Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Southern African Linguistics andApplied Language StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20
Four languages, one classroom:'Reasonably practicable'?Marné PienaarPublished online: 12 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Marné Pienaar (2007) Four languages, one classroom: 'Reasonablypracticable'?, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 25:3, 401-418, DOI:10.2989/16073610709486471
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073610709486471
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Copyright © 2007 NISC Pty LtdSSOOUUTTHHEERRNN AAFFRRIICCAANN LLIINNGGUUIISSTTIICCSSAANNDD AAPPPPLLIIEEDD LLAANNGGUUAAGGEE SSTTUUDDIIEESS
EISSN 1727–9461
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved
IntroductionSouth Africa can be regarded as a young democracy which still faces a number of challenges since
the first democratic elections in 1994. One such a challenge concerns the provision of equal
access to higher education for all its citizens. One of the major stumbling blocks in providing such
access is language. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Republic of South Africa,
1996) recognises eleven languages as official languages. Apart from these eleven languages, a
number of other languages are also spoken as mother tongues. However, secondary and tertiary
education (high school and university) are only available in two of these languages, namely English
and Afrikaans — the former two official languages under the previous dispensation.
It is a well-known fact that the lack of mother tongue education and resultant poor English
language proficiency is to blame for the high drop-out rate in schools. Frans Cronje (2006) of the
South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) points out that although the official pass rate for
the 2005 final secondary school examination was 68.3%, enrolment in the school system averages
one million pupils per grade from grade 1 to grade 10. Between grade 10 and grade 12, the exit
year, this number drops by half. This implies that only 32% of the 2003 grade 10 class, successfully
graduated from the school system in 2005 — in spite of the fact that 5% is added to the marks of
the non-language subjects taken by speakers of the indigenous languages in an attempt to
compromise for poor English language proficiency (Cronje, 2006).
The problem of language as a barrier to education is perpetuated in tertiary education (i.e. at
university level). Students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds are linguistically margin-
alised. Most tertiary education institutions (universities) have programmes in place to assist
students with language proficiency in the language(s) of tuition (English and Afrikaans), but more
often than not, these programmes do not succeed in providing students with the necessary
academic language skills they need to complete their studies successfully. Consequently the drop-
out and failure rates amongst such students remain unsatisfactory.
Four languages, one classroom: ‘Reasonably practicable’?
Marné Pienaar
Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory, University of Johannesburg, Auckland ParkKingsway Campus, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: During the course of 2006 the Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory of the
University of Johannesburg embarked on a research project whereby the viability of implementing
the use of the four designated languages of the University (English, Afrikaans, isiZulu and Sepedi)
in a classroom situation was investigated.
After an brief overview of the background which lead to the University of Johannesburg’s
current language policy and an outline of the research design, this paper reports on one aspect of
the research, namely students’ views on the practical use of language facilitation. Following the
interpretation of the results and the recommendations, it is concluded that it is ‘reasonably practica-
ble’ to give effect to the University’s language policy.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar402
Background: the University of Johannesburg (UJ)According to Beukes and Pienaar (2006: 4):
The UJ was established on 1 January 2005 and is the result of a process of incorporating
the East Rand Vista campus and the Soweto Vista campus with Rand Afrikaans University
(RAU) in January 2004 and merging in January 2005 with the Technikon Witwatersrand
(TWR) in accordance with the Minister of Education’s proposals — issued in December
2002 and approved by Cabinet — for the transformation and restructuring of the institu-
tional landscape of the higher education system. At the time of the official opening of RAU it
did not have an official language policy, but in line with the university’s aim to be Afrikaans
in spirit and character, Afrikaans was the language of learning and teaching for some 20
years. This situation changed gradually since the late 1980s when non-Afrikaans speaking
students began enrolling at RAU. Measures to accommodate learners who preferred
English as Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT) were introduced, e.g. study guides
were made available in English and students also wrote examinations in English.
However, over the past few years RAU’s language dispensation changed fundamentally as a result
of the influx of learners who prefer English as LOLT. The process of introducing parallel-medium
instruction at RAU began in 1997 when it was decided that departments could offer courses on a
parallel-medium basis. In practice this resulted in separate classes, study guides and tutoring for
English and Afrikaans speaking students (Beukes & Pienaar, 2006: 4 and further).
Contrary to the situation when its predecessor, the Rand Afrikaans University, was established
in 1968, the UJ’s learner profile is now characterised by a high degree of diversity. The UJ is
committed to transforming itself into an African university that reflects and accommodates the
cultural and linguistic diversity of its clients. The UJ has therefore developed a new language policy
(Statute of the University of Johannesburg 2006: 2) which states:
• The University of Johannesburg promotes multilingualism and designates Sepedi,
English, isiZulu, and Afrikaans as its primary languages for academic, administrative,
communication and marketing purposes.
