The Language Socialisation Experiences of a Grade R
Child in a Black Middle-Class Multilingual Family
Master’s in Education:
Applied Language & Literacy Studies
To
w
n
DISSERTATION
University of Cape Town
ap
e
School of Education
rs
i
ty
of
C
8 February, 2019
ni
ve
Babalwayashe Molate
MLTBAB003
yashemolate@gmail.com
U
Supervisor: Professor Carolyn McKinney
carolyn.mckinney@uct.ac.za
n
w
of
C
ap
e
To
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No
quotation from it or information derived from it is to be
published without full acknowledgement of the source.
The thesis is to be used for private study or noncommercial research purposes only.
U
ni
v
er
si
ty
Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms
of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................III
TSHOBOKÔ .................................................................................................................................................... IV
ISISHWANKATHELO ....................................................................................................................................... VI
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................................ VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF ACRONYMS & TRANSCRIPTION CONVERSIONS.................................................................................. XI
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 CHAPTER OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 SOCIOLINGUSTICS & LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION ...................................................................................................... 4
2.3 BI/MULTILINGUALISM ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Eurocentric Multilingualism ................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Translanguaging ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.3.3 Emergent/Receptive Multilingualism ................................................................................................. 11
2.4 LINGUISTIC REPERTOIRE ................................................................................................................................... 12
2.5 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES .................................................................................................................................... 14
2.6 THE BLACK MIDDLE CLASS & EX-MODEL C SCHOOLS ............................................................................................. 16
2.7 ENGLISH HEGEMONY ....................................................................................................................................... 17
2.7.1 Language Shift.................................................................................................................................... 19
2.7.2 Language Maintenance...................................................................................................................... 20
2.8 FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.9 LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODS AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 26
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 RESEACH PARTICIPANTS & RESEARCHER REFLEXIVITY.............................................................................................. 28
3.4 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 30
3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 32
3.7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 33
CHAPTER 4 – LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, PRACTICES AND REPERTOIRES ........................................................... 34
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 MULTILINGUAL FAMILY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 34
4.3 CHILD LANGUAGE PRACTICES & LINGUISTIC REPERTOIRE ........................................................................................ 37
4.4 FAMILY LANGUAGE PORTRAITS – LINGUISTIC REPERTOIRE ....................................................................................... 40
4.5 FAMILY LANGUAGE PRACTICES........................................................................................................................... 46
ii
4.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 54
5. FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY, LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE AND IDENTITY ......................................................... 55
5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 55
5.2 FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY ............................................................................................................................... 55
5.3 MONOLINGUAL NORM MYTH ........................................................................................................................... 62
5.4 LANGUAGE IDENTITY ........................................................................................................................................ 64
5.4.1 Parents’ Perspectives ......................................................................................................................... 64
5.4.2 Language Identity - Child’s Perspective .............................................................................................. 71
5.5 ENGLISH HEGEMONY ....................................................................................................................................... 73
5.5.1 School Language Practices and Ideologies ......................................................................................... 73
5.5.2 School Language Policy – Anglonormative Socialisation ................................................................... 75
5.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 78
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 79
6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 79
6.2 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................................... 79
6.3 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 80
6.4 IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 80
6.5 DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..................................................................................................................... 81
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................... 90
iii
ABSTRACT
South Africa (SA) is home to 11 official named languages; its Language in Education Policy
(LIEP) identifies multilingualism as one of the defining characteristics of its citizenry (DOE,
1997). Moreover, English is the official Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT) in most
ex-Model C schools nationwide. It is the language that is reported to be valued by the
middle-class, people who are known for placing a high premium on education (Soudien,
2004; Alexander, 2005). The aim of this ethnographic Language Socialisation study is to
explore the language socialisation experiences of a Grade R child in a Black middle-class
multilingual family residing in a Cape Town suburb.
The study is framed by the question: What are the language socialisation experiences of a
child from a Black middle-class multilingual family? It uses a socio-cultural approach,
drawing from linguistic anthropology, applied linguistics and sociolinguistics to critically
analyse the language ideologies, language practices and linguistic repertoires evident in
both the home and school domains across which the young child traverses. Concepts such
as multilingualism, Family Language Policy and ‘mother tongue’ identity are reviewed and
used to gain insight into the lived language experiences of the Grade R child. The concepts
of assimilation (Soudien, 2004) and anglonormativity (Christie & McKinney, 2017) are
reflected on as markers of school language practices and ideologies.
Findings reveal that the Grade R child is an emergent multilingual who participates
meaningfully in multilingual conversations with her family but only produces English. Despite
the evident heteroglossia (Bhaktin, 1991) of the family’s language practices through
translanguaging (Garcia, 2009; Blackledge and Creese, 2010) and drawing from the range
of resources in their linguistic repertoires (Busch, 2012), the parents continue to use their
Tswana and Xhosa ethnicity as markers of their language identities. The parents want their
children to speak their heritage languages for identity reasons. They also want them to
speak English to ‘fit in’ with their peers and to access learning. They see the teaching of
Setswana and isiXhosa as their sole responsibility thereby absolving the school. Their view
enables the schools’ status quo of anglonormativity to go unchallenged. The child, thus,
experiences heritage languages as identity markers and languages reserved for home, and
English as a valuable language resource that gives access to learning. The notion of a single
language identity remains complex for a child who is expected to be multilingual at home but
monolingual at school.
Keywords: Language Socialisation, Multilingualism, Translanguaging, Emergent Bi/Multilingualism,
Family Language Policy, ‘Mother Tongue’ Identity, Heritage Languages, Language Ideologies,
Language Practices, English Hegemony, Anglonormativity
iv
TSHOBOKÔ
Aforika Borwa ke legae la dipuo tse 11 tse di theilweng tsa semmuso; Tumelano ya thuto ya
puo ya naga, Language in Education Policy (LIEP) e supa dipuo tse di ntsi tsa naga jaaka
nngwe ya dimelo tse di tlhalosang baagi ba yone (DOE, 1997). Godimo ga seo, Seesemane
ke puo ya semmuso ya go ithuta le go ruta, Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT),
mo dikolong di le di ntsi tse e neng e le tsa Model C go ralala naga. Ke puo e go kaiwang
kgotsa e bonwa e na le boleng ke batho ba setlhôpa se segare ga khumô, batho ba ba
itsegeng ka go beela thuto mo maemong a a kwa godimo (Soudien, 2004; Alexander 2005).
Maikaelelo a thuto e ya Language Socialisation ke go sekaseka maitemogelo a puo a
ngwana wa Mophato wa R, wa lelapa le le setlhôpa se segare ga khumô, le le buang dipuo
tse di ntsi tse di farologaneng ba nna kwa sabapong ya Motse Kapa.
Thuto e, e ikaegile ka potso e: Maitemogelo a puo a ngwana o o tswang kwa lelapeng la
Bantsho le le setlhôpa se segare ga khumô, le le buang dipuo tse di ntsi tse di farologaneng
ke afe? E dirisa tsela ya botsalano jwa setso, e tsaya sekai sa puo sa dithuto tsa ngwao ya
batho le mekgwa ya bone (Linguistic Anthropology), dithuto tsa dipuo tse di dirisiwang applied linguistics, le dipuo tsa botsalano (Sociolinguistics) go sekaseka ka kelotlhoko
dikakanyo tsa dipuo, ditiriso tsa puo le kgobokanyo tsa puo tse di bonagalang kwa gae le
kwa sekolong tse ngwana a iphitlhelang mo go tsone. Go ikitse ga megopolô e e jaaka
Dipuontsi, Molao wa puo wa lelapa (Family Language Policy) le ‘Puo ya gae’ di a
sekwasekwa go batla go itse go le go ntsi ka maitemogelo a botshelo jwa ngwana wa puo
wa Mophato wa R. Megopolô ya go dira se se tshwanang (Soudien, 2004) le tlwaelego ya
puoesi ya Seesemane (Anglonormativity) (Christie & McKinney, 2017) di bontshiwa jaaka
matshwao a ditiriso le dikakanyo tsa puo tsa sekolo.
Ditshwetso tsa dipatlisiso di bontsha gore moithuti wa Mophato wa R o ithuta dipuo tse di
ntsi tse difarologaneng mme o tsaya karolo mo dipuisanong tse di mosola tsa dipuo tse
difarologaneng le ba lelapa la gagwe, mme Seesemane ke sone fela puo e a e ungwang. Le
fa e le gore lelapa le diragatsa melao ya dipuo tse di ntsi (Heteroglossia) (Bhaktin, 1991) ka
go fapaanisa dipuo (Translanguaging) (Garcia, 2009; Blackledge and Creese, 2010) le go
tsaya sekai go tswa mo didirisweng tsa bone tsa bokgoni jwa bone jwa dipuo tse di ntsi
(Linguistic Repertoires) (Busch, 2012), batsadi ba tswelela go dirisa setso sa bone sa
Setswana le seXhosa jaaka dipuo tse di supang se ba leng sone. Batsadi ba batla gore
bana ba bone ba bue dipuo tsa ngwaoboswa ya bone gore ba kgone go ikitse. Ba batla
gape gore ba bue Seesemane gore ba kgone go ‘amogêlêsêga’ mo ditsala tsa bone le gore
ba kgone go nna le tsela e e bonolo ya go fitlhelela thuto. Ba bona e le maikarabelo a bona
gore ba rute bana ba bone Setswana le seXhosa mme e seng sekolo. Pono e ya bona e
v
letla gore molao o o beilweng wa sekolo wa tiriso ya puoesi ya Seesemane o se nne le
kgwetlho. Ka jalo ngwana o bona dipuo tsa ngwaoboswa ya gagwe e le dipuo tse di kayang
setso sa gagwe gape e le dipuo tsa kwa gae, mme Seesemane e le puo e e botlhokwa le
tsela e e bonolo ya go fitlhelela thuto. Maikutlo a gore puo e le nngwe e botlhokwa a thata
mo ngwaneng ka go lebeletswe gore a itse dipuo tse di ntsi kwa gae fela a itse e le nngwe
kwa sekolong.
vi
ISISHWANKATHELO
UMzantsi Afrika likhaya labantu abathetha iilwimi ezili-11 ezimiselweyo ngokusemthethweni.
Umgaqo-nkqubo kazwelonke wolwimi kwezemfundo, iLanguage in Education Policy (iLIEP),
ubalula imeko yeelwimi-ninzi njengenye yeempawu babonakalo ngazo abemi beli (DOE,
1997). Ngapha koko, isiNgesi lulwimi olumiselweyo lokufunda nokufundisa, iLanguage of
Learning and Teaching (LOLT), kwizikolo ezininzi ebezisaya kwaziwa ngezezikolo zeModel
C, kwilizwe jikelele. Ikwalulwimi oluchazwa njengoluxatyisiweyo ngabo abakumgangatho
ophakathi ngokufuma, abantu abaziwa njengababalaseleyo ekuxabiseni imfundo (Soudein,
2004;
Alexander,
2005).
Injongo
yolu
phando-nzulu
lwe-Ethnografi
yoLungiselelo
lwaBantwana ngokoLwimi Kukuhlola amava ngendlela alusebenzisa naluqonda ngayo
ulwimi umntwana ofunda iBanga R wosapho lwabaMnyama olukumgangatho
ophakathi ngokufuma noluhlala kwihlumela ledolophu laseKapa
Olu phando-nzulu lusekelwe kumbuzo othi: Mava mani umntwana ophuma kwikhaya
elikumgangatho ophakathi ngokufuma nolulwimi-ninzi awasebenzisayo ukuqonda
nokusebenzisa ulwimi? Olu phando-nzulu lukwasebenzisa indlela yokuqonda ngemikhwa
nenkcubeko yoluntu, lukwahlomla nakwizifundo zokuziphatha kwabantu ngokolwimi,
ilinguistic ethnography, izifundo malunga nokusetyenziswa kolwimi applied linguistics kunye
nezifundo zefuthe lezentlalo kwiilwimi ezithethwa luluntu ekuhlaleni, isociolinguistics, ukuze
luhlalutye iingcamango ngolwimi, iindlela zokusebenzisa ulwimi kunye neelwimi zengingqi
ezibonakalayo ekhaya nasesikolweni, ndawo ezo umntwana akhankatha khona. Iingqikelelo
ezifana neelwimi-ninzi, umgaqo-nkqubo wokusetyenziswa kolwimi elusatsheni, kunye nobuni
ngokolwimi lwasekhaya/ulwimi lwebele, ziyavelelwa zikwasetyenziswa ekuqondeni amava
okuphila olwimi lomntwana okwiBanga R. Iingqikelelo zokuzifanisa (Soudien, 2004) kunye
ne-anglonormativity (Christie & McKinney, 2017) ziyacingisiswa njengeengcamango
ezibhentsisa iindlela zokusebenzisa nokucinga ngolwimi lwasesikolweni.
Okufunyanisiweyo kolu phando kukuba umntwana okwiBanga R ngumntwana osaphuhlayo
kwiilwimi ezininzi, othatha inxaxheba ebhadlileyo kwiincoko zosapho lwakhe ezibandakanya
iilwimi ezininzi nangona ethetha isiNgesi kuphela. Nangona usapho luthetha ngendlela
ebonakalisa usetyenziso-kunye lweelwimi (Bhaktin, 1991) nendlela olutshitsha-tshintsha
noluzixuba-xuba ngayo iilwimi (Garcia, 2009; Blackledge and Creese, 2010) lukwahlomla
kubutyebi bengxubevange yeelwimi abanazo, iilinguistic repertoire (Busch, 2012), abazali
bayaqhuba nokusebenzisa uhlanga lwabo lweSetswana nesiXhosa ukuchazeni ubuni
bolwimi labo. Abazali bafuna abantwana babo basebenzise iilwimi zabo zemvelo ngezizathu
zobuni. Bakwafuna ukuba bathethe isiNgesi ukuze ‘bamkeleke’ kwiintanga zabo bakwazi
vii
nokufikelela kwimfundo. Bakubona ukufundisa iSetswana nesiXhosa ngengoxanduva lwaboNgokwenza njalo bayasikhulula isikolo kolo xanduva. Umbono wabo uvumela isikolo sigcine
imo
ye-anglonormativity
(ukulindela
ukuba
isiNgesi
sithethwe
ngumntu
wonke
bekwasisebenzisa ngendlela ethile) ingaphikiswa. Amava omntwana, ngoko, abonisa iilwimi
zemvelo njengelwimi ezibonakalisa ubuni nezibekelwe ukuba zisetyenziswe eikhaya
kuphela, ze isiNgesi sibe bubutyebi bolwimi oluxabisekileyo olusondeza uluntu kwimfundo.
Umbono wokuba umntu unobuni bolwimi olunye ngontsokothileyo emntwaneni kuba
ulindeleke ukuba abe lwimi-ninzi ekhaya ze abe lwimi-lunye esikolweni.
viii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my departed husband Lehlogonolo ‘Lee’ Molate (19832015). Its completion jolts back the memory of your words; “true greatness is not
sudden - you grind it out over time”. And, I dedicate tshoboko to your heritage
language background.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Carolyn McKinney, for the amazing support
and guidance throughout this research project and the one prior. The journey would
have far longer and much bumpier without her unwavering support and mentorship
through my developing academic writing. Her timeous feedback was very
instrumental in keeping myself accountable to the goals I has set for myself, however
farfetched some of them were. The tactful way in which she gave feedback was very
motivating in getting me to keep writing.
What a joy to have travelled this road with my bright and delightful children, Kago
and Kgolo Molate. They are my biggest inspiration in wanting to work with
multilingual children and their families. Together with my family, they are my biggest
cheerleaders. I cannot imagine what raising children while studying fulltime would
have been like without the consistent love and support fof my parents, Peliwe and
Mncedisi Yashe and my sisters Akona & Asavela Yashe. It has been reassuring to
know that you are my safety net. I dared to dream high and wide with full confidence
that I will have good ground clearance even if I should fall. I am indebted to you for
your support.
U-Dr Asanda Jonas Benya ongumhlobo othembekileyo, kum nakubantwana bam for
many years – they has been very supportive of my postgraduate studies and my
academic career in general. My children enjoyed every ice cream date and the many
hours at a time of being looked after them when I needed to rest or catch-up on my
writing. I have also drawn a lot of inspiration from watching the due diligence with
which they travelled their own academic journey. I appreciate their discreet but very
significant support – including being an attentive listener.
I appreciate the consistent mentorship of Xolisa Guzula through STLC, translating
children’s literature into isiXhosa and allowing me to audit her PGCE (Foundation
Phase) lectures for some needed insight and experience in working young children.
All these have been invaluable in developing my understanding of children, language
and literacy. I have come out of those encounters with tangible experience that has
been useful in my work with children and my own research. It is a bonus to have also
developed a friendship with her which stretched to caring for my children when I
needed to work to introducing me to friends like Nandipha Tatoba. It would have
x
been difficult to complete my studies in time without Naphipha’s generosity with her
time, often looking after my children for hours on end. Thank you for expanding my
network of loving and supportive Muizenburg friends: Puleng and Nicollas Nyoni;
Aibe Elakpa; Judith Van Der Laar and Nkanyiso Ncube who have been also
supportive of my studies and great at getting me to unwind.
I appreciate my Pretoria family, a group of friends that I inherited from Lee: Moripe
Mogale, Nkateko Muhlari, Siviwe Simandla and Bongani Ubisi. From checking up on
my wellbeing, research journey or offering IT assistance so that I could continue
using my laptop – I appreciate it all. I also looked forward to all the holidays and
visits planned by Lebang Mogale and ‘Uncle Charlie’, which kept me motivated inbetween working on my research.
Lastly but importantly, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my initial
supportive network of moms who have become dear friends: Ntombini Marrengane,
Zainab Ruhwanya and Ronel Stevens. The countless playdates we took our children
were the balance I needed between focusing on my studies and taking care of the
wellbeing of myself and my kids. It is also a bonus that they also shared their own
research struggles and triumphs in their in their own academic careers and journeys
- Phambili manina!
xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS & TRANSCRIPTION CONVERSIONS
LOLT
- Language of Learning and Teaching
LIEP
- Language in Education Policy
LST
- Language Socialisation Theory
NLS
- New Literacy Studies
FLP
- Family Language Policy
,
- Short pause
,,
- Long pause
[Italics]
- Translation
()
- gesture/expression
_
- analysis focus
//
- overlapping/simultaneous speech
Bolded text: emphasis
1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This exploratory Language Socialisation (LS) study sought to examine the lived
language experience of a Grade R child amid the language socialisation practices of
her Black multilingual family and their English ex-Model C school in a Western Cape
suburb. For this study, I selected a Black middleclass family, whose youngest child,
the main participant, was enrolled at Lily Flower Pre-School*, the Grade R of an ex‘Model C’ (‘White’) state primary school in the Western Cape Province, during the
academic year 2017. In this chapter, I present a background to this study, reflecting
on the scarcity of local LS studies that focus on the home domain; thus, I motivate
for the significance of this study and highlight the most prominent literature I have
reviewed. I also present the language dynamics of South Africa as officially a
multilingual nation. Lastly I outline the chapters of my report.
1.2 Background
There is very little research on language and literacy socialisation practices in the
home domain, in South Africa. Research that focuses on how these socialisation
practices shape the child, and what implication this shaping might have on the
learning trajectory of a child are even scarcer. Local studies investigating language
practices in the home domain are Reynolds (2013) and Mkhize (2016). Reynolds’
work investigated language maintenance and language shift in bilingual homes; and
Mkhize studied home literacy practices of bilingual students learning English as an
Additional Language (EAL). One of the significant findings from Reynolds’ study was
that children are agentic in language shift and maintenance; through their choices
and attitudes, they can determine what languages are used or discarded in the home
environment (Reynolds, 2016; 103). This finding gives rise to my interest to establish
a Grade R child’s experiences and agency in the language socialisation processes
as they traverse between their home and school. I review Mkhize’s arguments more
specifically in the last section of literature review.
South Africa is home to 11 official named languages. The Department of Education,
as stated in the Language in Education Policy (LIEP) claims to be recognising this
cultural diversity as a national asset and prides itself as promoting multilingualism; it
2
asserts that learning more than one language should be a general practice and
principle of South African society (DoE, 1997:1). This is an expression of societal
multilingualism (Tshotsho, 2013). I depart from this view in exploring the picture of
multilingualism on an individual level by exploring language socialisation practices
within the home and school domains. The significance and relevance of my inquiry,
consequently, is threefold. Firstly, identifying the language and literacy practices at
home is significant in recognising the linguistic resources that a child comes to
school equipped with. This knowledge is potentially beneficial for use by schools in
being better prepared for learners who enter formal schooling. Secondly, focusing on
how socialisation practices shape the child and what this positioning means for the
child in the schooling system could help in evaluating the language policies of a
school, and determine whether the current policies and learning programmes build
on and develop the learning experiences that a child brings with them to school.
Lastly, my study seeks to reveal the current language repertoire and language
socialisation experiences of a young child, taking consideration of the language
histories of their multilingual family and their school where English is the Language
of Learning and Teaching (LOLT). This knowledge is particularly important for LIEP
makers; it raises a critical question of whether the current national language policy is
cognizant of the linguistic tools of a South African child, and evaluates the extent to
which the child is recognised and valued in the policy. Further, it raises questions of
what language experience and identity a child has as a result of language ideologies
and practices of the two domains. And more importantly, this research will develop
knowledge about children’s linguistic resources to inform teachers who need to work
with this knowledge at school. This study is framed by the question: What are the
language socialisation experiences of a Grade R child in a Black middle-class
multilingual family? The following sub-questions were instrumental in providing an indepth perspective:
•
What are the notable language socialisation practices in a multilingual home
and Grade R class?
