theo du plessis - stellenbosch university plessis 2006... · 88 theo du plessis. education, 2001:...

THEO DU PLESSIS

FROM MONOLINGUAL TO BILINGUAL HIGHEREDUCATION: THE REPOSITIONING OF HISTORICALLYAFRIKAANS-MEDIUM UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA

(Received 25 June 2005; accepted in revised form 20 November 2005)

ABSTRACT. This paper departs from current approaches to bilingual educationat bilingual universities and draws a distinction between parallel bilingual educationand integrated bilingual education. It presents an overview of language policy

development at historically Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africa againstthe background of a changing higher education environment. The paper demon-strates that such universities have opted for a rather flexible policy on the medium ofeducation. Although parallel bilingual education has been taken as the preferred

model, allowance is made for various deviations. This approach represents a com-promise between the need to reform (and thus maintain Afrikaans, so as to appeasetraditional clientele and secure traditional sources of external funding) and the need

to transform (and increase access so as to become multilingual and multicultural).The seemingly bilingual approach does not suggest a move towards bilingual highereducation per se. Other motives such as language maintenance and the need to

survive are the deciding factors.

KEY WORDS: bilingual education, dual-medium education, higher education,language differentiation, language policy, monolingual education, parallel-mediumeducation

ABBREVIATIONS: DME – Dual-Medium Education; PME – Parallel-MediumEducation; MoI – Medium of Instruction

Introduction

In contrast to the position of the historically English-medium uni-versities of South Africa, the country’s historically Afrikaans-medium universities are being faced with the dilemma of having toundergo a sociolinguistic metamorphosis from monolingual highereducation to bilingual higher education. Whereas the Language Pol-icy for Higher Education (Ministry of Education, 2002) acknowledgesthe status quo regarding languages of instruction in higher educa-tion, where English and Afrikaans are the dominant languages(par. 15.1), it does not ascribe to the belief that the sustainability of

Language Policy (2006) 5: 87–113 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10993-005-5627-5

Afrikaans in higher education requires specifically designated Afri-kaans universities (par. 15.4.1). Instead, it upholds the view thatsuch sustainability could be attained through a range of strategiesin terms of which Afrikaans could be used as the primary, but notthe sole, medium of instruction (par. 15.4.4). In fact, the policyrules out the continued existence of ‘Afrikaans’ universities, as sucha notion ‘‘runs counter to the end goal of a transformed highereducation system’’ (par. 15.4.3).

Five1 historically Afrikaans-medium universities2 have been in-cluded for the purpose of this paper. They are

• The North West University (previously known as the Universityof Potchefstroom)

• The University of Johannesburg (previously known as the RandAfrikaans University)

• The University of the Free State (now incorporating the Univer-sity of the North, QwaQwa campus, and the Bloemfontein cam-pus of the University of Vista)

• The University of Pretoria• The University of Stellenbosch.

The concept of a historically Afrikaans-medium university essen-tially refers to the apartheid period and is used in a contemporarysense to distinguish between two types of historically White univer-sities, namely those using English as the medium of instruction andthose applying Afrikaans. (No African-language medium universityhas ever been established in South Africa.) It is the formerly WhiteAfrikaans-medium universities from the previous political dispensa-tion that are currently being required to transform and make provi-sion for non-Afrikaans speaking students. The National Plan forHigher Education in South Africa (2001) states in no uncertainterms that universities in contemporary South Africa can be neitherblack nor white, English or Afrikaans-speaking, but only ‘‘unabash-edly and unashamedly South African’’ universities (Department of

1 The University of the Western Cape (UWC) and the University of Port Eliza-beth were also established as Afrikaans-medium universities (Du Plessis, 2001: 23)but are not considered as historically Afrikaans-medium universities for the purposes

of this paper.2 A notable difference between these five universities is that three of them have

evolved from bilingual institutions (which were originally English-medium) whilstthe other two were established from the outset as single-medium Dutch/Afrikaans-medium (in the case of Potchefstroom University—Steyn, 1993a: 264) and Afrikaans

universities (as in the case of the Rand Afrikaans University).

theo du plessis88

Education, 2001: 82). The obvious implication hereof is that we needto find more relevant concepts to describe the different language dis-pensations that prevail at universities in South Africa. However, sucha distinction will require a good understanding of what bilingualhigher education involves.

This paper seeks to establish what positions the historicallyAfrikaans-medium universities have adopted regarding the lan-guage issue and the implications thereof for bilingual higher edu-cation in South Africa. It sets out to reappraise the notion ofbilingual higher education and its requirements in terms of lan-guage policy, as well as examine the need for bilingual universitiesby drawing on examples from the international arena. An over-view follows of the history of bilingual higher education in SouthAfrica and subsequent changes introduced to the education systemand language policy for the higher education environment. Thelanguage policies of the historically Afrikaans-medium universitiesare placed under scrutiny and consideration is given to the impli-cations thereof for bilingual higher education in South Africa. Thepaper concludes by offering an analysis of the role of theselanguage policies in promoting bilingual higher education with aview to their possible adoption at South African universities in thefuture.

Bilingual Higher Education

Definitions

The concept ‘bilingual higher education’ is a useful term used todistinguish between two types of bilingualism at university level, i.e.institutional bilingualism and individual bilingualism (Beillard,2000: 471; Garigue, 1985: 941; Langner & Imbach, 2000: 462).

Institutional bilingualism refers to the language dispensation ofthe institution itself and not necessarily to the sociolinguistic outputof its study programmes. An institution offering tuition in twolanguages, albeit within two ‘linguistic streams’ (i.e. parallel-mediumeducation or ‘double monolingual education’—Beillard, 2000: 471;Langner & Imbach, 2000: 462), could be classified as a bilingual insti-tution. The University of Ottawa is an example hereof, where stu-dents may register for tuition in either English or French (Garigue,1985: 941). Institutional bilingualism, however, could also refer tothe use of two languages as the medium for conducting other univer-sity business (Langner & Imbach, 2000: 462). A university could thus

bilingual education at afrikaans-medium universities 89

be classified as a bilingual university on the basis of its policy andpractice regarding the above, although the medium of instruction isusually an overriding determinant of such categorisation. We shallalso refer to this as ‘technical’ bilingual education.

Individual bilingualism, on the other hand, refers to the notion ofbilingual studies, in other words, the sociolinguistic outcome of theinstitutional study programmes. An institution offering tuition intwo languages to the same individual (as opposed to differentindividuals within a parallel-medium programme) could also be de-scribed as a ‘truly’ bilingual institution. Such tuition could be offeredwithin a dual-medium (or so-called ‘double-medium’) model (Torres-Guzman, 2002: 1–3), which constitutes an integrated approach tobilingualism (Garigue, 1985: 941). The University of Fribourg/Freiburg is considered to be a ‘‘model bilingual university’’ (Langner& Imbach, 2000: 462). In the case of the University of Barcelona thechoice of medium of tuition resides with the lecturer who may offer acourse in either Catalan or Spanish (Brink, 2004: 5).

‘True’ bilingual higher education could be established throughdifferent models of Strong Bilingual Education, depending onwhether the students involved are language-majority or language-minority students (Garcıa, 1998: 410 ff). However, it should benoted that typologies of bilingual education, such as that ofGarcıa, have schools in mind and need to be adapted for highereducation. For the purposes of this paper, where English andAfrikaans are concerned, we shall assume them to be majority lan-guages. The most appropriate model to consider is that termedTwo-way Mainstream Bilingual Education or Dual-Language Bilin-gual Education, with particular reference to what Baker and Jones(1998: 525) call the ‘Dual Majority Language Bilingual Education’variety. In South African terms this type of bilingual education isreferred to as ‘Dual-Medium Education’ or even ‘Double-MediumEducation’ (a direct translation of the Afrikaans term ‘dubbelmedium’),although not always in positive terms (Vermeulen, 2001: 134–135).According to this model the student receives instruction in twolanguages (Foley, 2004: 68) such as at the University of Fribourg/Freiburg for instance, where both French and German are used asthe medium of instruction and students have to earn at least 25%of their credits in courses in the second language (Langner & Im-bach, 2000: 463–464). This type of bilingual education contributesto individual bilingualism. Dual-medium education should, how-ever, not be confused with ‘Mixed Medium Education’, where the

theo du plessis90

two media of instruction are used concurrently within the same sit-uation (Alexander, 2004: 204–206).

