Journal of Language, Identity & Education

ISSN: 1534-8458 (Print) 1532-7701 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

English-Plus Multilingualism as the New Linguistic

Capital? Implications of University Students
Attitudes Towards Languages of Instruction in a
Multilingual Environment

Nanda Klapwijk & Christa Van der Walt

To cite this article: Nanda Klapwijk & Christa Van der Walt (2016) English-Plus Multilingualism as
the New Linguistic Capital? Implications of University Students Attitudes Towards Languages of
Instruction in a Multilingual Environment, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 15:2, 67-82,
DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2015.1137475

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1137475

View supplementary material Published online: 07 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 383

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20

Download by: [De La Salle University Manila Philippines] Date: 05 June 2017, At: 04:18
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
2016, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 6782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1137475

English-Plus Multilingualism as the New Linguistic Capital?

Implications of University Students Attitudes Towards Languages
of Instruction in a Multilingual Environment
Nanda Klapwijka and Christa Van der Waltb
a
University of South Africa; bUniversity of Stellenbosch

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article investigates university students attitudes and perceptions about cultural capital; higher
language in a multilingual country where most instruction is in English and education; home language
identity; identity; language
annual national literacy results have been declining for at least 15 years. and literacy; linguistic
Despite this decline, English seems to be entrenched as the language of capital; language of
instruction, and at university it seems a foregone conclusion that instruction instruction; language policy;
will occur in English. Bourdieus concept of linguistic capital is offered as an language use and identity;
explanation for the preponderance of English, but the question is posed: Is multilingual education;
the dominance of English as simple as desiring linguistic capital? Do stu- multilingualism
dents really regard English as critical to success, and if so, is it to the
exclusion of their home languages? The results show that students invest
considerable effort in learning English, but not to the exclusion of their
home language and with little desire to assimilate with the English culture.
The results also provide interesting and sometimes contrasting insights into
students desired language of instruction.

The scenario is a familiar one for a multilingual (usually postcolonial) country: a society in which
multiple languages enjoy equal status by law, and where the national curriculum acknowledges and
supports multilingualism. However, in reality very little instruction takes place in home languages, and
where this does occur, such instruction dominate[s] in preschools and adult literacy programmes,
whereas they are rare in secondary schools, let alone universities (Gadelii, 2004, p. 31). In addition,
home language instruction is often of a poor quality due to a lack of learning material in local languages
and a mismatch between teachers home languages and those of their learners. Generally, in South
Africa, English seems to have become firmly entrenched as the language of instruction at school, and at
the university level it is virtually a foregone conclusion that instruction will occur in English.
South Africa, like most countries in Africa, is multilingual. Despite a progressive language policy
that allows for teaching in any of the 11 official languages, the legacy of colonialism, coupled with the
status of English worldwide, has made implementation of the policy difficult. At the same time it has
become clear that putting languages in opposition by asking parents and students to make a rigid
choice between a colonial language and an indigenous one, is not only untenable but also unfair
(Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005, p. 10). It is untenable because in the case of English in South Africa, access
to higher education (which is emblematic for job opportunities and upward social mobility) depends
on English language proficiency. It is unfair because one expects parents to make a choice for
something of which they have mainly bad experiences in the form of Bantu Education policies

CONTACT Nanda Klapwijk, Senior Lecturer, Associate Editor: Per Linguam klapwn1@unisa.ac.za Dept. of Linguistics &
Modern Languages, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa.
Supplemental material data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1137475.
Supplementary material includes an Appendix featuring a language survey.
2016 Taylor & Francis
68 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

whereby home language instruction was equated with bad education. Kotze (2014, p. 25) explains it
succinctly when he notes,
It is probably an axiom that language habits and perceptions are formed during the cognitive development of
the rising generations, that is, in the process of education, and old habits tend to persist. Furthermore, it is these
language habits and perceptions that form the basis of language attitudes, both towards the vernacular used as a
home, or first, language and the erstwhile colonial language, which is used, almost without exception, as a
language of learning in Africa.

In a global context the use of English as the lingua franca in higher education institutions means that
the desire and push for English is not only an African phenomenon. For students who may want to
continue their studies outside the country, English gains in importance. Varghese (2008) notes that the
United States has the biggest percentage of transnationally mobile students. According to him,
language familiarity may explain the increasing flow of cross-border students to English-speaking
countries such as Australia, the UK and the USA (p. 23). It would be folly to argue that instruction in
English should be abandoned in favour of another language: the question is rather, what would be the
place of English in the language repertoire needed by students from multilingual communities?
Literature on bilingual/multilingual education in the United States focuses predominantly on the
acknowledgement of minority languages (see Garcia, 2009; Garcia & Zakharia, 2012). A similar
situation is found in Britain, where researchers like Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012) and Blackledge
and Creese (2010) write about the status of minority languages or of varieties of dominant languages.
In South Africa it is the reverse: majority languages, spoken by the majority of the population, are
the ones that are being denied an effective place in education through the preponderance of English
as medium of instruction.
However, it is not simply about choosing an indigenous language rather than a colonial one. The
choice of one language rather than another is also problematical in communities where different
languages coexist. McNamara (2011) notes of Jacques Derridas youth experiences in Algeria, that his
account is a story [in Monolingualism of the Other] not of the experience of multilingualism but
precisely of the erasure of this possibility as a result of colonial language policy (p. 431), a sentiment
with which most Africans would probably agree. In this context multilingualism is not the juxtaposi-
tion or additive of many individual languages, but a composite state resulting from the interaction with
a given number of languages within a common [our emphasis] space (Ouane, 2009, p. 57).
In many South African classrooms the use of, for example, code-switching and translation is
commonplace as students engage with academic material and draw on resources they have in other
languages (see Madiba, 2014; Probyn, 2009; Setati, Adler, Reed, & Bapoo, 2002). Although students
realise the importance of being proficient in English, the language serves as a means to an end, which
does not necessarily mean avoidance or loss of other languages. As Brock-Utne (2010) points out,
Education should be about acquiring knowledge, and not merely about learning English (p. 95). In
the process students bring other languages into the classroom in a way that has been described as
translanguaging (Lewis et al., 2012): speaking one language while writing in another, or listening to
one language and speaking in another. As will be shown in the rest of the article, translanguaging can
be seen as a defining characteristic of the multilingual students described in this study, and it is a
practice that may be aligned more closely with learners and students real-life language use.

English in South African education

Despite scenarios such as the one described above, English continues to dominate as language of
instruction (and government communication). The preference for English as medium of instruction
seems to be largely based on the perception of the importance of English to succeed in life and work
rather than the actual dominant use of English by a majority of the population. Heugh (2007) states
that this public perception of the predominance of English . . . reflects a reality pertinent to only a
small percentage of the South African public (p. 192). Systemic Evaluation Reports (performed every
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 69

4 years) and Annual Literacy Assessments performed in all schools every year, as well as independent
reports such as the PANSALB report by the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2001), continue to link
the rapid decline in literacy levels to the preponderance of English as medium of instruction. The
PANSALB survey performed in 2001 shows that the language of greatest fluency in Grades 05 was not
English but rather (in order of result) isiZulu, isiXhosa, and Afrikaans (English placed last in the top
seven languages that emerged). The same three languages scored the same top three positions in the
category of Language Proficiency in Relation to Age (1617 years).
Results from the 2011 national census show that isiZulu, isiXhosa, and Afrikaans remain the three
most spoken languages at home, although the use of English as home language has increased compared
to the remaining official languages (Statistics South Africa, 2012). After Grade 4, the vast majority of
learners switch to English and small numbers have the opportunity to continue their schooling in
Afrikaans. This means that most learners switch to a language of learning and teaching when they have
had a maximum of 3 years learning English between 3 and 4 hours a week, according to the latest
curriculum documents (see for example the Department of Basic Educations National Curriculum and
Policy Statement for Grades 79 for English, 2011, p. 7). In the Department of Educations
Intermediate Phase Systemic Evaluation Report (2005), which evaluates Grade 46 learners perfor-
mance in reading, writing, and numeracy every 4 years,1 it is not surprising that

learners who took the test in their home language, where this was the same as the LoLT,2 obtained substantially
higher scores than learners whose home language was different from the LoLT, and as a result, wrote the test in
a second or third language. This trend was noted across all provinces. (p. 96)

The more recent 2012 Annual National Assessments (Department of Basic Education, 2012) show
similar results: in Grade 3 the average score for literacy across all provinces in South Africa was 35%
(numeracy was 28%), and in Grade 6 the average score for literacy in the language of learning and
teaching was 28% (numeracy 30%). At Grades 1, 2, and 3 the tests are conducted in a language
identified by the school as the home language for the majority of the learners. The results for Grade 6,
when the tests are done in English and, to a lesser extent in Afrikaans, are hardly surprising because
learners will have started using these languages as languages of learning and teaching only 2 years
previously. This literacy deficiency tends to accumulate to secondary level (Babaci-Wilhite, 2010, p.
288), and essentially means that, particularly at a higher education level, students are expected to
acquire Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) before they have sufficient Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) to cope with such a challenge (Brock-Utne, 2009, p. 30).
It is important to recognize that it is no simple matter to describe the use of English in South
African classrooms. Authors like Setati et al. (2002) and Van Der Walt, Mabule, and De Beer (2001)
have written about the use of code-switching by teachers and learners. The problem with English as
the language of learning extends beyond the classroom and Kotze (2014) depicts the stark reality of
the situation by noting,

The ironic situation exists that in many, if not most, instances the teacher and the class share the same home
language, but the tuition has to be in a language in which neither of the two parties is proficient. Even the
accommodating gesture by the Department to translate some key examination papers into the mother tongues
of candidates to provide more clarity to the learners was only partially effective, since the papers still had to be
answered in English. (p. 22)

One explanation for the continued use of English in the face of these results can be found in
Bourdieus (1986) concept of cultural and linguistic capital. In essence, Bourdieu adopts an economic
perspective on language by stating that language not only is used to speak about economic issues
but is itself an economic fact. Bourdieu (1999) claims that language is not merely a means of
communication but an instrument of power, where the producer (user) is endowed with linguistic
capital and utterances convey signs of wealth and authority. He (Bourdieu, 1977) maintains that a
person speaks not only to be understood but also to be believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished
and that language is worth what those who speak it are worth (p. 652).
70 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

Bourdieu (1977) highlights the educational system as a crucial object of struggle because it has
monopoly over the reproduction of the market on which the value of linguistic competence
dependsi.e. its capacity to function as linguistic capital (p. 652). Based on the aforementioned
discussion of literacy results and the growing dominance of English as language of instruction,
the situation has had a serious negative impact on African education and on the academic
performance of African learners (Brock-Utne & Hopson, 2005, p. 3).
This paper asks whether the issue of the dominance of English is as simple as a desire for
linguistic capital, particularly in a country where multilingualism is the norm (Banda, 2009, p. 108)
and students (speakers of native languages) have experience of multilingual classrooms and social
practices that question the one-dimensional link between language and identity or language and
status. Instead, students and lecturers translanguaging practices show their use of available
languages as strategic choices to gain understanding and negotiate meaning. Although English
currently seems to be the most-used medium of instruction in South Africa (other than in
Afrikaans-medium schools), what do students think? Given a choice, particularly at the higher
education level, do our naturally multilingual students really desire English as the only medium of
instruction? And if so, is this apparent desire for linguistic capital strong enough that these students
want English to replace their own language(s)? At the same time, it seemed important to investigate
the degree to which students saw English replacing other languages and whether identification
with their home language and home language cultures was affected by positive attitudes towards
English.
It is obviously problematic to link language and identity in such a simplistic way, but
Kamwangamalu (2001) notes that in post-apartheid South Africa a static view of the relationship
between language and ethnicity (p. 80) is still very much in evidence and that, in the case of his
research participants, most still consider this language [their home language] as a symbol of their
ethnic identity (p. 85). Dalvit and De Klerk (2005) come to similar conclusions, but the attitude
towards English (among isiXhosa speakers) shows that while Xhosa was strongly associated with the
Xhosa culture, English was not associated with any particular culture, but simply referred to as the
language of the real world (p. 9). In her study of isiZulu-speaking residents of Umlazi, Rudwick
(2008) delved deeper into what she calls coconut dynamics (p. 108), with reference to the
derogatory term for speakers perceived to be ethnically African but who use immaculate English
(p. 102); that is, they are branded as being dark on the outside but White inside. She finds a
strong affiliation with isiZulu as a marker of identity:

In fact, 46% of the 200 high school learners who completed questionnaires indicated that English has a negative
influence on their culture, thus suggesting that a good portion of these youths reject English as a marker of their
cultural identity. (p. 110)

These studies show not only the complexity of social and cultural identities but also the way in
which the simplistic link between language, culture, and identity is prevalent today. As
Kamwangamalu (2001) concludes, The walls that the system erected to separate the language
communities remain as tall as they were during the years of apartheid (p. 91).
In light of these findings, it seemed useful to investigate the extent to which such affiliations were
evident in our research participants, particularly between Afrikaans home language (HL) speakers
(a language that still has a strong presence as language of learning and teaching in schools and at the
higher education level) and students who spoke an African language as an HL. The questionnaire
used in this study attempted to investigate the following questions: (a) Do university students really
perceive English as the so-called key to success; (b) to what extent, if at all, do students recognize
the value of their own and other languages (identifying with such languages); and finally, (c) what
language(s), if any, do students prefer as language of instruction?
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 71

Methodology
The study gathered quantitative data through the use of a questionnaire based on a similar
questionnaire used by Drnyei, Csizr & Nmeth (2006). However, the aim of the questionnaire
in this study was to investigate issues about languages spoken in one country, whereas Drnyei et al.
(2006) focused on the effect of multiple European languages on Hungarian students language use
(also see Limitations of the Study). The questionnaire used in this study consisted of 40 questions
divided into three sections (see Appendix A). The first section consisted of 16 questions, using a
Likert scale of 1 to 4 (4 = Very Much, 3 = So-so, 2 = Not at All or 1 = Unsure). In this section,
respondents were asked to allocate a score for each question in three categories, namely Home
Language, English, and Afrikaans; in other words, for each question in Section 1 there were three
scores/responses (see extract from Section 1 of questionnaire in Figure 1).
The selection of language categories for the questionnaire proved to be challenging and resulted
in the duplication of scores for Afrikaans respondents (since for them Home Language and
Afrikaans was the same thing). However, by using only the score from Home Language in the
Afrikaans HL responses, it was possible to bypass this limitation.
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of 18 questions, again using a Likert scale of 1
to 4 (4 = Very True, 3 = Partly True, 2 = Not True at All or 1 = Unsure) (see Figure 2).
Section 2 of the questionnaire focused on the use of English in general and posed questions related to
issues such as the effort respondents were prepared to put into learning English, whether respondents felt
assimilation with the English culture was necessary to learn English well, and the medium of instruction
in education. The final section of the questionnaire contained six questions, for statistical purposes, such
as indication of gender, home language, and the province where the respondent grew up.

Participants
A total of 201 students from two universities in the Western Cape Province (called University A and
University B for the purposes of this article) participated in the survey. University A is situated in a city
suburb and serves a student population where Afrikaans and/or isiXhosa (the most-spoken African
language in the province) can be regarded as students dominant HL. University B serves a student

Figure 1. Sample of Section 1 of questionnaire.

Figure 2. Sample of Section 2 of questionnaire.

72 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

community that is predominantly Afrikaans speaking. University A produced 55 respondents, of

which 45 identified an African language as their HL (44 identified isiXhosa, and one isiZulu), and 10
identified Afrikaans as their HL. University B produced a total of 146 respondents, all of whom
identified Afrikaans as their HL. It is important to note that the indication of one language as an HL
does not necessarily mean that the language students indicated it as their only HL. However, in this
study it was taken to mean the dominant language in their homes. For the purposes of the discussion
that follows, any reference to the three languages in the questionnaire must therefore be taken to
mean English, Afrikaans, and isiXhosa, with the understanding that one of them will be the dominant
language (referred to in the questionnaire as the language used most often).
Participation in the questionnaire was voluntary and it was made clear to students that participation
was also completely anonymous. The only requirement for participation was that the respondents
should not use English exclusively as an HL, since the questionnaire probed the opinion of non
English speakers about English in general and as language of instruction in education. The
questionnaires were handed out and completed in class before the start of a lecture and were
distributed by lecturers on behalf of the researcher.

