‘The Burden of Diversity’: The Sociolinguistic Problems of English in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>At the emergence of democracy in South Africa the government corrected linguistic imbalances by officialising eleven languages. Prior to that only English and Afrikaans were the recognised official languages. The Black population had rejected the imposition of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction. However, such rejection did not mean the adoption of indigenous languages as media of instruction; instead English was supposedly adopted as a unifying language among linguistically diverse Africans. Such implicit adoption of the English language has created a stalemate situation in the development of African languages to the level of English and Afrikaans. Although there is a widespread desire to promote indigenous languages to the level of being media of instruction, the desire is peripheral and does not carry the urgency that characterised the deposition of Afrikaans in the 1976 uprisings. On the other hand this paper argues that the hegemony of English language as a colonial instrument carries ambivalence in the minds of Black South Africans. Through ethnographic thick description of two learners, this hegemony is illustrated by the ‘kind’ of English provided to most Black South African learners who do not have financial resources to access the English offered in former Model C schools. The paper concludes that Black South Africans do not only need urgency in the promotion and development of indigenous languages, but further need to problematize, in addition to the implicit adoption of English language, the quality of the language they have opted. The paper therefore suggests that this is possible through a decolonised mindset.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".