‘Technically’ bilingual higher education could be establishedthrough the principle of bilingual parallelism (Beillard, 2000: 471),leading to parallel-medium education, ‘‘practically two universitiesin one’’, as Garigue (1985: 943) aptly puts it. Two types of educationshould be considered here, i.e. strong and weak parallel-mediumeducation. In the first instance provision is made for near-perfectparallel bilingualism, thus offering tuition, course materials and text-books in both mediums of instruction. In the case of weak parallel-medium education only the instruction and perhaps some of thestudy materials are provided in both languages. Another variationhereof is encountered in cases where not all courses or qualificationsare provided for in both languages. For example, parallel bilingual-ism may only apply to undergraduate courses, while monolingualinstruction may be used at postgraduate level. More often than not,the strong version of parallel-medium education is not realised inpractice (Van der Walt, 2004a: 144 ff). Perfect bilingual parallelism isnearly impossible to attain. Nevertheless, a university may still beclassified as a parallel-medium or bilingual institution because of itsoverall policy on parallel-medium education.

The Need for Bilingual Universities

Although the use of more than one language in higher educationis almost inevitable and indeed ‘‘almost universal’’ according toPurser (2000: 451), bilingual universities as such are quite unique.They nevertheless have been around for some time. The Universityof Ottawa, for instance, was established in 1848 (Garigue, 1985:941), the University of Fribourg/Freiburg in 1889 (Langner &Imbach, 2000: 462), while yet others have been established in morerecent times (UNESCO-CEPES, 2000). Corpus studies on bilingualuniversities point to the fact that these universities share certainfeatures regarding their origin, mission and functioning. Thesummary provided by Purser (2000) on the proceedings of theUNESCO-CEPES seminar in Bucharest in 2000 presents someuseful insights in this regard.

According to Purser (2000: 452–453) it is important to realisethat bilingual universities are, first and foremost, political cre-ations (UNESCO-CEPES, 2000) and thus the products of uniquecontexts, traditions and social conditions. As such, the bilingual


university is usually embedded within a bilingual state that inmost cases is the consequence of some kind of political compro-mise. One could thus expect that there would be a strong link be-tween national language policy and university language policy. Anational language policy requiring knowledge of two official lan-guages may consequently lead to bilingual universities being estab-lished. It should be noted, for instance, that the University ofOttawa was created as an instrument of cohesion between theEnglish- and French-speaking populations in order to promotebilingual cohabitation (Beillard, 2000: 469–470; Garigue, 1985:941; Purser, 2000: 453). In a similar vein, the University ofFribourg/Freiburg was created as an essential component in thepolitical structures within a bilingual Swiss Canton and as a meet-ing place between two civilisations (Langner & Imbach, 2000:461–462; Purser, 2000: 453). Bilingualism at the University ofYaounde I (Cameroon) was also derived from a political unitybrought about by the amalgamation of the English-speakingsouthern Cameroon with the then La Republique du Camerounleading to the adoption of two official languages for the new state(Amin, 2000: 436–437, 2002: 282–283). The six bilingual universi-ties of Finland (out of a total of 20) arose from the need toaccommodate the Swedish-speaking minority within the bilingualFinnish state created in 1917 (Anckar, 2000: 500–502). TheBelarussian State Pedagogical University, one of the few bilingualuniversities in Belarus, reflects the Belarussian/Russian bilingualcharacter of the Belarus state. More than 27% of studentsenrolled at higher education institutions (mostly private) study inboth languages (Konchitis, 2000: 508–509).

From these examples, the close relationship between the lan-guage policies of bilingual universities and those of bilingual statescan be observed. Universities may experience a need to promoteindividual bilingualism (or even trilingualism) for a variety of rea-sons, including a bilingual context, market-driven forces and chan-ges in student demographics. Such factors may require a bilingualapproach in higher education that delivers graduates who functionwell in more than one language within a specific environment. Wenote this in the case of the University of Puerto Rica, which hasbeen promoting Spanish/English bilingualism for more than onehundred years. This university requires proficiency in both lan-guages and it is understood that courses will be taught in both,despite the fact that the university does not have a policy on its

theo du plessis92

medium of instruction (Maldonado, 2000: 492). The IstanbulTechnical University, a Turkish-speaking institution, requires itsstudents to complete approximately one-third of their courses inEnglish. Turkish, however, remains a significant and necessarylanguage within the scholarly and academic context (T. Reaganand S. Schreffler, in press). The National University of Rwandawas obligated to introduce bilingual studies in French andEnglish after reopening in 1995, owing to its drastically changedstudent demography (Ntokamunda, 2004: 70–71). The changinglandscape in higher education in Europe may be contributing tothe growth in bilingual universities there (Berthoud, Kalliokoski,Mackiewicz, Truchot, &Van de Craen, 2001: 9–10; Treanor,2005).

The preservation or development of a minority language andculture may also be a strong motivation for establishing a bilingualuniversity. The bilingual university can, on the one hand, create anacademic haven for a ‘less important’ language or a minority lan-guage, as in the case of the Free University of Bolzano/Bolzenwhere the minority language of Ladin is used (Kozma & Radacsi,2000: 44). This university requires its administrative personnel to bebilingual (German/Italian), offers bilingual studies in its Faculty ofEducation, and trilingual studies in its School of Economics. Themotto of the university is ‘‘Dare to be multilingual’’ (Campisi,2000: 478–483; Kozma Radacsi, 2000: 44–45). Inter-universitycollaboration along the common German-Polish border (i.e. inthe case of the European University of Viadrina) and in otherareas, is also leading to prominence of different minority languagesin higher education (Purser, 2000).

Finally, the bilingual university can simultaneously accord accessto a major international academic language. In fact, Purser (2000:453) predicts that bilingual (or even multilingual) universities willincrease, primarily as a result of the growth of languages such asEnglish in academia (Schaller-Schwaner, 2004; Treanor, 2005), andpartly as a result of the internationalisation of universities (Nelde,2003; Vonlanthen, 2003; Webb, 2005). Kozma and Radacsi (2000:45) also predict that ‘‘(o)fferings will increasingly be multilingual’’and Thomas (1997: 79) emphasises the need for future citizensof Europe ‘‘to be plurilingual and culturally mobile’’ and forhigher education to be able to respond adequately (Brink, 2004:13). The same could easily be said of other communities in similarsituations.


Requirements for Bilingual Universities

Langner and Imbach (2000: 467) have formulated two principlesthat are imperative for the establishment of a bilingual university,namely: (a) sensitivity to the cultural and linguistic situation of theregion, and (b) developing a concept of bilingualism.

The first principle ensures that the appropriate language and cul-tural balance are maintained (Brink, 2004: 13). It also ensures thatthe promotional principles identified by Purser (2000: 453–457) arefulfilled, namely: the promotion of participation (by a linguisticminority, if appropriate); of coherence (uniting different linguisticcommunities); of a wider outlook for the institution and its gradu-ates (overcoming historical prejudices); and the promotion of bilin-gualism as an objective rather than as a condition, as opposed tothe (possible) assimilationist objective of a monolingual universityor the (possible) separatist objective of the parallel-medium univer-sity. The implementation of these principles can be monitored andevaluated on a regular basis, as illustrated by the efforts made bythe University of Puerto Rico (Maldonado, 2000: 496–497).

The second principle ensures that ‘all are aboard’ with regard tothe bilingual objectives and practices of the institution. We mayrefer to these two principles as the essential requirements of a bilin-gual university. Langner and Imbach (2000: 467–468) mention fiveprerequisites for bilingual universities, namely: (i) a thoroughunderstanding of the positions of the languages in daily academiclife and administration; (ii) the provision of course offerings andmeans for self-learning; (iii) the conceptualisation of a course withcertification in respect of Language-for-Special-Purposes; (iv) thedevelopment of a concept for bi-/multilingual certificates/degrees;and (v) infrastructure for the learning of foreign languages (thisindispensable requirement is intended for the European context,but is probably applicable in other multilingual settings). Theseprerequisites would obviously vary depending on whether inte-grated or parallel bilingualism is envisaged.