Data analysis
The students responses were captured on a spreadsheet that had been prepared for the questionnaire
by a statistician. Once all responses had been captured on the spreadsheet, the data were analysed
with descriptive statistics using frequency tables. Three separate sets of frequency tables were
obtained: one for all respondents, one subset for respondents who identified Afrikaans as HL, and
one subset for respondents who identified isiXhosa as HL. The latter two subsets were obtained to
identify to what extent (if at all) the responses of the two different HL groups differed or concurred.
The discussion of results for this article will centre on both the combined results, and reference will
be made to results from the Home Language subsets where they are noteworthy and contribute to a
better understanding of issues identified in the combined results. Furthermore, in Section 1 (where
each question was given three scores), to prevent the over-complication of the discussion of results,
the highest or most noteworthy score/s will be used for discussion, and reference will be made to
other scores only where they are deemed significant to the discussion.

Results and discussion

Students perception about the importance of English
As described earlier, the first section of the questionnaire asked students to provide a score for each
question in three language categoriesnamely English, Afrikaans, and Home Language. The term Home
Language was used as a general indicator for isiXhosa, the most-spoken African language in the province
where University A and B are situated and to make allowance for the possibility that some African
students might speak a language other than isiXhosa as a HL (there was only one, isiZulu, which belongs
to the same language family as isiXhosa). Many students in the Western Cape grow up with more than
one language, with exposure to English and Afrikaans both inside and outside their homes.
Overall the responses to questions in the first section indicate that students perceive English to be
very important, whether in terms of its general use or its use in education. In response to questions
about how important they deem the use of their HL and English in South Africa, Africa, and
worldwide, students were strongly in favour of English. Students scored the importance of the use of
English in South Africa at 85% (Likert scale of Very Much), with similar high scores in favour of the
importance of English in Africa (77%) and worldwide (94%) (see Figure 3).
In contrast, the scores for HLs in the category (Not important at all) underscore the strength of
students perception that English is important as a global access language, particularly when it is placed
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 73

90
80
70

Responses (as %)
60
50
40 Home language
30
English
20
10
0
Very much Not at all So-so
Likert scale

Figure 3. Perceived importance of languages in South Africa.

Perceived importance of home language and English

worldwide
100

80
Responses (as %)

60

40 Home language
20 English

0
Very Not at all So-so Unsure
much
Likert scale

Figure 4. Perceived importance of languages worldwide.

in direct competition with their HLs. Thirty-six percent of students rated their HL as Not important at
all in Africa, while 44% felt the same in terms of the value of their HL worldwide (see Figure 4).
When asked which of the three languages was deemed most important for successful study, 80%
of students again rated English as very important. However, while English was given the highest
score in terms of success in studies, students did not completely disregard the importance of their
HL in this regard; 37% of the isiXhosa speakers and 64% of Afrikaans HL speakers rated their HL as
important for successful studies. This seemed to indicate the recognition of other languages as useful
to mediate and make sense of academic material.
In fact, in terms of the effort students are prepared to put into learning languages, students did not
seem to favour English. Despite rating English as the most important language for their studies and
for general use locally and abroad, students scores for the question, How much effort are you
prepared to put into learning this language? are very similar at 73% (effort to learn English) compared
to the effort for learning their HL at 72% (69% for isiXhosa and 79% for Afrikaans HL speakers).

Students perception about languages for learning and teaching

Two contrasting responses to the question, How much do you think knowing this language helps you
become successful in your studies? were particularly revealing and warranted a closer look at the separate
Afrikaans (Figure 5) and isiXhosa HL results (Figure 6). In their responses to the aforementioned
question, two things are apparent: (a) the degree of uncertainty of isiXhosa HL speakers about the
value of Afrikaans in successful studies and (b) the high value Afrikaans HL speakers place on their
74 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

80

Responses (displayed as
70
60

percentage)
50
40
30 Home language
20
10 English
0
Very So-so Not at all Unsure
much
Likert score

Figure 5. Afrikaans HL speakers response to importance of languages for successful study.

100
90
Responses (displayed as a

80
70
percentage)

60
50
Home language
40
30 English
20 Afrikaans
10
0
Very So-so Not at all Unsure
much
Likert score

Figure 6. IsiXhosa HL speakers response to importance of languages for successful study.

language for successful study. Whereas 25% of the isiXhosa HL students selected Unsure with regard to
the value of Afrikaans, only 1% of the Afrikaans HL speakers selected this option. At the same time, 64%
of Afrikaans HL speakers viewed Afrikaans as important for successful study, but only 37% of isiXhosa
HL speakers felt the same about the value of isiXhosa in successful studies. These results are not surprising
when one takes the history of Afrikaans into account, where it benefited from a nationalist agenda and
has been used as a LoLT in higher education since the 1930s. The results for the isiXhosa speakers are not
surprising either when one takes into account the problems with the introduction of African languages
like isiZulu (Parmegiani & Rudwick, 2014) as LoLTs in higher education. It is important to remember
that students will reflect dominant attitudes in the community and in the media and if they have not seen
a language used formally in higher education, how will they recognize its possibilities?
The results seem to indicate that students may not simply be after gaining linguistic capital
through the use of English at all costs, but are in fact aware of the role of other languages in
learning. It also seems to indicate that both HL groups are aware of the inherited status of Afrikaans
(as the language that was promoted during the Apartheid era) and the fact that it still affords
considerable cultural capital in higher education, particularly at certain universities, despite the
overwhelming use of English in general. The responses also seem to indicate that Afrikaans HL
speakers recognise the linguistic capital of Afrikaans, despite their perceptions about the importance
of English.
Overall the responses to the questions in Section 1 indicate that students maintain a strong belief
about the importance of English for success, but that this belief is not entirely to the exclusion of
their own language/s, as can be expected from multilingual students.
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 75

The existence of alternative/multiple language identities

The next part of Section 1 of the questionnaire focused on students recognition of the value of their own
and other languages, particularly in the presence of their perception about the importance of English.
Two questions were aimed at determining to what extent students wish to assimilate themselves
with the English culture or, stated differently, how strong their HL identity was compared to their
possible identification with English. The first question asked, How much would you like to be
similar to the people who speak this language as a home language? HL students allocated a higher
percentage of Very much to their HL than to English, with 81% for isiXhosa (versus 65% for English)
and 80% for Afrikaans (versus 45% for English). Similarly, in response to the second question, How
much do you like meeting people associated with this language as home language? the scores were
again in favour of the respective HLs, with 89% for isiXhosa (as opposed to 65% for English) and
89% for Afrikaans (but 44% for English) (see Figure 7).
This pro-home language trend was visible not only in terms of English but also amongst the
isiXhosa students with regard to Afrikaans (see Figure 8).
The isiXhosa HL speakers, in response to the question, How much do you like meeting people
associated with this language as home language? scored their own language 89% in the Very Much
category, compared with 65% for English and 44% for Afrikaans. In their responses to both
questions HL students show a stronger affiliation with their HL than with English.

90
80
70
Responses (as %)

60
50
40 Home language
30
English
20
10
0
Very much So-so Not at all Unsure
Likert scale

Figure 7. Combined responses: Desire to be like people of specific language group.

Responses (displayed as a %)

100
90
80
70
60 Home language
50
40 English
30
20 Afrikaans
10
0
Very So-so Not at all Unsure
much
Likert score

Figure 8. IsiXhosa HL speakers desire to meet people in specific language groups.

76 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

The link between language and a perceived identity or culture

In Section 2, students were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a
series of statements that allude to the fact that in order to learn English properly in education, it is
necessary to embrace a perceived English identity, in other words become more like people who
use English as an HL. As pointed out earlier, research by Dalvit and De Klerk (2005),
Kamwangamalu (2001), and Rudwick (2008) shows that language and identity still exhibit a strong
link in South African society, and it is important to determine the extent to which English may be
seen as a substitute for HL cultures and affiliations or whether it forms part of a more complex
constellation of social and cultural identities in our study.
The statements in the questionnaire were aimed at determining the extent (if any) to which students
believed it possible or necessary to maintain a strong affiliation with their HLs while learning English
(irrespective of their perceptions about the importance of English as provided in Section 1). With
regard to students opinion of the importance of assuming an English identity to learn English,
students responses point to a significant desire to maintain their identity with their own languages
whilst learning/using English. In comparison to responses in Section 1, which showed high scores for
the positive Likert scale score (Very Much), in Section 2 the majority of higher scores were allocated
to the negative Likert scale score of Not True At All. In other words, students indicated a strong
disagreement with most statements that favoured assimilation with what is perceived to be an English
culture in order to learn the language properly, as the following Figure shows (see Figure 9).
For example, in response to the statement, It is more important to be able to speak English than
my home language, 24% of students chose Not True at All (by comparison 24% felt this statement
was Very True, while 48% felt it was Partly True).
Similar scores were allocated to the statement, To learn English well, it is important to learn the skills
and knowledge of the English culture; 27% strongly disagreed with the statement, while 34% agreed
strongly and 36% felt it was partly true. These close scores for agreement and disagreement seem to point
to the awareness of the value of the English currency and that some change or assimilation was acceptable
and even necessary. However, significantly stronger disagreement was shown to statements that alluded
not only to the somewhat vague issues of skills and knowledge, but rather to more personal issues such
as becoming or sounding like the people associated with the language. For example, in response to the
statement, To speak English well, it is important to become like the people of the English culture, 75%
selected Not True at All (compared to 7% Very True and 14% Partly True). Similarly, in response to the
statement, To speak English well it is important to sound like the people of the English culture (i.e., use
the same accent), 69% strongly disagreed (compared to 6% Very True and 19% Partly True). A clear
indicator of students desire to maintain their HL identity (while reaffirming their belief in the
importance of learning English) is provided in the scores for the statement, It is important to learn

60
Responses (as %)

50
40
30
20
10
0
Very much So-so Not at all Unsure
Likert score

Figure 9. Importance of speaking English over Home Language.

 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 77

English, but English must not become more important than my home language: 72% strongly agreed,
and a further 15% felt the statement was partly true.

Perceptions of loss
Two statements that allude to the loss of the HL culture because of the dominance of English seem to
indicate fairly strong disagreement combined with some uncertainty. Two statements were posed: (a)
I think my home language is becoming less important because of the strong emphasis on the use of
English in South Africa and (b) Using English so often makes me feel like I am not 100% part of my
own culture anymore. In response to the first statement, 48% of students agreed strongly, while 25%
disagreed stronglya result that seems to indicate that despite strong HL identities, students
nevertheless experience some threat to their HLs or they experience a separation from HL and culture.
However, in response to Statement 2, which relates to the effect of English on culture rather than HL,
43% disagreed strongly that the dominance of English created a separation from the HL culture.
The ways in which bi-/multilinguals synthesise the worlds belonging to their different languages
(as described by Mills, 2001) are seen by Marx (2002) as evidence of multiple identities that change
in interaction with other community members (p. 277). The respondents in this case seem to show
a similar synthesis of languages that they need for different domains and purposes. The fact that a
so-called global language, English, is part of the mix is a phenomenon that Jenkins (2003) refers to as
English-knowing bilinguals. The importance and status of English is explicit in this term and
acknowledges a worldwide trend in higher education. Indeed, Van Der Walt (2013) refers to
English-plus multilingualism as a phenomenon that privileges English as an essential element of
an educated multilinguals repertoire. As Van der Walt points out, the term is used to indicate that
bi-/multilingualism does not necessarily imply knowledge of any number of languages: in inter-
nationalised HE contexts, it means academic English plus other languages (Van der Walt, p. 12).

Indication of preferred language(s) of instruction

The final goal of the questionnaire was to determine whether students had a preference for a
language or languages of instruction. Three statements were posed with regard to this issuenamely,
(a) receiving instruction in both the HL and English, (b) receiving instruction in the HL only, and (c)
receiving instruction in English only. Students were asked to indicate the degree to which they
agreed with each statement (Very True, So-so, Not True at All, or Unsure).
In response to Statement 1 (receiving instruction in both the HL and English), 66% of students
scored strongly in favour of the statement, with only 10% voting strongly against the option by
selecting Not True at All. At an overall group level, it would seem that most students are in favour of
HL plus English as languages of instruction or, stated differently, are in favour of multilingual
instruction. An interesting difference in responses to this question is, however, noticeable in the HL
data subsets. The HL data subsets seem to indicate that the Afrikaans HL speakers are more strongly
in favour of HL plus English instruction: 72% selected Very True compared to only 55% of the
isiXhosa HL speakers who felt the same way. In addition, 18% of the isiXhosa HL speakers selected
Not True at All for this option (compared to 7% of the Afrikaans HL speakers) (see Figure 10).
The isiXhosa HL students reaction seems to point to a degree of uncertainty about committing to
a final choice in selecting the language(s) of instruction. Conversely it may also simply be the case
that Afrikaans HL speakers feel more certain of and secure about the status (linguistic capital) of
their language and, therefore, are able to agree more easily to HL plus English instruction. This
linguistic security seems to be borne out in the responses to Statements 2 (HL instruction only)
and 3 (English-only instruction). When looking at the responses to Statement 2 for the combined
group of students, 38% selected Very True for Home Languageonly instruction, and 31% strongly
disagreed by selecting Not True at All.
78 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

80
70
60
50
40 Afrikaans HL speakers

30 isiXhosa HL speakers

20
10
0
Very much So-so Not at all Unsure

Figure 10. HL speakers response to receiving bilingual instruction.

However, when separating the HL speakers results, the groups responses are almost in direct
contrast to each other. A total of 41% of the Afrikaans HL group scored in favour of HL-only
instruction; whereas 26% did not favour the idea at all, compared to the isiXhosa group of which
42% strongly disagreed with HL-only instruction while only 27% felt strongly in favour of HL-only
instruction. These results again seem to point to a stronger belief in the value of their HL as medium
of instruction amongst Afrikaans speakers, for reasons explained above.
The students responses to Statement 3 (English-only instruction) are interesting to note, particularly
in view of the strong indication of their perception about the importance of English in Section 1 of the
questionnaire. As far as the combined group (all responses) goes, 69% strongly disagreed with the notion
of English-only instruction (10% voted in favour of the option). When delving into the separate HL
data sets, the Afrikaans HL speakers display a particularly strong disagreement with this option (79%),
while the isiXhosa HL speakers again seem to be somewhat uncertain about making a definitive choice,
with 25% voting strongly in favour of English-only instruction compared to 45% disagreeing strongly
(see Figure 11).
The results seem to point to the existence of a significant choice for multilingual classrooms,
which is slightly stronger within the Afrikaans group.
On the one hand, students realise the importance of being proficient in English (or in Bourdieus
terms, they are aware of the linguistic capital afforded by English); on the other hand, they do not seem to
think English should be used to the exclusion of their own languages in education nor do they seem to
wish to assimilate with a perceived English culture. In fact, students affiliation with English (where it
exists) seems largely functional in nature (obtaining a qualification or job rather than entry to a
community or culture), a finding similar to that of Dalvit and De Klerk (2005). Much like the use of
different currencies when travelling to different countries is indispensable for basic services and

90
80
70
60
50
Afrikaans HL speakers
40
isiXhosa HL speakers
30
20
10
0
Very much So-so Not at all Unsure

Figure 11. HL speakers response to receiving English-only instruction.

 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 79

successful transactions, students use of English seems to serve a very specific purpose. And much like the
use of financial currency is temporary and does not make the user part of the target community or
culture (something that would take time, investment, knowledge, and real capital), students HL identity
remains strong and their identification with English seems largely functional. Students attitudes seem
similar to the isiXhosa-speaking participants in Dalvit and De Klerks (2005) study, where very few Fort
Hare students displayed an enthusiastic and integrative orientation towards English (p. 10).