•
What language ideologies exist in the home and school domains?
•
What are the language histories and current language repertoires of the the
Black multilingual family?
3
•
To what extent do the language histories, language repertoires and language
practices shape the language practices and language identity of a child?
•
What contribution does the school domain have on the current language
repertoire and identity of a Grade R child?
1.4 Chapter Outline
Chapter 1 lays a background for this study and gives an overview of the language
dynamics of South Africa. It also highlights the key research questions to the study
and provides a motivation for its significance.
In Chapter 2, I present the theoretical framework that follows a socio-cultural
approach, drawing from sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology and language
socialisation. I critically review literature relating to bi/multilingualism, linguistic
repertoires, language ideologies, English hegemony, Family Language Policy and
language identity within a multilingual context.
In Chapter 3, I present the research methodology adopted. I motivate for choosing
to employ case study and linguistic ethnography as my research designs – I highlight
the interpretive nature of my research designs. I also give a detailed background of
my research participants.
In Chapters 4 and 5, I provide extracts of data drawn from interview transcripts,
naturally occurring interactions and artefacts. I use these to generate a discussion
and analyses. Chapter 4 focuses on language ideologies, language practices and
linguistic repertoires to trace the family members’ language histories, embedded
values and attitudes and current language practices. Chapter 5 presents a
discussion on Family Language Policy, school language policy and language
experience and identity of the family as giving context to the main child participant’s
consequent language experience.
In Chapter 6, I make conclusions and recommendations based on the critical review
of the literature as well as the data analysed in this research.
4
CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this research, I use a socio-cultural approach, drawing from linguistic
anthropology, applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. I also draw on post-structuralist
theory, which situates language within social meaning rather than as a neutral
medium of communication (Norton, 2010). Linguistic anthropology is the home of
Language Socialisation studies, while applied linguistics is home to language policy
studies. Rather than paying attention on the abstract structure of language,
Sociolinguistics focuses on the actual speech of communities and how they use
language (Mesthrie, 2008: 66). The main concepts that I define in this chapter are
language socialisation, bi/multilingualism, linguistic repertoires, language ideologies,
English hegemony, Family Language Policy and language identity within a
multilingual context.
2.2 Sociolingustics & Language Socialisation
Mesthrie et al (2009), make a distinction between two branches of theories within
linguistics. One of the branches is the Chomskyan approach, a theoretical framework
focused on an idealised, non-social, psycholinguistic language competence of an
individual; thus, the focus is on language structure and the cognitive processes of
language acquisition (Mesthrie et al, 2009: 4). Language acquisition requires a
natural assimilation into language that involves intuitive and subconscious learning
(Schutz, 2007: 1). The social approach of Sociolinguistics on the other hand focuses
on the social processes of acquiring language (Mesthrie et al, 2009: 4). Opposing
the dominance of Chomsky’s (1965) concept of ‘linguistic competence’ – the
knowledge of language code, Hymes (1966) coined the term ‘communicative
competence’: “the system of use children acquire within a social matrix of language
is” (Johnstone & Marcelliono, 2010:3). In his observation of language, Hymes
believed that communicative competence required more than competence in the
grammar of a language; it requires competence in the acceptable ways of using
language within a social environment. Hymes thus theorised language within a social
approach.
5
Following Hymes’s shift from the Chomskyan principle of idealised linguistic
competence,
Ochs and Scheiffelin (1986) outlined the study of Language
Socialisation (LS) as a shift from studying language acquisition from a purely
cognitive perspective to viewing it as “socialisation through language and
socialisation to use language” (Ochs & Scheiffelin, 1986: 163). That is, language is
used as a tool for advancing a society’s ideas, beliefs and attitudes, which are used
to socialise individuals to use language in prescribed ways that enables them to
become recognised as competent members in a niche community and cultural
context. Framing LS as an approach that is grounded in ethnography, He (2012:
588) also views language socialisation as a branch of linguistic anthropology that
focuses on the process of becoming a culturally competent member of society
through language use in social activities. Thus, at the core of language socialisation
inquiry is the interest to explore the language ideologies of a society through
identifying both implicit and explicit language ideologies. Also, language socialisation
aims to observe and make connections between salient language practices, and
ideologies of particular societies that are being studied. Moreover, LS theory views
language as a significant medium in developing children’s social and cultural
knowledge and sensibilities, which extend the scope of language that focuses on
language acquisition. Language acquisition tends to focus on the mother to child
interaction whereas language socialisation extends to include communities with an
emphasis on language as being integral in how children are raised to become
members of families and communities (Ochs & Scheiffelin, 2012: 1). Thus, LS takes
on a Sociolinguistic orientation rather than a Psycholinguistic approach, which
studies language using a cognitive development lens.
Expanding on her theory of Symbolic Interaction (SI) of society’s impact on the
individual’s socialisation, Mead (1956) argues that, despite external influence, an
individual remains an active agent of their socialisation throughout their life (Ochs,
1986: 1). Thus, both the individual and the society are co-constructers in their
socialisation interaction. Studying the everyday literacy practices of bilingual 4th
grade children and their families in a rural Kwazulu-Natal community, Mkhize (2016:
45), concurs with the idea of an individual having agency to assume an active
participatory role in a sociocultural context. Relating to children’s meaning making,
she maintains that not only are children active participants and co-constructors of
6
knowledge, but they also exchange roles with the ‘knowledgeable others’; and
flexibly take on teaching and learning roles. Through participation in languagemediated-interactions, children acquire implicit knowledge about the social order and
systems of beliefs (Ochs, 1986: 2). Further, Sterponi (2012: 242) maintains that the
language socialisation paradigm frames apprentices as having agency in the social
world. She also investigates the contribution children offer through their actions to
variations in and transformations of prescribed practices. Therefore, language
socialisation becomes a process of navigation and negotiation between children,
parents/adults and society at large.
I draw on post-structuralist theory that positions a child as learning through beliefs
that are made apparent to them and through different ways they interact with others
(Nolan & Raban, 2015: 11). This view assumes a child as novice who gets
encultured in the views, beliefs and practices of knowledgeable others. According to
Hedegaard (2004) (in Nolan & Raban, 2015:11), the relationship between the child
and a society in the process of child development exposes them to the beliefs
system of a society and socialises children to their local goals and values. Nolan &
Raban (2015:11), caution against viewing a child’s development as universal, rather,
they propose that the development of children is interwoven with the social and
cultural world. According to Norton (2010: 1), post-structuralism views the discursive
practices of society as sites of struggle, whose linguistic communities display
heterogeneity that is characterized by conflicting claims to truth and power; instead
of framing language as a neutral medium of communication, it argues for viewing
language with its social meaning, in a frequently inequitable world. Thus, at the core
of post-structuralism concerning language is the view that language is central to an
array of systems of power/knowledge that characterise and govern our social
institutions, disciplines, and practices (Morgan & Norton, 2013: 1).
Furthermore, Ochs & Schieffelin (2012: 11), are of the view that
“Language socialisation research also builds upon studies of linguistics and
sociocultural heterogeneity and hybridity to analyse how children are
socialised into forms of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1979) that privilege
languages, dialects, registers, genres and styles over others and the
consequence of language maintenance and shift”.
7
Thus, language socialisation research also draws from literature that is oriented
towards language and sociocultural diversity, and the dynamic nature of language.
Even with the knowledge of linguistic diversity and dynamism in societies, research
shows (Makoe, 2014; Makoe & McKinney, 2014) how children are socialised in
environments where some languages gain priviledge over others at the points of
language contact. Focusing on the local context, South Africa, I adopt a
bi/multilingual approach to studying language socialisation practices of a Black
middle class family and an ex-Model C school where the youngest member of the
family, a Grade R child, is enrolled.
2.3 Bi/multilingualism
With South Africa being a culturally and linguistically diverse society, multilingualism
is common and a reality that is in the forefront of the LIEP (Department of Education,
1997). The official status afforded to 11 languages could be interpreted as one of the
ways the country recognises the linguistic diversity of its citizens. Considering that
there are reportedly over 700 hundred languages in the world (Lewis, 2009), it is
unsurprising that multilingualism is a very common phenomenon (Cenoz, 2013: 3).
Wolff (2000: 3) also attests to multilingualism being a norm rather than the exception
in Africa and worldwide.
According to Buckley (2005: 153), multilingualism refers to being able to use and/or
understand two languages; a term often used interchangeably with bilingualism in
language studies. Buckley argues that a definition of bi/multilingualism should not
only consider the individual speaker, rather, it should also consider the social,
cultural and linguistic context of the speaker (Buckley, 2005: 154). This view
scrutanises the role that society and family domains play in shaping one’s linguistic
repertoire. Within a family domain, multiple languages can be used depending on
what topic is being discussed and who is participating in the conversation (Dyers,
2008: 114). The European Commission (2007)’s definition of multilingualism as “the
ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage, on a regular basis,
with more than one language in their day to day-to-day live” (Cenoz, 2013: 5), takes
a sociolinguistic perspective of understanding the complex phenomenon of
8
multilingualism. That is, multilingualism is understood as a social practice that goes
beyond the individual use of named languages. Individual multilingualism refers to a
person’s ability to use language while societal multilingualism refers to the use of
languages in society (Cenoz, 2013: 5). Therefore, it is possible for a multilingual
person to exist in a monolingual society, and vice versa. Tshotsho (2013: 41) finds it
problematic that the South African language policy has not made it explicit whether
its language aims is individual or societal multilingualism.
2.3.1 Eurocentric Multilingualism
Although the common understanding of multilingualism and the definition given in
LIEP (DOE, 1997) as being the use of more than one language prevails, there is
some critique on how multilingualism is conceptualised and even enacted. For
example, Banda (2009:1) believes that the promotion of multilingualism through
giving official status to 11 languages (societal multilingualism) as in the South African
constitution (RSA, 1996a) is in fact “the promotion of 11 monolingual streams of
distinct languages in their equally homogeneous speech communities, and
bilingualism is paradoxically said to arise through education using a singular
language (albeit the mother tongue)” (Banda, 2009:1); Banda describes this view of
language as based on Western and colonial notions of multilingualism that
encompass multiple monolingualisms. From the notion of multiple monolingualism
came the term ‘parallel monolingualisms’ that was coined by Heller describing
keeping languages separate, or in ‘two solitudes’ (Heller, 1999 cited in Cummins,
2007: 223). Creese and Blackledge (2008) termed this ‘separate bilingualism’ when
relating to bilingual pedagogy discourse of teachers who insist on the use of target
language only (Blackledge & Creese, 2010: 104-105). A target language is a term
commonly used in sequential or successive bi/multilingualism (Erdei, 2010: 6;
Cenoz, 2013; 105) to describe a second language that a person is learning.
Additionally, Wolff (2000: 4) uses the terms ‘colonial di and triglossia’ to describe the
pairing of African languages with the language of the ‘colonial master’ as a form of
multilingual studies in a non-exhaustive review of the literature in the mid-nineties.
That is, multilingualism would be seen as competency in an African language and a
colonial language such as English for instance but not two African Languages. In
9
South Africa, however, traditional bilingual models of education involved English and
Afrikaans language instruction. Currently, English ex-Model C schools easily adhere
to policy requirements of promoting multilingualism by offering English and Afrikaans
language subjects at Foundation Phase (FP), and rarely African languages. They
appear not to be transgressing the multilingual promotion aspirations of policy
because the definition of bi/multilingualism is vaguely described as knowledge of
more than two languages in the 1997 LIEP (DOE, 1997: 1). When an African
language is offered at the schools, it is often at a level of conversation or to offer
some cultural experience, or as a third language (named Second Additional
Language (SAL).
Concepts such as additive bilingualism have emerged from the promotion of
multilingualism in policy and in late modern contexts (Banda, 2009; Cenoz, 2013).
Cenoz (2013: 6) describes additive multilingualism as an addition of a language to
the linguistic repertoire of a speaker while the first language continues to be
developed. The assumption here is that the speaker has a single language that they
have acquired first and a second one is added to it. Seemingly, the South African
language in education policy’s strategy is premised on this model; in the Foundation
Phase (FP), learners take a first language, which is called Home Language (HL) and
add a second language, First Additional language (FAL) which they learn as a
subject. The multlilingualism that is envisioned by the national language policy and
practiced in the ex-Model C schools thus, is one that is embedded in language
ideologies that separate and compartmentalise languages into neat categories
(McKinney, 2017). Further, the levelling of language in subjects: Home language,
First Additional Language, Second Additional Language reveals a monogglossic
orientation in language policy and only considers sequential rather than
simultaneous
bi/multilingualism.
Erdei,
(2010:
6)
describes
sequential
bi/multilingualism as learning a second language after the first one has been
acquired while more than one language is acquired at the same time with the latter
form.
Tshotsho (2013: 42) points out the dichotomy of a ministry of education policy
promoting multilingualism while the current government entrenches English as the
10
language of business, government and industry at the expense of African languages.
She believes that it is for this reason that policy is moving towards monolingualism
making its multilingualism advocacy a mere symbolic gesture (2013:14). SkutnabbKangas (1998) believes that monolingualism is language regression rather than
progression; she maintains that it “suggests an out-of-date, obsolete and primitive
status, therefore, the educational system should provide both the children belonging
to minorities and to majority with a high level of bilingualism” (Erdei, 2010: 3). Using
Makoni's concept of language 'disinvention' , Makoni & Mashiri (2007) believe that it
is the fluidity of languages "which leak into one another" that should be described in
order to gain understanding of social realities of language users rather than a
development of language policy that seeks to separate and compartmentalize
languages (Blackledge & Creese, 2011: 1198). Therefore, I use the term
translanguaging that describes speakers’ fluid movement across identifiable named
languages rather than code-switching that tends to focus on the functional language
separation (Garcia, 2009; McKinney, 2017).
2.3.2 Translanguaging
According to Buckley (2005: 157), code switching is a common practice for
bilinguals; different aspects of different languages are mixed for emphasis or to
convey a certain message. However current research shows that codeswitching is a
normative practice among bi/multilinguals and is not necessarily used for a specific
purpose. Buckley (2005) also notes that bilingual children develop a conscious ability
to distinguish different languages between the ages of 3 and 6. This view is contrary
to the general belief that using more than one language confuses the child. In recent
studies, the codeswitching paradigm as a language practice of multilinguals has
been problematized. This it is due to claims that it supports the ideological
construction of languages as clearly identifiable and boundaried (McKinney, 2017:
22). Garcia (2009) is one of the scholars that began to question the validity of
boundaries between languages (Blackledge & Creese, 2010: 106). As such, she
shows a preference for the term translanguaging rather than code-switching to
describe the usual language practice without the diglossic functional language
separation in bi/multilingualism. According to McKinney (2017: 24) translanguaging
fits the heteroglossic nature of the language repertoire of multilinguals. A number of
scholars refer to translanguaging as:
11
“An approach to the use of language, bilingualism and education of bilinguals
that considers the language practices of bilinguals not as two autonomous
language systems as has been traditionally the case, but as one linguistic
repertoire with features that have been socially constructed as belonging to
two separate language” (Garcia 2009; Garcia and Li Wei, 2014).
This conceptualisation of language shows a shift from the multilingualism that is
packaged as multiple/’parallel monolingualisms’ (Heller, 1999); where languages are
lined up and used parallel to one another, instead of being used in fluid ways. The
progressive conceptualisation of language in translanguaging makes in-roads for
what Gutierrez refers to as the ‘third space‘; an interactional constructed space
where hybrid language use and literacy practices combine (cited in Guzula, et al,
2015).
2.3.3 Emergent/Receptive Multilingualism
Another aspect of multilingualism is identifying and describing the developmental
languaging of a child. Garcia (2015: 322) defines emergent bi/multilingualism as the
children’s process of potential in the development of bi/multilingualism, which
positions children as competent rather than at a language deficit. She advocates for
the use of this term in English dominant countries such as the United States of
America where it is common to give English language learners labels that focus on
what learners are lacking rather than the positive development of language, e.g.
‘Limited Language Proficiency’ (2015: 322). The labels described in Garcia (2015)
are consistent with the psycholinguistic rather than sociolinguistic approach to
language. The psycholinguistic approach aligns with terms such as Productive and
Receptive
(‘lingua
receptiva’)
competence,
which
measure
the
language
development of bi/multilinguals (Rehbein et al, 2011; Herknrath, 2011). It is a
measure of how much a person can produce language and understand their
interlocutors. Rehbein et al (2011: 248) describe receptive multilingualism as one of
the modes of multilingual communication whereby people who interact use a
language and/or language varieties that differ and are still able to understand each
other without the aid of any additional language. Referring to children who are
learning English as an additional language, Garcia cautions against presenting the
acquisition of English as a monoglossic endeavour – rather, she proposes learning it
as a bilingual endeavour (Garcia, 2015: 325). In the local context where African
languages are used alongside English in the home, I find the term ‘emergent
12
bi/multilingual’ useful in describing the linguistic repertoire of a child who is acquiring
multiple languages simultaneously, and is not yet competent in all or some of the
languages they are exposed to.
2.4 LInguistic Repertoire
Recent theorising of the concept of linguistic repertoire (e.g. Johnstone and
Marcelino, 2010; Busch, 2012; Blommaert and Backus, 2011) build on Gumperz and
Dell Hymes’ earlier conceptualising of language in social use. Busch (2012) draws
on the theoretical framework set forth by Gumperz (1960) in discussing the notion of
linguistic repertoire in interactional sociolinguistics and under the conditions of superdiversity. Conceptualising linguistic repertoire as a social phenomenon, Busch
(2012) draws on a post-structuralist view, using Jacque Derrinda’s concept of
deconstruction and Judith Butler’s notion of normativity and agency in developing a
comprehension of linguistic repertoire. Lastly, drawing from her empirical study with
immigrant children in Austria, Busch takes on a biographical and multimodal
approach in exploring linguistic repertoire. She develops a linguistic portrait as a tool
that gives a visual presentation of a person’s repertoire and uses this to explain and
explore this concept.
Similar to Hymes’ definition of a speech community, Gumperz (1946:37) defines a
speech community as ‘any human aggregate characterised by regular and frequent
interaction over a significant span of time and set off from other such aggregates by
differences in frequency of interaction’ (Busch, 2012: 504). That is, a group of people
who share a similar way of interacting and using language constitutes a speech
community. Thus, the notion of verbal repertoire links to a particular speech
community (Busch, 2012:504); members of this community share the same norms
and values about language in how they communicate. Gumperz (1946) also puts
forth the notion of multilingual repertoire, where named languages and varieties are
seen as a unit despite the distinctiveness of their grammars that separates them into
bounded entities (Busch, 2012:504). This wholeness of languages relates to current
debates about the concepts of language crossing and translanguaging. Thus, the
concept of language repertoire, employed within a framework of social interaction is
viewed as defiant of normative and constraining categorisation of speakers’ speech
13
styles and languages (Busch, 2012: 504). Therefore, linguistic repertoire can be
seen as a fluid way with which speakers communicate in a social environment; in a
particular speech community.
Jacque Derrida drew from his writing about his personal language trajectory (Busch,
2012: 507). From this he developed a concept of deconstruction, whereby he
deconstructs his own language history, pointing out that a linguistic repertoire is not
limited to telling what language one has, but can also index what one is lacking,
despite that they might be desiring it or feel deprived of – the desire may be born
from having been deprived of the resource. Butler, on the other hand, looks at the
relationship between linguistic repertoire and language, and argues that ‘the
restrictive power of categorisation is particularly felt when language is not selfevidently available’. This refers to the way people are not legitimized or do not
legitimize themselves as speakers of a particular language. Referring to Butler’s
(1997: 16) notion of agency of the speaker, Busch (2012) argues that a repertoire
can be viewed as a place for restrictions and potentialities for the speaker. That is to
say, a speaker can be held back from or access their full communication potential.
Blommaert & Backus (2011: 9) trace the trajectory of one’s language knowledge by
looking at language in terms of ‘learning’ rather than ‘acquisition’, motivating that
their choice takes a view of language development as an on-going process.
Language learning is connected to the traditional approach of studying languages in
school, usually focusing on the grammatical rules while acquisition requires a
subconscious assimilation into language (Schutz, 2007:1). Their approach matches
Garcia’s (2015: 322) description of emergent bi/multilingualism as a process of
potential in multiple language development. Like Busch (2012), Blommaert and
Backus (2011) also situate the notion of linguistic repertoires within a sociolinguistic
paradigm. They view repertoires as biographically organised complexes of resources
that follow the rhythms of human lives (Blommaert & Backus, 2011: 9). This view
alludes to the idea that one’s linguistic repertoire is a portrayal of their life experience
that shows the multiplicity of their language resources and the changing nature of
language; it also portrays language learning as process rather than a destination.
One of the ways in which linguistic repertoires get expanded in language learning is
through what Blommaert and Backus (2011: 12) refer to as ‘encounters’ with
14
languages, arguing that through mobility across the globe, people may encounter
and learn minimal forms of languages. They name these minimal forms of language
learning as age-group slang learning, temporary language learning, single word
learning, and recognising language (Blommaert & Backus: 2011). With the first form,
people may learn particular bits of language popular in a certain age group which
ceases to be part of their language repertoire in the later age stages of their lives.
Also, through travel encounters, a person can learn short phrases in a particular
language to fit a particular purpose but later forget those phrases.
It is apparent from the thoughts of scholars above that language cannot be viewed
as a single entity but a multiplicity of expressions within a person. The shift in
sociolinguistics has been to conceptualise linguistic repertoire within a speech
community that does not separate language into codes (langue) as done when
naming languages. Interestingly, however, in the biographical language portrait tool,
language is often separated into neat categories even though it is known that
bi/multilinguals engage in processes of translanguaging.
