Coverage of Issues Related to Language, in Particular Language Rights and Language Policy, in the South African Print media/Mediadekking in Die Suid-Afrikaanse Gedrukte Media Oor Taalverwante Onderwerpe, in Besonder Taalregte En Taalbeleidskwessies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The print media are both important and reliable barometers for determining the feelings and attitudes of the reading public. This information, compiled in an annual report to PanSALB, may assist in making various groups aware of their language rights and could help to cultivate a proactive culture of language rights. This, in turn, could contribute towards the transformation of out society. It could also serve as deterrent to linguistic discrimination. In order to determine the validity of the assumptions represented in the print media, language issue coverage in the print media is compared to official language rights complaints Iodged with PanSALB. The government might well avoid conflict by taking cognisance of language problems and ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld before problems arise. Key concepts: language rights PanSALB printed media: empirical investigation Die gedrukte media is 'n belangrike en betroubare barometer am die gesindhede en gevoelens van die leserspubliek te peil. Sodanige inligting, vervat in 'n jaarlikse verslag aan Pansat, kan meehelp om die bewustheid onder die gewone publiek rondom en taalregtekwessies te verhoog, wat met die proaktiewe gesindheid transformasie van die gemeenskap kan bevorder. Terselfdertyd kan dit dien as teenvoeter vir taaldiskriminasie. Ten einde die geldigheid van die gevolgtrekkings vas te stel, is vergelykings getref met die amptelike taalregteklagtes wat aan die amptelike taafiggaam, Pansat, gerig is. Dit sal die regering Ioon om betyds kennis te neem van probleme op taalgebied ten einde konflik te vermy, deur toe te sien dat grondwetlike regte nagekom word. Kernbegrippe: gedrukte media: empiriese ondersoek Pansat Taalregte 1. Inleiding In 'n analise van die struktuur van die amptelike taalwetgewing (artikel 6 van Wer 108 van 1996), betoog Du Plessis en Pretorius (2000:505-506) dat die praktiese toepassing van die taalklousule hom leen tot uiteenlopende interpretasies. Daarby bestaan daar twyfel by hulle of die bewindhebbers die beginsel van veeltaligheid met die nodige erns bejeen. Hulle merk die volgende op: Generally speaking, it is probably correct to state that the evolving pattern of official language policy in South Africa reveals a trend towards English, thus in effect towards official monolingualism (Du Plessis & Pretorius, 2000:506). 'n Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad (Pansat) is in die lewe geroep (Wet 59 van 1995) om die wetlike toepassing van die amptelike taalbeleid te monitor. Pansat het die implementering van verskeie fokusareas goedgekeur. Onder die fokusarea is die Taalraad se mandaat om ondersoeke na beweerde oortredings van taalregte, -beleids of -praktyk te fasiliteer. [...] Die Raad moedig praktyk en beleid aan wat daartoe sal bydra dat Suid-Afrikaners bevry word van vorme van taaldiskriminasie (Pansat, 2002:176). Hiermee saam poog Pansat om alle taalgroepe bewus [te] maak van hul taalregte (Pansat, 2002:177). Ten einde voldoende inligting oor en taalkwessies in SuidAfrika te verkry, het Pansat die Eenheid vir Taalfasilitering en -bemagtiging (ETFB) aan die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) (tans Eenheid vir Taalbestuur) opdrag gegee om behulpsaam te wees met die daarstelling van 'n South African Language Rights Monitor (SALRM). Die oogmerk van die jaarlikse verslag is om die gegewens oor taalregteklagtes en taalkwessies in die SuidAfrikaanse gedrukte media saam te stel, op die formaat van die Kanadese model, die Canadian Commissioner of Official Languages (cf. Annual Report, 2002). Spesifieke oogmerke van die SALRM (2004; 2005) is onder meer die volgende: * voorsiening van 'n kritiese oorsig van mediadekking oor taalkwessies; * voorsiening van inligting van en 'n kritiese analise van taalregteklagtes en bevindinge in Suid-Afrika. Omdat die status van die onderskeie tale in Suid-Afrika 'n belangrike besprekingspunt geword het, veral na 1994, het sake omtrent die nakoming van die grondwetlike wye publisiteit in die gedrukte media ontvang. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".