The preceding requirements could be addressed by means of aninstitutional language policy and an integrated language strategy.Such a language policy would regulate the use of the institutionallanguages in different operational environments, i.e. management,administration, tuition, research, etc., as envisaged in prerequisite(i) above. The policy could include provisions on implementationand monitoring, as well as measures in respect of recourse (in caseof deviations, etc.). It could also spell out policy with regard to

theo du plessis94

admission and appointments, language teaching (students as well asstaff) and certification (of languages and language courses, as wellas qualifications), thus addressing some of the issues mentioned inprerequisites (ii) to (iv) above.

An integrated language strategy would ensure that the aboverequirements were being met and that language issues were beingdealt with professionally and effectively. It could make provision forthe establishment of infrastructure to support the policy (Embleton,1992: 4–5), and for an institutional body to oversee the implementa-tion of the language policy and language strategy. This seems to bea crucial requirement in order to ensure success. In the case of theUniversity of Fribourg/Freiburg, a Senate Commission on Bilin-gualism plays a central role in covering these and other relatedtasks. Infrastructural support through a Language Centre or similarentity that takes care of the day-to-day, ‘fine-grained’ issues (Patten& Kymlicka, 2003: 16–17) also seems to be a key factor. Langnerand Imbach (2000: 466) and Campisi (2000: 484–485) emphasise thestrategic role of such a centre at the Universities of Fribourg/Frei-burg and Bozen/Bolzano, respectively. The provision of languageservices (editing, translation, interpreting, document design, etc.)could also render infrastructural support. A language strategyshould thus provide for these and other essential support measures.

Purser (2000: 458) also mentions the importance of funding.Bilingual universities are obviously more expensive to operate thanmonolingual ones (Brink, 2004: 13). However, it is important toconsider what the cost will be of not having a bilingual universitycatering for the needs of a specific linguistic grouping. For this rea-son, the University of Ottawa receives a so-called ‘bilingual enve-lope’ from the national education budget to overcome thelimitations of the traditional (monolingual) university funding for-mula. The political decision in favour of establishing a bilingualuniversity should thus be backed by a clear financial commitmentin order to ensure proper implementation (Anckar, 2000: 506).Finally, the issue of ownership remains a serious challenge forbilingual universities. Purser (2000: 459) stresses the usefulness ofseeing the bilingual institution as an instrument of a ‘languagecontinuum’ (in relation to sociolinguistic reality), rather than as aninstrument of ‘language separateness’ (in relation to language ideol-ogy). The danger is always present that a specific linguistic groupmight want to assume ownership in much the same way as couldhappen at a monolingual university.


Clearly, the management of bilingual policies in higher educa-tion is a complex challenge. It most certainly requires ‘legal will’and institutional commitment (Beillard, 2000: 474), and, obviously,appropriate funding (Brink, 2004: 14).

Bilingual Higher Education in South Africa

History of Bilingual Higher Education in South Africa

Bilingual higher education in South Africa has its roots in theestablishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910. Within theframework of this bilingual state, a high premium was placed onthe role of the education system to produce bilingual citizens (thatis, bilingual in English and Dutch/Afrikaans). Generally, a systemof additive bilingualism was introduced, but was implemented dif-ferently in the four provinces of the Union. A variety of schoolsdeveloped, catering for monolingual English-medium and monolin-gual Dutch-medium schools (later Afrikaans-medium), but alsobilingual schools. The latter were either of the parallel-medium orthe dual-medium type, a popular option until the 1930s when themother-tongue-based single-medium school became a political pri-ority for both Afrikaans- and English-speaking parents (Truter,2004: 50–51, 98, 121–122).

The first South African university, the University of the Capeof Good Hope, was established before the Union as an English-medium institution (1873), as were the colleges that developed fromit which later became autonomous institutions (Steyn, 1993a:226–227). With the establishment of the Union, pressure immedi-ately mounted to accommodate Dutch, the second official languageof the newly established state, within higher education. In 1918three autonomous universities were established, namely the Univer-sity of Cape Town (UCT), the University of Stellenbosch and theUniversity of South Africa (UNISA), with the latter comprising anexamination university with seven university colleges that preparedstudents for its examinations (Steyn, 1994: 42). UNISA was estab-lished as a parallel bilingual institution (Steyn, 1993a: 237–238).However, tuition at university level in South Africa at that stagewas still primarily provided in English. By 1919 the Departmentof Education had issued a directive to introduce bilingual highereducation, using English and Dutch as the media of instruction.According to Steyn (1993a: 250), Afrikaans soon replaced Dutch

theo du plessis96

as the second medium of instruction, especially since it wasgiven recognition in the same year (1919) as a school languageand subject until the final school year. The Department requiredall South African universities (including the UCT) to introducedual-medium instruction. Bilingual students were to be considered‘normal students’! The Department did not encourage the institu-tion of parallel-medium education (ibid.: 241). Despite this direc-tive, the parallel-medium option nevertheless emerged alongside thedual-medium policy and practice as an alternative in cases wherestudent numbers made it viable, in particular at the University ofPretoria (ibid.: 246). However, it was not possible to maintainthis model financially in the long run, and the dual-medium modellargely prevailed (ibid.: 265).

The bilingual universities (where bilingual Afrikaans-speakingstudents were in the majority) slowly evolved into monolingualAfrikaans-speaking universities. Steyn (1993a: 254 f f) describes thisprocess at the Universities of Stellenbosch, Pretoria, Free State andPotchefstroom since 1918. He identifies at least three crucial factorsin this development, viz. the demand for Afrikaans higher educa-tion (among students and the public in general), the language com-petency of students (especially bilingual Afrikaans-speakingstudents as opposed to monolingual English-speaking students) andlanguage loyalty among Afrikaans speakers (Steyn, 1994: 44–46).The development of Afrikaans as a medium of higher education inSouth Africa unfolded against the background of the growth ofAfrikaner nationalism, especially after the mid-1930s, the periodwhen the Afrikaans movement gained ground and the languagewas established as a viable option for medium of instruction(Steyn, 1993a: 248–252). These and other factors ultimately led tothe adoption of the principle of language differentiation in highereducation in South Africa (Steyn, 1993a: 241, 1994: 42). By 1948there were four Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africaand four English-speaking universities. UNISA (a non-residentialinstitution) remained the only ‘technically’ bilingual university.

Ironically, monolingual Afrikaans-speaking universities thusevolved ‘via bilingualism’, as Steyn (1994: 42) phrases it. Steyn(1993a: 246) describes this evolvement as a cyclic process. Significantnumbers of bilingual Afrikaans-speaking students made it possiblefor a university to adopt two languages as media of instruction. Thiscontributed to an increased concentration of Afrikaans-speaking stu-dents at these universities, which eventually led to a growing demand


to drop the English-medium option, thus paving the way for theestablishment of monolingual Afrikaans-speaking universities.Monolingual English-speaking universities, on the other hand,became established as a result of the lack of bilingualism among themajority of the English-speaking students on their campuses and thedecrease in the number of bilingual Afrikaans-speaking students. Allthese developments occurred despite the bilingual nature of theerstwhile South African state, its emphasis on bilingualism and theneed to reconcile and reunite the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections of the population (Steyn, 1993a: 238 ff). The resul-tant development of the principle of language differentiation in high-er education thus threw a shadow over the fate of the dual-mediummodel of bilingual higher education in South Africa, at least untilrecent years.3

Changes in Higher Education in South Africa

Another move towards bilingual higher education has been necessi-tated by rapid policy changes (and uncertainty) in the highereducation landscape in South Africa since 1994. Essentially thechanges were initiated through legal and policy initiatives. A varietyof framework documents produced by the Council on HigherEducation since 1994 contributed to the development of ‘‘a single,national, coordinated but diverse higher education system’’ (Councilon Higher Education, 2005: 26). They set targets for the size andstructure of the higher education system, provided steps to ensurediversity of institutional missions and programme differentiation,delineated the restructuring of the institutional landscape and out-lined a new approach to research funding (ibid.: 27–29). Anotherimportant development was the promulgation of the Higher Educa-tion Act (Act 101 of 1997), which provided the legal framework forsystem-level governance, the establishment, declaration, mergingand closure of higher education institutions, institutional gover-nance, funding, language usage, private higher education institu-tions and the abolishment of former umbrella governance bodies inhigher education (ibid.: 29–30).