Limitations of the study

The naming of the columns for Section A of the questionnaire can be considered a limitation, since it
resulted in the duplication of scores for the Afrikaans respondents (because for them Home Language
and Afrikaans is the same thing). Participants had to be non-English HL speakers. For the Afrikaans
HL students, an Afrikaans column was sufficient; however, for the African-language speakers it was
more difficult to provide a column heading with a specific language. African HL speakers rarely speak a
single African language at home, although it is usually possible to identify the one spoken most often. For
the purposes of the questionnaire it was possible to identify isiXhosa as the most-spoken language in the
province where the study was done, but using isiXhosa as a heading could have excluded, for example, an
isiZulu HL speaker (as it turns out, there was an isiZulu HL speaker amongst the respondents). Providing
nine columns (one for each official African language) was not practical (costs and ease of use of the
questionnaire). Since English and Afrikaans were specifically identified, the more generic and all-
inclusive Home Language was selected for the African languages since South African students would
recognise this as African languages. Using separate questionnaires was not deemed to be an option,
since it was not financially feasible and could have created linguistic sensitivities even before the
questionnaire was completed. However, since the Afrikaans HL respondents scores were the same in
the Home Language and Afrikaans columns, it was possible to avoid the duplication of scores by using
only the scores in the Home Language and English columns when the analysis involved the combined
results for a particular language, or the discussion of the Afrikaans HL speakers responses. When the
isiXhosa HL speakers responses were discussed, the results in all three columns were used, since their
opinion of Afrikaans was important.

Conclusion
University students in particular are aware of the cultural capital afforded by a tertiary education and
of the fact that English is the linguistic currency for obtaining this capital. However, South African
students, as multilinguals, bring awareness of their own multilingual potential for social and
economic capital to the classroom; an awareness that enhances the desire to include their own
languages in education and ultimately increase their linguistic capital.
Acknowledging the widespread use of African languages in higher education (Hibbert & Van Der
Walt, 2014) is a first step towards implementing multilingual teaching and learning and reinfusing
African languages with value as medium of instruction in education alongside English. Skutnabb-
Kangas and Phillipson (2012) use the term linguistic genocide to describe situations in which
languages are subdued by the promotion of another language, and ultimately die. If African
authorities continue to perpetuate the perception that English is the only key to success in
education and in general, one could well argue that African languages face a form of self-genocide,
particularly as languages of learning and teaching. In effect, allowing a single language to take hold as
a LoLT fails to acknowledge students multilingualism as a social practice that is inextricably bound
to multiple expressions of culture, identity, and community. For students like those who participated
in the questionnaire used in this study, all three languages addressed in the questionnaire (English,
Afrikaans, and isiXhosa) should be accounted for in the province in which they receive education,
not only in language of instruction, but also in learning content.
80 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

Through Bourdieus lens of cultural capital the African languages in South Africa, as representative of
the government of the day, can be said to have been given social capital (possessing networks of social
relationships and influence) as well as economic capital (ownership of money, stocks, etc.) when seen as
part of the linguistic repertoire of higher education students. Although the weight of the linguistic capital
remains with English (and to a considerable degree, Afrikaans in this case), English-plus multilingualism
confers both status and increased mobility in higher education. As such, this particular brand of
academic multilingualism may bring about the societal changes that Chimbutane (2011) attributes to
bilingual education. He notes the circularity of such a process in his home country, Mozambique:
The provision of education in African languages was partly ignited by ideological shifts at the institutional and
societal levels; conversely, the fact that these languages are being used as official media of instruction is
contributing to changing institutional, local and societal attitudes towards these languages. (p. 164)

Although English-plus multilingualism privileges English, it also acknowledges other languages in

students linguistic repertoire. Banning these languages from the classroom creates a very artificial
environment where students cannot use the resources they have at their disposal. Outside the
classroom translanguaging is evident in communication among students from different language
backgroundsalso in study groups and tutorials where academic content is discussed and explained
(Madiba, 2014; Parmegiani & Rudwick, 2014). It seems clear that the types of multilingual practices
from below (Cuvelier, 2010) can act as guiding principles for policies and classroom practices that
would support learning. Rather than assume a monolingual perspective that would privilege one
language over another, the Bourdieusian perspective needs to be adapted to recognize the cultural
capital of English-plus multilingualism, as embodied by the students in this study.
In conclusion, when looking at the multilingual situation in South Africa through the lens of
Bourdieus concept of cultural and linguistic capital, the results of this project point to a view of
classroom language use that sees English-plus multilingualism as the new linguistic capitalcapital
that is acknowledged by students and enacted in higher education classrooms (Kamwangamalu,
2010; Van Der Walt & Dornbrack, 2011).

Notes
1. The results of the 2009 evaluation were not available at the time of writing.
2. LoLT stands for language of learning and teaching.

