Language Policy

The draft proposal of the Language Task Group, 16 October 2007

The draft proposal for a revised language policy can be put in perspective as follows:

The Language Policy is not changed in essence. The language options in the current Language Policy are retained but the management thereof is refined.
The division into a central language policy and language plan falls away. Now there is only one policy document on language.
The Language Policy is determined by a set of points of departure – included as part of the policy itself – that has already been approved by the various governing bodies concerned with language policy.
CR environments now develop their own language plans in accordance with the stipulations of the Language Policy.
More attention is paid to monitoring.
The composition and responsibilities of the Language Committee are amended.

The Language Task Group recommends this draft after careful consideration of a large collection of evidence (literature, own investigations, investigations by others, discussions, buying-in of expert advice from outside, information on costs, etc.) and after careful weighing of various options against each other, options that extend from a university that is almost exclusively Afrikaans medium to a university that is almost exclusively English medium, with all the divisions that are possible between these, for us unacceptable, extremes. All evidence points to the fact that the University has no alternative but to have a mixed policy.

The beginning of the process
The revision process started in 2006 when the Rector, Prof. Chris Brink, composed a Language Task Group and defined its mandate. The following links provide background information on this:

Revision of the Language Policy and Language Plan of SU
Background, structures and mandates
Task Group

In the Language Task Group Dr Edna van Harte was later replaced by Mr Robert Kotzé. Besides the Language Task Group the Vice-Rector (Teaching) (VR(T)) also appointed a Calibration Team that can give advice on the feasibility of certain policy proposals. The Calibration Team reports directly to the VR(T) and is not a subcommittee of the Language Task Group.

Meetings of the Language Task Group

Since February 2006 the Language Task Group has generally met once a week, naturally with the exception of the second semester of 2006 when activities were suspended completely.
Scientific basis
In order to ensure a scientific basis for any revision proposals, the Language Task Group

took into account a divergent collection of points of view in language planning literature;
conducted its own investigation, known in short as the Leibowitz Report, into experience of the current Language Policy and Language Plan;
made use of external advisors who are also specialists in the field of language planning;
took into account strategic data that may have an impact on the policy-making process: and
formulated critical points of view itself in order to focus its thinking about certain problematic matters and also to communicate it to others.

The Language Task Group early on developed a conceptual framework that would give direction to the policy-making process. Points of view were also formulated around contentious issues such as the acceptability of the T option.

The course of activities

The period of February 2006 to October 2007 was characterised by the following phases, moments and events. The course of the deliberation process and the continuous activities of the Language Task Group were markedly affected on several occasions by some of these events and actions. Here I mention the most important phases and/or events that had an impact on the continuation of the process:

Preliminary investigation, deliberation and conceptualisation. The first six months of 2006 were particularly occupied by preliminary investigations, the gathering of submissions and the formulation of values and points of departure and drawing up of an interim conceptual framework
The testing of specific points of view. The most important of these was a vote in the Senate on points of view of the Convocation, requested by the then rector, Prof. Chris Brink. A fierce language debate that would have a marked influence on the continuation of the process arose around this event.
The establishment of the Vlottenburg Group, which submitted an alternative conceptual framework to the Management of the University.
The Council election and discussions with the EC(C) and the Council, of which the most important discussion was the one at the beginning of 2007 during which a set of points of departure was accepted and later approved.

The appointment of a new rector. With the resignation of Prof. Chris Brink by the middle of 2006, the process for the appointment of a new rector was put in motion and the Management of the University decided for strategic reasons to suspend the revision process. The activities of the Language Task Group were then suspended completely for the largest part of the second semester of 2006.
The independent Council investigation into the current Language Policy and Language Plan. Early in 2007 it was agreed that an independent investigation into the current Language Policy and Language Plan would be conducted under the auspices of the Council. This Council investigation would be conducted on condition that the Language Task Group would continue its activities only on a limited scale and especially that it would not during this time bring forward proposals or enter into conversation regarding proposals for a revised language policy. Again the opportunity for the Language Task Group to continue its deliberation was restricted. After a number of delays it was eventually decided that the final deadline for completion of the investigation would be 14 September 2007 and that the Language Task Group could continue with the deliberation process immediately after this date. An interim report was handed to the acting VR(T) on 14 September 2007, and the restriction on continued discussion and the announcement of draft proposals was lifted.

In the meantime a new timescale for the approval of a revised language policy by the Rector’s Management Team has been approved and communicated to the Senate.
Within the framework of this timescale the Language Task Group will have further discussions with the various role players as part of the refining process. Some of these discussions have already taken place since 14 September 2007 or have already been planned.

Deliberation

Naturally, a major priority was to set in motion a deliberation process that would ensure maximum participation by the various role players.

The deliberation process entailed that the University community and the general public were given an open opportunity to make submissions to the Language Task Group. Eventually the Group received about 60 submissions from a wide variety of role players, but at the same time the Group took note of a variety of other documents (including letters, memoranda and suchlike to members of the Group and other SU role players and letters in the media) that could inform the revision process. These submissions and other contributions were studied carefully and formed part of the data on the basis of which the Group eventually would formulate its proposals. Where it appeared to be necessary the Group would also have discussions with some of the role players in order to clear up information or obtain further inputs. These discussions would have taken place during the second semester of 2006.

Values and points of departure

One of the first tasks that the Language Task Group performed was to determine the values and points of departure according to which it would carry out its assignment.
Naturally, the values and points of departure that guided the activities of the Language Task Group were under discussion continuously. Eventually the discourse on these values and points of departure culminated in a Council discussion during which a set of points of departure against which the revised Language Policy could eventually be measured was approved. These points of departure (as approved by the Council) are as follows:

Strategic points of departure

That Vision 2012 serves as point of departure.
That the Language Policy should support the diversity objectives of the University.
That the University is a national asset that strives for academic excellence to the benefit of the whole of South African society.
That language and use of language should serve the academic function of the University and not the other way round, i.e. that language is an instrument by means of which outstanding teaching and research and relevant community service can be effectuated.
That the Language Policy should facilitate communication for the purposes of effective learning, teaching, research and administration.
That the Language Policy must be student and learning centred in support of the teaching function.
That the Language Policy should take into account the demographic and other realities within which the University functions.
That the Language Policy should support the strategic planning and policy decisions of the University.
That language needs in the various environments of the University are not necessarily the same and that the Language Ppolicy should make provision for these differences.

Language spokesperson

In order to facilitate discussion of the revision of the Language Policy, a language spokesperson in the person of Prof. Russel Botman (then still in his capacity as Vice-Rector (Teaching)) was appointed. Various language spokesperson documents on a variety of subjects saw the light and can be consulted here.

Perspective on the process and the outcome thereof

The development of policy proposals over such a long period of time often created problems for the Language Task Group. It was not always possible to maintain a thorough sense of synopsising. However, I am happy that the Language Task Group could, in a scientific manner and with great responsibility, reach a final proposal which will be in the best interest of the University if it should be approved. Language policy in a multilingual environment is no easy matter, and it is certainly not possible to satisfy everyone.

I would like to thank every member of the Language Task Group for the hard and often thankless work that was done over such a long period of time with such devotion.

Leon de Stadler
October 2007