Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies ISSN: 1607-3614 (Print) 1727-9461 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20 An analysis of language policy versus practice in two South African universities Andrew Drummond To cite this article: Andrew Drummond (2016) An analysis of language policy versus practice in two South African universities, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34:1, 71-79, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2016.1159522 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2016.1159522 Published online: 07 Apr 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 34 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rall20 Download by: [King's College London] Date: 27 June 2016, At: 09:07 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2016, 34(1): 71–79 Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES ISSN 1607-3614 EISSN 1727-9461 http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2016.1159522 An analysis of language policy versus practice in two South African universities Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Andrew Drummond Wits Language School, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: amdrummond@yahoo.com Abstract: Educational practices in South Africa which privilege English throughout the educational journey of the learner disadvantage the majority who do not speak English as a home language. Tertiary institutions in South Africa have crafted language policies that appear to be attempts to redress this imbalance by pledging improved learning opportunities in some African languages. In many areas, it can be seen that these policies have not been implemented, perhaps indicating a lack of will to do so. The SA Constitution requires provision in particular languages only when it is ‘reasonably practicable’ to do so. Similar or identical caveats appear in the language policies of the University of Johannesburg and UNISA allowing for inaction. It is questionable whether tertiary institutions acting unilaterally rather than as part of a coordinated status, corpus and acquisition planning can achieve transformation in the academy. Removing the ‘reasonably practicable’ caveat from the Constitution and establishing a national language planning body will be necessary before widespread transformation can occur. Language-in-education policies linked to financial reward and penalty mechanisms may be required to achieve tangible progress towards multilingual tertiary education. Introduction The issue of languages of instruction (LOIs) throughout the educational journey of the learner is of major consequence. As Brock-Utne (2013: 147) states: ‘Children learn better when they understand what the teacher is saying’ The simple distinction between understanding and not-understanding set up by language policies can ultimately lead to: ‘marginalization or integration, exclusion or empowerment, poverty or development’ (UNESCO 2005: 7). Stark polarities such as these highlight why the issue of language policy is so vital in the construction of an equitable society in a post-colonial and post-apartheid context, where the negative side of these binaries ought not to remain the experience of the majority. There follows some evidence that the current educational system in South Africa is not operating equitably with regard to all of its citizens. Summarising the results of their research into the reading skills of pupils in grades 4 and 5, Howie, Venter and Van Staden (2008: 559) state: ‘The majority of pupils receiving instruction in English, when English is not their mother tongue, face grave challenges in education’. The move towards using a foreign language as LOI at grade 4 may do symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1989) to the leaner’s mother tongue and constitutes a severe rupture in the field of their learning. This linguistic field rupture, as I term it, is sadly not rectified as the years of instruction in English accrue, as evidenced by Van der Berg (2007: 859) who states: ‘In 2003, matric passes constituted 28% of the 19-year-old cohort among blacks and 68% among whites’. It is difficult to argue that these numbers reflect an equitable language policy. If you do not pass matric, you are not going to university. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that although 42% of South Africans speak an Nguni language (Statistics South Africa 2011) as their first or home language, the percentage of isiZulu, isiXhosa and Siswati speakers enrolled at university in 2000 was a mere 23% (DHET 2002). Moreover, Van der Berg (2007: 852) compares levels of achievement at the tertiary level within white and black communities and finds a disturbing disparity. He states that: ‘70% of whites above age 26 had completed matric [and] almost 15% had a degree. In comparison, only 19% of blacks over 26 years had completed matric or more and only 1.4% had graduated’. These figures underline how the present system is failing. If the present system can be Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 72 Drummond seen to disadvantage the majority of its learners, then that system ought to change. Transformation, then, is urgently required at every level of the education system in South Africa. However, the importance of multilingual education is recognised by South Africa’s Constitution (1996, s29 (2)) which states: ‘Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable’. Nonetheless, the ‘reasonably practicable’ clause has been criticised as being too vague to allow for robust implementation to take place (Webb 1999). Various educational polices have been formulated since 1996 which apparently aim to make multilingual education a reality, including the Policy for Higher Education (DHET 2002). Following this policy, South African universities were required to formulate language policies evidencing a move towards multilingualism. This paper looks at the language policies of two tertiary institutions in South Africa (SA), the University of South Africa (UNISA) and the University of Johannesburg (UJ), in order to assess the strengths and weakness of their aims, as well as the extent of their implementation. Data on the extent of their implementation can contribute to clarity on whether the current framework of law and policy is sufficient to effect the transformation that is demonstrably required. Language planning and the Policy for Higher Education The next section briefly describes the practice of language planning, then sets out some details of the Policy for Higher Education (DHET 2002), which was introduced as a way of promoting multilingualism at the tertiary level. Language planning can be approached in a variety of ways in order to influence the norms of language use in society. Policies formulated at the national level can enact status, corpus, acquisition and attitudinal planning in order to effect widespread transformation (Hornberger 1994). Here is a brief, non-exhaustive, description of these language planning practices. Status planning can prescribe which languages are used for which purposes within a society (Hornberger 1994). Corpus planning enables a language to be standardised for official and academic purposes (Hornberger 1994). Acquisition planning is concerned with establishing educational pathways, among others, by which a standardised language could be taught and acquired (Hornberger 1994). Attitudinal planning has the explicit purpose of challenging and changing prevailing perceptions on the value of various languages and language practices within a society. The 2002 Policy for Higher Education is a document intended to transform language use in universities. It states: ‘Language has been and continues to be a barrier to access and success in higher education’ (DHET 2002: 4). This barrier is explained as many students not being fully proficient in English and/or Afrikaans, while these languages dominate South African tertiary institutions. The policy sets out means of addressing this problem, including promoting African languages as the LOIs and ‘the promotion of multilingualism in the institutional policies and practices of institutions of higher education’ (DHET 2002: 9). The kind of multilingualism envisaged here is one where ‘all our languages are developed as academic/scientific languages’ (DHET 2002: 5) and used as LOIs at universities. The document recognises that a successful move to multilingualism will not be easy. With that in mind, the policy goes on to state that ‘[i]n the light of practical and other considerations it will be necessary to work within the confines of the status quo until such time as other South African languages have been developed to a level where they may be used in all higher education functions’ (DHET 2002: 10). A national corpus planning framework establishing how African languages are to be developed is not set out in the policy. Van Der Walt (as cited in Koch & Burkett 2005) points out that allowing the status quo to continue indefinitely seems to position the development of African languages for academic purposes as something of a secondary pursuit. Koch and Burkett (2005: 1093) argue that while flexibility is required during a period of transition, ‘it must be conceded that the resultant vagueness creates gaps’. Gaps such as these could hinder the process of the development and use of African languages as LOIs by apparently allowing for an undetermined interim period where their use in not mandatory. In fact, not all academics regard the aims of developing African languages for academic purposes as achievable. Foley (2004: 58) asks whether African languages can be developed as LOIs and Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2016, 34(1): 71–79 73 concludes: ‘From a theoretical point of view, it is of course possible to develop these languages... From a practical perspective, however, the simple truth is that it is not going to happen. Foley (2004: 61) lists factors to support this conclusion including, ‘[i]f nothing else, the sheer financial cost of the undertaking is prohibitive’. When matters of cost are being considered though, it would be more equitable also to consider the cost of the status quo to intellectual capital. On the issue of ‘cost’, Brock-Utne (2015: 179) has argued: When economists try to figure out how much it will cost to publish textbooks in African languages, they also have to figure out how much it costs to have African children sit year after year in school…without learning anything. This is a cost that Foley’s argument does not seem to consider. Nevertheless, it is clear that the complexity of developing African languages in South Africa has led to some adopting a negative stance on the likelihood of its achievement. In summary, while the 2002 policy is intended to generate institutional activity towards promoting the status and development of African languages, the concession of the necessity to ‘[work] within the confines of the status quo’ for some time represents a potential weakness here. It could be understood as a disincentive to action. With this in mind, it will be instructive to consider how robustly the language policies of two tertiary institutions, UNISA and UJ, have put into practice the proposals of the 2002 policy. Research methods In response to the 2002 policy, all tertiary institutions in South Africa are required to formulate an official language policy. There are many universities in South Africa, and each of their language policies warrants analysis. The choice of UJ and UNISA for this paper is motivated by the accessibility of their campuses to the researcher. Being able to visit the campuses in person provides access to data that