2.5 Language Ideologies
Language ideologies are cultural beliefs that are encoded in linguistic forms and that
frequently shape language practices (Riley, 2012: 447). Similarly, Makoe &
McKinney (2014: 659, drawing on Blommaert 1999; Woolard & Schieffelin 1994,
2000; Blackledge & Pavlenko 2002) define language ideologies as “a set of beliefs,
values and cultural frames that continually circulate in society, informing the ways in
which language is conceptualised and represented as well as how it is used”.
Language ideologies are views or assumptions people hold about a particular
language/s and language practices as well as speakers’ language use. Both these
definitions of language ideologies concur with the Whorfian conceptualisation of
ideologies as informing language use. In this study, I seek to uncover these
underlying views, attitudes and beliefs about language that inform language use.
Beginning with the Constitution of South Africa and Language in Education Policy
(LIEP), it is interesting to note that, although the legal framework and official
documents commit to promoting multilingualism, in practice, the dominance of
English in the public sphere remains unchallenged (De Klerk, 2002: 31; Tshotsho,
15
2013: 42). One such public sphere where the Hegemony of English remains
unchallenged is the school domain, where English is used as the LOLT throughout a
child’s schooling career in most ex-Model C schools. It is however a common
practice that children receive ‘Home Language’ LOLT in their African languages for
Grades 1-3 and switch to English LOLT in Grade 4 in most South African schools.
This practice is however not prevalent in former English medium ex-Model C schools
where languages other than English are taught as subjects and treated as ‘separable
and boundaried’, a dominant ideological construct of languages that McKinney
(2017: 19) argues as being orientated towards a monoglossic view of language.
Monoglossic ideology conceptualises languages as boundaried, autonomous and
stable systems that exist with or without speakers (Guzula et al, 2016: 212). Contrary
to a monoglossic language approach, the concept of language heteroglossia is
proposed. According to Bakhtin (1991), heteroglossia refers to “the complex
simultaneous language use of a diverse range of registers, voices, named language
or codes, in our daily lives’ as well as the potential tension between these” (Guzula
et al, 2016:212). Thus, this view of language assumes a more fluid use of language
and moves away from multilingualism that is conceptualised as the number of
named languages an individual can display competence in.
Makoe and McKinney (2014: 661) also point out LIEP’s silence about the dominance
of English; and call for a consideration of using more than one language in the
classroom; a practice that would be a good reflection of how multilinguals already
use language; and a practice that already exists in schools in rural and township
settings. Neglecting to mention the role of English in society and the normativity of
translanguaging among multilingual people when addressing multilingualism
suggests that the language policy has not fully considered the language beliefs and
practices that exist in ensuring an inclusive language policy that benefits its culturally
diverse and multilingual society. Pludderman’s (2015: 188) believes that policy is a
process that carries and ideological load rather than being merely a text; the different
ways it is interpreted by different groups is reflective of the power relations that exist
between them. Makoe and McKinney (2014: 662) further argue that Government and
policy makers hold a “monolingual ideology of a single ‘legitimate language’ that
prevents teachers from recognising the range of their learners’ linguistic resources”.
Recognising only one language as a legitimate language tends to have a limiting
16
effect on the multilingual child. They miss out on being able to understand subject
content and asking questions in ways they can express themselves best. This view
would hold for children who have more exposure to their African languages than
English, the language of schooling that they have to contend with. But, what are the
language dynamics for the black middle class child who attends an ex-Model C
school?
2.6 The Black Middle Class & ex-Model C Schools
According to Soudien (2010: 352), the “Wealth Survey Finds” of 2006 revealed that 2
million out of 22 million adults in South Africa had ascended to the ranks of the
middle class. In his analysis about what constitute a middle-class, Southall (2016:
59) argues that the definition one uses for social class is dependent on the purpose
that such a description must serve. Focusing on wealth and social orientation as the
purpose of description, Soudien (2010: 353) characterises the middle-class as
typically owning their homes and as people who place a high premium on children’s
education and their ability to speak English. Without putting emphasis on race and
ethnicity, Buckley (2005: 172) also reflects on the values of the middle-class in
society acknowledging that, these are reflected in schools. Similarly, Neville
Alexander (2005: 4) states that “because of the role model status of the middle class
in most societies, the monolingual habitus becomes generalised in such a manner
that the vast majority of the people come to believe in the anglophone Africa”.
Monolingual habitus is a term that was coined by Ingrid Gogolin (1994) to describe
the irony of oppressed people who value and valorise the colonial languages at the
expense of their own indigenous languages (Alexander, 2005:4). Therefore, the
middle-class is believed to possess some power in influencing what is learned at
school and what language/s are used.
Following Soudien (2010: 353) characterisation of the middle-class as being people
with access to material resources and placing a high premium on education and the
ability to speak English, it would be unsurprising for a Black middle-class family to
enrol their children in an ex-Model C school. Considering that all state-aided schools
are state schools, Christie and McKinney (2017; 11) argue that technically there is
no such thing as ‘Model C’ schools but the term has become common in public
discourse to denote previously Whites-only schools. Some of the markers of this
17
class of schools is the preservation of cultural and linguistic ethos of historically
white-only parent bodies, and their location in previously white-only residential areas
(2017: 12). Although both the residential areas and the ex-Model C schools have
diversified to include Black people, the status quo remains; the schools continue to
offer home language instruction for English and Afrikaans speakers. As such Christie
and McKinney believe that the overwhelming dominance of English in the schooling
system is indicative of the colonial logic within which it operates. Therefore, the Black
middle-class has to assimilate into this anglonormativity - a term coined by McKinney
that is described as “the language ideology and practices that exclusively valorise
English - the expectation that people will and should be proficient in English and are
deficient (even deviant) if they are not” (McKinney & Guzula, 2016; McKinney, 2017:
80). In an assimilationist position it is the values, traditions and customs of the
dominant group that frame the social and cultural context of a school. White English
speakers often constitute the dominant group in English ex-Model C schools in Cape
Town (Soudien, 2004: 95). Both assimilation
(Soudien, 2004: 96) and
anglonormativity (McKinney, 2017) are practices and ideologies in the ex-Model C
schools that play a hegemonic role in the narrative of progress towards integration in
schools (Christie & McKinney, 2017: 9).
2.7 English Hegemony
The South African language reality is that English is the LOLT at most ex-Model C
schools (a minority of these schools use Afrikaans as LOLT) and in all schools from
Grade 4 thus affording it hegemony in education. A language is considered
hegemonic when it partially replaces other languages through its exclusive use in
certain domains of society like homes, schools, workplace, and media, with a
looming possibility of totally replacing these other languages (Gupta-Basu, 1999 in
Alexander, 2008: 12). Reflecting on children’s language influences in South Africa,
Alexander (2008: 17) argues that:
“…. since their role models overtly and repeatedly demonstrate their lack of
belief in the capacity of indigenous languages to fulfil all the functions of
language in all domains of modern life, the people begin to accept as ‘natural’
the supposed inferiority of their own languages and adopt an approach that is
18
determined by considerations that are related only to the market and social
status value of the set of languages in their multilingual societies”
In this excerpt Alexander reveals the attitude of the middle-class towards the use of
African languages. He points to society’s inability to see how indigenous languages
can be used in all spheres of modern society, attributing that inability to the
perceived poor functionality of African languages; a view that positions these
languages as somewhat deficient. The reality of English being endorsed as the
LOLT in schools and the obligation for students to adhere to English in order to
progress to tertiary education level is one way that English gains functional value
above African languages (Tshotsho, 2013: 40). I would argue that, as such, current
language conditions offer no incentive for people to value African languages, while
tangible rewards are ‘within reach’ for using English.
Drawing on Crystal (1997) and Philipson’s (2003) analysis of the global dominance
of English, Alexander (2008: 13) highlights the overwhelming statistical evidence that
portrays English as having current dominance in the domains of international trade,
finance, world governance and in tertiary education, science and technology, and the
publishing industry. Moreover, colonial languages are almost always awarded official
status in post-colonial states, and as such retain power in terms of national exposure
in the media and government publication (Banda, 2009: 7). Further, Banda argues
that this power of colonial languages has somehow distorted the multilingual
landscape of Africa, claiming that “it becomes desirable, and even fashionable, for
individual to acquire colonial languages at the expense of local ones” (2009: 7).
Similarly, De Klerk (2002, in Tshotsho, 2013: 40) confirms the power afforded to
colonial languages, English and Afrikaans, via being the only two languages used as
media of instruction at tertiary institutions. She maintains that this status quo remains
in spite of government policy of multilingualism promotion. The correlation between
the status awarded to colonial languages and the distortion of the multilingual
landscape of Africa that Banda (2009:7) points out shows how the status of English
and its affordances nationally and internationally popularises it more than African
languages and multilingualism.
According to Tshotsho (2013), owing to lack of a viable medium of instruction, most
black parents are willing to take the risk of English only; “it is out of desperation that
African language speakers want their children to learn for instrumental purposes so
19
that they can access education, housing and health services” (2013: 43). Thus, the
idea that the majority of African language speakers choose English as the LOLT over
indigenous languages is not necessarily a true reflection. Similarly, Heugh (2013: 15)
dismantles the myth that parents want English only education for their children. She
argues that the high value attached to English is due to the significant role it plays in
international communication, higher education and the economy, but that reality is by
no means that parents’ loyalty to indigenous languages is proportionally diminished.
2.7.1 Language Shift
Deumert (2010: 31) believes there is always a possibility of language shift or
language maintenance at the point of contact between two or more languages. In
countries like South Africa where Colonial languages receive more prestige and offer
citizens more incentives for their use, a language shift is likely to be anticipated. A
language shift refers to the choice to use a language that is dominant in society
above one’s heritage language (Cekaite & Kheirkhah, 2015: 320). He (2012: 587)
describes the trem ‘heritage language’ as referring to a language that is inherited or
used at home and is different to the mainstream language in society. A language
shift occurs over a generation when the next generation are no longer able to use
the home language or non-dominant language. It can be noted in South Africa how
political leaders and heads of states use English to address the public, a practice
that increases its status in the perception of South Africans. This gives context to
Kamwamangalu’s (2003: 227) claim about the existence of a steady language shift,
from African languages to English, which can be traced back to the birth of
democracy in South Africa. His claims are based on research done by de Klerk
(2000), Kamwangamalu (2001) and Reagan (2001). The studies Kamwangamalu
drew from were mainly of middle-class families. He identified the factors that
influence language shift as including, but not limited to socioeconomic pressures,
language status, language attitudes and institutional support (Kamwangamalu, 2003:
227). The cause of this language shift can be attributed to the economic power,
educational influence, social status and prestige of English as a language
(Kamwangamalu, 2003: 228). In my opinion, Kamwangamalu’s view of language
shift assumes a complete shift in use of African language to English – there is no
exploration of the idea that people would shift to English. In research on two
20
Coloured Afrikaans speaking families, Reynolds (2013: 2) found that Afrikaans was
maintained in the families despite domains outside the family becoming more
English dominant. As such, she noted slight language shift rather than a complete
shift.
2.7.2 Language Maintenance
A counter response of language shift as a result of language contact is language
maintenance. The South African constitutions’ (RSA, 1996) awarding official status
to African languages and LIEP’s (DOE, 1997) promotion of African languages at
schools are indications of this strategy. Ndlangamandla (2010: 71) is of the view that
the recognition of language shift as language loss stems from a prescriptive and
purist sociolinguistic view that any form of translanguaging is undesirable in
maintaining African languages. Moreover, he proposes a comprehensive revision of
language maintenance to make a consideration for urban societal multilinguals and
shifting multilingual identities that learners perform in various domains. Also,
Blacklege and Creese (2011: 1196) critique educational aims that are focused on
language maintenance, arguing that their endeavour adopts a ‘monolingual ideology
(Grosjean, 1985) that stems from ‘language separateness’. Seemingly, both ideas
about a language shift towards a single language (English) and language
maintenance (African languages) are premised on ideologies that view languages as
separate bounded entities. Further, they give no apparent consideration to
translanguaging practices of multilingual people. The orientation for language shift
and language maintenance seems to take a monoglossic rather than a heteroglossic
lens on multilingualism.
2.8 Family Language Policy
A Family Language Policy (FLP) is the explicit and observable planning a family
undertakes in relation to language use among its family members within their home;
it is also the management and negotiation of how languages are learnt within that
family (Fogle et al, 2008: 907). In their study of how a family in Sweden tries to
maintain their heritage language in a society where the dominant language of the
21
majority of the citizens is used, Cekaite and Kheirkhah (2015) observed and
identified language practices that the family used, of which most were expressed
through the family language policy. FLP thus refers to a set of communicated
strategies about how to use language in a household. Curdt-Christiansen (2018:
420) describes it as "explicit and overt as well as implicit and covert language
planning in relation to language choice and literacy practices within home domains
and among family members”. Grosjean (1982: 172) argues that the language policy
of a family or a community can be an explicit way of prescribing bi/multilingualism to
young children. In this instance, parents choose what languages to expose their
young children to. Language choice features prominently in negotiating language
policy within a family. According to Cekaite and Kheirkhah (2015: 322), the age of
children has a great bearing on how the language choice and policy is negotiated
within a household. The younger the child, the more likely it is that the languages
preferred by the parents get used. They also warn against constraining the language
choice of a child, suggesting that such a practice may hinder conversation (Cekaite
& Kheirkhah, 2015:322). That is, when caregivers in a multilingual family constrain
the child to using a particular language at a particular time, they limit the way in
which that child expresses themselves. These language strategies are common in
practices such as codeswitching and the one-parent, one-language approach within
a family language policy. The one-language one-parent approach confines a child to
using a particular language with each parent in an effort to maintain each parent’s
heritage language (Cekaite & Kheirkhah, 2015: 320).
Similar to language socialisation in the school and other domains of society, the
home has an approach that communicates language aspiration. While the language
aspiration of a nation and schools are explicated in concrete form, namely, LIEP and
School Admission Policy documents, the home’s Family Language Policy (FLP) is
often implicit. It becomes apparent in the patterns of language practices within the
home; these are often telling of the views, beliefs and attitudes a family holds about
language. According to Fogle and King, (2013:72), central to FLP theory is a focus
and consideration for language beliefs, and in particular, language management and
language planning, and the ‘decision-making and strategies concerning language’
within the families.
22
Furthermore, Curdt-Christiansen (2018: 421) maintains that, at the basis of FLP
theory is Spolsky’s (2004, 2009) model of interrelated components of language
ideology, language practices and language management, within the LS theoretical
framework. Fundamentally, it is through family members’ perceptions of language,
how they use or wish to use language and their efforts to maintain language that FLP
comes to life. FLP also broadly encompasses families’ desire for any language
change, including language shift. Fogle and King (2013) note that even when the
policy has not been consciously decided on or made explicit, families will still carry
out a de facto policy that is identifiable through family members’ interactions (Van
Mensel, 2018: 233). Thus, similar to nations and institutions’ efforts and aspirations
to manage societies’ language/s, families have their own language management
strategies that I believe may be directly or indirectly influenced by the policies of
societies and nations in which the family units belong.
2.9 Language and Identity
Home language is also termed as ‘mother tongue’ by some scholars. In this study I
use both terminologies interchangeably, and as terms that carry the same meaning.
‘Mother tongue’, the common phrase used to describe an individual’s primary home
language has come under many scholars’ scrutiny. Mills (2004), has deemed the
phrase both complicated and problematic. She argues that it guises as a metaphor
that expresses and structures people’s attitudes and ways of thinking while enabling
and constraining linguistic practices, suggesting that the metaphor represents
‘mothering’ (2004:162). Thus, the phrase may mislead one to believe that mothers
are the dominant shapers of linguistics practices within a household, and that
children take up their mothers’ language. Further, Makoni and Meinhof (2003),
Sebba (2000) and Winkler (1997) as cited by McKinney (2017:48) criticise this
gendered phrase maintaining that it assumes that a child follows the language
identity of the mother only. They view the notion of ‘mother tongue’ as perpetuating
the idea that all individuals have one single language that they learn from birth; an
idea that is in itself monoglossic (McKinney, 2017: 48). It is contrary to the varied
linguistic repertoires of bi/mulitilingual speakers. Also, contrary to the metaphor of
mothering as suggested by Mills (2004) earlier, in a separate study in South Africa,
multilingual children identified their fathers’ language as their home language when
23
asked about ‘mother tongue’ identity (McKinney, 2017: 48). Furthermore, Romaine,
(1995) and Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson (1989) state that it is crucial to
differentiate between those descriptions of ‘mother tongue’ that give inaccurate
labels of ethnicity and linguistic proficiency, and those that are telling of one’s
language identity (Mills, 2004: 162). Rampton (1990: 109) proposes the term
‘language loyalty’, connoted to ‘native language’ and ‘mother tongue’ which is useful
in describing language as a symbol of group identification. Nongogo (2007:43)
attributes the use of ethnicity as a marker of language identity to the SA apartheid
construction and imposition of ethinicity. As such, the claim to language ethnicity
does not necessarily correspond with language proficiency. I find that symbols of
group identification can be problematic in that they create false ‘ethnolinguistic
identity’ (Blommaert 2005: 214) boundaries, which present complexities for
translinguals’ language identity. However I find the term language loyalty useful in
dispelling the idea that speakers need to have a particular level of proficiency to
claim a particular language or their multilingual identity. ‘Language loyalty’ may be
particularly useful for young emergent multilinguals who are not yet using all their
families’ home languages to the expected level of functionality.
Referring to the identities of multilingual children, Norton (2010) makes the argument
that these cannot be limited to defined categories, such as national and ethnic
languages, cultures and race (Mkhize, 2016: 45). That is, bi/multilinguals assume
multiple identities and move in fluid ways between these identities. Similarly,
Rampton (1990: 108), critiques the use of the terms ‘mother tongue’ or ‘native
speaker’. A basis for his critique is the reality that in most multilingual nations,
children normally encounter two or more language at an early age, and a variety of
false assumptions are perpetuated by the notions of ‘mother tongue’ and ‘native
speaker’. Additionally, because some children acquire more than one language
simultaneously (Erdei, 2010), the notion of ‘mother tongue’ poses a challenge for
multilingual children. It assumes a monoglossic orientation to language identity and
assigns monolingual identity to these children. Further, it sets precedence in how
language learning is enacted in schools. That is, the First Language (L1) and
Second Language (L2) categorisations of language learning at school constructs
learners as either monolingual or sequential bilinguals. Furthermore, Erdei (2010: 6)
suggests that in the case where children are simultaneous bi/multilinguals, they
24
assimilate all the languages at the same time. In this case, Laszznyak (1996, in
Erdei 2010: 6) is of the view that bilingualism would be known as the child’s mother
tongue. I would argue that although this is known to be true in theory, in practice
however, a children’s bilingual identity is backgrounded in beauracratic institutions.
What is foregrounded rather, is an index of their language using ‘a’ single named
language, and usually pointing to one of the parents’ heritage language. The irony of
the term ‘mother’ tongue in the local African context is that, culturally, very rarely will
a person’s ‘mother tongue’ be their mother’s heritage language (McKinney, 2017:
48). Recalling an equivalent expression of ‘mother tongue’ in isiXhosa –
“ndiluncance ebeleni” [I have suckled the language (tongue) from the breast], I also
problematize this notion. I argue that it takes no consideration for linguistically mixed
families and their translingual practices.
This argument exposes flaws in the concept of mother tongue identity that compels
children to confine their language identities into set language categories as
experienced in the formal schooling system. This is also implied in the LIEP (DOE,
1997)
in
its
promotion
of
single
mother
tongue
identity
and
general
compartmentalised view of languages. The notion of single ‘mother tongue’ identity
is problematised by several scholars. In light of the aforementioned arguments,
defining a bi/multilinguals language identity is in essence restricting the diversity and
fluidity of their linguistic repertoire.
2.10 Conclusion
In this chapter I have outlined the theoretical framework for my study, identifying the
socio-cultural approach that draws from linguistic anthropology, applied linguistics
and sociolinguistics as underpinning my research. Although there is a scarcity of
local Language Socialisation studies that focus on young children in the home
domain, I have found the work of Nongogo (2007), Mkhize (2016) and Reynolds
(2013) useful in understanding language practices of multilingual children and
families. I have largely drawn from the work of Ochs and Schieffelin in understanding
language socialisation. I have also reviewed literature taking a critical approach to
multilingualism (e.g. Garcia, Blackledge and Creese, Blommaert and Backus,
Busch). Additionally, some of the prominent themes I have explored are: linguistic
repertoire, language ideologies, English hegemony, Family Language Policy and
25
home language identity. In chapters 4 and 5, I draw on this literature as a basis of
my data analysis and discussion.
26
CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is divided into four sections; research design, participants and
researcher
reflexivity,
data
collection
methods,
data
analysis
and
ethics
considerations. The methodology underpinning this study is an interpretive
approach. It is one that undertakes to understand a phenomenon from an individual’s
perspective, and to investigate interaction between individuals within a sociocultural
context (Creswell, 2009: 8, in Scotland 2012:12). Hence my choices of the case
study method and ethnography, particularly linguistic ethnography, methods which
are detailed and interpretive. The research strategy that I adopted was to conduct a
single case study in a multilingual home and former ‘Model C’ school. I conducted
fieldwork in the two research sites during the period from the last week of August
2017 to the third week of September 2017. The main methods of collecting data
were semi-structured interviews, observations, field notes, still photography of
artefacts, and audio recording of both naturally occurring interaction, which were
recorded by participants, and audio recording of interviews and researcher
observations recorded by myself.
3.2 Research Design
I conducted a qualitative research study; making use of elements of ethnography
and case study methods of collecting data. Taking an ethnographic approach was
very useful in exploring language and socialisation practices. According to Heath
(1982: 74), using ethnography is useful in describing the ways different social groups
take and make knowledge from the environment. Through ethnography, social
patterns can be observed and interpreted more comprehensively. Also, I took an
interpretive approach by employing linguistic ethnography. Linguistic ethnography
(LE) views language as communicative action that functions in social context in
ongoing routines of people’s lives; and also examines how people use language and
the narrative it presents about wider social constraints, structures and ideologies
(Copland & Creese 2015: 27). LE afforded me a framework with which to interact
and interpret my data set, both on and off site. Further, in the study of language
socialisation, Heath (1982: 74) argues that ethnography must offer a clear
description of literacy events in order for us to comprehend how patterns such as
27
time and space usage, and caregiving roles are interdependent with literacy events
in a community. I also found the ethnographic approach as described by Heath to be
applicable in studying language practices in intimate household spaces as
successfully as studying communities.
The use of the case study method added to the comprehensibility of studying social
patterns as can be noted with ethnography. According to Flyvberg (2011: 301), the
intensive nature of a case study allows for more detail, richness, completeness and
variance. A case study can be defined in various ways, but Merriam-Webber’s
dictionary (2009) simple definition of a case study being “an intensive analysis of an
individual unit (as a person or a community) stressing developmental factors in
relation to environment” does well in describing the way I conducted my research
study. In my study, I focused on studying the case of one child within an African
multilingual family and their school environment. By virtue of my study being focused
on socialisation practices, I could not study the child in isolation, hence the decision
to include the home and school as the research sites. Making the decision to
conduct my research in two sites came with more ease than studying multiple cases.
Cresswell (2012: 63) raises an important consideration, the question of whether to
study a single case or multiple cases. He argues that choosing a larger number of
cases tend to weaken the overall analysis of the study and minimises the depth of
each individual case. Although the goal of the case study is not to generalise to other
populations or people, one can generate from it theoretical insights that apply more
broadly. Also, the choice of studying one family has afforded me more time to do an
in-depth analysis. Even with the limitations in a small-scale study such as this, it is
imperative to understand a complex phenomenon like language socialisation in
depth, especially given the lack of studies connecting home and school socialisation
in South Africa. Furthermore, the exploratory nature of this small-scale study allowed
me to track closely the revealed themes and nuances in practices and ideologies,
findings which are useful in knowledge production rather than proving hypotheses or
making generalisations.
Lastly, I mainly undertake a narrative approach in reporting the findings of my
research. According to McAlpine (2016: 34), a narrative is one of the many
28
interpretive approaches in social sciences – commonly used in sociology,
organisational studies, gender studies, and education, and which is also linked to
histories and biographies that link to current events and actions in participants’ lives.
Through observing and noting occurrences in the child’s daily life as they traverse
between the home and school domains, I attempted to creatively build and present
an evidence-based narrative of how the practices and ideologies of these social
spaces situate the child and also reflect on the extent to which they shape the child’s
language identity. With the child being the primary participant in this study, my main
objective was to develop a narrative that reveals the child’s lived language and
literacy experiences at home and at school, and begin to make deductions about
what those tell about the lived language experience of a multilingual African child
with a reality of being part of a Black African middle class society, residing in a
suburb and who is part of a former ‘Model C’ school community.
3.3 Reseach Participants & Researcher reflexivity
My participants were identified through the help of the Grade R teacher whom I was
introduced to by a fellow student researcher during the construction of my research
proposal. I sought participants based on preselected criteria following from my
research question. That is, the Grade R pupil had to be from an African middle class
family who are multilingual and reside in a suburb .From the three families with Black
children in Grade R that were suggested by the teacher, I selected the Ngxanga
family. I was fortunate to get consent on the full participation of the parents, and
assent from their minor children; 6 year old Viwe⃰ and 11 years old Bontle⃰.
My research participants, the Ngxanga⃰ family, together with the two abovementioned children, also comprises of Mma⃰ the mother and Tata⃰ the father. Their
heritage languages are Setswana and isiXhosa, respectively. Both parents are
professionals and university graduates who hail from the North-West and Eastern
Cape provinces, respectively. Having moved to the city in their university days, they
now reside in their suburban home in the Western Cape Province, which is a short
commute to their children’s schools. Between the four of them, the family has
Setswana, isiXhosa and English as their linguistic resources. It was to my delight
that this family’s home languages matched my own. This became an advantage for
me as a researcher during my data collection period and transcription and analysis
29
processes. This shared linguistic repertoire allowed me ‘insider’ status that enabled
me to communicate with the Ngxangas with ease; it also meant that I could translate
all the transcripts myself. Also, being a researcher with a shared socio-economic
classification with the participants, in my view made us relate on a horizontal level – I
found that the parents were not intimidated by my researcher ‘status’; in one
instance Mma expressed her concern of their tight schedule interfering with my
submission deadline – to which I put her at ease.
While shared linguistic repertoire afforded me ‘insider’ status, conducting research in
the intimate and private space of the Ngxangas’ home made me aware of my
‘outsider’ limitations – particularly working with young children where assent had to
be negotiated on an ongoing basis. The ‘outsider’ dilemma would arise on instances
where the main child participant would move to one of the bedrooms while I was
observing and recording. My research instincts dictated that I keep a close following
of the child, while my ‘outsider’ status restricted me and induced discomfort in
entering intimate spaces of an already intimate research site. What also became
beneficial was my experience as mother of young children. It gave me insight to
ascertain when to persist in asking questions to Viwe and when to withdraw. These
‘insider’/’outsider’ dilemmas of ethnography, as described by Gregory and Ruby
(2011:170), allowed me moments of critical self-reflection on my role in my research;
and allowed me to think about how to make decisions on the spot and shift my
practice where necessary, in attempts to authenticate my research. Below is an
overview of the participants’ details.
30
Table 1: Research Participants Overview
Home
School
Research
Participants
Viwe
Bontle
Mma
Tata
Teacher
Province of
Origin
Western
Cape
Western
Cape
North West
Eastern
Cape
English
Heritage
Language/s
IsiXhosa
Setswana
IsiXhosa
Setswana
Setswana
isiXhosa
English
Family
Language/s
IsiXhosa
Setswana
English
IsiXhosa
Setswana
English
IsiXhosa
Setswana
English
IsiXhosa
Setswana
English
English
3.4 Data Collection Methods
Data was collected by making use of semi-structured interviews, observations, audio
recordings and photography. The adult members of the household were interviewed
twice each. Due to the age of the main child participant, I did not conduct ‘formal’
interviews. Rather, I made notes of informal interactions I had with her, and also
notes of her interacting with others when I was in the home. The spontaneous
moments that arose to ask her questions, like during interviews with her parents,
became meaningful instruments that allowed me opportunities to ask her specific
questions and as I needed them during the course of my fieldwork. A pre-interview
meeting was set up prior to the commencement of my data collection month where
we negotiated and agreed on specific times that I could interview and observe the
family interactions. Observations were scheduled for at least about one (1) hour
every alternate day; in those times I took field notes and recorded interactions;
interview sessions were also scheduled in the same time period. With the consent of
the parents and assent of the children, the parents also audio recorded some
naturally occurring interactions at scheduled times of their choice and sometimes
spontaneously, with each recording not running longer than thirty minutes. The exact
times for interviews, observations and self-audio-recording were negotiated with the
family. I also collected data using language biographies, drawing from Busch’s
(2012: 511) body-shape language portrait model. Each family member coloured in
different shades of colour to show the language resources in their repertoire producing a portrait of themselves. This activity was used more as a tool to provide
an opportunity for discussion of the resources in family members’ repertoires rather
31
than to establish their language repertoires. In a language biography of a French
participant, Busch (2012: 509) argues that the a person’s linguistic repertoire is not
limited to what language they have but also includes what they do not have but still
desire. Lastly, I photographed print and artefacts in the home and school.
In the school domain, my focus was on audio recording the main child participant
during play time and classroom time over a period of 19 days. I focused on oral
interactions between the child and her peers, and between the child and her teacher
(and teacher assistants). During that period, I also observed those interactions and
took detailed field notes. An interview was set up with the Grade R teacher. The first
interview was conducted on my first day of field work; a follow up interview was
scheduled towards the end of the fieldwork. Data were collected at school
simultaneously with the home site, but different time schedules. With the Grade R
schedule running until midday, I collected my data in the morning while I visited the
home in the evenings and weekends when parents had returned from work. Below is
an overview of the data collection period.
Table 2: Data Collection Overview
Fieldwork Details
Method
Number
Details
Interviews
6 interviews
Interviewees:
Parents
Child participant
Teacher(school)
Observations
10 days (home)
9 days (school)
Duration:
1 Hour audio recordings
Participants
Self
Recordings of
naturally
occurring
interactions
6
Family Events:
Bedtime story
Family Dinners
Vehicular school commute
Artefacts
1
1
Language poster
Language portrait activity
Field notes
19 journal entries
Taken at every site visit, including
during schedules interviews
sessions
3.5 Data Analysis
In analysing data, an ethnomethodology approach using conversation analysis was
used to show turn-taking between the family members as captured in the audio
recordings. Ethnomethodology is a sociological approach to language and
communication that refers to the study of the relationship between what is done and
32
what is known about interaction (Jaworski & Coupland, 2006: 16). I also employed
the linguistic ethnography approach. Linguistic ethnography enabled me to connect
the communicative practices to broader ideologies of language, which are enacted
through these practices. From the data captured from the interviews, I analysed the
views, attitudes and beliefs the household members and school teacher/s hold about
language and literacy of children; and evaluated the role their own socialisation
background played in the views, attitudes and beliefs they hold. After transcription, I
identified dominant trends and themes, which I then traced and color-coded. Initially,
I followed themes in analysing extracts. From the broader theme, I then identified
individual extracts for close analysis, which I then used to generate discussions that
appear in the data analysis chapters 4 and 5.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Careful ethical considerations were applied in both research sites. In consideration of
research ethics, consent forms were issued to the adult members of the home to
sign on individual behalf, and on behalf of the minors in their care. I also sought
verbal assent from the child participants. Throughout the data collection process,
participants were reminded of their right to withdraw their consent and assent at any
time during the fieldwork period, should they wish to do so. All identities have been
anonymised – pseudonyms were used for each participant. The geographical
location information revealed is limited to naming of the province, villages of origin
and type of residential dwelling of the participants. Similar ethics consideration were
employed for the second research site, the Grade R child’s school. The actual name
of the school has been kept anonymous by offering a pseudonym. The identity of the
child, teachers and learners has also been protected by using pseudonyms. Also,
the collection of audio and visual data from the classroom was limited to that of
participants’ interaction with the primary participant of this study, the child. Consent
forms were signed by parents of the children in Viwe’s Grade R class except for
three. No data including the three learners was used for analysis in this dissertation.
Finally, no recognisable photographs of any participants were taken; the
photographs taken are limited to pertinent language and literacy artefacts in the
classroom and playground.
33
3.7 Conclusion
In this chapter I have outlined the research methodology that I employed in this
dissertation and justified its validity. Owing to the nature of my inquiry, I have opted
for a qualitative research strategy, employing linguistic ethnography and taking on an
interpretive approach. I used preselected criteria based on my research questions in
choosing my research participants. The main data collection tools used were semistructured interviews, observations, structured activity, audio recording and still
photography. Analyses and major findings of this dissertation are found in chapter 4
and chapter 5.
___________________________________________________________________
⃰ All names except the researcher’s name are pseudonyms
34
CHAPTER 4 – LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES, PRACTICES AND REPERTOIRES
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I begin by providing a language background of the Ngxanga family.
Further, I explore the main child participant’s linguistic repertoire and language
practices with the aid of a language portrait she had drawn and a short conversation
extract between herself, older sister and mother. Furthermore, I present the family’s
linguistic repertoire and their language use. I make reference to the family members’
language portraits and use them as background for discussing their language
ideologies and practices. At the core of the discussion is the language histories of
the parents and current language environment that shape their values, beliefs and
attitudes towards their languages. I also explore their current language practices and
how these link to their language histories, social environment and the language
practices of their children, particularly Viwe.
4.2 Multilingual Family Background
The Ngxanga family fits the description of being multilingual, owing to Setswana,
isiXhosa and English languages being visibly used in varying ways in their
household. Having been born and raised in the North-West province, the mother and
wife in this family, Mma, grew up being surrounded by Batswana and speaking the
language in her home and school. When asked to reflect on her language history
from the rural village where she grew up, one of the ways she would respond is
“Setswana, Setswana all the way”:
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Ok masi ..sithethe nge nge langweji okhule uyithetha [Let’s..Let’s
speak about the the language you grew up speaking]
Setswana
Setswana, abamelwane? [Neighbours?]
Setswana Setswana all the way
From this bold proclamation one begins to see the history of South African tribal
segregation (Maake, 1991:57) that seemingly contributed to creating largely
unilingual
language
experiences
for
some
families,
and
separation
and
compartmentalisation of languages according to ethnicity (Nongogo 2007:43). Mma’s
repeated mentioning of her heritage language is indicative of the sense of pride and
exclusivity she feels about her language, what Rampton (1990: 109) has termed
‘language loyalty’ as describing language as a symbol of group identification.
35
Her first formal encounter with an additional language was at school where English
was the LOLT from Grade 6. Although she had switched to an English LOLT by then,
she retells candidly how her teachers taught all subjects in Setswana, even during
English language class. She counts translation and the use of Setswana alongside
English as having been valuable language support to understanding subject content
that was mediated in English. This is evident in the text message response I
received from her, clarifying what grade she started learning in English: “From
standard 4 [Grade 6], Setswana was often used to ensure that there is
understanding on what is being taught”. Mma’s language background suggests that
her middle to high school experience was a multilingual one. Despite the switch in
LOLT from Setswana to English in Grade 6, Setswana was used to support learning
of subjects in English. Nowhere in the interviews does she mention her competency
in English as having prevented her from succeeding in high school, including matric
where she would have taken a national examination to qualify her for entrance in
tertiary institution across the country. She does, however, reveal her view that her
limited competency in English largely contributed to her failure in the first year of
tertiary education, where English was solely the LOLT. This is evident in in one of
the interview responses where she had to reflect on her language experience at
university:
“Saying few words nje [just] but it was a a struggle (hm) and I knew that I had to do
something so I started reading lots of books everything I could get my hands into I
got the library card (hm) to get books (hm), so you can imagine which means my
school work was lagging behind because now I needed to learn English first
before I can be able to study what’s in the books (hm) and I was attending with
people who are older (hm) they knew what they were talking about they were in the
field (hm) the experience and all of that I got totally lost and I was like okay this is
rough (mhhh) so I failed my first year”
Mma’s home, schooling and university language experiences also suggest that she
moved from a Setswana-dominant language home environment to an Englishdominant university environment. Interestingly, she had a bi/multilingual classroom
experience when an additional language (English) switched places with her home
language (Setswana) by becoming the LOLT. Although she encountered English as
LOLT from the sixth to twelfth grade she does not mention six years of English LOLT
36
as having prepared her for an English only learning experience at university. Rather,
she emphasises her limited competency in English as having made her lag behind in
understanding university course content. She believes that her language learning
strategy of improving her English by reading many books cost her time she would
have spent learning course content and keeping up with her peers whom she feels
were more experienced in her field of study and had no difficulty with English.
Consequently, her strategy to develop her English proficiency to meet the demands
of her English medium courses proved to be a little too late for that first academic
year - she failed that year. Mma’s language experience indicates the mismatch
between the linguistic resources of a learner and language practices of the university
as the likely cause of her failure. Strikingly, Tata reports to have suffered a similar
fate as Mma - he became unsuccessful in his first year of university also in his view,
owing to a case of mismatch between his language resources and the university’s
medium of instruction. Additionally, Tata’s earlier language experience growing up
mirrors that of Mma’s. He gives this account of his language encounter, in a separate
interview:
“No no no everything is in English (Hm) but u u utitshala uzakuendapha esenza
umzekelo ngesiXhosa [But the teacher will end up making the example in isiXhosa]
(Hmmm) ukwenzel’ba siyiundastende le nto ithethwayo ukuba kuthe’thukuthiwa
ngale nto [So that we can understand what is being said, what is being meant by
what is being said]”
Tata’s initial recollection foregrounds an English monoglossic language experience
at school that mirrors that of Mma’s when he was clarifying that all subjects were
taught in English. His elaboration on classroom language practices, however, follows
on to reveal that isiXhosa was used alongside English to facilitate understanding.
This means that his language experience at school was bi/multilingual rather than
English monolingual. To have had this language experience indicates that isiXhosa
was a shared linguistic resource between himself, his peers and the teacher.
Moreover, Tata’s language use above reveals his comfortable use of isiXhosa and
English together: he begins his utterance in English, then uses the words
uzakuendapha [will end up] and siyiunderstande [so we can understand it], a fusion
of the two languages and ends with isiXhosa. This is language heteroglossia in
practice as noted as being a typical language practice of multilingual speakers
(Bhaktin, 1991; McKinney, 2017: 24), and what (Garcia, 2009) has termed
translaguaging. With the parents having similar language histories, albeit in different
37
languages, it is unsurprising that they experienced the same language difficulties in
their respective English-medium universities. Except for Afrikaans universities, South
African universities use English as the medium of instruction (De Klerk 2002, in
Tshotsho, 2013: 40) despite students’ language demographics. It is unsurprising
then that Mma and Tata’s language backgrounds are mirrored considering that they
both hail from parts of their provinces that were previously Bantustans, where black
people were grouped according to their heritage and ethnic identity (Maake, 2009);
Setswana in Bophuthatswana (North-West) and isiXhosa in Transkei (Eastern
Cape). As such, they went to African schools, a different schooling system
experience to what their children now have at their English ex-Model C schools.
4.3 Child Language Practices & Linguistic Repertoire
It is evident in the discussion above and extracts to follow that translanguaging is
one of the noticeable language practices for the older members of this multilingual
family. It is intriguing to note however, that Viwe speaks in English regardless of the
languages she is addressed in. Mma and the teacher’s comments on Viwe’s
languaging corroborates my observations; with Mma noting that “You speak to her in
either language she’ll respond in English” and the teacher maintained that “she’s
never ever spoken any other languages” (Extract 5G: Chapter 5).
Although neither Viwe’s parents nor the teacher identify her as an English speaker,
Mma and teacher’s experience note English is prominent in Viwe’s linguistic
repertoire. Extract 4A below is a conversation between the family members that
displays the relationship between Viwe and English.
It is an extract from the
biography activity I jointly participated in with all the family members. Viwe here is
being questioned about the language representation in her language portrait (Image
1) that she had just finished colouring in simultaneously with all the other family
members. Everyone remained in conversation with one another throughout the
activity as they also had to share crayons. Mma assisted Viwe labelling her portrait
at the end of the activity.
Extract 4A: Language biography - ‘The most important one!’
Babalwa
Mma
Bontle
Unay’ipen? [Do you have a pen?]
And the i- i-yellow? [And yellow?]
Yellow?
38
Viwe
Tata
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
Bontle
Mma
Tata
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Bontle
Viwe
Mma
Tata
Bontle
Viwe
Mma
Hmmm
Red?
Hawu!
Tshwana (regional pronunciation of Setwana)
Tshwana,, keSetswana neh? [Tshwana ,, it’s Setswana, right?]
Yes mama
Did I do Setswana right? (Referring to spelling)
//Siright!// [It’s right/correct]
//Siright!//[It’s right/correct]
Red?
Hhhm
Ga o a itse? [You don’t know it?]
The most important one!
(Giggles)
The one you’re speaking,, right now
It’s Afrikaans (teasing)
The one that you always always always speak
(Giggles loudly) ,, uhhh English
Engrishhh
Image 4.1: Viwe’s Language Portrait
___________________________________________________________________
Consistent with her quiet demeanour, Viwe offers minimal verbal communication as
she interacts with her family. She mostly uses a variation of sounds and gestures to
communicate with her family during this activity. Precisely for her shy demeanour,
Mma and older sister Bontle prompt Viwe to get her to speak about the image she
has coloured in. It is not uncommon in this family to experience Bontle offering
language mediation between her parents and Viwe. Although there is no notable
39
language breakdown between the speakers in this instance, Bontle’s use of English
only, which differs from the parent’s translanguaging indicates that she may have
become accustomed to speaking only English to her younger sister. Guo (2014: 50)
uses the concept of cultural mediation to describe a mediator as a person who
facilitates communication, understanding and action between persons; I adopt the
same concept to describe Bontle’s mediation between a person (Viwe) and
language.
Additionally, Bontle’s insight about Viwe’s dominant language and its
value in her everyday life is evident in the prompting cues she offers: “the most
important one” and “the one that you always always speak”. In the former prompting
cue Bontle is expressing her perception of what language Viwe considers valuable.
Also, her statement implies that that she equates her sister’s language production to
language value. That is, speaking English more means she values it more. Further,
the latter prompting cue implies that she is conscious of Viwe’s language repertoire
and language practices. Thus, I maintain that Bontle’s perception is indicative of her
five years seniority to Viwe and perhaps her longer experience in her participation in
language socialisation, which crucially includes six years of formal schooling. I call it
a participation, similar to Mead (1956) and Mkhize’s (2016) argument that, despite
external influence, children’s agency allows them to remain active in participating in
their socialisation.
Similarly, Mma appears to be mindful of Viwe’s language use when she offers Viwe
the clue “the one you are speaking right now”. Although Viwe does not speak much
in this extract, her responses: “Yes mama” and “uhhh English” are enough for her to
conclude that she is speaking English in that very instance. I would also add that
Mma is using her knowledge of what language Viwe has been using from the start of
the activity as well as of her daughter’s usual languaging to arrive at her statement.
Therefore, Bontle and Mma’s utterances point to their collective language
experiences and perceptions of Viwe as English dominant.
Despite Mma’s knowledge and experience of Viwe’s dominant language, she does
not necessarily adjust her languaging to match Viwe’s like Bontle does. This could
be because of a combination of belief in her daughter’s comprehension of languages
beyond English and a family language plan for their daughters to learn Setswana
and isiXhosa. In extract 4A, Mma’s language practices range from using Setswana,
translanguaging to an English only utterance. She does this seamlessly even when
40
talking to Viwe, which indicates her belief that Viwe can comprehend their African
languages even if she is not producing them.
This is a feature of receptive
bilingualism that I will argue as indicating emergent multilinguals.
Mma also ends this conversation with a seemingly deliberate mispronunciation of
the word English and even puts emphasis on the part of the word she
mispronounces, “Engrishhh”. This could be interpreted as her way of disassociating
herself from this language and perhaps emphasizing the families’ experience of Viwe
speaking more English than everyone else at home. This self-detachment from
English can be observed in how Mma describes it as language that she has been
clothed with “ndisinxityisiwe [I have been clothed with it]”. The very act of exposing
her children to different languages shows a multilingual language socialisation that is
taking place. In choosing to produce English rather than Setswana Viwe is proving to
be a participative agent of her language socialisation; Sterponi (2012: 242) believes
this to be the socialisation paradigm that frames children as having agency in their
social worlds. Although it may appear that Viwe is exercising agency in using English
out of personal choice within her family, the other environments that Viwe traverses
have to be considered in ascertaining the roots of the presence and dominance of
English in Viwe’s repertoire. If English is not her parents’ heritage language, whose
language is it then, and why does it occupy the space and position it does in Viwe’s
language repertoire?
4.4 Family Language Portraits – Linguistic Repertoire
I unpack the language dynamics of the Ngxangas and conceptually situate Viwe’s
language practices and identity by providing the language portraits of all the family
members. I also analyse two extracts of family interaction where language practices
are enacted, as extracted from a naturally occurring interaction in the home.
Image 4.2: Family Members’ Language Portraits
Mma
Tata
Bontle
41
(Full images in Appendix A)
The images above were produced in the same language biography activity as Image
1. This activity created a non-threatening environment in which Viwe could
participate freely. I use these images as visual backgrounds for my analyses and
discussions of extracts 4B1 and 4B2 below; both these extracts were generated from
the conversations that arose during the construction of the portraits.
Extract B1: Language Assimilation - ‘Ndisinxityisiwe njeee’
Mma
And then English is my skirt
Babalwa Hm-h, do you want to tell us about that
Well uhm I feel that it since I’m getting clothed (hm) so it forms part of me
Mma
because it’s everyday same as isiXhosa
Babalwa isiXhosa is a
Mma
The t-shirt
Babalwa Hm ,, can you tell us more about isiXhosa?
isiXhosa ndisinxityiswe njeee (laughs) [I have been clothed isiXhosa, just]
Mma
Babalwa (laughs)
Mma
When I’m with him (hm-h) in all honesty I the I didn’t know the language up until I
met , I knew about the language but I had a bit of attitude towards the because
bayangxola maan [They are noisy, man] (laughs)
Babalwa Bayangxola xa bathethayo [They are noisy when they speak]
Mma
They are very loud and I didn’t even show any interest up until I met him so
ndasinxiba [I wore it] same as English
In the visual presentation together with the discussion of her language portrait, Mma
conceives of English as external and secondary to her language. She has
42
deliberately coloured in her heritage language Setswana as her skin, while using the
symbolism of detachable items of clothing, the skirt and shirt for English and
isiXhosa, respectively. Her choice of words confirms this; “Ndisixityiswe njee”.
Although she is referring to the language, the idea of being ‘clothed’ with the
language can be applied to English. Using the words “same as isiXhosa” when
talking about English and the extent to which these two languages are part of her
suggests that she has also been clothed with English. It is unsurprising that she
views isiXhosa and English this way – they are languages that she learnt and
acquired after her Setswana; English through schooling and isiXhosa through having
met and married her husband. Consequently, the learning of these two languages
can be attributed to two reasons; schooling and her husband. Her struggle with her
studies at university due to English pushed her to develop her competency in it. She
also reports to having eventually worn isiXhosa “ndasinxiba” despite admitting to
having had an attitude towards it initially. Lastly, she communicates a mirrored
experience between English and isiXhosa in the way she wore it. Thus, Mma
continues to use her ethnicity as a marker of her languages despite her diverse
language repertoire and language practices. Her embrace of isiXhosa and English
also show ambiguity in her sense of language claim and ownership.
The shift in her choice of passive to active voice in ‘having been clothed’ to ‘clothing
herself’ with isiXhosa and English tells of her acceptance of these languages as part
of her repertoire, though she considers them external. Together with her agency in
deciding to learn these languages, it suggests also an assimilation that had to
happen, or a ‘sink or swim attitude’. A person assimilates when their social and
cultural context become framed by values, traditions and customs of the dominant
group (Soudien 2004: 95). Therefore, it can be said that Mma has in some sense
assimilated into isiXhosa by virtue of having initially felt that the languages were
thrust upon her until she made the choice to own them. In extract 4B2 below, Tata
provides a breakdown of his language portrait, reflecting on how he views his
heritage language and other languages that he has come to know. Contrary to
Mma’s language use, Tata produces no Setswana in this extract despite Setswana
featuring in his language portrait (see Image 2) – another indication that Mma may
have assimilated into isiXhosa.
43
Extract 4B2: Language Purity - “Xhosa colour which is pure’
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Viwe
Bontle
Tata
Viwe
Babalwa
All
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
All
Tata
All
Babalwa
Bontle
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Bontle
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Wherever the skin is showing (hm hm hm) so I said there African with the black
skin//
Black skin hm, okay
So that takes takes into account the language uh of black people (hm-h) and then
uhm , and then uh uh I just used English on the shorts (hm-h) on the trouser
(giggles)
Everyone has English, oh except???
You put on//
I do have English!
Did you guys discuss about this, English being a language that you put on
yourselves before? (laughs)
(laughter)
No
Okay
So same as isiTswana uhm uh uh it’s a language that
(laughs) hayi guys nikopile [you have copied me]
(laughter)
Okay uzakuba yimediator u-// [you’ll be the mediator]
We think alike (laughs)
Jonga nasi isiTswana isiXhosa zii-t-shirts zombini, ibhlukhwe yiEnglish,
ibhlukhwe sisiketi [Look, here is Setswana here is isiXhosa, they are both
shirts, the pants are English, the pants are the skirt]
(laughter)
But but I’ve got Xhosa only on shoes
(laughter)
Okay so masize nge [let’s come with]//
But//
It’s fine it’s fine , it’s fine it doesn’t matter I was just uh teasing
So the shoes are like I said the the colour scheme is all all the languages
So including isiXhosa
Yes
Okay
And then I decided to have like a Xhosa colour (hm) which is pure
Hm and it’s red, yima ke [hold on] that’s quite interesting that you encompass all the,
African languages black African languages//
Venda//
Why did you not mention them?
,, I have mentioned those that I speak but uh//
The others?
The others are just I think it was just uh interest on all languages of black people
Okay
Like uh ,, I can hear a lot of them (indistinct) Sepedi and so on
Akin to Mma’s language portrait explanation, Tata also presents English as an item
of clothing - pants. Moreover, he describes the pants as being equivalent to the skirt
that is seen in Mma’s portrait - “ibhlukhwe yiEnglish, iblukhwe sisiketi” [The pants are
English, the pants are the skirt]. He frequently uses the words “same as isiTswana”
when explaining the visual image of his isiXhosa language resources; somehow
alluding to similarities in language histories between himself and Mma. He seems to
44
be emphasising the insignificance of English in comparison to the rest of the
languages in his portrait when he describes having “just used English on the shorts”.
Thus, both English and Setswana (English and isiXhosa in Mma’s case) are viewed
as accessories, language resources that are part of the linguistic repertoire without
changing or influencing their language identity. Tata’s conceptualisation of his
additional languages does not express the same feeling of having had to assimilate
to his additional languages even though he affords them the same status as Mma
does of her additional languages.
Another commonality is that both parents seem to be claiming a monolingual identity
based on their ethnicity despite having embraced their additional languages, which
feature in their language portraits in Image 2.
Additionally, Tata includes other
African languages in his portrait seemingly representing them equally by assigning
the one colour (brown) as the languages occupying the larger part of his repertoire.
His separation of isiXhosa (red) at the feet shows that he values isiXhosa more than
the other African languages. He sees his Xhosa-ness as separate and as ‘pure’:
“And then I decided to have like a Xhosa colour which is pure”. Ironically, although
Tata seems to be taking a pan-Africanist approach to language when he colours-in
all African languages he knows with the same colour, brown; and explains that he
considers isiXhosa as part of the mix when he colours in with a matching
complementary red colour. However he still insists on making a distinction between
isiXhosa that he explains as being pure, and other languages. It appears that despite
the embrace of other languages in one’s repertoire, Tata and Mma continue to use
their ethnicities as markers of their language identities despite their apparent
changing linguistic repertoires and language practices. There is seemingly no
evident claim of Mma and Tata’s multilingual status for sequential bi/multilinguals
that would perhaps be evident in simultaneous bi/multilinguals like their children who
are learning all three languages simultaneously at home.
Other than the purist ideology that Tata expresses in relation to isiXhosa, he also
seems to be conflicted about claiming the rest of the African languages as his own
perhaps due to not producing those languages in speech. There is only evidence of
him speaking isiXhosa and English in all collected data. While he expresses
language pride and solidarity with other African languages that he has coded as
45
‘African black skin’ in his portrait, including languages in which he rates his
competency as being able to “hear a lot of them” - meaning to understand but not
speak them. Conversely, he shows an outright rejection of English, which is ironic,
considering that he uses English more than any other African languages apart from
isiXhosa.
It is also quite intriguing to experience a strong presence of English in the Ngxanga
household, a language that Viwe communicates largely in, being viewed by both
parents as being secondary. To show the undeniable presence of English in this
family, despite the parents’ loyalty to their respective heritage languages, all four
members of the family have represented English in their language portraits; Mma,
Tata, and Bontle as similar type of clothing, while Viwe has it on her feet as shoes.
Further, Bontle also notices this trend and excitedly, commenting that “Everyone has
English, oh except”? Based on Viwe’s bold response and objection “I do have
English!” I am convinced that Bontle’s second part of her utterance is directed at
Viwe’s portrait. Also, I would add that, because Viwe’s representation of English,
being at the feet, is different from the family, Bontle might have missed it at first
glance. Although I came to the conclusion that Viwe’s representation of language
and colour was arbitrarily selected, I find it enthralling that her representation differed
drastically from the rest of the family, especially because the family views English as
the language she uses the most and one which Bontle claims as Viwe’s most
important one. In view of Mma and Tata’s apparent loyalty to their heritage language,
and the implicit disassociation from and minimisation of English in their language
repertoires, I analyse extracts from naturally occurring data that reveal the various
language resources the family members draw from when they communicate. I also
analyse the heteroglossic (Bhaktin, 1991) nature of their language practices, with
translanguaging being a fitting descriptor of these practices, together with the
complexities and challenges of ideologies that view language monoglossically
(Guzula et al, 2016:212).
46
4.5 Family Language Practices
Extracts 4C1 to 4C3 are taken from a self-recorded family conversation involving all
members of the family, some moments before Mma reads a bedtime story that had
been selected by Viwe upon Mma’s request. The first extract shows the language
use in the family in the absence of myself as the researcher. I pay particular attention
to language use between Mma and Viwe, and Tata’s translanguaging.
Extract 4C1: Translanguaging
Mma Tsamay’ o… [Go and…] (ndistinct)
Tata Mh?
Mma (indistinct)
Tata Hm-h
Viwe Ma
Tata Abantwana baza… [The kids will] (indistinct)?
Mma Hm, Vivi*
Viwe Mama
Mma Ha-a, mh-h [No]
Viwe Heh?
Mma Ha-a [No]
Viwe (laughs)
Mma Vivi o sharp? [Vivi, are you okay?]
Tata Eskolweni nenze ntoni Vivi? [What did you do at school?]
Mma Upapa wakho o buwa le wena [Your dad is talking to you]
Viwe Papa [Dad]
Tata Nenze ntoni esikolweni except playing? [What did you do at school, excerpt
playing?]
Viwe Except playing?
Tata Hm
Viwe (laughs) - (TV playing in the background), We don’t really do homework like the
grade one
Mma O itse mang wa ko Grade 1? [Who do you know from Grade 1?]
Viwe Mh?
Tata Uzakuyibek’apha next year [You’re in for a tough time next year]
Viwe (laughs)
Mma Heh hayi ndatsho ndanewari (laughs) [Hey, now I just got worried]
Viwe I said we didn’t really do homework?
Mma But what did you do at school?
Tata They do classwork
Viwe Ahhhhh ohhh!
Mama
& Tata (Laugh)
Tata Uzakuxakwa ke, ngoku! [She will be stuck (confused) now]
Mma Vivi re buwa le wena what did you do at school? [Vivi we’re speaking to you]
Viwe Uhm , uhhh I forgot to tell you that I was in my (indistinct)
Mma Ha-a nna a ke go utlwe shem [ah no, I don’t hear you shame]
(isiXhosa news playing in the background)
Tata Uthini na? [What are you saying?]
Mma Ha ke mutwli [I can’t hear her]
Viwe My project
47
Mma
Viwe
Tata
Mma
What about your project?
The one of under the sea
Khawuthi i-remote leyo [Pass me that remote]
Wa reng Vivi what about the project? [What are you saying Vivi] This is serious, are
you supposed to do a project?
(silence)
Extract 4C1 showcases a variety of the parents’ language practices with Viwe. It also
presents the invisible permeable boundary that exists between the home and school;
that is, through doing a project Viwe draws from the literacy practices of both the
home and school domains. Moreover, it shows parental involvement in Viwe’s
education – father initiates the talk about school, and both parents express concern
about their daughter not having communicated about the project that was due the
following day. Later on, they involve big sister Bontle to assist Viwe with gathering
pictures and information from old magazines for the project. As such I would identify
this interaction as a literacy event (Heath, 1982:50). In my analysis, however, I focus
on the language interplay between multilingual parents and their child who brings in
school literacy practices; a school that I have already described as being former
‘Model C’ with English as the LOLT.
Focusing on Mma’s language use first, these are some examples of her utterances
extracted selectively from Extract 4C1, where she is using language fluidly and
creatively, intermeshing more than one language in some utterances and using only
Setswana in others:
Mma:
Upapa wakho o bua le wena [your father is talking to you] (Xho-Set)
Heh hayi ndatsho ndanewari [Hey, now I just got worried] (Xho – (Eng))
Vivi re bua le wena [We are talking to you] what did you do at school? (Set – Eng)
Ha ke mo utlwe [I can’t hear her] (Set)
*Setswana parts have been underlined
The first line is an example of a code meshing between isiXhosa and Setswana. At
first glance, and if frequency is used as a standard of classifying what language Mma
is communicating in here, then it could be said that Mma is speaking in Setswana
including some isiXhosa. However, the same utterance can be seen as isiXhosa with
some Setswana – Upapa wakho ubua (ubuwa) le wena. The paradox here is that the
word bua (buwa) has been appropriated into isiXhosa by a Setswana heritage
48
language speaker, Mma. Further, by inserting the prefix ‘u’ to the word papa, Mma is
conforming to the isiXhosa grammatical lexicon which easily deems her utterance as
isiXhosa. Further, using Myers-Scotton’s (1993:20) classification of language use in
code-switching, I would say that isiXhosa is the matrix language. Ultimately, these
different interpretations point to the complexity in classifying and compartmentalising
language. Moreover, in the same conversation, Mma also switches to isiXhosa - Heh
hayi ndatsho ndanewari, appropriating and Xhosalising the English word worry to
wari. Her use of isiXhosa in these ways is indicative of how she has been clothed
with (“ndisinxityisiwe”) the language and accepted what has been dictated by ‘the
way’, claiming Setswana language identity for herself. Hence, she later admits to
accepting isiXhosa as part of her language repertoire despite having grappled with
the language initially – “ndasixiba” [and I clothed myself with it]. Tata’s talk below
shows a similar pattern of translanguaging as noted with Mma.
Tata:
Eskolweni nenze ntoni Vivi? [What did you do at school, Vivi?] (Xho)
Nenze ntoni esikolweni [What did you do at school] except playing? (Xho-Eng)
Uzakuyibek’apha next year [You’re in for a tough time next year] (Xho –Eng)
Khawuthi iremote leyo [Pass me that remote] (Xho – Eng)
*IsiXhosa parts have been underlined
The difference in Tata’s language use, however, is the exclusion of Setswana. Even
when Mma momentarily shifts her gaze and addresses Tata directly in Setswana –
“Ha ke mo utlwe”, his languaging remains uninfluenced by Setswana. Thus, the two
adult multilinguals’ languaging is similar in that they move fluidly across resources of
more than one named language, but different in that Mma uses Setswana, isiXhosa
and English while Tata uses only isiXhosa and English. The difference is unexpected
if we consider that both parents have positioned each other’s languages in the
language portrait discussion as being on the same level. But in Tata’s case, it may
be that his Setswana is part of the collective African languages that he explained as
“I can hear a lot of them” in extract 4B2. Even with that reality, it is quite noticeable
how Mma has assimilated into and embodied isXhosa language identity. This is
suggestive of two elements - claims of power dynamics that place Nguni above
Sotho languages (Maake, 2009) and gender power dynamics.
Thus, isiXhosa
(Nguni) seems to have dominance over Setswana (Sotho) in this instance; and the
49
language of the patriarch is used over matriarch. The gender power dynamics owing
to ‘culture’ become more evident when Mma justifies assigning their children an
isiXhosa home language identity in the next chapter; “well because of the way we
were raised and the kids normally take the father’s side” (Chapter 5, Extract 5E).
Lastly, both parents easily identify single languages in their language portraits as
their home languages but their actual languages practices reflect a multiple language
identity.
Distinct from her parents’ language practices, Viwe’s language use remains
consistently in English. However, her comprehension of isiXhosa appears to be quite
developed for someone who rarely makes utterances in isiXhosa. When her father
says “uzakuyibek’apha next year”, Viwe responds with laughter, a reaction that
shows that she understands what her father has just uttered. The pitch and tone of
the laughter is similar to the loud giggle she responds to her mother with in extract 4,
which indicated that she was amused and in agreement with her family’s accurate
identification of the language she uses the most. When translated directly,
‘uzakuyibek’apha’ means ‘you will put it here’. Of course, when looking at Tata’s
utterance in context, it is clear that he is not referring to the meaning of the word in
isolation. What he is referring to is the hard time that Viwe will face in Grade one if
she carries on the rate she’s going; being unable to tell what she did at school
besides playing. For Viwe to understand what her father was saying without requiring
translation or clarification gives a good indication of her development of receptive
language competence in isiXhosa. Therefore, I argue that not only is Viwe a
receptive multilingual, she displays features of an emergent multilingual, whose
multilingualism is developing. Also, her language learning is context-based and
embedded in the culture of the language rather than focused on grammatical
competence. Thus I would argue that Viwe is engaged in language acquisition, a
process whereby language is not taught explicitly (Schutz, 2007:1).
Extract 4C2: Emergent Bi/Multilingualism – ‘She can Hear Motho waModimo’
Bontle
Mma
Can you just try for one night, just for one night
Are you gonna be scared to sleep alone?,, hayi [No], don’t influence, tshini!
50
Viwe
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Bontle
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
[Hey!], mh? But mommy and daddy are just next door so Lolo* can sleep in the
other room is that fine?
Okay
Are you sure you look scared (laughs)
Look at her
(Laughs) heh? Tlogela go ja so seo [Stop eating that]
Don’t eat that
Tsamaya go latlha [Go throw that away]
Go throw that
She can hear motho wa modimo motlogele [God’s child, leave her alone]
Yes mommy
Heh Vivi?
Yes mama
So o tshaba go robala o nosi [So you’re scared of sleeping alone]
Mh?
O tshaba go robala o nosi, o tlo robala ko godimo [You are scared if sleeping
alone, you will sleep at the top]
Which one
Lolo’s bed
You can sleep on mine
Okay
Mh?
Okay mama
Another prominent language practice that features in this family’s interactions is the
translation strategy. When translation has been offered it has usually been from the
older child to the younger one, and usually in Setswana to English but seldom from
one African language to another. That is, between Setswana and isiXhosa in this
case. This act of translation is shown in the previous extract 4C2 above where Mma
reprimands Bontle for translating every word she says to Viwe - [She can hear God’s
child, leave her alone!].
Additionally, this extract reveals Viwe’s participation in a multilingual interaction. She
is not producing much language in the conversation but her responses indicate that
she is participating meaningfully. As noted earlier, Viwe persists in responding in
English regardless of the language of address. Also, the intervention of Bontle who is
quick to translate Mma’s utterances to Viwe makes it difficult to ascertain the degree
of her meaningful participation. If we use a psycholinguistic analysis of Viwe’s
language she would be classified as a receptive bi/multilingual. Receptive
bi/multilingualism is described in Rehbein et al (2011: 248) as the ability to
51
understand a variety of languages without producing them; it focuses on proficiency
rather than communicative competence – an intuitive and functional control of
language (Hymes 1972, 277). However, Viwe is language functional in this
interaction. When Mma reprimands Bontle for intervening – “She can hear motho wa
modimo motlogele [God’s child, leave her alone] she also verifies with Viwe that she
understands when she asks: Heh [Yes] Vivi? Therefore, it would be fitting to view
Viwe as an emergent bi/multilingual rather than simply a ‘lingua receptiva’ - a term
form receptive bi/multilingualism (Rehbein et al, 2011; Herknrath, 2011). Emergent
bi/multilingualism is more fitting because it describes language leraning and
acquisition as a process of potential development in children (Garcia, 2015: 322). It
also positions children as competent rather than at a language deficit. Although Mma
dismisses Bontle’s intervention based on her understanding that Viwe did not need
translation, Bontle’s intervention is supportive of Viwe’s bi/multilingual development.
Bontle’s advantage is having more years of language exposure to their parents’
languages. Extract 4C3 below shows the role of an older sibling in facilitating the
language learning process of the emergent multilingual through translation and
translanguaging. It is also interesting to notice the power-shift and interplay between
Mma, Viwe and Bontle.
Extract 4C3: Language Brokering ‘Oh so you must // Bend your back’
Viwe
Mma
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Viwe
Bontle
Mma
Bontle
Mma
Bontle
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
Mma
Mama look here I’m gonna slip, whoops!
(laughs)
Gqobis’iqolo tititin [bend your back] (singing)
Mh-m it’s not gqobis’iqolo it’s gobis’iqolo (singing)
(laughs)
Gobis’iqol (singing)
Gobis’iqol’ tintintin gobisiqolo
Oh so you must//
Bend your back
Ohhh
And this look, gobis’iqolo’ //tsintsintsin gobis’iqol’//
//tsintsintsin gobis’iqol’//
How do you bend your back!
Did you know Vivi that it says gobis’iqol’
Mh-m
What did you think it was
52
Viwe
Bontle
Viwe
Mma
Viwe
Bontle
Mma
//(indistinct)//
Gqomis’iqolo (laughs)
Gqom’isiqol’
Ohhh
Whoa!
But say it fast, but I only realised because ooLutho told me
Ohhh le wena mo bone ne o re gobis’iqol’ gqobis’iqol’ then they taught you
how to say it
The family’s language practice shows creativity, fluidity and flexibility; even when
they are engaged in acts of translation from one language code to another it seems
to be done in a way of developing the language competency of one by the other who
is more knowledgeable in said language. This spontaneity of language interaction is
visible in the opening two lines of this extract where Mma and Viwe were in the
kitchen doing house chores. When Viwe alerts her mom to the potential hazard of
her slipping “I’m gonna slip, whoops!” Mma, spontaneously breaks out into lyrics of a
popular local genre, house music. Although the genre, house music, is international,
the South African version of the genre is common in a variety of South African
languages. It is also one of this genre’s characteristics to use language flexibly by
intermeshing various African languages including English. When these languages
are being used they are often not in their standardized forms. When Mma breaks into
a house song ‘Gobis’iqolo’ [bend your back], it is in response to the word ‘slip’ that
Viwe has used. Although gqobi’siqolo does not mean slipping, it can be argued that
Mma has used it here to tell Viwe of what could happen if she slipped and fell; she
would ‘phul’iqolo’[break her back], a Zulu
expression. Again, Mma did not say
phul’iqolo, however, I suspect that Mma might have made an error in making a
language selection for a verb she wished to use; she used ‘gobisa’ [bend] instead of
‘phula’ (break). Interestingly, phul’iqolo and gobis’iqolo are both popular house
songs; a point which could have contributed to mom not having selected the correct
one when responding to Viwe. Also, these expressions are in isiZulu, a language
belonging to the Nguni languages group, which does not appear in Mma’s linguistic
repertoire. Her heritage language is Setswana, a language belonging to the Sotho
languages group.
Similarly, isiZulu also is not mentioned as one of the languages in Bontle’s
repertoire. However, unlike Mma, isiXhosa, also an Nguni language is Tata’s
53
heritage language, which both parents claim to be their children’s home language.
Also, in joining in the conversation, Bontle acts as a multilingual brokering expert.
Firstly, by correcting her mother and sister she positions herself as an expert both in
popular culture music and in languaging. She gives the correct articulation and
pronunciation of the ‘gobis’’ mother articulates as ‘gqobis’’. Mma is not the only one
who struggles with articulation of this isiZulu phrase, Viwe also mispronounces the
word. What is even more intriguing in Bontle’s expertise in helping her family learn
articulation and translating the meaning of the word is her admission of having been
a novice as well; she admits to having been helped by her family in the Eastern
Cape in learning the articulation and meaning of the word. This is indicative of the
language socialisation extending beyond the nuclear family to including extended
family (Also, she points out the articulation technicalities; that it is easy to get the
word wrong if it is said hurriedly.
Extract 4C3 shows not only the language expertise between a mother and a child,
and between an older sibling and her sister who often gets offered translations as
means of developing her multilingualism; it also shows the influence of spaces
beyond the home. In this instance, extended family and popular culture music
become language spaces in which one or more of the Ngxanga family members
navigate and gain language experience. Although the family has defined prominent
language codes in their family (isiXhosa, English & Setswana), spaces beyond the
home, like popular culture music, influence the language diversity. Through this
external influence Bontle’s repertoire has expanded allowing her to bring in isiZulu at
home through explaining what gobis’iqolo means. Also, the way that Mma uses
language with emergent multilingual Viwe is similar to how language acquisition
takes place during the language development stages of a young child. That is,
language is not explicitly taught, rather, a child learns it through being exposed to or
experiencing it (Schutz, 2007:1). Even with all the evidence of language dynamism
and translanguaging practices of the Ngxanga family, who use their heritage
languages in their home and with extended family members, it is undeniable that
English occupies a significant space in this family particularly for Viwe.
54
4.6 Conclusion
The family’s language histories revealed the parents’ heritage languages and
glimpses into the language experiences of their earlier years. Viwe’s language
portrait and discussion revealed her linguistic repertoire - the dominance of English
and the emerging development of African languages. Although she produces only
English, she is able to participate in conversation with her parents when they speak
isiXhosa, Setswana or when they translanguage. While both parents claim their
heritage languages as their home languages, their language practices reveal that
English forms part of their languages. They foreground their Xhosa and Tswana
ethnicities as markers of their language identity rather than claiming a multilingual
identity. They display language heteroglossia through the practice of translanguaing
in their day-to-day interactions at home. Tranlsation features strongly as tool for
mediating language together with the older sibling who uses her experience to
mediate for Viwe, even when it is not necessary. The family has apparent strategies
around language based on the parents’s language experiences and language
aspiration. The next chapter focuses on identifying the Family Language Policy
influencing their language, their home language identity as well as the hegemonic
influence of English in the home and school domain.
55
5. FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY, LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE AND IDENTITY
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I introduce the concept of Family Language Policy (FLP) to indicate
the language ideologies of the Ngxanga family, and the consideration and planning
they have in place to fulfil their language aspiration. I particularly highlight the
complexities of decisions the parents have to make regarding the place and role of
African languages and English in their home and extended family, and their
children’s schools. I also provide a discussion on language identity and interrogate
the use of the terms ‘mother tongue’/’home language’. I show the complexities that
the concept of home language identity presents for multilingual children for their own
sense of identity and the identity they have to assimilate to at school.
5.2 Family Language Policy
Extract 5A below is from a follow up interview with Viwe’s parents where I had asked
them to reflect on their experience and feelings about their children’s schools being
English medium schools. It reveals the parents’ sense of responsibility in teaching of
African family languages; language ideologies and language histories informing
practice; as well as beliefs and attitudes about English.
Extract 5A: Language Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Expectations
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
For us I don’t think there is any problem cos that’s why we're trying to we
knew that moving here was gonna be was gonna be or exposed them to that I
mean (hm) the schools are different and all that (hm) so so I don’t think it’s a
concern//
The language of the school
Ja
The fact that it’s English medium school
And again we feel that it’s up to us to expose them to what we want so that’s
why we took the initiative that uhm every year they either in Taung actually they
go to both in a year on both sides so eh uhm June or December they are in
Taung or Engcobo, so uh I think it’s the parents’ responsibility to expose the
kids to what they want
Whatever language?
Ja ja //
They want them to learn okay fair enough
So uhm again I think it makes it easier for them to also socialise with other
kids as well who speak different languages (hm-h) so English is just there for
them to be able to interact with others and//
And and it’s a language of learning which if the schools are teaching in English
all the concepts (hm) it is also important to that they in that environment or
56
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Mma
Tata
that they don’t struggle with learning because//
Like we did (laughs)
(laughs) about that that eh, cos I think you might have mentioned
Ndim [It’s me]
Or was it you okay
I struggled with English I realised//
So then you say so they won’t have those issues they’ll be focusing on content
you said
Yes
Ja
Yes yes, so so I think that’s that’s what was important in terms of the choice of
school knowing that uh they get the language as early as possible (hm-h) and
then and then uh and then at least the learning side will go on (hm-h) it’s just
that their identity of who they are now, in order for them to know other
languages (hm-h)
It’s our responsibility
Then then we know that there are not gonna get that at school (hm) like a lot of
things that the kids are not gonna learn at school that we have to teach them at
home//
Mma begins by defending their choice of English medium school and proceeds to
elaborate on how she sees English as being an advantage that is deliberately
chosen for their children. Her emphatic use of the words: “I don’t think there is any
problem” and repeated in “I don’t think it’s a concern” in a single turn indicate the
confidence she has in their choice of school. She expresses full consciousness of
what language encounter their children would have moving to their current
residential area (and schools). Knowing the kind of language experience their
children would be exposed to, which they do not object to, the parents seem to have
made well-considered language decisions along with their plan to exposing their
children to heritage languages. Mma explains the initiative of taking their children to
their families in their respective home towns annually as being motivated by the
responsibility they feel towards exposing the children to the languages they “want”,
isiXhosa and Setswana. Moreover, she explicitly mentions how it is “the parents’
responsibility to expose the kids to what they want”. There seems to be two
language interests expressed by Mma here. One is the idea that that their choice of
suburban school fulfils the English exposure part of what they want; and the other
being the strategy of sending their children to their hometowns, ensuring that their
children get exposed to their African home languages. Further, Mma mentions the
added advantage that English brings for their children, which is to make it easier to
socialise with other children who speak different language, adding that English aides
57
their interaction with others. Mma, sees English as the ‘lingua franca’, a common
language that enables people who do not share the same home language/s to
communicate. Thus, Mma’s rationale suggests that English brings convenience in
socialising with others; moreover, it affords social inclusion for their children at
school.
Tata extends the rationale for their choice of school by introducing a literacy
consideration to their language plan. He points out the reality of English being the
LOLT. Also, he uses the conjunction ‘if’ to show the connection between the LOLT,
language exposure and learning experience: “if the schools are teaching in English
all the concepts (hm) it is also important to that they are in that environment or that
they don’t struggle”. Thus, the justification he makes is the importance of a match
between the school language and the children’s language. His rationale is similar to
the school’s admission policy regarding language (Appendix B); it is required that a
prospective learner must be sufficiently proficient in English prior to admission to
avoid prejudicing them in their academic progression. It is then unsurprising that the
parents are seemingly unbothered by the English-medium school and the invisibility
of African languages there in comparison. It is consistent with what they want –
taking initiative and responsibility for home languages exposure and teaching at
home while their children get to be immersed in English which Tata believes will
assist them in learning concepts at school.
It seems that the parents are justified in wanting their children to be highly competent
in the language that the school values, English. A child who does not fit the school’s
language plan will likely not be admitted; they will be considered to be language
deficient and thus deviant to the school’s basic admission requirement. The parents’
language histories appear to be instrumental in their valorising of English. Mma
admits in the extract above that she “struggled with English”. Further, Tata again
motivates for the importance of the choice of school, echoing his previous
sentiments about the correlation between language competence and academic
success. He also reveals another language ideology relating to learning; the belief
that earlier exposure to English will give the children a better chance of success at
school. Even though he seems to be valorising English on the one hand, he
reiterates Mma’s point about the importance of learning other languages, but also reemphasises their sense of responsibility in teaching languages other than English.
58
Additionally, he recognises it as a responsibility towards crafting a sense of identity.
Because the parents recognise English as valuable based on their schooling
language histories while also seeing the importance of their African languages as an
identity marker, they resort to a language policy that creates a language binary:
African languages as the responsibility of the parents while the school is apportioned
English teaching responsibility.
Both parents seem to accept that the school will take care of the English teaching
while they assume responsibility of African language teaching and learning at home.
As such, the parents absolve the school of any responsibility towards teaching of any
other language besides English. Evident in the parents’ language ideologies is the
lack of consideration of the possibility that the school could be a site of learning
many languages, including their own, and learning through many languages. That is,
the school is capable of being multilingual – representing and mirroring the interests
and practices of multilingual homes and societies. The irony is that the expectation of
a multilingual society is stated in the preamble to the 1997 LIEP. Despite this
expectation, it is not surprising that the parents are not envisioning such a possibility.
Their personal experience of language and schooling and the realities of what
language choices they are presented with through former ‘Model C’ schools tell them
that English is the only legitimate academic language, and without it, one is in
danger of academic failure.
Viwe’s parents’ lived language experience and aspirations appear to be one of the
conditions that have inspired their language plan. Annually, they send their children
to the North-West and Eastern Cape provinces where their extended families reside,
in pursuit of diverse cultural and language experience for their children. Their
expressed values show that they leave language planning for English to the school
but their actual language practices at home show that they support Viwe’s English
development. They buy English storybooks and enable her to speak in English.
Consequently, they believe that by immersing the children in their heritage
languages during holiday periods, they will afford them fluency in Setswana and
isiXhosa, in addition to English that they are already immersed in at home and
school. Although they identify enabling periods of African language immersion as
part of their language strategy, they do not recognise their input in enabling the
English language development. What is apparent here is that both English and
59
African languages form part of the Ngxanga family’s language policy. They recognise
the need for language maintenance (Cekaite & Kheirkhah, 2015: 320) due to their
English dominant environment, but also acknowledge their current environment as
necessitating a partial language shift towards English.
Furthermore, continuing from the interview above, Tata had this to say about the
everyday practicalities of their language plan:
Extract 5B1: Language Plan
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Mma
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Hm so if for example we did colours and then there’s a colour we didn’t do and
she’s like okay what is this colour then that’s//
Iqale kanjalo [That is how it started]
Ja but but it’s a deliberate effort (hm) or sometimes say today sithetha [we
speak] isiXhosa (hm)
(laughs)
Who’s the first one to break it between the//
L’umncinci [the younger one]
L’umncinci [the younger one] (laughs), okay
But uyazama [she tries] now cos she ebekade erefus-a [used to refuse]
//completely//
//Completely//
To participate
Oh
You speak to her in either language she’ll respond in English
Uyabona ngokuya bebesiya eNgcobo, ubuye ebalisa ngezitory ngesiXhosa
[You see when they went to Engcobo, she came back telling about stories in
isiXhosa]
Oh
I think it’s the pressure as well cos the others can speak the language and she
realises that//
Cousins
Hm
Okay okay //
Hm//
Evidently, this family is deliberate about home language exposure and their role as
parents in this language plan. For example, they have attempted to make deliberate
use of isiXhosa at times. This deliberate language plan includes coming up with
colour names in English and translating them (Extract 5B); explicit language learning
exercises and sending the children away for language immersion experiences
seems to be meeting their aspirations for their children. While the parents make an
60
effort in the teaching of their African languages, this extract shows that Viwe is an
active participant of her language socialisation – “she’s like okay what is this colour”.
Both Mkhize (2016: 45) and Reynolds (2013: 2) attest to children being agentic in
opportunities to learn but also to resist a language. By asking for a translation of a
colour from English into isiXhosa, she is displaying a vested interest in African
languages as well. Moreover, Tata believes that their efforts are paying off. Although
Viwe largely speaks English and is likely to be the first one to “break the rules” of
speaking the language that the family has decided on for that day or activity, Tata is
quick to recognise the benefits of sending the children to their families: “But uyazama
[she tries] now cos she ebekade erefus-a [used to refuse] completely …Uyabona
ngokuya bebesiya eNgcobo, ubuye ebalisa ngezitory ngesiXhosa [You see when
they went to Engcobo, she came back telling about stories in isiXhosa]”. Mma shares
the same sentiments, and also believes that the company of cousins who speak their
heritage language affords Viwe the necessary pressure to acquire and learn the
language.
The families’ strategies employed in their language plan reflect the responsibility they
accept: to teach their children their heritage languages at home. In my view, they
accept it because they express no expectations for the school to teach any other
language beyond English and subject content. In a follow-up interview, they state
beliefs regarding the standard of African languages at their children’s schools:
Extract 5B2: isiXhosa – ‘But it’s simple language they’ve made it easy’
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Tata
In isiXhosa they teach them isiXhosa but in their books it’s like it’s basic
isiXhosa it’s not like//
//So so//
//Can// you make an example?
So
They will uhm kuthwa yintoni [What is it called]? They’ll write,, it’s like words they put
together eish I can’t even think about//
Okay//
But it’s simple language they’ve made it easy
And and again most of the things they do when they teach isiXhosa (hm-h) they’re
teaching them how to communicate it’s like they’re teaching uh an English kid
and then there’s a lot of translation
Okay?
There’s a lot of uh uh translation from uhm uh uhm uh molo [Hello] hello
Eh-e [Yes]
In Afrikaans that happens as well
Okay
Like they give them words in Afrikaans
61
Babalwa
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
Mma
Tata
So it’s uh uhm, conversational
Yes
Uh Xhosa amd conversational Afrikaans
Hm
Yes
Ja ja
So so so when they are being taught isiXhosa they use a lot of English (hm)
Is Xhosa being assessed?
Hm
Third language
Third language, what they call Second Additional Language
Ja ja
Hm
Through their expressions ‘it’s basic isiXhosa’ (Mma) and “it’s like they’re teaching
English kids” (Tata), both parents are critical of the level of isiXhosa at school. In this
instance, they are referring to their older child, Bontle’s, school which follows a
similar language plan as Viwe’s school. A choice of isiXhosa as a subject option,
usually Second Additional Language (SAL), only features from Grade 4. Mma
believes the standard of isiXhosa is low based on the written work she has seen in
Bontle’s books. She seems more dissatisfied with the written isiXhosa than the
conversational – she finds the language too simple. This suggests an expectation
that Mma may be having about school. Because they already accept the
responsibility of teaching their children they may be expecting the school to take care
of the academic work – in literacy, written work seems to be assigned more value
than oral work. Towards the end of the extract when Tata tells of isiXhosa being a
third language – it puts some perspective on Mma’s concern on the language being
too simple and easy. In my view, the low level at which isiXhosa is offered at their
children’s school (third language) is indicative of the language hierarchy which most
values English. They seem to be undermining the teaching strategy of using
translation in the classroom – the irony is that they learnt English in the same way in
their primary school when all they could speak was their home language. Tata’s
comment that the teaching is targeting English speakers is significant in reflecting on
the idealised learner when school language policies are drafted. The reported level
of isiXhosa offered suggests that it is not intended for isiXhosa home language
speakers.
62
5.3 Monolingual Norm Myth
For Multilingual families, home language identity is not as easy to articulate as might
be the case for a family with a long history of generational monolingualism. As
discussed in chapter 2 (Banda, 2009, Rampton 1990, Tshotsho 2013, Mckinney
2017) the notion of mother tongue is not without its complexities. The language
portrait activity analysed in Chapter 4 has indicated some of the identity complexities
experienced in a young family who use language flexibly (translaguaging); whose
adults’ language history differs from their children’s experience and context; and who
have a seemingly solid family language plan. Extract 5C1 gives insight into Viwe’s
language experience, a combination of perceptions and apparent experiences form
the parents and children, respectively.
It is unsurprising that Viwe considers English as a language that is dominant in her
linguistic repertoire. She has frequently displayed a preference for it, explicitly,
regardless of what other language she is addressed in by her family. Extract 5C1
illustrates this. Extracts 5C1 and 5C2 are from a spontaneous interview with Viwe.
Preceding my interview with Viwe I needed to find out what language she preferred
being interviewed in; similarly, the same offer to interview the family in the
language/s of their choice was presented.
Extract 5C1:
Babalwa
uViwe andiqondi uyafun’ukuza
[I don’t think Viwe wants to come]
Mma
I don’t think she’ll even understand
Tata
//Uzounderstanda// //[she will understand]//
Babalwa
//Uzounderstanda// //[she will understand]//
Mma
You think so?
___________________________________________________________________
Extract 5C2:
Babalwa Abantwana bayaqonda [children
understand], can I ask you a question?
Viwe
Hm-h
Babalwa Ndikubuze ngesiXhosa Tswana
[Should I ask you in isiXhosa], Tswana
or must I ask you in English. Which
one do you choose?
Viwe
Uhmmm
Babalwa There’s Xhosa here [referring to the
language portrait], English in the
middle and close to mommy here is
63
Tswana
Viwe
Babalwa
Viwe
Babalwa
Uhhh
Which what language must I use?
The middle
I must use the middle so I must use
English
___________________________________________________________________
Firstly, I must express that Viwe was extremely shy, especially in the first few days of
my visits. This was my observation of her at home and at school in instances where
questions were directed at her, specifically. As seen in extracts 5C1 and 5C2, much
prompting became necessary to get her talking. One of the interesting things to note
in extract 5C2 is the first turn, which was my way of reassuring Mma that Viwe would
be able to understand my question. When Viwe did not join us immediately after I
had called her, I had thought that she did not wish to join us “[I don’t think Viwe
wants to come]”, but Mma on the other hand was more concerned about whether
she would understand questions about language choice and home language as can
be noted in extract 5C1 above.