References
Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2010). Why is the choice of the language of instruction in which students learn best seldom made
in Tanzania? In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational challenges in multilingual societies (pp.
281305). Cape Town, South Africa: African Minds Press.
Banda, F. (2009). Towards multilingual models of education in South Africa. In K. K. Prah & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.),
Multilingualism: An African advantage (pp. 102118). Cape Town, South Africa: CASAS.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism. New York, NY: Continuum.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645668. doi:10.1177/
053901847701600601
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of
education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader
(pp. 502513). London, UK: Routledge.
Brock-Utne, B. (2009). The adoption of the Western paradigm of bilingual teachingwhy does it not fit the African
situation? In K. K. Prah & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Multilingualism: An African advantage (pp. 1851). Cape Town,
South Africa: CASAS.
Brock-Utne, B. (2010). Policy on the language of instruction issue in Africaa spotlight on South Africa
and Tanzania. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational challenges in multilingual societies
(pp. 74101). Cape Town, South Africa: African Minds Press.
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 81

Brock-Utne, B., & Hopson, R. K. (2005). Educational language contexts and issues in postcolonial Africa. In B.
Brock-Utne & R. Kofi Hopson (Eds.), Languages of instruction for African emancipation (pp. 122). Cape Town,
South Africa: CASAS.
Chimbutane, F. (2011). Rethinking bilingual education in postcolonial contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cuvelier, P. (2010). Foreword. In P. Cuvelier, T. Du Plessis, M. Meeuwis, R. Vanderkerckhove, & V. Webb (Eds.),
Multilingualism from below (pp. xxiixvi). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Dalvit, L., & De Klerk, V. (2005). Attitudes of Xhosa-speaking students at the University of Fort Hare towards the use
of Xhosa as a language of learning and teaching (LOLT). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,
23(1), 118. doi:10.2989/16073610509486371
Department of Basic Education (2011). National curriculum and assessment policy statement: Senior phase grades 7-9.
Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.
Department of Basic Education. (2012). Report on the annual national assessments of 2012. Pretoria, South Africa:
Government Printer.
Department of Education. (2005). Grade 6 intermediate phase systemic evaluation report, December 2005. Pretoria,
South Africa: Government Printer.
Drnyei, Z., Csizr, K., & Nmeth, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian
perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gadelii, K.E. (2004). Annotated statistics on linguistic policies and practices in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.
sprak.gu.se/digitalAssets/1310/1310354_annotated-statistics.pdf\
Garca, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garcia, O., & Zakharia, Z. (Eds.). (2012). Bilingual community education and multilingualism: Beyond heritage
languages in a global city. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Heugh, K. (2007). Language and literacy issues in South Africa. In N. Rassool (Ed.), Global issues in language, education
and development: Perspectives from postcolonial countries (pp. 187217). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hibbert, L., & Van Der Walt, C. (Eds.). (2014). Multilingual teaching and learning innovations in higher education in
South Africa. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishs. London, UK: Routledge.
Kamwangamalu, N. (2010). Multilingualism and code switching in education. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 116142). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2001). Ethnicity and language crossing in post-apartheid South Africa. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 2001(152), 7595. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2001.058
Kotze, E. (2014). The emergence of a favourable policy landscape. In L. Hibbert & C. Van Der Walt (Eds.),
Multilingual teaching and learning innovations in higher education in South Africa (pp. 1527). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488
Madiba, M. (2014). Promoting concept literacy through multilingual glossaries: A translanguaging approach. In L.
Hibbert & C. Van Der Walt (Eds.), Multilingual teaching and learning innovations in higher education in South
Africa (pp. 6887). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Marx, N. (2002). Never quite a native speaker: Accent and identity in the L2 and the L1. Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 59(2), 264281. Retrieved from http://utpjournals.metapress.
com/content/G6532416651767RL
McNamara, T. (2011). Multilingualism in education: A poststructuralist critique. Modern Language Journal, 95(3),
430441. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01205.x
Mills, J. (2001). Being bilingual: Perspectives of third generation Asian children on language, culture and identity.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(6), 383402. doi:10.1080/13670050108667739
Ouane, A. (2009). My journey to and through a multilingual landscape. In K. K. Prah & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.),
Multilingualism: An African advantage (pp. 5361). Cape Town, South Africa: CASAS.
Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2001). Language medium in schools: PANSALB recommendations. Retrieved from
https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/300/
Parmegiani, A., & Rudwick, S. (2014). An exploration of students attitudes. In L. Hibbert & C. Van Der Walt (Eds.),
Multilingual teaching and learning innovations in higher education in South Africa (pp. 107122). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Probyn, M. (2009). Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom: Conflicts and tensions in classroom code switching
in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2),
123136. doi:10.1080/13670050802153137
Rudwick, S. (2008). Coconuts and Oreos: English-speaking Zulu people in a South African township? World Englishes,
27(1), 101116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01709.x
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, I., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and other language practices in
mathematics, science and English language classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128149.
doi:10.1080/09500780208666824
82 KLAPWIJK AND VAN DER WALT

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (2012, October 5). Counteracting market-force monolingualism in a multilingual
world, respecting linguistic human rights in education and fighting poverty through language policy. Paper presented
at the ASSAF-hosted seminar, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Statistics South Africa. (2012). Census 2011: Key results. Pretoria, South Africa: Printing & Distribution, Statistics
South Africa.
Van Der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Van Der Walt, C., & Dornbrack, J. (2011). Academic biliteracy in South African higher education: Strategies and
practices of successful students. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(1), 89104. doi:10.1080/07908318.2011.554985
Van Der Walt, C., Mabule, R., & De Beer, J. J. (2001). Letting the L1 in by the back door: Code-switching and
translation in science, mathematics and biology classes. SA Language Teaching Journal, 35(2 & 3), 123134.
Varghese, N. V. (2008). Globalisation of higher education and cross-border student mobility. Paris, France: International
Institute for Educational Planning.