would otherwise not be available. A comparative approach has been adopted here since a study of two institutions will highlight progress or entrenchment in the process of transformation more plainly than one. While still a small sample, data from this study could contribute to an overall picture of the pace of transformation, in association with other research. Once identified, findings in this area could help inform the debate on how transformation should proceed. In order to investigate the language policies of these institutions and the extent of their implementation, I have adopted a qualitative model of enquiry focusing on two areas. Firstly, I assess their progress in promoting African languages as LOIs. Secondly, I investigate progress towards incorporating multilingualism into the institutional practices of the institutions, with specific reference to their websites, signs on campus and publications. Initially, I read both policy documents and summarised their contents, noting areas where the policies set out equitable aims for the diverse language groups of South Africa, as well noting any language in the document that might afford the institution recourse to procrastination. Verifying how substantial their commitment to multilingualism is in terms of the wording of the policy seems pertinent since both the SA Constitution and the 2002 policy have been criticised for containing vague statements (Webb 1999; Koch and Burkett 2005). Then, in direct communication with the institution, I enquired about taking courses for which the LOI would be an African language. In addition, I also visited one campus of each institution to assess the visibility of languages other than English on campus and to acquire published matter in whatever languages were available. Finally, I searched the website of each institution for evidence of publishing in languages other than English. The rationale here is that since direct communication, web searches and personal visits are likely to be the means by which prospective students of UJ and UNISA would experience the de facto language policy of the institution, I would try to emulate that experience. The de facto policy can then be compared with the stated policy to assess the extent of its implementation. The following sections contain a summary of key points within each policy and findings from my interactions with the institutions. Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 74 Drummond UNISA A summary of the policy UNISA’s 2010 language policy document states the intention to provide instruction and allow submissions in each of South Africa’s 11 official languages. The document states a belief in home language education as a human right and states its intention to redress some of the inequalities of the past. There is to be variation in which languages are available in each province based on the demographics therein. Students are to be allowed to submit their research theses in the language of their choice where their supervisor is linguistically able to reciprocate. However, at post-graduate level, a preference for English as LOI is stated. There is a recognition that the above provision will take time to implement. Provision of instruction in African languages is to be available on the basis of ‘functional multilingualism’. The policy defines this term as follows: Functional multilingualism means that the choice of a particular language in a particular situation is determined by the context in which it is used…the availability of resources and the target audience determine the choice of languages (UNISA 2010; emphasis mine). ‘Functional multilingualism’, as set out in the document, operates as a limitation on the extent to which the institution is expected to provide courses in African languages. The danger here is that, in recognising the complexity of language demographics across South Africa, there may emerge from the wording a recourse not to act decisively in any province. The document sets out the following aim: ‘In terms of the student communication and marketing strategy, all brochures will be produced in as many languages as possible but at least in Northern Sotho (Sepedi), Zulu and Afrikaans’. In addition, university staff are encouraged to use the language of the interlocutor where possible. Signs are to be constructed in the dominant languages of each province. There is an intention to publish brochures online in African languages. Assessing UNISA’s policy and its implementation Many aspects of the policy, if implemented, could improve inclusion across a wider range of language groups. For example, the intention to provide instruction in all of South Africa’s languages is endorsed by Schmidt’s view (2006: 106) that ‘[i]n order to give individuals fair equality of opportunity…the state must provide equally effective support for the structure of each component ethnolinguistic community making up the country’. Providing signs in the dominant languages of the province is a welcome means of reinforcing the value of these languages. As Cenoz and Gorter (2006: 68) argue, ‘[t]he language in which signs are written can certainly influence [speakers’] perception of the status of the different languages and even affect [speakers’] own linguistic behaviour’. This is, therefore, an important piece of status planning. A key weakness in the document, however, pertains to making the provision of courses in African LOIs contingent on the conditions of ‘functional multilingualism’ being met. According to the policy, an African language may not be used if there are no resources presently available in that language. An obvious difficulty here is that a cursory search for printed materials allowing, for example, biology to be taught in Sepedi may, as yet, find nothing. If UNISA itself was in the process of developing such materials, a temporary gap in provision would be understandable. However, the document does not assert a commitment to developing such materials. As Miti (2009: 156) states: ‘The problem is not that there are no books, but that Africans have not written books in these languages’. It is recognised, though, that the power of one institution acting alone is limited in this area. Later, the document explains that modules can be offered in English only, in certain circumstances. One of the factors is listed as ‘[t]he number of students registered for the module’. The wording is somewhat ambiguous here but it seems to indicate that where there is a lack of demand for the module being offered in an African language and/or a greater demand for the module to be delivered in English, it may run only in English. Demand, then, appears to be a factor driving in whether the English-only provision will continue to dominate at UNISA. This problematic notion of demand is taken up in the discussion section below. In order to assess the implementation of the LOI policy, I contacted UNISA student services to ask whether any subjects such as law, sciences or economics were offered with an African language Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2016, 34(1): 71–79 75 as the LOI. I was informed that IsiZulu was offered as a module but was not used as a medium of instruction. My correspondent made no additional comment about any other black African language used as medium of instruction. To see if brochures had been produced in African languages, I searched for any material published in isiZulu on the UNISA website, but only found links to online courses in Zulu as a subject. In fact, there is no evidence of any brochure being available in an African language on their website. I emailed the university via their contact page and asked for an undergraduate brochure in Zulu but received no response. In fact, I did not find any material written in an African language on their website. To assess the provision of signage and branding in the languages of the province, I visited UNISA’s study centre in Johannesburg CBD (8 September 2014). There were no signs on display in any language other than English. In addition, none of the printed brochures were available in languages other than English. In this area, the Johannesburg centre does not reflect the multilingual policy aims in any meaningful way and such a monolingual approach may serve to perpetuate inequitable levels of status between the main languages of the province. University of Johannesburg A summary of the policy The preamble of the UJ language policy (2006) sets out the view that a more equitable language policy in education is part of the solution to rectifying the damaging colonial practices of the past. This is in line with SA’s Constitution (1996, s29 (2)), which states: ‘[There is a] need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices’. This document, then, sets out the laudable intention to overcome these legacies of past circumstances in order to facilitate access and achievement for more diverse linguistic groups. The policy states the four main spoken languages of Gauteng as English, Afrikaans, isiZulu and Sesotho sa Leboa. It recognises that African languages can be developed where there is an intentional plan in place to do so, in the same way Afrikaans was developed for academic purposes in the apartheid era. The policy indicates the intention to work towards providing instruction in these four languages wherever it is ‘reasonable practicable’ to do so. The document then pays much attention to how the ‘reasonably practicable’ clause, taken directly from the Constitution, is interpreted at the level of this institution. Within the document, potential limitations to the proposed provision include financial concerns, the availability of staff fluent in the requisite languages, and the apparent demand for such provision from the learners. However, the notion of ‘demand’ is potentially problematic. It implies that ‘[m]arket forces are free to determine the language-political character of the institution’ (Webb 2012: 205). On multilingualism within institutional practices, the following is intended: ‘The languages used by the University for administration, communication, marketing and record-keeping are English, Afrikaans, Sesotho sa Leboa and isiZulu’. It is also stated that signs in the university are to be displayed in the four main languages of the province. In addition, translation services are to be offered to learners on campus and language training is to be provided to staff so as to facilitate a multilingual environment. Official communications between students and the institution are to be provided in the language of the student’s choice, even if that necessitates translation services. These policies could contribute to providing broader access to education for speakers of isiZulu and Sesotho sa Leboa, as well as an enhanced status for each language. The role of the Language Committee and Language Unit as overseeing bodies responsible for implementing the policy is described. Assessing UJ’s policy and its implementations Aspects of UJ’s policy document seem genuinely orientated to producing transformation. Their stated commitment to a multilingual approach seems to take into consideration ‘the proper recognition of the value of other languages…and an ideology of linguistic inclusiveness, equity and parity of esteem’ (Webb 2012: 207). A university transformed in this way could ensure that ‘[students] are not penalised by disadvantages derived from circumstances over which we have had no control’ (Schmidt 2006: 105). The intention to develop African languages stated in the policy could contribute to raising their status to a level where they might be considered genuine ‘competitors to colonial Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 76 Drummond languages’ (Seepe and Dowling 2000). However, the question of whether a tertiary institution acting unilaterally is the most appropriate site for this remains. However, in order for tuition to be offered in African languages, it has to be ‘reasonably practicable’ for UJ to do so. In fact, the policy sets out eight statements to elaborate on what is meant by ‘reasonably practicable’. Among these, it states that there ought to be ‘the reasonable demand for teaching, learning and assessment in a particular language, determined by means of the language preference exercised from time to time by students’ (UJ 2006; italics mine). This seems to mean that African languages will only be offered as LOIs when there is sufficient demand from the student body. However, demand for a ‘product’ which does not yet exist may be significantly lower than for one which does exist. In any case, market forces are not likely to be drivers with a sufficiently equitable purpose to reach formerly disadvantaged groups. This point is raised again in the discussion section. In order to ascertain to what extent UJ has achieved its aim of offering courses in the four main languages of Gauteng, I contacted the UJ General Enquiries call centre (29 August 2014) to enquire whether any courses were offered with African LOIs. Callers are initially required to navigate a series of recorded options in English. Once connected, I was told that English was the medium of instruction at UJ and that no courses were available with African languages as LOIs. An additional question revealed that some courses were also offered in Afrikaans. Similarly, an exploration of UJ’s website provided me no information on options to study in isiZulu or Sesotho sa Leboa. There is, therefore, no evidence of progress in the direction of their policy aim of providing instruction in these two African languages. I visited the Bunting Road campus of UJ (16 October 2015) to assess which languages were visible on campus and to acquire course information in an African language, if possible. There are two multilingual signs on the approach to the security gate, but once inside, almost all the signs were in English only. The exception to this was a bilingual sign in English and Afrikaans. On campus, I visited the administration building of the School of Tourism and Hospitality to view their publications. I was given a brochure containing information on undergraduate and post-graduate courses in English. I asked at reception if this guide was available in any other language and was told that it was not. I also acquired a leaflet on Student Ethics from a display case containing only English copies. With regard to marketing and communication, the website offers the 2015 Undergraduate Prospectus for download in English only, in contrast to the documented policy. The prospectus itself opens with a statement in English from the principal, followed by the same statement translated into Sesotho sa Leboa, then isiZulu, and finally Afrikaans. After this multilingual beginning, however, the remainder of the document is in English. Similarly, accessing the news tab on the website reveals that the stories are all written and published entirely in English and the ‘contact us’ section is also purely English text. With this in mind, UJ cannot yet be said to have implemented its policy on multilingual communications. The only multilingual document I found on the website is the Language Unit’s newsletter. It publishes a regular newsletter utilising the four languages listed in the policy. Since this is something of a minority publication when compared to, for example, the undergraduate prospectus, this document may not do a great deal to provide the required exposure for the African languages. Interestingly, the Language Unit is perhaps more likely to pay attention to the language policy than any other department since they are accountable for overseeing its implementation. A summary of the findings The similarities in the failure to implement each institution’s language policy are striking. Specifically, neither institution has so far achieved its stated aim of providing multilingual signs on campus, although there was more evidence of progress in this area on the UJ campus. More ought to be done to create a multilingual environment since the greater visibility a language has, the more symbolic power it possesses (Cenoz & Gorter 2006). I was not able to obtain published material in an African language on either campus. In direct communication, I did not learn of any programme offering an African language as the LOI from either institution. The websites of each institution are overwhelmingly dominated by English. The only truly multilingual document I found was published by the Language Unit at UJ whose funding and purpose is directly connected to transformation. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2016, 34(1): 71–79 77 Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Each policy document contains wording which provides the institution with a reason for not making progress in offering courses in African languages. Both the ‘functional multilingualism’ of UNISA and UJ’s limitation on offering multilingual provision only when it is ‘reasonably practical’ can operate as recourses to inaction. Further description of each phrase cites demand as a factor in determining whether courses will be available in African languages. However, ‘demand’ can operate as a de facto silencing of under-represented language groups who are denied a voice because they did not pass matric. In addition, it is hard to envisage demand arising for courses which do not visibly exist and which are perceived as low status by the broader community. The findings here echo Webb’s assessment (2012: 205) of progress since 2002. He states: that ‘[t]hese policies have generally not been effectively and meaningfully implemented. It is as if some universities think that developing a language policy as such is sufficient for addressing the challenges’. Discussion The problematic nature of demand-based provision is discussed further here. In much of South Africa, ‘parents strive for their children to be educated in English’ (Van Huyssteen 2003: 4). The view that having English as the LOI will provide greater opportunities for social advancement is widely held (Ngidi 2007; Webb 2012), but it seems a rather false hope that barely understood and poorly learned English will be a vehicle for economic progress or anything else. On using English as an LOI, Makalela (2005: 161) argues: If learning through a language was a better way of learning a language, we would expect South Africans’ English to be better than that of the Germans, French and the Dutch...But the fact that only 24 per cent of the population is…literate in English after centuries of instruction does not support this proposition’ [emphasis mine]. These low figures argue that it is crucial to provide an alternative to the current hegemony of English. However, given the prevailing attitudes towards the desirability of English as a LOI, the demand for African languages to be used as LOIs is most unlikely simply to ‘appear’. Admittedly, African languages do not currently boast the cultural capital of English but few, if any, languages presently do. In spite of this, languages such as Japanese and Norwegian are used effectively as LOIs in higher education. In addition, Swahili has been used to teach linguistics in Tanzania (Musau 2001). It is not linguistically more difficult to develop South African languages than it is Japanese, Norwegian or Swahili, it only requires political will and coordinated work. As long as institutions are free to unilaterally determine their language policy independently of primary and secondary institutions, and vice versa, it is difficult to envisage significant progress towards multilingualism in the nation. It is beyond the capacity of a tertiary institution acting unilaterally to decisively influence the demand for African languages as LOIs in its province. In fact, courses which will only run when there is a demand will never run unless broader status and attitudinal planning fosters that demand. Equally, increasing matric passes for home language groups other than English who might potentially fuel a demand for tuition in their home language is outside the scope of discrete tertiary institutions. These factors illustrate how tertiary institutions must work hand-in-hand with a broader range of stakeholders as part of a national language planning framework, in order to effect transformation. This in line the with Hornberger’s view (2005: 32) that language planning must occur on many fronts at once in order to be successful. As she says, ‘[n]o matter what the goal, language…planning proceeds best if goals are pursued along several dimensions at once’. In other words, the provision of education for speakers of African languages in their home language needs to be developed in the tertiary, secondary and primary sectors simultaneously, as part of a national framework, or it will not succeed. Such a body could be given powers to reward and/or penalise progress, or lack thereof, towards transformation. When funding is made conditional on transformation, perhaps more multilingual practices will emerge, as they did in the newsletter of UJ’s Language Unit; the only multilingual document uncovered in this study. However, the existing national policies do not provide such a framework. Webb (1999: 363) criticises the provision in the Constitution, and subsequent language-in-education policies, that multilingual education should be available where ‘reasonably practicable’ by saying that ‘[a]voidance…is found 78 Drummond SA Constitution: 'Reasonably practicable' 2002 Policy 'Work within confines of status quo' UJ and UNISA: 'demand' dependent polcies Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Figure 1: Alibis for inaction in [a] number of escape clauses, such as “reasonably practicable”’. Bamgbose (as cited in Webb 1999: 363) describes these ‘escape clauses’ as ‘alibi[s] for non-implementation’. The ‘reasonable practicable’ clause in the SA Constitution appears to be the original ‘alibi for non-implementation’ and its failure to instantiate binding language is then perpetuated in later documents. Figure 1 illustrates how one ‘alibi’ leads to another. It would seem that the perpetuation of the Constitution’s ‘reasonably practicable’ caveat in subsequent documents has prevented the growth of cross-institutional and cross-sector structures robust enough to provide mass levels of provision of schooling in African LOIs. As data on current policies accrue, the SA government has a responsibility to adjust in order to empower those massive numbers of learners whom the system still fails. It follows, then, that new national legislation may be required. Key here would be redefining or even removing the ‘reasonably practicable’ clause from the Constitution and the subsequent policy documents whose contents are influenced by it. Instead of documents which do not state who will do what, a national language planning body ought to be established. Conclusion This study of how two South African universities have responded to the 2002 policy shows that neither institution has made significant progress in the area of providing African languages as LOIs, or in the embedding of multilingualism into their public communication practices. It is evident that Conclusionhighly conditional language in the policy documents allows these institutions to avoid accountability for not providing courses in African languages. In particular, such courses being contingent on demand and resources is likely to function as a reason not to run them as