Mother tongue education in official minority languages of Zimbabwe: a language management critique
| dc.contributor.advisor | Du Plessis, Theodorus | |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Mwaniki, Munene | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ndlovu, Eventhough | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-09-10T07:27:37Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-09-10T07:27:37Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2013-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013-02 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2013-02 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: In January 2002, the government of Zimbabwe officially declared six official minority languages, namely, Kalanga, Nambya, Shangani, Sotho, Tonga and Venda as languages of instruction and subjects in primary schools in the areas where they are spoken as mother tongues. The government had planned for these languages to be introduced to a grade per year until they could be taught at grade 7 level by 2005 (Secretary’s Circular Number 1 of 2002). Three of these languages (Venda, Tonga and Kalanga) under the auspices of the Venda, Tonga and Kalanga Association (VETOKA) were pioneers in advocating and lobbying for the introduction of marginalised local languages in education in the early 1980s. However, Kalanga and Venda have remained behind, despite having been the pioneers of this initiative. Long after 2005, only Tonga emerged as the first language to be examined in grade 7 in 2011. In current studies in language planning, policy and management, there have been strong suggestions that bottom-up approaches may be more successful than top-down approaches. Bottom-up approaches are said to be the most promising in terms of community commitment and sustainability (Alexander, 1992; Baldauf, 1994; 2005; 2008; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Webb, 2002; 2009; 2010; Mwaniki, 2004; 2010b; Benson, 2005; Trudell, 2006; Lewis and Trudell, 2008; Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008; Baldauf, Li & Zhao, 2008; Hatoss, 2008). The delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development and success story of Tonga raises the questions: “Why this delay? Why was Tonga first?” This study therefore examines the possible causes for the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development and the conditions and factors that led to the success story of Tonga. It is expected that an understanding of these causes could help explain the delay in the implementation of the other three languages and similar initiatives elsewhere. It is also hoped that this study will enhance our understanding of the dynamics of bottom-up approaches to language planning. In evaluating and examining the implementation of the 2002 policy development and conditions and factors that led to the success story of Tonga, I adopted the Language Management Approach (LMA) proposed by Mwaniki (2004). The LMA is used alongside Kaplan & Baldauf’s (1997; 2003) seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation; the ethnolinguistic vitality model advanced by Giles, Bourhis & Taylor (1977) as well as Webb’s (2010) factors and conditions that determine the success and failure of bottom-up and top-down policies. These three frameworks interrelate and overlap with one another, and also with some of the language management variables, methodologies and strategies. It emerged that the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development was due to the failure to secure and deploy the language management variables, methodologies and strategies at an optimal level. The failure to timeously develop the seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation also accounts for the delay. On the one hand, the Tonga group owes its success to the deployment of some of the language management variables, methodologies and strategies and the development of some of the seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation. The ethnolinguistic vitality of the three language groups in question and the conditions and factors that determine the success or failure of bottom-up and top-down policies also contributed to the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development. The success story of Tonga is as a result of the Tonga group’s ethnolinguistic vitality and some of the conditions and factors that determine the success and failure of bottom-up and top-down policies. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Die Zimbabwiese regering het in Januarie 2002 amptelik ses minderheidstale, naamlik Kalanga, Nambya, Shangani, Sotho, Tonga en Venda, verklaar as onderrigtale en vakke in laerskole en gebiede waar hulle as moedertale gebesig word. Die regering was van plan om hierdie tale teen een graad per jaar in te faseer sodat hulle teen 2005 (Secretary’s Circular Number 1 of 2002) tot op Graad 7-vlak onderrig kon word. Drie van hierdie tale (Venda, Tonga en Kalanga) was onder beskerming van die Venda, Tonga and Kalanga Association (VETOKA) baanbrekers wat aan die begin van die 1980’s vir die ingebruikneming van gemarginaliseerde plaaslike tale in onderrig voorspraak gemaak en invloed gewerf het. Kalanga en Venda het egter agterweë gebly ten spyte van die feit dat hulle die baanbrekers vir hierdie inisiatief was. Lank na 2005 het slegs Tonga na vore getree as die eerste taal waarin eksamens in 2011 in Graad 7 afgelê is. In huidige studies in taalbeplanning, -beleid en -bestuur is daar grondige aanduidings dat opwaartse benaderings dalk suksesvoller as afwaartse benaderings is. Opwaartse benaderings word as meer belowend beskou wat samelewingsbetrokkenheid en volhoubaarheid betref (Alexander, 1992; Baldauf, 1994; 2005; 2008; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Webb, 2002; 2009; 2010; Mwaniki, 2004; 2010b; Benson, 2005; Trudell, 2006; Lewis & Trudell, 2008; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; Baldauf, Li & Zhao, 2008; Hatoss, 2008). Die vertraging in die implementering van 2002 se beleidsontwikkeling en Tonga se suksesverhaal opper die vrae: “Waarom hierdie vertraging? Waarom was Tonga eerste?” 639 Hierdie studie ondersoek daarom die moontlike oorsake vir die vertraging in die implementering van 2002 se beleidsontwikkeling en die omstandighede en faktore wat tot die Tonga-suksesverhaal bygedra het. Die verwagting is dat insig in hierdie oorsake die vertraging in die implementering van die drie ander tale en soortgelyke inisiatiewe elders kan help verduidelik. Die hoop word ook uitgespreek dat hierdie studie insig in die opwaartse benaderingsdinamika in taalbeplanning sal versterk. Ten einde die implementering van 2002 se beleidsontwikkeling en omstandighede, asook faktore wat tot die Tonga-suksesverhaal bygedra het, te beoordeel en te bestudeer, het ek die Taalbestuursbenadering soos voorgestel deur Mwaniki (2004), gebruik. Die Taalbestuursbenadering word saam met Kaplan en Baldauf (1997; 2003) se sewe areas van beleidsontwikkeling vir taal-in-onderrig beleidsimplementering gebruik. Die etnolinguistiese lewensvatbaarheidsmodel, soos voorgestel deur Giles, Bourhis en Taylor (1977), asook Webb (2010) se faktore en omstandighede wat die sukses en mislukking van opwaartse – en afwaartse beleide bepaal, word ook gebruik. Hierdie drie raamwerke staan in verband met mekaar en oorvleuel, ook met van die ander taalbestuurveranderlikes, metodologieë en strategieë. Dit het aan die lig gekom dat die vertraging in die implementering van 2002 se beleidsontwikkeling te wyte is aan die feit dat die taalbestuurveranderlikes, metodologieë en strategieë nie optimaal vasgelê en ontplooi is nie. Die sewe areas van beleidsontwikkeling vir beleidsimplementering in taal-in-onderrig, wat nie betyds geïmplementeer is nie, het ook tot die vertraging bygedra. Aan die een kant is die Tonga-groep se sukses te danke aan die ontplooiing van sommige taalbestuurveranderlikes, metodologieë en strategieë asook etlike van die sewe areas van beleidsontwikkeling vir beleidsimplementering in taal-in-onderrig. Die etnolinguistiese lewensvatbaarheid van die drie taalgroepe wat ter sprake is en die omstandighede en faktore wat die sukses en mislukking van opwaartse en afwaartse beleid het ook tot die vertraging in die implementering van 2002 se beleidsontwikkeling bygedra. Die Tonga-suksesverhaal kan toegeskryf word aan die 640 Tonga-groep se etnolinguistiese lewensvatbaarheid en ʼn aantal omstandighede en faktore wat die sukses en mislukking van opwaartse en afwaartse beleid bepaal. | af |
| dc.description.sponsorship | DAAD/ANSTI | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1211 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language-in-education policy | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language-in-education planning | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language management | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language management approach | en_US |
| dc.subject | Mother tongue education | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Mother tongue based multilingual education | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Bottom-up approaches | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Top-down approaches | en_US |
| dc.subject | Thesis (Ph.D. (Linguistics and Language Practice))--University of the Free State, 2013 | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Native language and education -- Zimbabwe | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language policy -- Zimbabwe | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language planning -- Zimbabwe | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Mother tongue education in official minority languages of Zimbabwe: a language management critique | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_ZA |