Monolingualism and its Meaning in Two KwaZulu-Natal High Schools A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts of Rhodes University by Jacqui Carlyle May 2016 Abstract This study reports on the identity and attitudes of monolingual English speakers (MES) at two high schools in Durban, South Africa, in relation particularly to the role and meaning of monolingualism. Two bodies of data are used to investigate the attitudes of MES and are oriented towards four variables: English, African languages (particularly Zulu), monolingualism and plurilingualism. The attitudes to these variables reveal the impact on identity of language usage in Durban, and negotiations of the participants in trying to mitigate or justify attitudes that are counter to the embracing of diversity encouraged in modern South Africa. First, an attitude questionnaire provides quantitative data that is subjected to analysis, including a chi-squared test. Second, a narrative elicitation interview provides qualitative narrative data that is analysed in relation to APPRAISAL theory. Both analysis types are used to ascertain the presence of a monolingual mindset in the scholars’ responses, as well as to capture the ideological forces to which they are subjected as monolingual English speakers in the unique multilingual setting of Durban. In essence, the data points to a discourse of compromise and unease on the part of the participants - as they juggle with the effects of an English-centric monolingual mindset, and a more pervasive pluralism that embraces the Rainbowism of ‘the new South Africa’. This discourse of compromise is characterized on one side by insecurity and dissatisfaction with the language in education policy, and well as the monolingual upbringing of MES in Durban, and a lack of Language other than English (LOTE), in particular, Zulu. This side of the compromise also portrays a pro- plurilingual orientation, a positive valuation of knowing a LOTE and of plurilingual people. Here, however, the manifestation of the ‘other side’ of the compromise appears as the MES characterize plurilingualism as exceptional and too difficult, and language learning at school as having a negative impact on academic success. Alongside this is a normalization of English and othering of African languages in practical situation. English is also promoted as the language of unity and economic and academic progress or success, while the material value of African languages is questioned. i Dedications To Him through whom all things are possible. Even those you are convinced are not. To my husband and best friend, Heiko, who went from boyfriend to spouse during the course of this work. To you belong my heart and my future, and this thesis. To my family, Mom, Dad, Jo, Al, Samantha and Matthew. Thank you for making me laugh, and for believing in me and loving me, even when I did not. To the Ganes, Heilgendorffs, and Heaneys, thank you for your support and the love of a family. Acknowledgements Supervisor Ralph Adendorff, and the Linguistics Department at Rhodes University: Thank you for your patience, guidance, care and expertise. Thank you too to the staff and students at the UKZN Department of Linguistics, for my grounding in Linguistics and your continued interest. I must acknowledge Prof Elizabeth Ellis who willingly shared her knowledge, papers and enthusiasm with a young masters student interested in monolingualism. I acknowledge the financial assistance from the Andrew Mellon Foundation Postgraduate Scholarship, for funding my first year (full time, in attendance) at Rhodes University. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of myself and are not necessarily to be attributed to Rhodes University or the donor. I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the Director of Research award (organised by Mr Gilliam of the post-graduate financial aid office) that covered half the fees for my first year part time (not in attendance). Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in the text, this thesis is my own original work. It has not been submitted for a degree at any other university. Jacqueline Michelle Carlyle ii List of Acronyms: ANC : African National Congress CAPS : Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement FAL : First Additional Language KZN : KwaZulu Natal LiEP : Language in Education Policy LL : Language Learning LOTE : Language Other Than English LOTL : Language of Teaching and Learning MES : Monolingual English Speaker MESes : Monolingual English Speakers MOI : Medium of Instruction RNCS : Revised National Curriculum Statement SAE : South African English iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i Dedication and Acknowledgements ii List of Acronyms iii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation for Research 1 1.2 Background to Research 2 1.2.1 The language situation in South Africa 3 1.2.2 An overview of research into monolingualism 4 1.2.3 Identity 6 1.2.4 Ideology 7 1.3 Aims and Research Questions 9 1.4 Special Considerations of the Research Environment 10 1.5 Research Design and Methodology 11 1.5.1 Data Body 1: Attitude Questionnaire and analysis 12 1.5.2 Data Body 2: Narrative Elicitation Interview and analysis 12 1.6 Review of the Chapters to Follow 13 2. Literature Review 14 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Language in South Africa - An Historical Perspective 14 2.2.1 The colonial era 15 2.2.2 Indian migration 16 2.2.3 The Apartheid era 17 2.2.3.1 Language in education policy 21 2.2.4 Post-Apartheid South Africa 23 2.2.4.1 The political atmosphere post 1994 24 2.2.4.2 Language policy 25 2.2.4.3 Policy versus practice mismatch 28 2.3 Monolingualism 32 2.3.1 An overview of research into monolingualism 32 2.3.1.1 Defining monolingualism 33 2.3.1.2 Three orientations towards monolingualism 34 2.3.2 The monolingual mindset 36 2.4 Identity in South Africa 39 2.4.1 Individual and group identity 39 2.4.2 National identity in South Africa 42 2.5 Conclusion 44 3. Methodology 46 3.1 Introduction 46 3.2 Pilot Study 46 3.3 Data Collection: Two Durban Private Schools 48 iv 3.3.1 KwaZulu-N atal 48 3.3.2 The schools 49 3.3.3 The participants 51 3.3.4 Sequence of data collection 52 3.4 Data Collection Instruments 53 3.4.1 Data body 1: Attitude questionnaire 53 3.4.2 Data body 2: Narrative elicitation interview 54 3.5 Frameworks for Analysis 56 3.5.1 Quantitative analysis: Chi-Squared test for independence 56 3.5.2 Qualitative analysis: The APPRAISAL framework 59 3.5.2.1 Attitude 61 3.5.2.2 Graduation 64 3.5.2.3 Engagement 67 3.5.2.4 Inscribed and evoked APPRAISAL 69 3.5.2.5 Selection, coding and analysis of narrative data 71 3.6 Conclusion 80 4. Findings and Interpretation 81 4.1 Introduction 81 4.2 Attitude Questionnaire Responses 81 4.2.1 Self-reporting of bilingual status 81 4.2.1.1 Description 82 4.2.1.2 Interpretation 83 4.2.1.3 Explanation 83 4.2.2 Whether self-reporting of bilingual status on the part of the participants 84 indicates a difference in attitude 4.2.2.1 Description and interpretation 84 4.2.2.2 Explanation 89 4.2.3 Whether different race and gender groups hold different language attitudes 89 4.2.3.1 Description and interpretation 89 4.2.3.2 Analysis of items that show significance for gender 90 4.2.4 Overall frequencies and response profile for MESes 92 4.2.4.1 The monolingual mindset in the questionnaire 92 4.2.4.2 Interpretation of frequencies of items relating to the monolingual mindset 93 4.2.4.3 Interpretation of frequencies of items relating to English and African 96 languages 4.2.5 The Profile of a MES revealed through the attitude questionnaire 97 4.3 APPRAISAL Analysis of Narrative Elicitation Interview Responses 98 4.3.1 Distribution of Attitude choices in questions 1-6 99 4.3.1.1 Description of figures and appraised 99 4.3.1.2 Patterns of [-Security], [-Satisfaction] and [+/-Propriety] 107 4.3.1.3 Patterns of [+/-Capacity] and [+/-Normality] 111 4.3.1.4 Patterns of [+/-Valuation] 113 4.3.2 Graduation 117 4.3.2.1 Description of figures and appraised 117 4.3.2.2 Patterns of upscaling and downscaling 120 v 4.3.3 Engagement 124 4.3.3.1 Description of figures and appraised 124 4.3.3.2 Patterns of Counter and Deny 126 4.3.3.3 Patterns of Expansion and Contraction 127 4.3.4 The Profile of a MES revealed through the Narrative Elicitation Interview 133 4.4 A Comparison of the MES Profiles Revealed by the Two Bodies of Data 136 4.5 Conclusion 137 5. Conclusion 139 5.1 Introduction 139 5.2 Nature of the Research and its Uniqueness 139 5.3 Answering the Research Questions 140 5.4 Limitations of the Study and Potential for Future Research 143 5.4.1 Gender 143 5.4.2 Language planning and policy 146 5.4.3 Plurilingualism as respect 146 5.4.4 The effect of different socio-economic groups and schools (including teachers) 147 5.4.5 Critical Discourse Analysis 147 5.4.6 Analysis of stimulus article 147 5.5 Conclusion 148 6. References 149 7. List of Appendices 155 Appendix 1: Letters of Consent 157 1.1 Letter of Consent from School A 157 1.2 Letter of Consent from School B 158 Appendix 2: Census Data 1996 and 2011 159 Appendix 3: Maps 161 Figure 3.1 Map of the Provincial Boundaries of the Republic of South Africa Figure 3.2 Map of the former ‘Homelands’ of South Africa Appendix 4 : Pilot Questionnaire 162 Appendix 5 : Attitude Questionnaire 164 Appendix 6 : Samples of Answered Questionnaires 166 Appendix 7 : Chapter 1, Section 6, of the 1996 Constitution of South Africa 175 Appendix 8: Questionnaire Responses Indicating Familial Use of LOTE.