The changes in the institutional landscape affected historicallyAfrikaans-medium universities especially in terms of ‘size and shape’(Jansen, 2004: 293). By 1994 the South African higher education sys-tem consisted of 36 public higher education institutions that were

3 The history of DME at the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE) deserves special

attention in this regard (Naude, 1986).

theo du plessis98

structured along racial and ethnic lines and according to a cleardivide between 21 universities and 15 technikons, all administered byeight different government departments (Council on Higher Educa-tion, 2005: 40). Apart from two white bilingual (Afrikaans/English)universities (the University of Port Elizabeth and University of SouthAfrica), the universities were monolingual. Of the 19 monolingualuniversities, 14 were English-medium (including four historicallywhite universities, eight black universities, one coloured universityand one Indian university) and five Afrikaans-medium (comprisingthree historically bilingual English/Dutch universities and two histor-ically monolingual Dutch or Afrikaans universities). To date (2004),a new (reduced) institutional landscape has been established thatincorporates a new nomenclature distinguishing between:

• eleven ‘Universities’ in the classical sense of the word (eight sepa-rate and incorporated universities and three merged universities);

• six so-called ‘Comprehensives’ or Comprehensive higher educa-tion institutions (two separate former universities and fourmerged universities and technikons); and

• five Universities of Technology (two separate and incorporatedtechnikons and three merged technikons and universities); and

• two National Institutes of Higher Education, previously a train-ing college and a branch of a Technikon (ibid.: 50).

A notable feature of the new institutional landscape (excludingthe two national institutes) is the increase in bilingual universities.By 1994 the majority of universities were officially monolingual (18out of 21 universities). Almost two-thirds of these were English-medium (13 out of 21) and almost one quarter, Afrikaans-medium(five out of 21). Only three universities were officially bilingual by1994 (Table 1).4

By 2004 the proportion of bilingual universities had increased.Almost one third of universities (seven out of 22) were now bilin-gual institutions. However, at the same time the proportion ofmonolingual English-medium institutions had increased from justmore than a half in 1994 (21 out of 36) to more than two-third ofall South African universities in 2004 (15 out of 22). Notably,in accordance with the Language Policy for Higher Education

4 The language situation at technikons (now Universities of Technology) was

different. None of the technikons was a single-medium Afrikaans institution. Theproportion of bilingual technikons was, however, higher than that of the universities.Almost half of the technikons were bilingual and the other half monolingual English-

medium (Table 1).


(Ministry of Education, 2002), monolingual Afrikaans-mediuminstitutions of higher education ceased to exist (Table 2).

The process of transformation of higher education in SouthAfrica has thus effectively ended the (relatively short-lived) tradi-tion of monolingual Afrikaans-medium universities (Steyn, 1994:33) in South Africa. It has introduced bilingual education as theonly legal framework within which Afrikaans may be retained as amedium of higher education.

Language Policy for Higher Education in South Africa

The issue of language policy for higher education in South Africaneeds to be considered against the background of national lan-guage policy (Steyn, 1993a, b, 1994, 1997; Wiechers, 1996). Thelanguages designated by the state as official languages of the coun-try usually find their way to universities as media of instruction oras languages of communication, or at least as languages taught atthese institutions. However, university language policy does notnecessarily follow national language policy to the letter. In the his-tory of bilingual education in South Africa, such alignment onlyoccurred for a brief period and the bilingual universities establishedin 1918 had evolved by 1948 into monolingual institutions withUNISA remaining as the only bilingual university (Steyn, 1994:42)5. Consequently, the multilingual South African state establishedin 1994 did not necessarily bring about the establishment of ‘multi-lingual’ universities where the eleven new official languages wereused as media of instruction. However, it did effectively revolution-ise the situation created in 1918 insofar as the monolingualAfrikaans-medium universities are concerned.

The guidelines for national language policy outlined in Section 6of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996), or the Language Clause,

TABLE 1

Language dispensation at higher education institutions in 1994.

Type Afrikaans English Bilingual Total

Universities 5 13 3 21Technikons 0 8 7 15

Total 5 21 10 36

5 The University of Port Elizabeth and the Rand Afrikaans University were not

yet established.

theo du plessis100

declare 11 languages to be official, but do not require governmentto use all eleven; a minimum of two official languages is required toconduct government business. The question as to which two lan-guages are to be used, is not determined. However, since the officiallanguages should be treated equitably and with parity of esteem, anargument could be put forward that bilingualism (in any two offi-cial languages) is likewise required within the state administration.6

Indeed, the Language in Education Policy (Department of Edu-cation, 1997), usually an important mechanism in promotingnational language policy, also requires competency in two languagesfrom learners sitting for their final school examinations. However,only one of these needs to be an official language.