• The University strives to preserve and develop on all its campuses the designated
languages in particular, in its teaching, learning and assessment activities, and makes
resources available to do so. Such resources include, but are not limited to, language
proficiency support and development for students and staff, and translation and interpre-
tation facilities and services.
• The University strives towards the progressive provision of teaching, learning and
assessment in isiZulu, English, Afrikaans and Sepedi and insofar as it is reasonablypracticable (italics mine) to do so.
• Due regard being had to the current underdeveloped state of Sepedi and isiZulu, the
University will adopt special and comprehensive short, medium and long term measures
to progressively develop and use isiZulu and Sepedi for academic, administrative,
communication and marketing purposes.
Following an experiment with the use of the whispering mode of simultaneous interpreting in a
tertiary classroom at RAU in 2003 whereby classes offered in English were interpreted into
Afrikaans (Pienaar, 2004) and the results of experiments at another South African University,
namely the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University (see Van Rooy, 2005), the
Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory at UJ obtained funding to conduct follow-up research
in 2006 whereby all four languages recognised by the University’s language policy would be used
for teaching and learning in a particular course. The project suffered an initial set-back when the
first two groups identified proved to be linguistically too diverse. In the first case, the Linguistics and
Literary Theory 2 (LIW2) a class consisting of 23 students represented 11 primary languages and
only one student indicated isiZulu and Sepedi as a primary language respectively (see Beukes &
Pienaar, 2006: 10)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 403
Following the previous experience where the number of speakers of isiZulu was not sufficient to
experiment with interpreting into isiZulu and Sepedi, it was then decided to focus on the students in
Linguistics and Literary Theory 1 (LIW1). The same high degree of linguistic diversity as far as
mother tongue was concerned was also evident in this case. The 103 students represented 25
languages and only 7 students each indicated isiZulu and Sepedi as their respective mother
tongues (for a detailed exposition, see Beukes & Pienaar, 2006: 12).
After the two above-mentioned unsuccessful attempts to identify a group that could be used to
experiment with the practical implementation of the stipulation of the UJ’s new language policy, the
first year group in Cross Cultural Communication proved to have a sufficient number of first
language speakers of the four designated languages to warrant the provision of both translation
and interpreting services.
Although the project also focused on establishing students’ attitudes and opinions towards
specific languages, their thoughts and beliefs on diversity and their language preferences, as well
as their assessment of the value of particular languages as languages of learning and teaching (as
reported on in Beukes & Pienaar, 2006) it also intended to prove or disprove the viability of
implementing the use of the four designated languages in a classroom situation. In the words of
paragraph 3 of the policy (Statute of the University of Johannesburg, 2006: 2) ‘is it reasonablypracticable to do so’?
Research designThe course in Cross-Cultural Communication is a semester course offered over a period of 14
weeks. The group of 95 students was divided in two classes of 48 and 47 students each with an
even distribution of primary language speakers of the four designated languages of the university
(English, Afrikaans, Sepedi and isiZulu) in both groups. During the first seven weeks group A
received their classes, one tutorial per week and their study guides in English only whereas group
B had their study guides made available to them via the University’s computer assisted learning
programme, Edulink, in English, Afrikaans, Sepedi and isiZulu. This included a glossary of difficult
terms with lexical equivalents and definitions in the four respective languages. Although classes
and tutorials were presented in English, a simultaneous interpreting service, using mobile interpret-
ing equipment (the Sennheiser system) and the whispering mode of interpreting was available in all
classes and tutorials. During this period, the students in group B were encouraged to use their
primary languages. This was possible by virtue of the fact that the isiZulu and Sepedi interpreters
were able to interpret from other Nguni and Sotho languages into English and effectively meant
that only six students (those who spoke Tshivenda (2), Xitsonga (1), Kiswahili(1), Chichewa(1) and
French(1)) in the combined group A and B did not have the option to use their primary language to
address the lecturer or tutor. After seven weeks all language facilitation interventions were
withdrawn from group B, and group A was given access to the translated studies guides and
glossaries and had an interpreting service available in classes and tutorials.
The rationale behind the research design was twofold: firstly to establish whether language
facilitation intervention would impact on students’ results and secondly to enable the researchers to
determine the students’ views on the practical use of language facilitation comparatively, i.e. both
groups would have been exposed to the same course material, the same lecturer and the same
tutors in English only as well as in a context where language facilitation was provided.
