In January 2002, the government of Zimbabwe officially declared six official minority languages, namely, Kalanga, Nambya, Shangani, Sotho, Tonga and Venda as languages of instruction and subjects in primary schools in the areas where they are spoken as mother tongues. The government had planned for these languages to be introduced to a grade per year until they could be taught at grade 7 level by 2005 (Secretaryâs Circular Number 1 of 2002). Three of these languages (Venda, Tonga and Kalanga) under the auspices of the Venda, Tonga and Kalanga Association (VETOKA) were pioneers in advocating and lobbying for the introduction of marginalised local languages in education in the early 1980s.
However, Kalanga and Venda have remained behind, despite having been the pioneers of this initiative. Long after 2005, only Tonga emerged as the first language to be examined in grade 7 in 2011. In current studies in language planning, policy and management, there have been strong suggestions that bottom-up approaches may be more successful than top-down approaches. Bottom-up approaches are said to be the most promising in terms of community commitment and sustainability (Alexander, 1992; Baldauf, 1994; 2005; 2008; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Webb, 2002; 2009; 2010; Mwaniki, 2004; 2010b; Benson, 2005; Trudell, 2006; Lewis and Trudell, 2008; Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008; Baldauf, Li & Zhao, 2008; Hatoss, 2008). The delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development and success story of Tonga raises the questions: âWhy this delay? Why was Tonga first?â
This study therefore examines the possible causes for the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development and the conditions and factors that led to the success story of Tonga. It is expected that an understanding of these causes could help explain the delay in the implementation of the other three languages and similar initiatives elsewhere. It is also hoped that this study will enhance our understanding of the dynamics of bottom-up approaches to language planning. In evaluating and examining the implementation of the 2002 policy development and conditions and factors that led to the success story of Tonga, I adopted the Language Management Approach (LMA) proposed by Mwaniki (2004). The LMA is used alongside Kaplan & Baldaufâs (1997; 2003) seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation; the ethnolinguistic vitality model advanced by Giles, Bourhis & Taylor (1977) as well as Webbâs (2010) factors and conditions that determine the success and failure of bottom-up and top-down policies.
These three frameworks interrelate and overlap with one another, and also with some of the language management variables, methodologies and strategies. It emerged that the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development was due to the failure to secure and deploy the language management variables, methodologies and strategies at an optimal level. The failure to timeously develop the seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation also accounts for the delay.
On the one hand, the Tonga group owes its success to the deployment of some of the language management variables, methodologies and strategies and the development of some of the seven areas of policy development for language-in-education policy implementation. The ethnolinguistic vitality of the three language groups in question and the conditions and factors that determine the success or failure of bottom-up and top-down policies also contributed to the delay in the implementation of the 2002 policy development. The success story of Tonga is as a result of the Tonga groupâs ethnolinguistic vitality and some of the conditions and factors that determine the success and failure of bottom-up and top-down policies.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ufs/oai:etd.uovs.ac.za:etd-07182013-091525 |
| Date | 18 July 2013 |
| Creators | Ndlovu, Eventhough |
| Contributors | Dr MM Mwaniki, Prof LT du Plessis |
| Publisher | University of the Free State |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en-uk |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.uovs.ac.za//theses/available/etd-07182013-091525/restricted/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University Free State or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds