Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 July 2023 | Story Prof Theodorus du Plessis | Photo Supplied
Prof Theo du Plessis
Prof Theodorus du Plessis is Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Prof Theodorus du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State


Firstly, South Africa now becomes the first country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official language in the country's constitution. This is different from the current 76 countries that officially recognise their sign languages.

Secondly, South Africa becomes only the seventh country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official national language. The other countries where the national sign language is an official language are Uruguay (as of 2001), New Zealand (as of 2006), Poland (as of 2012), Papua New Guinea and South Korea (both as of 2015), and Malta (as of 2016). Four of these countries – New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, and Malta – have effected the officialisation of their national sign languages through a national sign language law. Uruguay has done so through disability legislation and Papua New Guinea through a dictation of the country's National Executive Council.

Thirdly, it took South African Sign Language (SASL) just as long to become an official language of the country, as was the case with South Africa's nine Sintu languages (Zulu, Sotho, etc.). These languages were first recognised as official languages at regional level in 1963 but were recognised as national official languages alongside Afrikaans and English from the interim 1993 Constitution. SASL was granted official status from nowhere within 30 years. Incidentally, Afrikaans gained official status in 1925 – within 17 years after the 1909 Union Act was passed, recognising only English and Dutch as official languages.

Three factors played a role

Achieving these exceptional milestones is due to at least three factors, namely a favourable socio-political climate globally around minority languages and the whole disability issue, sustained pressure from an active Deaf lobby, and the active and decisive bottom-up actions by a string of role players. The degree of political favour should certainly not be lost sight of either. Already in 1995, the ruling ANC wanted SASL to become an official language, and eventually submitted exactly such a proposal to the Constitutional Assembly. Even though the time was not ripe for this, the proposal resulted in SASL being declared an official language in the South African Schools Act of 1996 for the purposes of teaching and learning in public schools (note, not only Deaf schools), the inclusion of "sign language" [sic] in the constitutional language mandate of the Pan South African Language Board, and the granting of linguistic human rights to all South Africans, including the Deaf, in terms of the Bill of Human Rights. The further amplification of SASL in terms of the 18th Constitutional Amendment crowns this campaign, which goes back to the period of the birth of our democracy.

International experts give three reasons why the officialisation of countries' national sign languages is significant:

  • It can help to ensure that Deaf people have access to education, employment, and other services in their ‘own language’.
  • It can promote the use of sign languages in general and also help to preserve the languages.
  • It can raise awareness about the so-called Deaf culture and the contributions of the Deaf.

All three reasons also bring us to the important issue of inclusivity. Education, in particular, plays an important role in this. To date, the Schools Act has been enforced in such a way that SASL has mainly been taught in Deaf schools as home language, while the law stipulates that it applies to all public schools. Now that SASL is also a national official language, perhaps the opportunity has come for the inclusion of SASL as home language in all schools. More importantly, a curriculum must now be developed so that the language can also be taught as first and second additional language in all schools. Such a thing would give inclusivity an enormous jolt. Many universities have been offering SASL as a subject for some time and can attest to the exceptional contribution it makes to fellowship between hearing and deaf persons.

Will not promote inclusivity as such

Also of great importance is the establishment of a functional language dispensation that will include professional language services for the Deaf as well. This will assist in actively realising the significant provisions of the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 that state entities must establish communication for persons with SASL as preferred language.

It is important to understand that the mere inclusion of SASL as a 12th official language will not promote inclusivity as such. It will require hard work. And more hard work!

 


Bibliography

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory was verified by the author.

Branson, J en D Miller. 1997. National sign language and language policies. In Wodak en  Corson, Encyclopedia of language and education: language policy and political issues in education, 1:89–98). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Constitute. 2013. Zimbabwe 2013 (2017 hersien). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Zimbabwe_2017.

De Meulder, M. 2015. The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4):498–506.

De Meulder, Maartje, J Murray en RL McKee. 2019. Introduction. The legal recognition of sign languages: advocacy and outcomes around the world. In De Meulder,  Murray en McKee (2019), The legal recognition of sign languages: advocay and outcomes around the world. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kiprop, V. 2019. Which countries recognize sign language as an official language? World Atlas: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-sign-language-as-an-official-language.html

Parlementêre Redaksie. 1995. Gebaretaal dalk gou SA se 12de amptelike taal. Die Burger, 8 Mei, bl. 9.

Reagan, T. 2020. Linguistic human rights and the deaf: implications for language policy. Hooftoesprak, 2nd Language Diversity in Educational Settings Workshop 2020: "Making a change through sign language". Organised by the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State, 9–20 November 2020. Virtual event.

Timmermans, N. 2005. The status of sign languages in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

VN (Verenigde Nasies). 1975. Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons adopted 9 December 1975 by General Assembly resolution 3447 (XXX). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commisioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights-disabled-persons

—. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted 13 December 2006 by Sixty-first session of the General Assembly by resolution A/RES/51/106. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

—. 2017. International Day of Sign Languages, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 A/RES/72/161. United Nations General Assembly.  https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F72%2F161&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

WFD (Wêreld Federasie van Dowes). 2016. Our story. World Federation of the Deaf. http://wfdeaf.org/who-we-are/our-story

—. 2022. The legal recognition of national sign languages (Update: 10 January 2022). World Federation of the Deaf. https://wfdeaf.org/news/the-legal-recognition-of-national-sign-languages

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory (Verified by author).


 

News Archive

The UFS issues a statement regarding the outcome of recent court case
2014-09-15

A significant number of reports appeared in the media the past week regarding this alleged attack, which happened on the Bloemfontein Campus of the UFS on 17 February 2014.

Although the senior leadership of the UFS is always in favour of good and objective journalism, we find it unfortunate that some of the facts are reported in a misleading and/or inaccurate way by some of the local media.

It is important to us that the true facts are stated. Not only for the sake of those involved, but also for our staff, students, alumni and other important stakeholders.

Here are the facts:

1.    The university was not the complainant. The alleged incident was reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS) by the victim, Muzi Gwebu, and the charges were laid by the State.

2.    At no point did the university management in any of its public statements describe this incident as a case of racism; not once. Charges of racism, then and now, must be proven, not assumed to be true simply because someone alleges racism. That is our standard approach, then and now.

3.    Cobus Muller and Charl Blom were suspended by the university, not expelled – pending the results of the court case. Emotions were running high among members of the student body and, on grounds of the evidence available to the university management at the time, as well as concerns for student and campus safety, they were suspended pending the outcome of a court hearing. This is normal procedure. Suspension does not mean you are guilty; it means you have a case to answer, either according to the university's disciplinary procedures or in the courts. For these reasons the university management will not apologise for the suspension.

4.    The university awaited the outcome of the court case before deciding whether disciplinary action should also be taken against Cobus Muller and Charl Blom. In the light of both the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Regional Court rulings, the university management subsequently decided to lift the suspensions of both Muller and Blom from all campuses of the university with immediate effect.

Muzi Gwebu laid serious charges with the SAPS almost immediately after the incident, and the university management believed, on the evidence then available, that the students had a case to answer.
 
5.    As the Director of Public Prosecutions decides on who will be prosecuted and who not, there are no grounds for the university to pay the legal fees of any of the students in this case.
 
Finally:
The University of the Free State will not be fazed by inaccurate and distorted information, rumour and exaggerations. We are still striving to become a truly excellent university, with a focus on the academic, but also the human development of our students.

Issued by: Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Tel: +27 (0) 51 401 2584 | +27 (0) 83 645 2454
E-mail: news@ufs.ac.za

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept