notion of the dialogicalUniversity nature of language as theorised by Bakhtin. The critical nature of this project is evidenced in my attempts to raise children's language awareness and to provide them with an opportunity to 'voice' themselves in writing. In addition, this study aims, via the children's writing, to 'unsettle understandings' about the capabilities of children learning in their second language. i Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the support and contribution of the following: • The Project of Alternative Education in South Africa (PRAESA) for the financial assistance that allowed me to undertake this study. PRAESA staff, Neville Alexander, Carole Bloch, Ntombi Nkence and Peter Pluddemann for their insightful comments and suggestions during different stages of the research process. • I am particularly grateful to Ntombi Nkence who assisted with translations, and whose journal entries fonned an integral part of the process. • Brigitta Busch of the University of Vienna for her enthusiasmTown about this research, her wisdom and insight, and her willingness to act as 'critical friend' throughout the process. Cape • Carolize Jansen, fonnerly ofPRAESA, for so generously agreeing to edit this work. of • Cathy Hutchings who supervised the writing of this thesis. For being accessible, for the time she invested in this project, for supporting and challenging me to explain more and better, for helping to shape my writing to a fonn consistent with an academicUniversity work, for the reassurance and encouragement amidst my bouts of self doubt. Thank you, Cathy. • The children in this study who, through their openness and willingness to allow me into their worlds, left an indelible impression on mine. To their class teachers, for accommodating me. To the principals of both of the schools at which I teach, for their encouragement and support. • My family for their understanding and patience, particularly during the trying period leading up to the submission date. ii Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................... i AcknowledgeIIlents .................................................. '" ..................... .ii Table of Contents ............................................... " ........................... .iii List of Tables ................................................................................. v 1. Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................... 1 1.1 'I can't read Xhosa' ................................................................... 1 1.2 Situating my research ........... " ..................................................... 2 1.3 Aimsofthestudy................................................. , ................... 4 1.4 Research questions ..................................................................... 4 1.5 Description of the study............................................................... 5 1.6 Scope and limitations ........... " .................................................... , 6 1.7 Outline of the dissertation ............................................................Town 6 2. Chapter Two: Theoretical considerations ..................... ~ ................ " ... 8 2.1 Introduction ....................... " .....................................................Cape 8 2.2 Language and society: a critical view ................................................ 8 2.3 The postmodern view: constructing our worlds via language .................. , .. 9 2.4 Merging critical and postmodern interpretationsof .................................... 9 2.4.1 Power in Discourse: the effects of categorisation ............................. 11 2.5 Language attitudes- internali~ing hegeIIlonic discourses ........................... 12 2.5.1 South African language attitudes as historical constructions ................ 12 2.5.2 Current language policy and attitudes ........................................................ 14 2.5.3 Criticisms of current language policy .......................................... 14 2.6 Language attitudes and 'voice' ....................................................... 16 2.6.1 Critical conceptions - amplifying the voices of marginalised 'others' ..... 16 2.6.2 Postmodernist views - voices as multiple, fluid and eIIlergent. ............ 16 2.7 Affirming marginalUniversity voices via dialogue journals ................................... 18 2.7.1 Empirical studies of dialogue journal writing .................................. 18 2.7.2 Dialoguejournals as literacystrategy........................................... 20 2.7.2.1 Autonomous and ideological views .................................... 20 2.7.2.2 Biliteracy within the ideological paradigm ........................... 21 2.7.3 Code switching as bilingual discourse ......................................... 22 2.7.4 Cummins' theory oflanguage and literacy learning ......................... 23 2.8 Conclusion ......... , ............. " ..................................................... 24 iii 3. Chapter Three Methodology: Research as acting in the world•••••••••.•••.• 2S 3.1 Methodology.............................................................................. 25 3.2 Views of knowledge and research ...................................................... 25 3.3 Reconciling critical and postmodem views: the researcher within the study..... 26 3.4 Methodological choices .................................................................. 27 3.4.1 Conceptions of action research .................................................. 28 3.5 The research process ..................................................................... 29 3.5.1 Research participants ............................................................... 29 3.5.2 Data collection during the first phase ............................................ 29 3.5.3 Reflections during the first phase ................................................ 30 3.5.4 The second phase: encouraging home language literacy ...................... 31 3.5.5 The second phase: working in two classes ...................................... 32 3.6 Critical Discourse Analysis............................................................ 33 3.6.1 The textual dimension ............................................................. 34 3.6.2 The discourse practice dimension ........ _....................................... 35 3.6.3 The social context dimension ..................................................... 35 3.6.4 Critical discourse analysis as used in this study................................ 36 3.7 Validity.................................................................................... 37 3.8 Ethical considerations ................................................................... 38 3.9 Conclusion .................................................................................Town 39 4. Chapter Four: Constructing the data ...............................................