Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 May 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Tshepo Tsotetsi
Multilingualism stakeholder engagement session
Prof Vasu Reddy, UFS Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Internationalisation; guest speaker Prof Leketi Makalela; and Dr Nomalungelo Ngubane, Director of the UFS Academy for Multilingualism.

Multilingualism is not just a concept at the University of the Free State (UFS) – it is a growing practice, a challenge, and an opportunity all at once. This was made clear during a stakeholder engagement session on 7 May 2025, hosted by the Academy for Multilingualism at the UFS’s Bloemfontein Campus, where staff, academics, and strategic partners gathered to reflect on the university’s language journey.

In his reflections, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research and Internationalisation, Prof Vasu Reddy, emphasised that, “Scholarly conversations such as these are not just simply intellectually important, but socially and politically, and it is critical to learn from each other, exchange ideas, and make change.” He described the Academy as a “novel intervention” and noted how engagements like this help “break silos that languages sometimes create” – a crucial step towards realising the promise of multilingualism and translanguaging in academic spaces.

 

Progress, challenges, and collective ownership

In her presentation, Dr Nomalungelo Ngubane, Director of the Academy for Multilingualism, provided an overview of the institutional language policy and its implementation status, now in its third year of a five-year plan. She highlighted key strides: the translation of 116 PhD abstracts into Sesotho, Afrikaans, and isiXhosa; the development of South African Sign Language terminology in psychology; and the training of 16 tutors in translanguaging, among others.

Dr Ngubane stressed the importance of shared ownership of the policy’s rollout. “It’s very important that the language policy is understood by all stakeholders. It’s a collective journey, and it becomes even more powerful when people own it and take it forward into their departments, faculties, and student spaces,” she said. While she acknowledged that meaningful development of African languages as academic mediums is costly and resource-intensive, she noted that small, deliberate steps are being taken.

 

Ubuntu translanguaging: rethinking the classroom

The keynote address was delivered by Prof Leketi Makalela, full professor and founding Director of the Hub for Multilingual Education and Literacies at the University of the Witwatersrand. A globally recognised scholar and the holder of the SARChI Chair in Advancing African Languages for Social Inclusion and Access, Prof Makalela added a powerful perspective rooted in research and teaching practice.

He began his address with a reflection: “I believe I landed on this little rock called Earth to ensure that human beings have deep access to the world in which they were born, and you can only be part of this greater world and make full sense of it through language.”

Later, he challenged the monolingual mindsets that dominate higher education. “People still want to treat languages as different entities, and that’s where the issue is. That’s where the education system is not aligning with the realities of multilinguality.” 

Prof Makalela said multilingual students face dual disadvantages: compromised epistemic access [access to knowledge systems] due to monolingual bias, and diminished identity affirmation. His response? Ubuntu translanguaging – a model that embraces cohabitation of languages and student-led meaning-making.

“It’s a misconception that the lecturer must translanguage,” he said. “It is the student who should translanguage. The lecturer should only facilitate and respect that internal process.”

He outlined a clear, three-step translanguaging teaching method:

• Pre-lesson: Activate prior learning and scaffold vocabulary and concepts.
• During lesson: Create space for multilingual thinking – allow students to write, reflect, and engage in their own languages.

• Post-lesson: Validate understanding, and open the classroom to diverse linguistic expressions.

Prof Makalela stressed that the real innovation lies in normalising these practices institution-wide. “Existing multilingual tutorials are useful, but real transformation happens when every lecturer opens up their lessons to multilingual engagement.”

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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