Contrary to the concern expressed by Mma in extract 5C1, Viwe’s final response of
“the middle” in extract 5C2, meaning English, indicates that Viwe had no difficulty
understanding the question and was able to make a language choice, even though it
was made with minimal words on her side. Another factor to note in my interview
with Viwe is her actual response, the language she chose to be interviewed in and
how she expresses this choice. It corroborates well with the language her family
associated her with during the language portrait activity. English is the language that
she predominantly converses in, and now the language she explicitly chooses to be
interviewed in. In my opinion, it would be premature however to make the
determination Viwe has chosen English exclusively as her language.
Lastly, I consider the parents’ involvement in the conversation. Upon seeing that
Viwe seems to be experiencing difficulty answering the question, Tata begins to
doubt if Viwe understands the concept of language: “Do you know what a language
is?” It is interesting that Tata’s question is not about whether she understands what
‘a home language’ is, but directed at questioning her understanding of the concept ‘a
language’. Judging by the simultaneous laughter of both parents after Viwe
64
responded with a no “mh-m”. I would say that the parents doubt whether their
daughter understands the concept of language. In retrospect, my interjection in
giving my opinion about what Viwe understands and has chosen might have been a
bit premature. But this is telling of the experiences and biases that we as
researchers carry to our research site. My experience with children (and my own
children) might have played a role in my assessment of Viwe’s participation.
Although I problematize my intervening here, Extract 5D below provides some clarity
in Viwe’s understanding of language.
5.4 Language Identity
The concept home language identity can present complexities for multilinguals
whose linguistic repertoires and language practices are changing and expanding
over time. Although multilinguals with a long history of monolingual heritage
language may easily identify a single home language using ethnicity, younger
multilinguals whose parents come from different ethnic groups may experience
difficulty in choosing a home language. Further, terminology such as ‘mother
toungue’ identity adds to the complexity. In this section I present the perspectives of
parents and children in claiming language identity.
5.4.1 Parents’ Perspectives
The extract below is from an interview with Viwe’s parents, some moments after I
had a brief conversation with Viwe about what she considers to be her home
language:
Extract 5D: Home Language/s
___________________________________________________________________
Babalwa
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Babalwa
Mma
Okay uh so so let’s go back now to (laughs) your interview
Uhm tell me what would you say uh your kids’ home language is uh if you had
to tick a form? We’ve seen-//
Well because of the way we were raised (hm) and the kids normally take
the father’s side
Okay
Ja in that way sisiXhosa [Yes, in that way it is isiXhosa]
So Xhosa because the surname is alsooo?//
Whoa even if the surname was something else, but it’s… ja [yes]
Okay
Ja [yes]
65
Babalwa
Tata
Mma
//(indistinct)//
//(indistinct)//
Yijonge apha baby, but uhm if in all honesty, they speak English more
than any other language (hm) ja but obviously efomini sizothi sithetha
isiXhosa thina apha kulo mzi [ja but obviously in the form we will say we
speak isiXhosa here in this house]
Babalwa Okay, why do you why do you say isiXhosa?
Mma
Because we are only given one choice and they know Xhosa more than
uhm isiTswana (hm) because if it was Tswana more than isiXhosa so then I
would say Tswananyana there (hm) maybe but then heh! (laughs) because
of like I said the way we were raised I think it’s actually it’s actually funny
because//
Tata
I think I think for me to answer that question I don’t even think about it
sisiXhosa
Babalwa Okay?
So so so it doesn’t mean if ilanguage awuyithethi [you don’t speak a
Tata
language]//
Babalwa Ayoyakho [it’s not yours]//
Tata
If I was born in Kenya or wherever neh (hm) or I went there and now isiXhosa
andisasazi (hm) at all (hm) my home language still remains (hm) what
home is (hm)
Babalwa Okay? So//
Tata
So so now it comes back to that context abethetha ngayo uba uh uh uh it’s
almost linked to nationality if if if uhm uh.,, if your father is Irish you’ll
always be Irish so if utata wakho ngumXhosa uzosoloko ungumXhosa
therefore nehome language yakho izakuba sisiXhosa [so if your father is
Xhosa you will always be Xhosa and your home language will be isiXhosa]
Babalwa Nokuba awusithethi [Even if you don’t speak it]
Idilutation isuka apho [Dilution comes from there] (oh okay) that’s why
Tata
ndidefaulta [I default] very quick
T, B & M (laughter)
Tata
It’s Xhosa
Babalwa Xhosa e-e
Tata
And akukho noba ndicinge ukuba uyakwazi ukusithetha nesisiXhosa
ndisibhalileyo [there is not even a need for me to think whether you know
even this isiXhosa that I have written] but//
Babalwa So home language has nothing to do in your opinion with fluency
Tata
With Ja
Ja ja [yes yes], again with us because our parents were both speaking one
Mma
language (hm) so it was easy ubuyazi ba kuthwa ungumntwana wakulo
tatakho [you would know that it is said that you belong to your dad’s family]
that thing and as much as that was the case waitse gore ha ore [you know
that when you say] my home language ke Setswana so if I’m filling a form for
myself my home language ke Setswawna
Babalwa That’s because there’s just one language ja [yes]
There is only one language ja [yes] so it doesn’t have to be la nto ‘ba [that
Mma
thing of] actually I like my mom’s side more (hm) so I think this one is gonna
struggle [pointing at Viwe] especially Bontle because she’s always
reminding me that but mama ke [I am] Motswana as well (hm) so I//
___________________________________________________________________
66
From the onset, the way that my question is framed in turn two exposes both my use
of the monolingual ideology of single home language and my discomfort with this
ideology when I qualify my question with the add-on: “if you had to tick a box”. This
shows my critique of my own question as an artificial one. Firstly, to enquire about
one’s language identity in singular, “your kids’ home language” is to assume that
there is only one language that the said people identify with. The question is
premised on a monoglossic ideology, which I will argue largely stems from a
Eurocentric idealisation of language. In attempt to get a direct answer, the second
part of my question, “uh if you had to tick a form?”, further compels the interviewee to
conceptualise home language identity as a single named language, an ideology that
she is perhaps accustomed to, having competed school enrolment forms for Bontle
and Viwe (Appendix D: school application form). Analysing the way I have asked the
question about filling a form shows my cognisance that this question is less about
the language practices and more about people being forced to answer in completing
bureaucratic processes like form-filling. Interestingly, as narrow as the question is,
Mma finds no difficulty in offering a response initially, which might be attributed to
this practice she has been socialised into. Repeatedly, she refers to the ‘way’ she
was raised and how that ‘way’ dictates that isiXhosa becomes the children’s home
language, affording no status or power to the mother’s heritage language, Setswana,
even though it features in the family’s language portraits. Seemingly, this ‘way’ that
Mma is talking about, is a culture that she has been socialised into; one that not only
assigns monolingual identity, but that shows the patriarchal norm in language
identity. It could be argued that translanguaging across Setswana, isiXhosa and
English is ‘the’ home language of the Ngxangas, perhaps a consequence of
multilingualism that is intergenerational coupled with urban language experience that
is largely English. Based on the language practices and experience of this family, I
argue that the expectation for any multilingual to have a single language identity is
both narrow and unrealistic. If the power that ‘culture’ has afforded patriarchy in
language identity is hypothetically stripped away, and the monoglossic language
ideology imposed on multilinguals by dominant social spaces temporarily
suspended, what meaning would the notion of home language/’mother-tongue’
identity assume? Is the notion of home language/mother tongue relevant in this
family whose linguistic repertoire can be viewed as fluid? The notion of home
language identity gives an impression of a false boundary between the home and the
67
school domains. That is, it supports the idea that people have one language that
they speak at home, which does not necessarily cross between socialisation spaces.
Although I find the term ‘home language’ more progressive than the gendered
‘mother-tongue’ that Makoni & Meinhof (2003), Sebba (2000) and Winkler (1997)
problematized, both terms create difficulties for multilingual families whose
(bi/multilingual) home language practices are often mismatched with what is on offer
as Home Language (HL) at the former Model C schools they send their children to.
Mma attributes the idea of home language identity for their children to the ‘way’ they
were raised. She considers it a norm to take the cultural identity of the father,
dictating the children’s ‘mother tongue’ as isiXhosa. When she says ‘But in all
honesty’, she appears to be admitting and acknowledging the language reality of her
children: that of having a predominantly English language repertoire. Also, ‘But in all
honesty’ is perhaps an admission of what that language repertoire could be
communicating – possibly a mismatch between the language identity, which they as
parents have assigned to their children against what the tongues of their children
seem to produce, or the language identity they claim for themselves as children,
considering that their language practices differ from their parents. That is, even
though Mma says isiXhosa is their children's home language she knows that their
children, especially Viwe, do not speak much of it at home. Interestingly, when the
suggestion is made that perhaps the isiXhosa identity is linked to the surname that
the children have taken up, Mma is quick to dismiss that idea. However, the
hesitation and the ‘but’ that follows, together with a series of close ended ‘ja’s,
suggest that there is more she could say regarding the subject.
Despite what the parents know their children to speak, Mma is unambiguous in her
decision that, in the forms they fill out, they will indicate an isiXhosa identity. This is
evidenced by Mma and Tata’s unanimous belief that a child takes the language
identity of the father. Seemingly, Mma is staying true to the ‘way’ they have been
raised - the norm of taking the father’s language identity. When elaborating on her
stance, Mma gives two reasons: parents are given one choice and the children know
isiXhosa more that Setswana. Furthermore, she adds that if the converse was true,
then perhaps Setswana would be considered, but she uses the suffix ‘nyana’ in her
response, to denote ‘a little bit’ or that Setswana would stand a chance to be
mentioned, but not devoid of isiXhosa. This minimisation of her heritage language
68
when set up against isiXhosa is an indication of the cultural and social hierarchy that
assigns power to one gender over the other in determining language identity of the
parents’ offspring.
Furthermore, the views expressed by Tata assert a different confidence than seen in
Mma’s response about the language identity of their children. He sees the matter as
being settled and non-debatable; that the child’s mother tongue is isiXhosa, despite
his spouse’s heritage language being Setswana. As if clarifying the issue of English
clearly dominating Viwe’s tongue, he maintains that language competency in a said
language does not determine one’s linguistic identity That is, the fact that their
children, particularly Viwe are seemingly more fluent in English than their heritage
language does not disqualify them from claiming isiXhosa home language/ mother
tongue identity. Like Nongogo’s (2007) research on African language speaking
children, his example about the Kenyan and Irish father supports this. Also, in his
example about the Irish dad, he reiterates Mma’s earlier sentiments about being
socialised into a paternal heritage identity, hence his confident declaration of their
children’s home language being isiXhosa.
Considering that the Ngxangas are a multilingual family who use language flexibly,
drawing from their full linguistic repertoire when they communicate with one another,
particularly the parents, I find Tata’s comment ‘idilution isuka apho ke’ [dilution
comes from there], that’s why ndidefaulta [I default] very quickly’ both intriguing and
rather idealistic. Notwithstanding that father is using three languages, isiXhosa,
Setswana and English, in a single utterance, he intertwines and uses the two
languages creatively, contradicting his very own language ideology which expresses
language purism. ‘idilution’ and ‘ndidefaulta’ are examples of this creative and
flexible language use, which can be described as codeswitching, code meshing, or
simply translanguaging. The irony here is his use of translanguaging to express
purist views like in Nongogo’s research (2007:
48) where one of the learners
claimed their Pedi ethnicity as pure by stating “Ke moPedi feela, full time!” The verb
here from ‘ndidefaulta’ [I am defaulting] is default expressed in the context of
reverting. What Tata is expressing here is what I would describe as his tacit
perception about the implication of a language heteroglossic family owing to mobility.
He seems to be of the view that the heritage language is the default set language
that he goes back to when there is confusion about identity. The defaulting could
69
also be referring to the way they were raised, culturally, that according to him
simplifies language identity whenever there seems to be identity disorientation. From
the sentiments expressed by Tata, I would argue that, although he embraces
multilingualism and takes no issue with himself and his family translanguaging, he
also takes pride in his heritage by wanting to retain his language and cultural identity
of being Xhosa and speaking isiXhosa.
Also, considering that Tata has been talking about family mobility and children
whose heritage language and language of proficiency are mismatched, I would
propose the dilution he is referring to here is that of language identity, hence his
quick claim that he ‘defaults very quickly’. This means that the heritage language of a
multilingual person (or someone whose language fluency does not match their
heritage language) would be their default identity. Tata also communicates that
human mobility creates ‘impure’ language conditions or confusion about language
identity; sharing that he defaults quickly could be his expression of retaining
language purity or heritage language identity. Thus, for him, filling out a form
inquiring about the language identity of their children comes with no hesitation, even
though he knows that their proficiency may be questioned.
Lastly, Mma, speaking to the idea of a mismatch between heritage language and
proficiency, defends and validates the confusion that might be ensuing with their
children, by acknowledging that they had a different language history to hers and
Tata’s. This is an important factor to consider when understanding the language
dynamics of the Ngxangas. Both Mma and Tata’s parents, respectively, spoke the
same language when back in the villages where they grew up. For them, their
parents’ identification of what language identity their children would assume was
simple. In addition, although Mma and Tata had English as the official medium of
instruction in their respective schools, having the advantage of sharing the same
heritage language with their teachers, they report that they were largely taught in
their mother tongues. They also did not grow up in a large city suburb or
environment where English dominated. In fact, in one of the interviews with Tata, he
confesses to having been pretty much taught all of his school subjects in isiXhosa,
narrating how their isiXhosa speaking teachers had to adopt a language translation
strategy in order for them to follow textbook content and concepts that were in
English “No no no everything is in English but u u utitshala uzakuendapha esenza
70
umzekelo ngesiXhosa ukwenzel’ba siyiundastende le nto ithethwayo ukuba
kuthe’thukuthiwani ngale nto [the the teacher will end up making an example in
isiXhosa so that we understand what is being discussed, what is meant by this]”.
What he commended to be a great strategy, would also work to his detriment later
on when he arrived in a tertiary institution where success depended largely on
fluency in English, which he was not confident in “then ke ngoku [now] it’s only now
like I say in Pretoria I started having to now if I wanted to ask for anything now, now I
must speak English which is like even though I have passed matric but I’ve never
spoken the language at all”. Consequently, both Tata and Mma experiencd difficulty
adjusting to the medium of instruction of their university in the first year of study, after
having enjoyed language support in their heritage languages in their respective high
schools.
Reflecting on her childhood, Mma also reiterated that it was “Setswana all the way’ in
all social domains she interacted in. In view of the parents’ language experiences
growing up, it becomes clear that even when children are taught in their ‘mother
tongues’, if these languages are not also used in other domains viz universities and
workplaces, the children become disadvantaged. Similar to Mma and Tata’s
experience, even though their schools supported their home languages, superficially,
the power and dominance of English prevailed when it came to tertiary institutions.
Perhaps what their schooling language encounters indicate is the polarization and
separation of languages between the home and schools as problematic. These
views deny the language reality of multilinguals where people are expected to
perform in either one language or another, that is, to act as monolinguals. They also
create a perception that language spaces have imaginary boundaries that are not
permeable.
Mma raises an intriguing point of how having one language, or parents who share
the same language, simplifies mother-tongue identity for their children “because our
parents were both speaking one language (hm) so it was easy ubuyazi ba kuthwa
ungumntwana wakulo tatakho [you would know that it is said that you belong to your
dad’s family]” (Extract 5D). This implies that multilingualism presents a complexity of
language identity for that individual. In my view the child, in this case, who comes
from a language diverse background is left with very little room to assume a
language identity, where monoglossia is the norm. They can either use the
71
patriarchal system, where it is considered the norm to take up paternal identity or
choose just one language from their language repertoire, as it is assumed that a
person has one mother tongue. Perhaps it is for this very reason that the notion of
‘mother tongue’ is problematized (Makoni & Meinoff, 2003; McKinney, 2017: 41;
Mills, 2004:161; Sebba, 2000; Winkler, 1997). A different use of terminology could be
useful in eliminating some of these identity complexities.
Similarly to Mma’s observation of complexity for associating oneself with a particular
language if your parents’ heritage languages differ, in a previous study I made the
same observation about
two multilingual parents; the mother whose parents’
heritage languages’ were the same, tshiVenda, had no difficulty claiming tshiVenda
language identity (Molate, 2016: 28). For the other adult in the study, however, both
the question and notion of mother-tongue identity were rejected. Having come from a
polygamous household with a variety of home languages, he opted for not claiming
heritage language identity; rather, he chose to associate himself with English, a
language that he saw as offering upward social mobility. This was also the language
he had now chosen for his young daughter and household. Thus, from the case
studies of the Ngxanga and my previous study (Molate, 2016), I would argue that the
notion of ‘mother tongue’ identity assumes a monolingual family expereince and this
is a monoglossic concept.
5.4.2 Language Identity - Child’s Perspective
Asking Viwe about her home language was challening. Considering that she is a
rather reserved child who was a few days shy of being six years, it was unsurprising
to hear short responses. Realising these dynamics, I became very animated in my
gestures to try to get her to relax and to use her hands to respond if she did not wish
to use her words. Prior to the question in the first turn, we had just asked her to
choose which language she preferred being interviewed in. isiXhosa, English and
Setswana were the three languages she could choose from; she chose English.
___________________________________________________________________
Extract 5E:
Babalwa
Okay fine I’m happy to use English, what’s your home language?
Viwe
,, my language
Babalwa
Yes what’s your language? What’s Viwe’s language?
72
Viwe
Babalwa
Viwe
Babalwa
Tata
Viwe
Mma
Tata
Babalwa
(silence)
Do you want to think about it?
,, I don’t know
Okay, do you wanna tell me another day?
Do you know what a language is?
,, mh-m
//(laughs)//
//(laughs)//
She knows she’s just chosen she wants English but it’s fine you
don’t have to tell me but you can think about it and maybe tell can I tell
you what my uhm ohm language is?,, I’ve got three,, Xhosa,, English
and a little bit of Tswana,, and you?
Viwe
A little bit
Babalwa
A little bit of?
Viwe
Of of Tswana
Babalwa
A little bit of Tswana and?
Viwe
And Xhosa
Babalwa
How much is the Xhosa is it this big (stretching arms wide), this big
(drawing hands closer) or this big (putting cupped hands together)!?
Viwe
(laughs) this big (drawing hands closer)
Babalwa
Oh this big, uh how much is the English?
Viwe
This big (starts off with hands drawn closer then slowly stretches wide)
Babalwa
Sma- is it huge!
Viwe
(laughs)
Babalwa
Sho that’s wide, let me guess Tswana I think it’s in the middle
(screeching sound)
Babalwa
Okay this is Tswana like this (small), is that small right and where is the
Xhosa, is it inside (less than Setwana) or outside (more than Setswana)
Viwe
Outside (more than Setswana)
Babalwa
Okay this is the Tswana (small) and this is the Xhosa (medium) where
is the English? Inside (small) or out out out (large)
Viwe
(giggles)
Babalwa
Good job you did so well (laughs)
Mma
(laughs)
___________________________________________________________________
Considering Viwe’s language practices in both family-self recorded interactions and
my observation, it came as no surprise that Viwe chose to be interviewd in English. It
is the language she produces more than any of the two other languages in her
home. What I could not necessarily deduce was what she would choose as her
home language. Both parents had already identified their respective heritage
languages as their home languages, while Bontle claimed isXhosa and Setswana as
hers. The hesitation in giving a response shows Viwe’s mindfulness about the
concept of home language. But, it also reveals confusion about which language to
chose and whether or not she could choose all of them. When I ask her whether she
73
wants to think about it she oddly answers “,, I don’t” which leads her father to
question her sense of knowledge about what a language is. By virtue of being able to
indicate what language she wants to be asked questions in, it could be argued that
Viwe does know what a language is. Her response “,, mh-m” may be her way of
escaping the conversation of having to choose ‘a language’ and perhaps the
pressure of everyone having chosen different languages without her knowledge of
what criteria she is expected to use to distinguish what qualifies any of the home
languages as ‘a’ home language - Her father chose isiXhosa; her mother Setswana;
and Bontle chose both. I would argue thus, that the idea of having to chose a single
language is very complex for a child who experiences more than one language at
home and who also sees different family members choosing different languages for
reasons unkown to her.
The question she could answer with more ease, but requiring verbal prompting, is
the measure of the three languages in her repertoire. Mainly following the signs and
gestures I made, Viwe is able to quantify the levels of each language in her
repertoire using gesture to indicate small, medium and large. Ultimately what
becomes evident is her repertoire is largely occupied by English, followed by
isXhosa and Setswana – in descending order. This indicates that Viwe is using the
visible ‘productive’ use of language as an indicator to measure what language has
the most or least space in her repertoire. If this is so, it would be consistent with my
observation that Viwe mainly speaks English?
5.5 English Hegemony
In this section, I demonstrate the hegemony of English through exploring the
language practices and ideologies that exist in Viwe’s school, analysing the school
language policy as well as exposing the tacit complicit role the national language
policy plays in influencing schools and homes
5.5.1 School Language Practices and Ideologies
In the sections above, I have given evidence and provided an analysis of the
Ngxangas’ language background, embedded language ideologies and notable
language practices. They are a multilingual family, whose expressed language
74
identities are influenced by their language backgrounds and possibly the
amalgamation of language experience between a Xhosa father, Tswana mother and
children who dip in and out of various languages but largely communicate in English.
The extracts I have drawn from so far show flexible language use in this family,
despite the strong prominence of English in the children’s repertoire, particularly in
Viwe. The image below that is on display at the entrance door of the Grade R gives a
glimpse of the language ideologies of the school in the way the languages have
been listed.
Image 5.1: ‘Door poster’ – Implicit language hierachy
With English being the language that the learners say ‘thank you’ in at school, and
sign language to have shown prominence in the weeks I spent at the school, the
teacher reports to have worked together with the learners and facilitators to make a
list of the
ways to say thank you in different languages across the globe. This
initiative foregrounds recognition of linguistic diversity and shows the aspiration of
the school to being more language inclusive. What is back grounded is the language
ideologies that are communicated subtly by this poster. Firstly, there is an implicit
language hierarchy that positions English at the top, and thus as the default
language, from which other languages are translated. Although it is not clear whether
this poster was the original draft that the teacher wrote when collaborating with her
colleagues and the grade R learners, I would argue that writing English first on the
list shows the position and status English occupies in the school. It is also not
75
surprising that English would be positioned in this way, considering the Grade R
teacher’s heritage and home language is English, the majority of children and
parents whom this poster is intended for are English home language speakers and
the schools LOLT is English.
5.5.2 School Language Policy – Anglonormative Socialisation
Although Viwe’s Grade R pre-school, Lily Flower, and the primary school they feed
into do not have a language policy document, they do have a brief section within the
school’s admission policy that makes a stipulation about their stance on language.
The admission policy is a document that is open to public viewing as it is available
on the school’s website. Having looked at other former ‘Model C’ school’s admission
policies (see appendix C), I noted that many express the same sentiments in their
language policy as Lily Flower. Below is an excerpt from Lily Flower’s admission
policy (see appendix B), which I scrutinise:
“[XX School] is a single medium Grade R and the language of instruction is English.
Accordingly, pupils admitted to [xx] will need to be sufficiently proficient in English so
as not to prejudice their academic progress.”
Essentially, what this excerpt reveals is an ideological positioning the school takes
concerning language; the role and value of English in the school; their stance on
language inclusivity; as well as knowledge and implicit beliefs they hold about
language and literacy. By declaring that they are a ‘single medium’ school where
English is LOLT, Lily Flower positions themselves as operating from a monolingual
bias and anglonormative paradigm. In essence, what they postulate is that they
value monolingualism and privilege English above other official South African
languages. Indeed, the exclusivity and hegemony of English is evident in the same
school admission policy. This is expressed in their ironic statement about the details
of their commitment and aspirations for their Grade R learners:
“Lily Flower is committed to providing an environment of excellence in early
childhood development in its Grade R classes. It is the intention of Lily Flower to
provide a racially, culturally and socioeconomically diverse environment”. (Lily
Flower Admission Policy)
76
The irony here is that, while they aspire to provide a ‘racially’ and ‘culturally’ diverse
environment for the learners, they miss the connection between race, culture and
language diversity. That is to say, no consideration is made of the reality that racial
and cultural diversity come with language diversity - multilingualism. Thus, the
school’s embracing of diversity is limited to racial, culture and socioeconomic status
(if at all) and takes no consideration or aspiration for language inclusivity that comes
with racial and cultural diversity of their prospective learners.
Expressing an expectation for a learner to have “sufficient proficiency” prior to
commencing Grade R (the learner would be 4-5 years at the time of the interview
and 5-6 years old by the time they start Grade R) suggests that there is a standard of
English proficiency that the prospective learners have to match up to. Because there
are no details provided about this proficiency or what the school uses as a measure
in the school admission policy statement, I would imagine that a learner’s proficiency
in English is perhaps determined at the learner and parents’ interview. With such a
prescriptive language requirement, in a country where the majority of learners are
non-English home language speakers, the burning question would be what kind of
learner is idealised by this policy and whom does it include? In my evaluation of this
extract, I would argue that an English Home Language (HL) speaker is the imagined
learner. Further, if the learner is black and is not an exclusive English HL speaker,
they must be of a middle-class socio-economic status; which is likely to have English
as one of their home languages; who are also likely to have better access to
resources that will give them access to sufficient English proficiency. Thus, the
expectation that the learner must have ‘sufficient proficiency’ for admission further
exposes their anglonomative bias. It also gives the impression that the school
anglicises the children by socialising them into a higher English proficiency; both
parents and children are being socialised into anglonormativity because only English
is expected at school while multilingual families’ other linguistic resources are
neglected. Effectively, what the school communicates are their rules for being part of
the Lily Flower school community; that “sufficient” English proficiency gives you
access to the community and that once you are in the community your competence
in English will be valued.
The very policy of the school and many other schools in the region (see appendix C)
demonstrates an anglonormative (Christie & McKinney, 2017) and assimilationist
77
(Soudien, 2004) ethos as crucial for academic success. I would also add that these
schools’ policies are inconsistent with the national language plan, and the policy
document
itself
which
are
open
to
wide
interpretation
against
inclusive
multilingualism, perpetuate language injustices and inequalities in schooling, even
among learners from the same socio-economic class. It is children from the Black
middleclass families that are prejudiced by such policies and practices. If they are to
swim, not sink, they are to assimilate to the language practices of the schools, which
I identify as White English-speaking and middleclass. Although Buckley (2005: 172)
argues that schools are sites for middle class aspirations, I extend the argument to
being ‘the representation of the language of the White middleclass aspirations’ that
are being advanced, owing to the ‘monolingual habitus’ that is being maintained by
the middle class and ex-Model C schools (Alexander, 2005:4).
In the interview with the teacher, there was mention of additional languages that
learners get exposed to in their Grade R year: isiXhosa, Afrikaans and sign
language. The teacher expressed their keen interest in including other languages in
the two Grade R classrooms. One of the ways they do that is offering language
lessons in isiXhosa and Afrikaans (Western Cape official languages) by making use
of their one teacher who can speak Afrikaans and their classroom assistant (also a
Cleaning Operative) whose home language is isiXhosa. Another way is classroom
activities which gave birth to the production of the poster in extract 4D2 already
analysed above. Thus, in consideration of the multilingual poster and the school’s
language policy, I argue that the way isiXhosa is being introduced to the learners
adds to the valorising of English while isiXhosa and any additional languages get
relegated to an inferior status. Unfortunately, the dominance of English is one of the
consequences of colonial encounter that have created contexts which are imposed
on a community through schooling (Riley, 2011: 503). The school, thus, becomes a
site for English valorisation and devaluing of African Languages.I would also argue
thus, that Viwe’s language repertoire is indicative of the English hegemony that
reigns in her school, which she then carries to her home space. I would also argue
thus, that Viwe’s language repertoire is indicative of the English hegemony that
reigns in her school, which she then carries to her home space.
78
5.6 Conclusion
Owing to Viwe’s young age, there is very little expressed input from her towards the
family language policy. What is apparent is that both the parents and the school
have an idea of what languages they wish to socialise children into. On the one
hand, the parents want their children to speak their heritage languages for identity
reasons. They also want them to speak English so that they can ‘fit in’ with their
peers and to be successful learners. On the other hand, the school wants to maintain
the status quo of English being LOLT. They do this by keeping their exclusive
language policy that appeals to parents who want well-resourced schools and
access to English, with an expectation that the child must come with some level of
proficiency in order to access learning.
79
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
The main aim of this research was to generate knowledge about the lived language
experiences of a young child in a Black multilingual family, who attends an English
medium ex-Model C school. I focused on investigating the language histories,
language ideologies and practices of the family members, and determining the
young child’s experience in participating in language socialisation at home. Another
focus was to make language connections between the home and the school
domains through examining family language policy and school language policy as
well as language practices in both domains. Lastly, I explored the limitations of the
notion of ‘mother-tongue’ and the complexities of home language identity for a child
who experiences multilingualism at home but English monolingualism at school.
6.2 Findings
The findings reveal that Viwe is an emergent multilingual who produces English but
participates meaningfully in conversation with her family who translanguage using
Setswana, isiXhosa and English. Owing to their language histories, the parents use
their Xhosa and Tswana ethnicities as markers of their language identities. Ironically,
even though their language biographies reveal that they grew up bilingual at
minimum, they continue to claim a monolingual identity. Moreover, despite their
evolved and expanded language repertoires and current language practices that
involve using three languages at home, they continue to claim ethnic monolingual
identity rather than multilingualism. Their language ideologies extend to their beliefs
and understanding of their children’s language identities. Although they want the
children to speak their heritage languages, they do so for identity reasons.
Furthermore, they show a preference for a patriarchal rather than a matriarchal
identity for their children. This is evident in their assignment of a Xhosa language
identity for their children.
Seemingly, their past and current encounters with languages form the basis of their
beliefs about their heritage languages and English in schooling. Because of these
encounters and the high premium they place on education, Viwe’s parents want their
children to speak English so that they can ‘fit in’ with their peers and to access
80
learning successfully. Thus, they relegate the learning of their heritage languages to
the home, showing a keenness to take responsibility of teaching heritage languages
while absolving the school of this responsibility. Their view enables the schools’
status quo of anglonormativity to go unchallenged. Thus, their Grade R child
experiences African languages as identity markers and as languages reserved for
home, and English as a valuable language resource that gives access to learning.
The notion of a single language identity remains complex for a child who is expected
to be multilingual at home but monolingual at school. I argue that multilingual homes
have a challenge of rethinking and considering the concept of language identity as
fluid and as evolving as are their linguistic repertoires and language practices.
Moreover, schools have a challenge of transforming their school policies and
language practices to be reflective of the multilingual repertoires of children rather
than reinforcing the monolingual myth.
6.3 Limitations
Time constraints and the scope of a Masters dissertation is one of the biggest
limitations for this study. The length of fieldwork limited my opportunities to record a
variety of naturally occurring interactions. Added time to observe the family routines
during school holidays when the children spent more time at home may have
expanded my insight into the language socialisation processes in the home domain.
Further, relying on the family to self-record their interactions meant that I did not
always get the recording of the events we agreed to – the family had very little time
to record themselves due to spending longer hours of their days at work and at
school. Some of the audio that they recorded could not be used due to poor sound
quality. Another limitation was working on a single case study.
6.4 Implications
It is unsurprising that Viwe speaks English to her family despite the parents’
language aspirations and language strategies of exposing her to Setswana and
isiXhosa at home and during holidays. English remains the more widely used
language both at home and school. The reality of Viwe’s suburban life and spending
long hours at school means that English has more influence on her linguistic
repertoire. This is not to say that school is the only place that influences the Ngxanga
family’s languanging at home. Both parents work in English dominant work
81
environments, children’s cartoons I observed on television in the home were all in
English, and all the story books I found in Viwe’s room were in English. But because
Viwe spends most of her day at school, I would still maintain that school has more of
an influence on Viwe’s language repertoire. Furthermore, her interest in English
animation and story books may be perpetuated by the hegemonic status that English
enjoys. Despite the stated intentions to promote multilingualism in schools and
society, the national language policy also plays a role in shaping the language
climate of schools.
The problem with conceptualisation of language does not begin with schools and
their largely monolingual language policies. It begins with the broader national
language policy, LIEP, from which the schools take directive. The call here therefore
would be for teachers and schools to have more inclusive criteria in their recognition
and assessment of language; criteria that considers that children do not only have
one language identity – they may have a variety of family languages that are used
simultaneously and interchangeably.
6.5 Direction for Future Research
My study only focused on the language practices of a Black middle-class family, a
constituency which is far less than the majority of children from Black working-class
families in South African state schools. These are children who have less exposure
to English than children who go to ex-Model C schools – but have to contend with an
English LOLT from the fourth grade onwards. To this end, I would suggest a
longitudinal ethnographic study that investigates multiple cases studies of
marginalised multilingual families’ language and literacy socialisation practices with
children who attend state schools.
82
REFERENCES
Alexander, N. (2005). Language, Class and Power in Post-Apartheid South Africa.
Harold Wolpe Trust on Dialogue Event. Unpublished Paper. [Accessed online: 15
June
2018
at
http://wolpetrust.org.za./dialogue2005/CT102005alexander_transcript.pdf].
Banda, F. (2009). Critical Perspectives on Language Planning and Policy in Africa:
Accounting for the Notion of Multilingualism. Linguistics Plus. 38: 1-11.
Blackledge, A & Creese, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in
complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of
Pragmatics. 43: 1196 – 1208.
Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective.
Continuum: 103-115.
Blommaert, J. & Backus, A. (2013). ‘Superdiverse Repertoires and the Individual.
Current Challenges for Educational Studies’. In I. de Saint-Georges and J. J. Webber
(Eds). Multilingualism and Multimodality. Sense: 11-32.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Why we are as good or bad as our language. Guardian.
October 21.
Buckley, B. (2005/2003). Children’s Communication Skills from Birth to Five Years.
New York: Routledge.
Busch, B. (2012). The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics. 33(5),
503-523.
Ceikaite, A. Kheirkhah, M. (2015). Language Maintenance in a Multilingual Family:
Informal Heritage Language Lessons in Parent – Child Interactions. Journal of crosscultural and interlanguage communication, Vol 34 (3): 319 – 346.
83
Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.
Cambridge University Press. 33: 3-18.
Christie, P. & McKinney, C. (2017). Decoloniality and "Model C" schools: Ethos,
language and the protests of 2016. Education as Change. 21(3): 1-21
Copland, F. & Creese, A. 2015. Linguistic Ethnography: Collecting, Analysing and
Presenting Data. London: Sage.
Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. (Eds.). (2006). The Discourse Reader. 2nd edition.
London: New York: Routledge.
Cresswell, J. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Traditions. London: Sage. Chapters 3 & 4.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual
Classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.10: 221–240.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2018). Family Language Policy. In James W. Tollefson and
Miguel Pérez-Milans (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning.
420-441.
De Klerk, G. (2002). Mother Tongue Education in South Africa: The Weight of
History. International Journal of Sociology of Language. 154: 29-46.
Department of Education. (1997). Language in Education Policy. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Dyers, C. (2008). ‘Truncated Multilingualism or Language Shift? An Examination of
Language Use in Intimate Domains in a New Non-racial Working class Township in
South Africa’. Journal of Multilingualism and Multicultural Development, Vol 29 (2):
110 – 126.
84
Erdei, I. (2010). The Language Socialisation of the Children Living in Multilingual
Environment. University of Szeged (PhD Thesis).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). ‘Case Study’. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 301 – 316.
Fogle, L., King, K. A, & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family Language Policy. Language
and Linguistics Compass. 2(5): 907-922.
Fogle, L. W. & King, K. A., & (2013). Family language policy and bilingual parenting.
Language Teaching. 46(21), 172-194.
Garcia, O. (2009). Emergent Bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a Name? TESOL
Quarterly. 43(2): 322-326.
Gregory, E & Ruby, M. (2011). The ‘insider/outsider’ dilemma of ethnography:
Working with young children and their families in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of
Early Childhood. 9 (2): 162-174.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.
London: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (2009). The Speech Community. In A. Duranti (Ed). Linguistic
Anthropology: A Reader. 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 66-73.
Guzula, X., McKinney, C. & Tyler, R. (2016). Language-for-learning: Legitimising
Translanguaging and Multimodal Practices in Third Spaces. Southern African
Linguistic and Applied Language Studies. 34(3): 211-226.
He, A. W. (2011). Heritage Language Socialisation. In A. Duranti, E, Ochs & B.B.
Schieffelin (Eds). The Handbook of Language Socialisation. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell. 587-609.,
85
Heath, S.B. (1982). ‘What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrating Skill at Home and
School’. Language in Society. Cambridge University Press. 11 (1), 49-76.
Heugh, K. (2002). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South
Africa: Laying bare the myths. Perspectives in Education. 20(1), 171-196.
Herkenrath, A. (2011). Receptive Multilingualism in Immigrant Constellation:
Examples from Turkish-German Children’s language. International Journal of
Biligualism. 16 (3): 287-314.
Johnstone, B. & Marcellino, W. (2010). Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of
Communication. The Sage Book of Sociolinguistics. Ed. R Wodak, B. Johnstone,
and P. Kerswill. London: Sage.
Kamwangamalu, N. K. (2003). Social Change and Language Shift: South Africa.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol 23: 222 – 242.
Makoe, P. (2014). Constructing Identities in a Linguistically Diverse Learning
Context. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism. 17(6): 654-667.
Makoe, P. and McKinney, C. (2014). Linguistic ideologies in multilingual South
African suburban schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.
35(7), 658 – 673.
Maseko, P. & Vale, P. (2016). The Struggles over African Languages. Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education. 15(1): 79-93.
McAlpine, L. (2016). Why might you use narrative methodology? A story about
narrative. Oxford University. 4(1): 32-57.
McKinney, C. (2010) Schooling in Black and White: Assimilationist Discourses and
Subversive Identity Performances in a Desegregated South African Girls’ School.
Race Ethnicity and Education. 13(2): 191-207.
86
McKinney, C. (2017). Language and Power in Post-Colonial Schooling: Ideologies in
Practice. New York & London: Routledge. (Chapter 1: What Counts as Language?).
McKinney, C. & Guzula, X. 2016. How schools use language to exclude children
https://theconversation.com/how-schools-use-language-as-a-way-to-excludechildren-64900
Merriam-Webster. (2009). Merriam Webster’s Elementary Dictionary. Springfield,
MA: Merriam Webster.
Mesthrie, R. (2008). Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language. In B. Spolsky and
F. M. Hult (Eds). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (2009). Introducing
Sociolinguistics. 2nd Edition. Edinburg University Press.
Mills, J. (2004). Mothers & Mother Tongue: Perspectives on Self-Construction by
Mothers of Pakistani Heritage. In A. Blackledge & A. Pavlenko. (Eds). Negotiating
Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Mkhize, D. N. (2016). Resources, Mediators, and Identities: Home Literacy Practices
of Rural Bilingual Children. South African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.
34(1): 43-55.
Molate, B. (2016). ‘Language Socialisation Practices and Language Ideologies of a
multilingual household with Pre-Grade R Children. University of Cape Town (Honors
Thesis).
Morgan, B. & Norton, B. (2013). Poststructuralism. The Encyclopaedia of Applied
Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 1-6.
87
Ndlangamandla, S. C. (2010). (Unofficial) Multilingualism in Desegregated Schools:
Learners’ Use of and Views towards African Languages. Southern Africa Linguistics
and Applied Language Studies. 28(1): 61-73.
Nolan, A. & Raban, B. (2015). Theories into Practice: Understanding and Rethinking
Our Work with Young Children. Australia: Teaching Solutions. (Chapter 6: Poststructuralist Theorists and Practical Implications).
Nongogo, N. (2007). ‘Mina ‘Ngumzulu Phaqa’: Language Identity among Multilingual
Grade 9 Learners at a Private Desegregated High School in South Africa. English
Academy Review. 24(2): 42-54.
Norton, B. (2010). Language and Identity. In N. Hornberger and S. McKay (Eds).
Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ochs, E & Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). The Theory of Language Socialisation. In A.
Duranti, E, Ochs & B.B. Schieffelin (Eds). The Handbook of Language Socialisation.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 1-21.
Ochs, E. & Scheiffelin, B. B. (1986). Language Socialisation. Annual Review
Anthropology. 15: 163-191.
Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Scheiffelin & E. Ochs (Eds). Language
Socialisation across Cultures. 1-9. London: Cambridge University Press.
Pluddeman, P. (2015). Unlocking the grid: language in education policy realisation in
post-apartheid South Africa. Language and Education. 29(3), 186 – 199.
Quayle, M. & Verwey, C. (2012). Whiteness, Racism, and Afrikaner Identity in PostApartheid South Africa. Oxford University Press. 111(445): 551-575.
Rampton, B. (1990). Displacing the ‘Native Speaker’: Expertise, Affiliation and
Inheritance.
88
Rehbein, J., ten Thije, J. D. & Verschik, A. (2011). Lingua receptiva (LaRa) –
Remarks on the Quintessence of Receptive Multilingualism. International Journal of
Bilingualism 16(3) 248–264.
Reynolds, R. (2013). Shifting Family Bilingualism: Two South African Case Studies.
University of Cape Town (Masters Dissertation).
Riley, K. C. (2012). Language Socialisation & Language Ideologies. In A, Duranti, E,
Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds). The Handbook of Language Socialisation. 1st Ed.
227-246. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
RSA (Republic of South Africa) (1996a). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Pretoria: Government Printer.
Schutz, R. (2007). Language Acquisition – Language Learning. Retrieved 9 January
2009, from http://www.sk.com.br/sk-laxll.html
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating
Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific,
Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. English Language Teaching. 5 (9): 916.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide
diversity and human rights? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Soudien, C. (2004). Constituting the class. In L. Chisholm (Ed.). Education and
social change in South Africa: 89 – 114. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Soudien, C. (2010). The Construction of Privilege: Integration in Former White
Schools in South Africa. Journal of Social Issues. 66(2): 352-366.
89
Sterponi, L. (2012). Literacy Socialisation. In A, Duranti, E, Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin
(Eds). The Handbook of Language Socialisation. 1st Ed. 227-246. Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Tshotsho, B. P. (2013). Mother Tongue Debate and Language Policy in South Africa.
International Journals of Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(13): 39-44.
Van Mensel, L. (2018). ‘Quiere koffie?’ The multilingual familylect of transcultural
families. International Journal of Multilingualism. 15(3): 233-248.
Vandrick, S. (2014). The Role of Social Class in Education. Journal of Language
and Identity. 13 (2); 89-91.
Wolff, H. E. (2000). Pre-school child multilingualism and its educational implications
in the African context. Cape Town: PRAESA. (Occasional Papers, 4).
90
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Language Portraits
Appendix B: Lily Flower* School Admissions Policy
Appendix C: Model C Schools’ Language Policies Excerpts
Appendix D: School Enrolment Form
Appendix E: Ethics Approval Letter
Appendix F: Consent Forms
Appendix G: Interviews Questions