LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND LANGUAGE CHOICE WITHIN THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES WITH REFERENCE TO PRETORIA CENTRAL PRISON by DORAH RIAH MABULE submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY in the subject AFRICAN LANGUAGES at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF N SAULE NOVEMBER 2011 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly I would like to thank the All Mighty for being with me through the hardship of studying being a mother and a wife. Without His support and grace my efforts would have been in vain. Sincere thanks to my promoter Professor N Saule for his patience, guidance and encouragement through the entire study. Without him believing in me, this research study would not have been possible. To my husband Stephen (Moloto a’ Phaahla) and my children Moremadi, Mogale, Mahlatse and Mpho for being supportive even when things were not going well with my studies. Not forgetting my four grandchildren, Khutšo, Neo, Keneilwe and Katlego a’ Maputle a’ Moloto. I wish to thank also the Department of the Correctional Services for allowing me to conduct this study in the premises of the Pretoria Central Prison. I thank all my friends and my colleagues in the Department of Linguistics for encouraging me to plod on even when it was tough to do so. I’m indebted to my employer, Unisa, for financial support throughout my studies. Lastly, this study is dedicated to my late parents, Pheladi and Malope Dibakwane, I miss you very much, mum and dad. iii Student number: 575-081-4 I declare that Language attitudes and language choice within the correctional services with reference to Pretoria Central Prison is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. SIGNATURE:--------------------- DATE:-------------- (Mrs D R Mabule) iv Summary Language attitudes and language choice within the correctional services with reference to Pretoria Central Prison The focus of this study is an investigation of the language policy and language policy implementation of in the Department of Correctional Services of South Africa. Language usage is a right of all the citizens of South Africa as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) which is the supreme law of the country. It is imperative that language policy makers in the Department of Correctional Services should adhere to the provisions of the constitution. It also aims at establishing whether the Department of Correctional Services’ policy is aligned to the national language policy framework as well as provincial language policy framework that provide for the use of the eleven (11) official languages in general and in particular. In this research study, background information serves to give an overview of how language policy of South Africa since 1994 has been perceived by various scholars and the historical overview of the language policies during the apartheid era. The African languages were given a low status as the language diversity of South Africa was not acknowledged by the government of that day. The evaluation of the contents of language policies that were used previously and currently in the Department of Correctional Services shed light to the issues of language attitude, language choice and language use in this department. During the apartheid era there were working languages set for prisoners as well as staff regarding communication either verbally or in writing in the Department of Correctional Services. The official languages were English and Afrikaans of which the latter was dominant. The question of whose language, for what purpose and how was it received was also investigated. v KEY TERMS Language attitudes Language choice Language planning Language policy Language policy implementation Multilingualism Official language Language development vi ACRONYMS DAC – Department of Arts and Culture DACST – Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology DCS – Department of Correctional Services DoE – Department of Education GLPF - Gauteng Language Policy Framework LANGTAG – Language Task Group LiEP – Language in Education NLPF - National Language Policy Framework NLBs – National Language Boards NLUs – National Language Units OAU - Organisation of Africa Unity PanSALB – Pan South African Language Board SADC – Southern African Development Community UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation VOC - Dutch East India Company vii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1. Background and research context 1 1.2 Aim of study 18 1.3 Objectives 18 1.4 Theoretical Framework 19 1.5 Justification of the study 19 1.6 Literature Review 20 1.7 Research methodology 22 1.7.1 Data gathering techniques 23 1.7.1. 