During the course of the 14 weeks, the students, the lecturer, the tutors and the interpreters
were interviewed to obtain their views on inter alia, the quality of the interpreting, whether or not the
interpreting was experienced as a hindrance, problems experienced, and so on. At the end of the
14-week period, students were required to fill in a questionnaire (see Addendum A). The question-
naire dealt with different aspects related to the project, namely, language preference and
proficiency, the availability of learning material in languages other than English, computer
proficiency and the University’s computer-assisted learning programme, Edulink as well as
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar404
interpreting. The remainder of this report will specifically focus on the results of the survey concern-
ing Section A, questions 1–3 (Language Preference and Proficiency) and aspects of Section E
(Interpreting).
ResultsIf Table 1 is taken as point of departure, it can be said that 33.6% of the students (those who
indicated English as their primary language) would have had the benefit of tuition in their first
language if an interpreting service was not made available. If the number of Afrikaans, Sepedi and
isiZulu speakers is added, a potential 63.1% of the students would have had the advantage of first
language tuition if they made use of the interpreting service. According to the responses obtained
in the questionnaire, 41.7% of the students did make use of the interpreting service and if the two
English speaking students who used the service for its novelty value are not taken into account,
69.6% of the students’ primary languages were accommodated either via the medium of tuition or
via the interpreting service. The reason for this discrepancy between the number of students whose
primary languages were accommodated and the number of actual users can be attributed to the
fact that a large percentage of the students are bi- or trilingual and opted to use the interpreting
service although their primary languages were not offered at such. As noted above, the Nguni
languages (isiZulu, IsiXhoza and siSwati) are closely related and the same applies to the Sotho
Languages (Setswana, Sesotho and Sepedi).
Furthermore, all the students (with the exception of one) who indicated English as their primary
language, indicated Afrikaans as their second language with varying levels of competency ranging
from ‘Poor ability’ in all or some categories to ‘Good ability’ in all or some categories (compare
Section 1, question 3 of the questionnaire). Likewise, all the Afrikaans speaking students indicated
English as their second language — again with varying levels of competency in the various
categories, with the exception that no-one rated themselves as having a ‘Poor ability’ in English in
any of the categories stated in Section A, question 3.
Interpretation of results
Overall evaluation of the provision of the serviceGenerally speaking, the students seem to be in favour of the provision of the service with 79 out of
95 (83%) selecting ‘Good’ in response to question 23: ‘Do you think it is good or bad that such a
Frequency Percentage Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
Valid 1 English 32.0 33.3 33.7 33.7
2 Afrikaans 7.0 7.3 7.4 41.1
3 isiZulu 17.0 17.7 17.9 58.9
4 isiXhosa 8.0 8.3 8.4 67.4
5 siSwati 2.0 2.1 2.1 69.5
7 Sesotho 8.0 8.3 8.4 77.9
8 Sepedi 4.0 4.2 4.2 82.1
9 Tswana 11.0 11.5 11.6 93.7
10 Tshivenda 2.0 2.1 2.1 95.8
11 Xitsonga 1.0 1.0 1.1 96.8
12 French 1.0 1.0 1.1 97.9
13 Kiswahili 1.0 1.0 1.1 98.9
14 Chichewa 1.0 1.0 1.1 100.0
Total 95.0 99.0 100.0
Missing System 1.0 1.0
Total 96 100.0
Table 1: Linguistic profile of students in Cross-Cultural Communication 1B
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 405
service is provided?’ This included five of the six students who were effectively barred from the
project in the sense that they respectively had Tshivenda (2), Xitsonga (1), Kiswahili (1), Chichewa
(1) and French (1) as a primary language and did not have Afrikaans, Sepedi or isiZulu as a second
language. One student noted that it was unfair that the service was not provided in Tshivenda and
stated, ‘I prefer to use Tshivenda as I know it better than other languages’. This student also
recommended that the service be expanded to include all languages ‘so it can be easier to us to
understand the text or information’.
Seven students rated the provision of the service as ‘Bad’ (7.5%), three selected ‘Unsure’ (3.1%)
and six (6.3%) did not answer the question. Of the seven students who stated ‘Bad’, three did not
make use of the service as their respective primary languages were siSwati, isiXhoza and English.
Of the four who did make use of service, two were Sepedi speaking and made use of the Sepedi
service, one was Sesotho speaking and also made use of the Sepedi service and one was isiZulu
speaking and listened to the isiZulu service.
Reasons for making use of the serviceThe following were stated as reasons for using the service:
• Novelty: This was particularly true of the English speaking students who listened to the Afrikaans
interpretation out of curiosity.
• Improved comprehension: The Afrikaans, Sepedi and isiZulu speaking students cited ‘better
understanding’ as the main reason why they made use of the service.
• Related languages: The Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati and isiXhoza students did not state a
particular reason for making use of the service, but from their responses it is clear that the
relatedness of the Sotho and Nguni languages respectively, made it possible for them to use the
service and it is consequently assumed that they either made use of the service out of curiosity,
or, considering their responses regarding the advantages of the service, it is more likely that they
too felt that comprehension was enhanced by making use of the service.