long as the status quo remains as it is. However, the ‘alibi’ for inaction did not begin with UJ and UNISA. It can be traced back to the 2002 policy and ultimately back to the SA Constitution which also affords inaction with its ‘reasonably practicable’ clause. Single institutions acting unilaterally do not have the power to change national sentiment towards English, nor can they transform language practices in other sectors of education. This is an area in which only a broader, cross-sector approach emanating from a national language planning body could succeed. Such a body could instantiate new policies which financially reward progress towards multilingualism and penalise entrenchment. Funding which is dependent on progress towards multilingualism is perhaps key to providing genuine impetus to transformation across the sector. It is perhaps time for change to be mandatory whether it appears practical or not. References Bourdieu P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory 7(1): 14–25. Brock-Utne B. 2013. Learning for all of Africa’s children – but in whose language? The Commonwealth Factor. Available at: www.cedol.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Learning-for-allof-Africa%E2%80%99s-children-Brock-Utne.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2015]. Brock-Utne B. 2015. Language-in-education policies and practices in Africa with a special focus on Tanzania and South Africa. Netherlands: Springer. Cenoz J, Gorter D. 2006. Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1): 67–80. Downloaded by [King's College London] at 09:07 27 June 2016 Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2016, 34(1): 71–79 79 Foley A. 2004. Language policy in higher education in South Africa: implications and complications: perspectives on higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education 18(1): 57–71. Hornberger N. 1994. Literacy and language planning. Language and Education 8(1–2): 75–86. Hornberger N. 2005. Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In: Ricento T. (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 24–41. Howell C. 2006. Disabled Students and Higher Education in South Africa. In: Watermeyer B, Swartz L, Lorenzo T, Schneider M, Priestley M. (eds), Disability and Social Change: a South African agenda. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press. pp. 164–178. Howie S, Venter E, Van Staden S. 2008. The effect of multilingual policies on performance and progression in reading literacy in South African primary schools. Educational Research and Evaluation 14(6): 551–560. Koch E, Burkett B. 2005. Making the role of African languages in higher education a reality. South African Journal of Higher Education 19(6): 1089–1107. Makalela L. 2005. ‘We Speak Eleven Tongues’: Reconstructing Multilingualism in South Africa. In: Brock-Utne B, Kofi Hopson R (eds), Languages of Instruction for African Emancipation: Focus on Postcolonial Contexts and Consideration. Cape Town: CASAS pp. 147–174. Miti L. 2009. Mother Tongue in Learning and Teaching. In: Prah KK, Brock-Utne B (eds), Multilingualism: An African Advantage: a Paradigm Shift in African Language of Instruction Policies. Cape Town: CASAS. pp. 148–169. Musau PM. 2001. Adapting an African language as a medium of instruction at the university: the case of Kiswahili in Kenya. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 37: 127–137. Ngidi SA. 2007. The attitudes of learners, educators and parents towards English as a language of learning and teaching (LOLT) in Mthunzini circuit. (Doctoral dissertation). Available at: uzspace. uzulu.ac.za/handle/10530/80 [Accessed 23 October 2015]. Schmidt R. 2006. Political theory and language policy. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 95–110. Seepe S, Dowling D. 2000. The Language of science. Florida, South Africa: Vivlia. DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training). 2002. Language policy for higher education. Available at: www.dhet.gov.za/HED%20Policies/Language%20Policy%20for%20Higher%20 Education.pdf [Accessed 21 August 2014]. Statistics South Africa. 2011. Census 2011: Census in brief. Available at: www.statssa.gov.za/ census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf [Accessed 25 August 2014]. UNESCO. 2005. Education and Culture in Africa’s Quest for Development. Available at: www.ancefa.org/ IMG/pdf/UNESCO-UA-Contribution-Role_Education_Culture_ENG.pdf [Accessed 22 August 2014]. University of Johannesburg. 2015. Undergraduate prospectus. Available at: www.uj.ac.za/EN/ StudyatUJ/StudentEnrolmentCentre/ApplicationProcess/Documents/UJ-Prospectus-2015.pdf [Accessed 23 August 2014]. IS THIS CORRECT? UNISA = AUTHOR BUT URL = U.J. University of Johannesburg (UJ). 2006. Language Policy. Available at: www.uj.ac.za/EN/ CorporateServices/LanguageUnit/Policies/Documents/Language%20Policy.pdf [Accessed 22 August 2014]. University of South Africa (UNISA). 2010. Language Policy. Available at: http://www.unisa.ac.za/ research/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LanguagePolicy_revapprvCouncil_19112010.pdf. [Accessed 22 August 2014]. Van der Berg S. 2007. Apartheid’s enduring legacy: Inequalities in education. Journal of African Economies 16(5): 849–880. Van der Walt C. 2004. The challenge of multilingualism: in response to the language policy for higher education. South African Journal for Higher Education 18(1): 140–152. Van Huyssteen L. (2003). A practical approach to the standardisation and elaboration of Zulu as a technical language. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa. Webb V. 1999. Multilingualism in democratic South Africa: the over-estimation of language policy. International Journal of Educational Development 19(4): 351–366. Webb V. 2012. Managing multilingualism in higher education in post-1994 South Africa. Language Matters 43(2): 202–220.