Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Why it is unnecessary to make South African Sign Language the 12th official language

15 March 2023 | Story Prof Theodorus du Plessis | Photo Supplied

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

The South African public initially had until 30 June 2022 to respond to the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill, B1 – 2023, but the date was later moved to 25 February 2023. With this bill, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development intends to amend section 6 (1) of the constitution in such a way that South African Sign Language (SASL) is added to the list of 11 existing official languages.

The intended amendment changes the current constitutional status of SASL from a language recognised (albeit by implication) in section 6(5) in terms of the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB), to a language that is part of the state’s language mandate. The constitution specifically tasks PanSALB with the development and promotion of three language groups, namely the official languages, the non-Bantu indigenous click languages (in the constitution illogically mentioned as the “Khoi, Nama and San languages”) and “sign language” (note, not SASL in particular). The amendment therefore means that PanSALB’s language mandate is now limited to only two groups of languages: the official languages (with SASL as the 12th) and the mentioned click languages. The third group, which is represented by the generic term ‘sign language’, obviously falls away.

Intended constitutional amendment significantly expands SASL’s status

Incidentally, PanSALB takes its mandate in relation to SASL seriously, as evidenced by the establishment of the SASL National Language Board in 2002 in terms of the Pan South African Language Board Act, 1995 (as amended in 1999) – this is in addition to similar language bodies for each of the official languages, the click languages, and the so-called heritage languages (Hindi, French, etc.). The SASL Charter published in 2020 – so far, the only language charter for any of the languages that form part of PanSALB’s language mandate – is another telling example.

It is otherwise noteworthy that the intended constitutional amendment now significantly expands SASL’s (still not by name) status – already recognised since 1996 – as the official language for the purpose of learning at a public school in terms of the South African Schools Act. This law talks about “a recognised sign language”. According to the Department of Basic Education's 2002 revised National Curriculum Statement for Home Language, PanSALB is responsible for such recognition. In principle and, of course, subject to the restrictions and conditions of articles 6(2)-6(4) of the constitution, SASL can now be used as a language of state administration in addition to the existing 11 official languages – this is in accordance with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) definition of what an official language is and must do.

The intended amendment also changes the exceptional status that SASL enjoys in terms of the Use of Official Languages Act, 2012 (UOLA); in fact, a status not enjoyed by the official languages. This act requires state entities to develop a language policy that must prescribe how official languages will be used to effectively communicate with the public; note – without being specific. Their policies must, however, also prescribe how effective communication will be with a member of the public who chooses SASL (this time by name) as their preferred language! UOLA therefore grants a right to a user of SASL that a user of an official language does not enjoy. In fact, UOLA goes even further by granting a similar right to a member of the public who prefers a non-official language as a preferred language, for example Portuguese or Swahili. The intended amendment to the constitutional status of SASL means that this outstanding privilege of SASL (and for that matter probably also of the unofficial languages) will have to be removed from UOLA.

What shines through, is that SASL, in addition to the admittedly lesser form of constitutional recognition, already enjoys exceptional recognition in other legislation – legislation that we can classify as language legislation. One must, however, remember that many of the users of SASL are not only part of a linguistic minority, but as persons with a hearing impairment are also included in the community of persons with a disability. Legislation relating to this minority also gives recognition to SASL, albeit sometimes indirectly by referring to the rights of persons with hearing impairments.

Legislation relating to labour matters, such as the Equal Employment Act 2010, serves as a telling example of this. Regulations arising from the latter require, among other things, that an employer must provide an interpreting service to employees with a hearing impairment – this amounts to the ‘official’ use of SASL within the workplace, even if it is not the official language of the relevant institution.

This immediately makes one wonder why it is necessary to make SASL the 12th official language? In his invitation to the public to comment on the proposed amendment to the legislation, the Minister of Justice presents several arguments as to why empowerment is essential. This entails that officialisation will lead to the cultural acceptance of SASL and of the relevant community, promote substantive equality, and prevent unfair discrimination on the basis of disability. Obvious arguments that have little to do with the typical functions of an official language are, for example, the language of laws and regulations, government records, official forms (for example in relation to birth registrations), written communication between and within government institutions, or the spoken language of government officials in the performance of their official duties. The Minister's arguments seem to be largely moralistic in nature and rather relate to the symbolic value of an official language and not to its functional value.

But the bigger problem is that the Minister's arguments seem to make a connection between the rights contained in the constitution's Bill of Rights and the country's official languages, which almost make the enjoyment of these rights subject to official language status. This is noted where he argues that the empowerment of SASL will have an effect on the realisation of the right to equality in article 9 of the Charter. This way of thinking is rather strange for two reasons – firstly, since two of the five subsections under this clause do not directly relate to language, and secondly, since the reference to language in section 9(3) (and through cross-reference in the two remaining articles) relate to a linguistic human right – this is a type of universal language right that a person enjoys regardless of the status of the person's language. The universal linguistic human right contained in article 9 is that the state may not unfairly discriminate against anyone on one or more grounds, including culture and language. Markedly, this provision refers neither to a citizen nor to an official language, which implies that any person with a hearing impairment already enjoys the relevant language right regardless of whether SASL is an official language or not.

In fact, the only linguistic human right of the Charter that is indeed linked to an official language, is your right to education in an official language(s) of your choice as contained in article 29. Wisely, legislature already made it possible in 1996 for a person with a hearing impairment to also enjoy this linguistic human right. The rest of the linguistic human rights contained in the Charter do not relate to official languages, namely the right to use your language of choice in non-official language domains (section 30), the right not to restrict the use of your language within the community in which you participate (section 31), the right to be tried in the language that an accused person understands or to have the proceedings interpreted in such a language (section 35), the right to receive information regarding arrest and detention in a language that an accused person understands (also article 35), and the right to self-determination by a community that shares a common language (article 235). Therefore, a person with a hearing impairment who prefers SASL as their preferred language, just like a hearing person who prefers a spoken language as their preferred language, already has a claim to all these linguistic human rights, even if that language is not recognised as an official language.

Officialising SASL will have no significant effect on any linguistic human rights

In short, officialising SASL will in principle have no significant effect on any of the linguistic human rights in the Bill of Rights, because persons with hearing impairment already enjoy these rights. If the Minister is of the opinion that they do not enjoy these rights and he therefore wants to make a constitutional amendment, this means – strictly speaking – that there is a systemic problem somewhere that should be investigated. Put simply, what is needed is not necessarily additional legal intervention but rather law enforcement. What is needed is for the state to make it possible for persons with hearing impairments to enjoy their linguistic human rights. More implementation – not more legislation – is what is needed now.

What we learn from this case, is that there are misplaced expectations about what an official language can or should mean to you as a person. A first lesson is that all persons enjoy the same linguistic human rights and that these rights, except for education, are not linked to official languages. A second lesson is that if your language is indeed an official language, you have very few claims to specific language rights in this language, simply because of the legal restrictions that the state does not necessarily háve to use more than three official languages. At most, you can only hope that you will at least be able to get along more or less with one of the three chosen languages at any given time. A third lesson is that because of its exceptional status, SASL is not subject to this restriction and that users of SASL therefore have a right to language choice in terms of interaction with the state, which speakers of the official languages do not enjoy. A fourth lesson is that, for the sake of fairness, SASL will have to give up this status as soon as the language becomes official, which will actually disadvantage this minority.

Why is it unnecessary to make SASL an official language?

So, why is it unnecessary to make SASL an official language? Within the current dispensation, this will merely grant symbolic recognition to the language, which will not necessarily grant more rights to persons with hearing impairment than they currently already enjoy. Apart from their claim to exactly the same linguistic human rights as hearing people, persons who choose SASL as their preferred language enjoy the exceptional right that state entities must respect this choice, a right that hearing citizens do not enjoy. Instead of creating false expectations about the implications of the officialisation of SASL among the hearing-impaired community, the state should instead make this community aware of the rights that they already enjoy in terms of existing legislation and, above all, fulfil its duty towards this community by ensuring that these rights are realisable. One's fear is that the obsession with the officialisation of SASL will end up being just another smokescreen for neglect of duty by the state.

News Archive

In January 1, 2003, the Qwa-Qwa campus of the University of the North (Unin) was incorporated into the University of the Free State (UFS).

2003-02-07

FREDERICK FOURIE

IN January 1, 2003, the Qwa-Qwa campus of the University of the North (Unin) was incorporated into the University of the Free State (UFS).

While this is merely the beginning of a long and complex process, it does represent a major milestone in overcoming the apartheid legacy in education, realising the anti-apartheid goal of a single non-racial university serving the Free State.

The incorporation is also part of the minister's broader restructuring of the higher education landscape in South Africa - a process which aims to reshape the ideologically driven legacy of the past.

In contrast to the past educational and social engineering that took place, the current process of incorporating the Qwa-Qwa campus of Unin into the UFS is informed by three fundamentally progressive policy objectives, clearly outlined in the education white paper 3: (A framework for the transformation of higher education):

To meet the demands of social justice to address the social and structural inequalities that characterise higher education.

To address the challenges of globalisation, in particular the role of knowledge and information processing in driving social and economic development.

To ensure that limited resources are effectively and efficiently utilised, given the competing and equally pressing priorities in other social sectors.

Besides informing the way the UFS is managing the current incorporation, these policy objectives have also informed the transformation of the UFS as an institution over the past five years.

In 2001, former president Nelson Mandela lauded the success of the UFS in managing this transformation, by describing the campus as a model of multiculturalism and multilingualism. This was at his acceptance of an honorary doctorate from the UFS.

Indeed our vision for the Qwa-Qwa campus as a branch of the UFS is exactly the same as it is for the main UFS campus - a model of transformation, academic excellence, community engagement and financial sustainability, building on the histories and strengths of both the Qwa-Qwa campus and the UFS (Bloemfontein campus).

Realising this vision will be a giant leap forward in establishing a unified higher education landscape in the Free State.

In more concrete terms, the UFS is working towards this vision by focusing on the following areas of intervention: access and equity; academic renewal; investment in facilities; and sound financial management.

These interventions are being made not to preserve any vestiges of privilege or superiority, but precisely to increase access for students from poor backgrounds and to promote equity and representivity among all staff.

The current growth phase of the UFS has seen student enrolment almost double over the past five years, in particular black students, who now constitute approximately 55 percent of the student population of nearly 18 000 (including off-campus and online students).

But it has not just been a numbers game. Our approach has been to ensure access with success.

Our admissions policy, coupled with the academic support and "career preparation" programmes we offer, have resulted in significant successes for students who otherwise would not have been allowed to study at a university.

This will be continued at Qwa-Qwa as well.

Our academic offerings too have undergone dramatic change. We have become the first university in the country to offer a degree programme based on the recognition of prior learning (RPL).

This is not just a matter of academic renewal but of access as well, especially for working adults in our country who were previously denied a university education.

As for the sound financial management of the UFS (including the Qwa-Qwa campus), this is being done not for the sake of saving a few rands and cents, but for the greater value to our society that comes from having sustainable institutions.

It is sustainable universities that can make long-term investments to fund employment equity, provide information technology for students, upgrade laboratories, construct new buildings, develop research capacity, and provide a safe environment for students and staff, as is happening now at the UFS.

As a result of such management, a practical benefit for prospective students at the Qwa-Qwa campus of the UFS will be lower academic fees in some cases compared with the Unin fees.

As is the case with all these processes, there are concerns from staff and students at Qwa-Qwa and the broader community of the region that the Qwa-Qwa campus serves.

To get the campus viable and to ensure its continuation in the short term, tough choices had to be made by the minister of education regarding which programmes to offer and fund.

But we have been encouraged by the community's understanding that these concerns can be addresed over time as the campus becomes financially viable.

Meetings between the top mangement of the UFS and community representatives, staff and students at Qwa-Qwa have laid the basis for building a climate of trust in such a complex process.

We should not be captives of the past divisions but build this new unified higher education landscape that can meet our country's developmental needs.

It should be a higher education landscape that is based on broadening access, promoting equity and social justice, developing academic excellence, and the effective and efficient management of scarce resources. This should be our common common objective.

Professor Frederick Fourie the rector and vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS)

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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