Reasons for not making use of the serviceThe following were stated as reasons for not making use of the service:
• Language proficiency in English: As was to be expected, the English speaking students saw no
real reason to make use of the service. In all instances, some students from the three designated
groups, opted not to make use of the service on the basis of their proficiency in or preference for
English. This is not surprising, considering that all classes at UJ are offered in English (or
Afrikaans in the case of students who choose to attend classes via the medium of Afrikaans) and
English language proficiency is a prerequisite for admission to the university. However, as
discussed in the Introduction above, English language proficiency is a major stumbling block in
students’ performance in South African tertiary institutions, and students’ perception of their own
level of proficiency might well not tally with their actual proficiency.
• Unavailability of the interpreting service in a particular language: Although a surprisingly high
percentage of isiXhoza (50%), siSwati (50%), Sesotho (80%) and Setswana (36%) speaking
students listened to the isiZulu and the Sepedi channels, some decided not to, on the basis that
it was not their primary language and/or that they felt they lacked proficiency in it.
• Terminology: The development of terminology in both the Nguni and the Sotho languages
remains a problem. One Setswana speaking student indicated the lack of standardised terminol-
ogy as a reason for not making use of the service. Yet, if paragraph 4 of the University’s
language policy (Statute of the University of Johannesburg, 2006: 2) is taken into consideration,
the translation of study guides into the designated languages as well as the compilation of
glossaries coupled with an interpreting service should go a long way to assist in this regard.
• The quality of interpreting: One Sepedi speaking student cited the quality of the interpreting as
a reason for not making use of the service: ‘Because the interpreter sometimes cuts off some
word from the original speech’. This criticism probably stems from the belief that interpreters
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar406
should give a word-for-word interpretation of the source text and possibly points towards the
need for user training.
Advantages of the service• Improved comprehension: Improved comprehension was the most common advantage noted.
Considering that only 33.6% of the students claimed English as their primary language, it
stands to reason that the provision of an interpreting service should be beneficial to compre-
hension. However, the fact that a number of isiXhoza, siSwati, Sesotho and Setswana speaking
students also stated that they used the service for improved comprehension, directly points to
their (limited) proficiency in English, as they preferred their second languages to listening to the
English source texts.
• Inclusiveness: The Afrikaans, isiZulu, isiXhoza and siSwati speaking students stated resultant
inclusiveness as a definite advantage. This corresponds with reservations expressed regarding
the appropriateness of the parallel medium instruction offered at UJ. In a previous study on the
use of simultaneous interpreting in a tertiary classroom the Head of Department of the
Department of Anthropology and Development Studies at the former RAU noted her concern
about the homogenous nature of the students in the Afrikaans class: ‘In her opinion, the English
classes was more heterogeneous in student make-up and debate in the English class was
much more stimulating, as students came from diverse backgrounds and held divergent points
of view’ (Pienaar, 2006: 32). In this sense, the responses of the students indicate that simulta-
neous interpreting facilitates integration without compromising the University’s language policy.
• Terminology development: The issue pertaining to the underdevelopment of isiZulu and Sepedi
and the concomitant lack of standardised terminology has been noted above. The isiZulu and
Setswana students felt that the development of terminology in these languages would be an
added advantage of the interpreting service.
• None: One Sepedi and a few Setswana speaking students felt that the provision of an interpret-
ing service had no advantages. This is to be understood against the background, firstly, that
English language proficiency is a supposed prerequisite for admission to the university,
secondly, the hegemony of English, and, thirdly, that an interpreting service was not offered in
Setswana, as such.
Disadvantages of the service• Noise level and distraction: The noise level and consequent distraction caused by the service,
was the most commonly noted disadvantage of the service. This was particularly true for the
non-users of the service. As mentioned above, it was decided to make use of portable simulta-
neous interpreting equipment and the whispering mode of interpreting. In the study conducted
in 2003 (see Pienaar, 2006: 35) the service was not experienced as a hindrance in the class.
However, in the 2003 study, an Afrikaans class was interpreted into English only. This meant
that only one (active) interpreter was audible. In the current study three (active) interpreters
were present and this impacted on the audibility of the interpreters to the non-users of the
service.
• Estrangement: Although the study guide was available in the four designated languages and
glossaries were provided, students who made use of the service noted that the PowerPoint
presentations used by the lecturer as a guideline in class were in English only. They
commented on the difficulty experienced when trying to take down notes from the PowerPoint
(in English) and listening to the interpreter (in Afrikaans, isiZulu or Sepedi) simultaneously.
From the responses it was also clear that the students were aware of a ‘separation’
between those who did and those who did not make use of the service. This perception should
be viewed against the remarks made under ‘Inclusiveness’ above and as such give an indica-
tion of the acute need to treat all language groups equally.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 407
• Lag-time: Students noted the lag-time between the original speech and the interpreted versions
as a disadvantage of the service. Lag-time is inherent to simultaneous interpreting as the
interpreter cannot possibly interpret the original speech before it is heard.
• Terminology: The lack of standardised terminology in the Nguni and Sotho languages was also
cited as a disadvantage of the service and students complained about the use of transpositions
and ‘unfamiliar’ terms. This contrasts with the perception, previously mentioned, that the service
would contribute to the development of terminology. This situation is complicated by the fact
that as far as the Nguni and Sotho language speakers were concerned, none of them had had
the benefit of mother tongue education in secondary education and where standardised
terminology is available, they are often unfamiliar with it.
• Quality of interpreting: Students noted the quality of the interpreting as a disadvantage of the
service. The criticism arose primarily from (i) the perception that a full rendition of the original
speech was not interpreted (‘You don’t get enough information from interpreters’), (ii) the
expectation that interpreting should be word-for-word (‘When the interpreter does not interpret
exactly what the person said’) and (iii) concerns pertaining to accuracy (‘Not getting accurate
information’).
The criticism concerning the quality of interpreting applied primarily to the Sepedi interpreta-
tion as perceived by some Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana speaking students. There were no
negative comments on the quality of the Afrikaans interpreting and only one siSwati and one
isiXhoza speaking student commented negatively on the accuracy of the isiZulu interpretation.
In the case of the isiZulu interpretation, it may well be that differences in the respective Nguni
languages could be responsible for the perceived lack of accuracy as no isiZulu speaking
students commented in this regard.
As far as the Sepedi interpretation is concerned, it was noted that it was generally less
positively received than the Afrikaans and isiZulu renditions. It should however be considered
that all three interpreters used are highly experienced and had access to the translated study
guides and the glossaries. Although the simple truth could well be that the Sepedi rendition was
lacking in quality (‘Provide more interpreters who knows the language deeper wereby (sic)
there will be no words left and unexplained’ — non-user Sepedi speaking student), the
underdevelopment of Sepedi as an academic language, the fact that students have not had
secondary education in Sepedi and therefore do not have CALP (Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency) in Sepedi (‘I didn’t understand some words which where (sic) in Sepedi’
–Sepedi speaking student) as well as the fact that primary language speakers of Setswana and
Sesotho commented on the accuracy, should also be taken into consideration. (Also see
Quality of interpreting, above).
• Negative impact on English language proficiency: One English speaking student stated that a
disadvantage of the provision of an interpreting service could be that ‘People may find it difficult
to cope in the world where there isn’t an interpreter’. This is not surprising and corresponds with
the hegemony of English in the South African educational environment (see Bambose, 2006;
Meshtrie, 2006; Murray, 2002; Ouane, 2005, to name but a few).
• None: In contrast to the students who stated that the provision of an interpreting service had no
advantage, English, Zulu, Sesotho, Setswana and isiXhoza speaking students, including users
and non-users, indicated that the service had no disadvantages.
Future use of an interpreting serviceIn response to the question ‘Would you in future make use of such a service if it is offered in your
first language?’, 69.7% of the students responded positively (See Table 2 on the next page).
Circumstances under which an interpreter will be usedIn response to the question ‘Under which circumstances would you make use of an interpreting
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar408
service?’ responses varied from actual circumstances, such as ‘Parliament’, ‘In court’, ‘During an
international conference when I work as a diplomat’, to particular linguistic situations ‘When the
lecture is given in Afrikaans’, ‘If I could not understand English’, ‘Maybe if I needed to hear
something in Afrikaans1’, ‘If I do not understand certain words that are used in English’1, ‘When I
don’t understand the language’. Students also noted that they would make use of a service in
which the vernaculars were used if they were fluent in those languages:‘If I was fluent in my own
language’.
With the exception of the Sesotho group, students form all the language groups indicated that
they would make use of an interpreting service in a classroom situation: ‘Learning circumstances’
(English speaking student), ‘Multilingual classrooms’ (Afrikaans-speaking student), ‘Learning
circumstances’ (Sepedi-speaking student), ‘When there is a lecture in cross-cultural communica-
tion’ (Setswana-speaking student), ‘In a class tutorial’1 (isiXhoza-speaking student), ‘In a lecture’1
(isiXhoza-speaking student) ‘In a class which is not in my mother tongue medium of instruction’
(isiXhoza-speaking student) and ‘In class’ (siSwati-speaking student).
Suggestions for the improvement of the serviceThe responses to the question ‘Please provide suggestions for the improvement of the service in
future’ can be divided into the following categories:
• Expansion of the service: The need for the expansion of the service into additional languages
was recommended: ‘They should provided (sic) interpretation in languages that are understood
by all’1 (Sesotho-speaking student).
• Venue size: Due to the distraction experienced primarily by the non-users of the service, the
suggestion was made to use bigger venues, as the interpreting would then presumably be less
audible to non-users: ‘The environment where they interpret is too small, so a big venue will
help. A small venue makes it impossible to listen to the interpreter and lecturer’ (isiZulu-
speaking student).
• Equipment: Students commented on the equipment and noted that the head-sets were
uncomfortable: ‘Headset weren’t that comfortable — need to get used to them’ (Afrikaans
speaking student). The use of portable equipment and therefore the absence of booths were
also noted as a point for improvement: ‘Get sound booth that is not part of the lecture’1
(Sesotho speaking student), ‘To have booths for us (sic) to sit in’ (isiXhoza-speaking student).
• Lag-time: Improving lag-time was once again noted: ‘Interpreters must keep up with what is
explained’ (Afrikaans-speaking student), ‘They can interpret faster (if possible)’ (Sesotho
speaking student), ‘The interpreter must try to speak as fast as he/she can during class’
(Sesotho-speaking student), ‘They must speak faster…’ (Setswana-speaking student) and
‘They are much too slow’ (siSwati-speaking student).
• Familiarity with subject matter: Students reiterated that the interpreters should be familiar with
the course content or subject matter: ‘Interpreters should have a sound knowledge of the
subject matter.’ (Afrikaans-speaking student), ‘I think that they should be familiar with the
course content’1 (siSwati-speaking student).
e26 Would you in future make use of such a service if it is offered in your first language?
Frequency Per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1 yes 62 64.6 69.7 69.7
2 no 27 28.1 30.3 100.0
Total 89 92.7 100.0
Missing System 7 7.3
Total 96 100.0
Table 2: Future use of an interpreting service
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 409
• Quality of interpreting: The nature of the suggestions for the improvement of the service made
by the students coincides with generally accepted norms for good interpreting practice (see
Cenkova, 1998: 164–165; Schjoldager, 1991: 191–192), namely, (i) correct use of terminol-
ogy ‘The interpreters should have better use of terminology of the course’ (isiZulu-speaking
student), ‘Provide more interpreters who knows the language deeper wereby (sic) there will be
no words left and unexplained’1 (Sepedi-speaking student), and (ii) finishing sentences:‘The
interpreters must finish their sentences. The lecturer must give them a chance to interpret’
(isiZulu-speaking student), (iii) clarity ‘Interpreter can be clear in what they say’ (isiZulu-
speaking student), (iv) voice quality: ‘The tone must be more exciting they musn’t (sic) sound
like their reading news’ (isiZulu-speaking student), and (iv) preparedness ‘They must do proper
preparation of the subject before coming to interpret in class’ (Setswana-speaking student).
RecommendationsFollowing the disadvantages noted and the suggestions made for the improvement of the service in
future, the following recommendations are made:
Training of interpretersWhereas interpreting into one language with the use of portable simultaneous interpreting
equipment, was not perceived as a hindrance in the 2003 case study, the presence of three
interpreters working in three languages distracted the non-users of the service. Ideally booths
should be available, but due to the practical impossibility and cost-implications of setting up
temporary booths in different venues on an hourly basis, this is not an option. Bigger venues, as
suggested by some students, could alleviate the problem. However, the best solution remains the
use of the portable equipment but as a prerequisite the interpreters need to be trained in the
correct use thereof in particular as far as volume is concerned.
User-trainingUsers of the service need to be trained to understand the process of simultaneous interpreting and
in particular the concept of lag-time. Although interpreters should caution against lagging too far
behind the speaker, users should also appreciate the fact that simultaneous interpreting is not
‘automatic’ and requires various efforts on the part of the interpreter.
TerminologyThe lack of standardised terminology in the Nguni and Sotho languages need not be a stumbling
block if the interpreters and students stick to the terms used in the study guides and defined in the
glossaries. Although it does not form part of the focus of this paper, the responses to the question-
naire indicated that very few students made use of the glossaries. The reason for the very limited
use of the glossaries is unclear and needs further investigation. However, if a similar language
facilitation service is offered in future, it is recommended that more care is taken to ensure that
these glossaries are utilised by the speakers of the designated languages. It is suspected that
many of the criticisms concerning the accurate use of terminology is not so much a function of the
interpreters’ inability to use the correct terms, as it is the students’ negligence in familiarising
themselves with the terms used in the study guides and glossaries. This observation was
confirmed by the post-graduate students who monitored the interpreting and who also had access
to the study guides and glossaries.
