Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Division of English Language and Literature

English in the Era of Globalization

Fall 2005

Week 13 - Answers

Sonntag (2003) Chapter 5

1. How did the Aparteid system in old South Africa use language as a weapon?

This is a simple case of divide and conquer. By forcing the different indigenous African groups into separate homelands and making them go to school through the local language the Afrikaans speakers (the Boers/Afrikaners) were able to control the government and everyone else. There was no clear majority among the African groups, so the white group of Afrikaans speakers were able to rule.

The Afrikaners were actually very smart in that they used to United Nations (UN) decrees supporting individual language rights as a weapon against their own majority people. While we might think that allowing or supporting indigenous languages would be a good thing (We have seen throughout this corse that is exactly what many different minority groups actually want), turned out to be actually a very thing for the indigenous people of South Africa in part because all of the linguistic makeup of the country. The difference in South Africa is that indigenous people make up the majority of the population, but there are many different indigenous groups. By creating different homelands for these different groups and forcing them to learn only the local indigenous language plus Afrikaans, the Afrikaner minority was able to both manipulate the local populations through Afrikaans but in the same fell swoop was able to stop them from communicating with each other directly. In this way the tricky Afrikaners were able to use indigenous languages as a weapon against the majority group of indigenous people.

Below are some statistics for the current South Africa. We can only assume that things have changed at least slightly since Apartheid ended almost 15 years ago.

Population includes 24,100,000 Africans (73.8%), 5,000,000 Whites (14.8%), 2,800,000 'Coloureds' (8.7%), 890,292 Asians (2.7%).

Official languages and their number of speakers: Afrikaans (5,811,547), Ndebele (586,961), Northern Sotho (3,695,846), Southern Sotho (3,104,197), Swati (1,013,193), Tsonga (1,756,105), Tswana (3,301,774), Venda (876,409), Xhosa (7,196,118), Zulu (9,200,144), English (3,457,467).

Literacy rate: 50% Africans, 62% 'Coloureds', 69% Asians, 99% White

From the above statistics we can see how successful this policy of apartheid was in the many years in which it dominated South African politics. Certainly the negative effects of apartheid are still present and will take some time to overcome. In looking at this it is also important to try to think about things from the Afrikaners position. After independence in 1948 the Afrikaners found themselves in a very unique position. Not only did they have the ability to grab power from the departing British, but they needed to grab power for their very survival. As in many former colonies what often happens to the colonists who have treated the local indigenous people more or less like slaves is that they get booted out of the country. The Afrikaners this was certainly not an option. Their communities in South Africa were old and well-established and prior to the Boer war they were separate from the Dutch government. For these Afrikaners there was no going back because they no longer saw themselves as citizens of the Netherlands and of course they weren`t. At the same time however they were vicious colonialists, as was clearly shown in their apartheid system. What we need to understand, however, is that apartheid was their survival. Without an apartheid system where local indigenous tribes had come to power the Afrikaners would certainly have been destroyed as a group of people, as they probably should have been, but that is not for us to decide we simply need to analyze and understand.

2. How have language policies changed in the new democratic South Africa?

Obviously the language policies have changed dramatically in the new South Africa, but not nearly as dramatically as we might expect in a country which suffered such tremendous oppression at the hands of an ethnic minority. You would expect for there to be a huge backlash against the Afrikaners or even their fellow English-speaking compatriots (And let`s please be perfectly honest here. The white English speaking South Africans of British descendent benefited tremendously from the apartheid system.), but there really wasn`t. Perfectly a relation to English there was never this vicious backlash because during the apartheid regime English was viewed as a protest language, not because the British descent South Africans were so much against apartheid, but rather because the African National Congress (ANC) leaders ( such as Nelson Mandela) were all English speakers. Thus, when the new, post-apartheid South African government was formed it was assumed that English would be the solitary national language of South Africa largely because of the role the played in the ANC and the protest movements in general. This was not to occur.

Certain black leaders insisted on Afrikaans also being used as a national language, much against the wishes all of the new ANC government. Reluctantly the ANC acquiesced to this claim but to undermine Afrikaans insisted that nine indigenous languages would also be listed as national languages. So, South Africa became a multilingual country by default. Nobody in the government really wanted it and they were very much against it. As a result nothing has really been done from the government point of view to promote multilingualism in South Africa. The Language Planning Board run by a Neville Alexander is very much in favor of multilingualism, but still receives very little support from the central government and costs nothing really happens. So even today English and Afrikaans are the main languages both taught and spoken ( surveys a second language and increasingly as a first language) in South Africa. Multilingualism ideals have fallen by the wayside.

3. How is global English now a threat to the fledgling democracy of South Africa?

South Africa is a very interesting example of the general paradox of global English. On the one hand English provides on medium in which Democratic ideas cannot only be spread universally but people will be able to contact these ideas. Certainly in South Africa English has played a very important role in the democratic struggle. It is through English that the ANC was able to not only be recognized internationally but is also taken seriously on the global arena. As a result the ANC sees English has been indispensable for of the democratization of South Africa. At the same time English is a huge divider of the South African population ( as it is becoming so in many countries of the world including South Korea). In South Africa rich people speak English, regardless of race and poor people simply don`t. This means that the poorer or disadvantaged part of the population have little access to education, jobs, and of course resources simply because they do not have English. This is the paradox. We know that in a foreign language situation (Thanks to Kecskes and Papp), as really is the case in most parts of South Africa, languages are not easy to learn. To learn a language well in foreign language situation there needs to be a high level of intensity in this intensity costs a lot of money which many people both in Korean and certainly in South Africa simply can`t afford. So, this wonderful medium we know of as English is certainly not available to everyone. That`s really not the way language learning works.

The other danger for South Africa is that indigenous languages simply can`t compete with the global appeal and power of English and as a result will become more limited over time.

4. How and why is the perception of English different in Nepal than in South Africa?

Although there are some striking similarities in Nepal and South Africa regarding how language was used as a weapon and the ensuing democratic development of the country, there are also striking differences. The most important difference is the level of economic development in the different countries. Nepal is a very underdeveloped country. The literacy rate in Nepal is 20 to 29%. It is clear from the statistic that the Nepali only policy of the previous government simply didn`t work in developing the country. Most Nepalis can see this. English has therefore been supported as an alternative for development. Looking at the Nepali economy, or what there is of it, this is understandable. Nepal is more or less totally reliant on the international community for funding and the largest part of their economy is international tourism. In short, McDonalds coming in and changing their culture. McDonalds has no interest in a country as poor as Nepal. The Nepali elite realize that English is their lifeblood. Without English they get no money from outside, so the elite in Nepal need English. Likewise, in a country where survival is the main concern, people simply do not have time to worry about preservation of culture and language. Because the poor are so poor and have no access to English, English is not really a threat to them. It is more like an unreachable ideal. So few people feel threatened by English in Nepal despite the fact that English is just as hegemonic in Nepal as it is in South Africa.

5. How are South Africa and Nepal similar in their language situations?

South Africa and the Paul are similar in that both countries have recently undergone the democratization process in response to authoritative regimes and that both of them have been forced to exude a facade of multilingualism. In both cases the government was initially very complacent about the idea of using other languages and really both were forced by though linguistic minorities to make certain amends. In South Africa the government originally simply wanted to have English while in Nepal the government was more than happy to continue a Nepali-only policy. It was only through public action that the government was forced first to adopt any form of multilingualism in the country and second to actually go about implementing this.

Despite their similarities however, however, the countries are different. The differences mainly relate two English and the degree of development in the countries. South Africans see English much more as a threat these days because English has made much deeper inroads into South Africa and South African culture via both governmental policies and also economic globalization. In Nepal English is still a very much marginalized language. Its use is highly restricted as is its learning. Only the most elite, upper echelon Nepalis have access to English at all, and for then it is often the source of their wealth The subalterns have no access and hence no problems with English.