1 Interviews 23 1.7.1.2 Questionnaires 24 1.8 The scope of research 25 1.9 Conclusion 26 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: Language Planning and Language Policy28 2.1 Introduction 28 2.2 Types and Approaches to Language Planning 34 2.2.1 Status Planning 37 2.2.3 Acquisition Planning 38 2.2.4 Stages of Language Planning 39 2.2.5 Goals of Language Planning 41 2.2.6 Orientation of Language Planning 41 2.3 Conclusion 43 Chapter 3: Research methodology 45 3.1 Introduction 45 3.2 The choice of research methods 45 3.2.1 Qualitative research method 47 3.2.2 Quantitative research method 53 3.2.3 Mixed research method 56 3.3 Fieldwork 59 3.3.1 Introduction 59 viii 3.3.2 Objectives of the fieldwork 59 3.3.3 Selection procedure 60 3.4 Data gathering techniques 61 3.4.1 Interviews 61 3.4.2 Questionnaires 62 3.5 Data analysis 62 3.6 Conclusion 63 Chapter 4: Presentation of Data Collected (Questionnaires) 64 4.1 Introduction 64 4.2 Section A: Correctional Services’ Officials 64 4.3 Section B: Prison Offenders 128 4.4 Conclusion 158 Chapter 5: Analysis of data presented 163 5.1 Introduction 163 5.2 Section A: Correctional Services’ Official 164 5.3 Section B: Prison Offenders 170 5.4 Responses from interviews and observations 174 5.5 Research findings from the above analysis 182 5.6 Conclusion 185 Chapter 6: Summary, conclusions and suggestions 188 6.1 Introduction 188 6.2 The aim of the study 188 6.3 Methodology 189 6.4 Analysis and observation 190 6.5 Suggestions and/or recommendation 191 6.6 Conclusion 193 Bibliography 194 Appendices 205 Request and Approval from Department of Correctional Services 205 1 Chapter 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background and research context In this chapter the aim is to tackle the issues around language policies with special reference to language policy and implementation in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). It is also aimed at language planning and language policy practised in South Africa for all organs of the state from which the Department of Correctional Services language policy is derived. The language policy of South Africa is hailed as exemplary of meaningful change in language policies throughout the world and in South Africa in particular. South Africa’s post-apartheid eleven (11) official language policy has been described in various positive ways, for instance, as “a progressive language policy” (Brock-Utne, 2002:12; also Alexander, 2003:23); “the new very enlightened South African policy on languages: (Ngugi wa Thiong’o, 2003:3); South Africa’s ambitious language policy” (Englund, 2004:197); “this apparently very generous language policy”(Satyo, 1999:150); “a revolutionary language policy for the new millennium,” (Chisanga, 2002:95); “the most democratic on the continent” (Chisanga, 2002:101); and so on (in Kamwendo, 2006:54). The demise of apartheid and the subsequent change to democracy in South Africa in 1994 witnessed a radical shift in the language policy of South Africa. South Africa like any other colonial African country underwent many changes in various activities including language changes. The linguistic situation that was characterised by the dominance of English and Afrikaans as official languages for many years could not be immune to the process of change also in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The other languages (African languages), which were previously marginalised were brought into the linguistic scenario (Mutasa, 2004:1). Prior to democracy in South Africa, the majority of the African languages were assigned low status. Although they were used to a certain extent in the media, education, and in various public domains mainly as part of the administration of the ‘bantustates’ they were strategically used in order to separate South Africans 2 according to racial lines. The African languages were not used in the domain of economy, and therefore, this resulted in language inequality. Because of this, in turn, it influenced the way in which African languages were perceived by the speakers of the African languages. In terms of the historical overview, South Africa had different language policies since the first occupation of South Africa by the Dutch in 1652. In the early years of Apartheid, there was a direct influence on the languages of the indigenous people by the Dutch. A policy of ‘free association’ was followed, with the Khoikhoi, especially, intermixing freely with the Dutch. In later years, a lingua franca was established among these people and the lingua franca was Portuguese and Malay-Portuguese. The Dutch were determined to prevent these languages from becoming commonly used in the Cape; the Dutch East India Company (VOC) decreed in 1658 that the slaves should learn Dutch. This decree constituted the first language policy in South Africa. Dutch became also the medium of instruction in the earliest mission schools for slave children. These meant that all communication should be done in Dutch even between the indigenous people (Maartens, 1998:25-26). The successive periods of British rule brought the beginning of English as the dominant official language of the colony.