It was also noted that the Afrikaans channel was generally much better received than the
isiZulu and Sepedi channel. This is not surprising as Afrikaans is highly codified and the fact that
the Afrikaans-speaking students had their secondary education in Afrikaans and (with the exception
of one student) also opted to undertake their tertiary studies via the medium of Afrikaans mean that
they are more likely to be familiar with subject specific terminology in their primary language than
the isiZulu- and Sepedi-speaking students.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar410
In the research design, care was taken to ensure that all students received equal treatment.
Yet, one oversight needs to be acknowledged, namely the non-translation of the PowerPoint
presentations used in lectures. Students found it difficult to deal with a study guide and interpreting
service in one language and having to take down notes from the PowerPoint presentations in
another (English). If such a service is to be offered in the future, PowerPoint presentations should
be translated and either circulated as hand-outs or be made available electronically on Edulink.
ConclusionThis paper focused on certain results obtained from a questionnaire which formed part of a larger
research project conducted by the Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory of the University
of Johannesburg whereby the viability of implementing the use of the four designated languages in
a classroom situation was investigated. In this specific instance, emphasis was placed on students’
views on the practical use of language facilitation. The class was divided into two groups and both
groups were exposed to the same course material, the same lecturer and the same tutors in
English only as well as in a context where language facilitation was provided.
Notwithstanding the recommendations, the results of the study indicate that it is possible and
‘reasonably practicable’ to give effect to the University’s language policy in so far as the provision
of learning and teaching in Afrikaans, English, isiZulu and Sepedi are concerned. The fact that
69.7% of the students indicated that they would make use of such a service if it was offered in their
first language attest to this fact.
Furthermore, the provision of a language facilitation service can contribute to the management
of language-induced underperformance in tertiary education where a lack of language proficiency
in the language of learning and tuition effectively bars students from further education and training.
In the words of one of the Sepedi speaking students: ‘I think it is good as I can understand more
better’.
Note1 Non-user of interpreting service
References
Bamgbose A. 2006. Mission and Vision of the African Academy of Languages. Available at:
http://www.acalan.org/an/mission.htm 9 [accessed 11 November 2006].
Beukes A-M, Pienaar M. 2006. The use of simultaneous interpreting as an alternative to parallelmedium teaching in tertiary education. Paper presented at The 3rd IATIS (Intervention in
Translation, Interpreting and Intercultural Encounters) Conference, University of the Western
Cape, Belville, South Africa, July 2006
Cenkova I. 1998. Quality of Interpreting – a Binding of a Liberating Factor? In: Beylard-Ozeroff A,
Katora J & Maser-Moser B (eds). Translators’ Strategies and Creativity. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp 164–165
Cronjé F. 2006. Half-a-million schoolchildren go missing. Website of the South African Institute of
Race Relations (SAIRR). Available at: http://www.sairr.org.za/wsc/estory.htx?story1>=402
[accessed 16 October 2007].
Meshtrie R. 2006. Language, transformation and development: a sociolinguistic appraisal of post-
apartheid South African language policy and practice. Southern African Linguistic and Appliedlanguage Studies 24(2): 151–163.
Murray S. 2002. Language issues in South African Education: an overview. In: Meshtrie R (ed).
2002. Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 434–448.
Ouane A. 2005. Learning, but in which language? ADEA (Association for the Development of
Education in Africa) Newsletter 17(2): 1–2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 411
Pienaar M. 2004. Simultaneous interpreting as an aid in parallel medium tertiary education. Paper
presented at: Intercultural communication — the linguistic challenges of cultural diversity, at the
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, September 2004.
Pienaar, M. 2006. Simultaneous interpreting as an aid in parallel medium tertiary education.
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 33: 27–39.
Republic of South Africa. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Schjoldager A. 1991. Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting. In: Dollerup C & Loddegaard A
(eds). Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience. Papers from the
First Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, June 1991. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp 191–192
Statute of the University of Johannesburg. 2006. Language policy. Sub section 2.9 of the
Statute of the University of Johannesburg. First draft September 2006. University of
Johannesburg.
Van Rooy B. 2005. The feasibility of simultaneous interpreting in university classrooms. SouthernAfrican Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 23(1): 81–90.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar412
PLEASE NOTE: The information you supply in this questionnaire is confidential and will be treated as such
SECTION A LANGUAGE PREFERENCE AND PROFICIENCY
1. What do you regard to be your mother tongue (also known as your home
language or first or primary language)?
2. How often do you use your mother tongue (indicated in question 1) to do each
of the following? Please tick the block that best describes your answer.
