Using historical data to explain language attitudes: A South African case study

During the Dutch period of colonisation, for L1-African language speakers, there was little or no opportunity for individual social mobility, and it can be reasonably assumed that members attempted various forms of social creativity in order to ensure positive social identity. Given, however, the general shifts towards Dutch or Afrikaans (depending on the period under consideration) it seems unlikely that the focus of these attempts was the African languages. Instead it would appear that members of these minority-groups either adopted other foci of social comparison or acquired a particular variety of Dutch/Afrikaans that received their integrative attachments. The high-status varieties of Dutch/Afrikaans, in turn, were viewed positively in an instrumental light. Here we have the roots of the concerns subsumed under Factor 2, i.e. instrumental attachment to a colonial language. With the advent of British colonialism some members of the African population that individual social mobility might be feasible. A black middle-class was thereby established, the members of which engaged in a shift of social identity, with its concomitant positive attitudes towards English (both on an instrumental and integrative level) and negative attitudes towards the indigenous languages. On discovery, however, that the desired integration into the majority group could not be achieved, the acquisition of English was then viewed in a purely instrumental light and a re-identification with the African languages took place. English was now seen not as an instrument of individual social mobility, but rather as a tool for social competition. This relates to some of the concerns subsumed under Factor 2, i.e. English as language of unity, as well as Factor 3, which relates in part to an integrative attachment to the African languages. With the introduction of Apartheid and Bantu education, the integrative attachment to the L1 began to actualise itself into concerns relating to the essential equality of all languages and the need for languages and their speakers to be treated in accordance (Factor 3). This is, for one, reflected in the wording of the Freedom Charter. At the same time, however, the implementation of Bantu Education strengthened the perception of English as language of group-mobility (Factor 2); in addition, it led to a focus on the practical issues relating to the use of languages in a particular domain, in this case education (Factor 1). By the time of the New South Africa, however, English was no longer needed to the same degree as a mechanism for social competition with the majority group; a fact which led, no doubt, to an added concern for the status of the African languages (Factor 3); a concern which materialised into various legal and policy provisions. The experience of Bantu education as a divisive force and the associations created between the use of the L1 and the goals of Bantu education, have however been instrumental in producing a residual perception of English as a language of unity and the use of the mother tongues (in general and in the domain of education) as a possible source of division. Given the fact, however, that individual social mobility is so much easier than it was during the colonial period, the question remains to be asked why attitudes towards English appear to be remaining on the instrumental level, i.e. why there appears to be no act of re-identification and why there still appears to be a degree of instrumental attachment towards the African languages. The most plausible analysis, is that the caste system prevalent under the Apartheid system has been replaced with a different power relation, this time based on social class: English has become the language of the middle-class and social mobility involves the acquisition of and identification with some variety of this language. Strong integrative attachment towards the L1 is to some degree becoming the province of the lower-classes and given the limited access to social mobility that currently characterises South African society it is therefore hardly surprising that some degree of allegiance towards the L1 is still prevalent. With respect to the use of languages as LOLT at Unisa and in education in general, it seems obvious enough that domain-specific considerations (primarily of utility and performance) still play a role in the formation of attitudes towards the use of these languages in this domain. When these domain-specific considerations are brought into combination, however, with the more general concerns subsumed under Factors 2 and 3, an attitudinal complex of some complexity and even ambiguity is formed.