Note: If a question does not apply to you, e.g. your father is deceased or you
are an only child, please mark N/A (not applicable)
Never Seldom Frequently Always N/A
Communicate with your father
Communicate with your mother
Communicate with your siblings
Communicate with your friends
For studying
In more formal contexts (i.e.banks, restaurants, government institutions, etc.)
Addendum A: Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory questionnaire forcross-cultural communication students (October 2006)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 413
3. Indicate your real ability to do each of the following (please do NOT
overestimate your ability). In each case, indicate your answer by ticking
the appropriate block.
NoAbility
PoorAbility
Moderate ability
Good ability
Reading Zulu
Writing in Zulu
Speaking Zulu
Understanding when people speak Zulu
Reading Afrikaans
Writing in Afrikaans
Speaking Afrikaans
Understanding when people speak Afrikaans
Reading English
Writing in English
Speaking English
Understanding when people speak English
Reading Sepedi (Northern Sotho)
Writing in Sepedi
Speaking Sepedi
Understanding when people speak Sepedi
If your mother tongue is English, please proceed to Section B.
If your mother tongue is NOT English, please answer questions 4 & 5
BEFORE proceeding to Section B.
4. When you study from an English textbook, how often do you explain the study
content to yourself in your mother tongue? Please tick the appropriate block.
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar414
5. To what extent do you believe academic support such as tutorials, Edulink and
interpreting services at university in your mother tongue will benefit your
grades in academic subjects?
To no extent
To a small extent
To a moderate extent
To a large extent
SECTION B
LEARNING MATERIAL IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH
6. Do you use the learning material available in isiZulu, Afrikaans and Sesotho sa
Leboa on WebCT? Yes [ ] No [ ]
7. If your answer to Question 1 is Yes, what do you find particularly useful about
the learning material in these languages? You may mark more than one of the
following options:
o It makes the English Learning Guide more understandable [ ]
o It helps me to get a better grasp on the difficult concepts [ ]
o It improves my understanding of the definitions in the
Learning Guide [ ]
o It does not help me at all [ ]
o Other ………..……………………………………………………………………..
8. Would you like to have a Learning Guide in one of these languages?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
9. Would you like to have a Learning Guide in one of these languages and also in
English? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 415
isiZulu [ ] Afrikaans [ ] Sesotho sa Leboa [ ]
11. If your answer to Question 3 is No, please indicate why you do not wish to have
a Learning Guide in a language other than English:
a. English is my home language [ ]
b. English is not my home language, but it is my preferred language of
learning. [ ]
SECTION C
COMPUTER PROFICIENCY
12. Are you familiar with the Internet? In other words, have you ever used a web
browser?
Yes ___ No ___
13. Have you ever used hyperlinks and roll-over text boxes on the Internet? (These
boxes contain helpful or additional information on a particular word, topic, term,
concept, etc.)
Yes ___ No ___
14. How often do you do each of the following?
Never Less than once amonth
At least once amonth
Atleast oncea week
At least onceevery 2-3days
Atleast once a day
Receive/read your e-mail messages?
Compile/send e-mailmessages?
Use a web browser (e.g. Google)?
Use a hyperlink?
Use roll-over text boxes?
Access Edulink?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar416
15. Would you regard yourself as a competent user of Edulink?
Yes ___ No ___
________________________________________________________________
SECTION D
EDULINK 2007 AND CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
16. Have you used Edulink 2007 for support in Cross-cultural
Communication?
Yes ___ No ___
17. Do you find the support for the course to be helpful?
Yes ___ No ___
18. Do you find the multilingual explanations of the terms and concepts
useful?
Yes ___ No ___
19. Mark the tools you use most on the Edulink 2007 pages:
o Calendar [ ]
o Assignments [ ]
o Learning modules [ ]
o E-mail [ ]
o Explanations [ ]
SECTION E
INTERPRETING SERVICE
20. Did you make use of the interpreting service?
Yes ___ No ___
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 401–418 417
21. If not, why not?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
22. If you did make use of the service, which language did you listen to?
___________________________________________________________
23. Do you think it is good of bad that such a service is provided? Please supply a
reason for your answer.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
24. What according to you, are the advantages of having an interpreting service?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
25. What are the disadvantages of having an interpreting service?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
26. Would you in future make use of such a service if it is offered in your first
language?
Yes ___ No ___
27. Under which circumstances would you make use of and interpreting service?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
28. Do you think the interpreters give a true rendition of what the lecturer says?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
29. Did you approach an interpreter to further explain something to you that was
said in class?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
30. Do you think the interpreters are familiar with the course content of Cross
Cultural Communication?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Pienaar418
Yes ___ No ___
31. Please provide suggestions for the improvement of the service in future.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:13
05
Oct
ober
201
4