The Language Policy for Higher Education (Ministry of Educa-tion, 2002) recognises English and Afrikaans as the only languagesof instruction in higher education (par. 15.1), but rejects the contin-uation of monolingual Afrikaans-medium institutions (par. 15.4.3)and envisages a programme for the development of other SouthAfrican languages as languages of instruction at this level (par.15.2). Nevertheless, the Language Policy for Higher Education doesnot specifically prescribe bilingual higher education, but allows forAfrikaans to be retained ‘‘through a range of strategies, includingthe adoption of parallel and dual language medium options’’ (par.15.4.4). The historically Afrikaans-medium universities are further-more required to submit plans indicating strategies and time-framesto ensure that the language of instruction does not hinder access tothese institutions (par. 15.4.5). Universities are also required todevelop strategies to promote efficiency in the designated language(s)of instruction (par. 15.3); and to offer programmes in South African

TABLE 2

Language dispensation at higher education institutions in 2004.

Type Afrikaans English Bilingual Total

Universities 0 7 4 11Universities of Technology 0 5 0 5

Comprehensives 0 3 3 6Total 0 15 7 22

6 This vagueness in the policy was obviously a strategy to depart from the rigidbilingual dispensation of the past. However, at the same time, it effectively allows for

the continuation of apartheid-style English/Afrikaans bilingualism.


languages and literature (par. 16), as well as in foreign languages(par. 17). The Language Policy for Higher Education also requireshigher education to play a role in promoting multilingualism ininstitutional policies and practices (par. 18). Strategies to promotemultilingualism are to be included in the three-year rolling plansthat higher education institutions have to submit to the Minister ofEducation (par. 18.3). All such institutions are required to submittheir language policies to the Minister (par. 20).

Notable from the above policy overview is the lack of clearcommitment on the part of the state to bilingual education,whether at school level or in higher education.

Language Policies of the Historically Afrikaans-medium

Universities

The language policies of the historically Afrikaans-medium uni-versities considered here fall into two categories, namely brieflanguage policy statements (provided by the Universities ofJohannesburg and Pretoria) and more detailed language policies(provided by the Universities of the Free State, North-West andStellenbosch). In the case of the second grouping two practiceshave emerged. The Universities of North-West and Stellenbosch of-fer a brief language policy statement that is supported by a detailedlanguage plan, whilst the language policy of the University of theFree State seems to represent a kind of hybrid variety since it con-tains some elements of a language plan. Nevertheless, the Univer-sity of the Free State does not have a language plan similar to thatof the other two historically Afrikaans-medium universities in thisgrouping. For the purposes of our overview we shall thus only con-centrate on the language policy statements of the five historicallyAfrikaans-medium universities and shall exclude details on thelanguage strategies developed by the different universities.

Table 3 contains a summary of the language policies of thementioned universities in terms of the media of instruction atundergraduate and postgraduate level, as well as the medium ofadministration. The information for this table has been collatedfrom the language policy of each institution as published on itsofficial web page and cross-checked against the latest position asexpressed by the Rectors of the HAUs (2005).

theo du plessis102

TABLE

3

Essentialaspects

oflanguagepolicies

ofHAUs.

University

Campus

andmode

Institutional

language

Language

requirem

ents

Language

assistance

Instruction

Administration

Students

Appointm

ents

Students

Staff

NWU

Potchefstroom

Afrikaans(exam

inationalso

inEnglish)

Afrikaans

orEnglish

Non-A

frikaans-

speak-

ing students

Evening

AfrikaansorEnglish

Telem

atic

English

Distance

AfrikaansorEnglish

VaalTriangle

English

Postgraduate

AfrikaansorEnglish

Mmabathocampus

English

English

UJ

AucklandPark

Afrikaansand

English

(PME)a

Afrikaans

andEnglish

Either

Afrikaans

orEnglish

Unless

university

course

passed

Evening

Accordingto

practical

circumstances

Distance

Accordingto

practical

circumstances

Postgraduate

According

topractical

circumstancesa

Vista

campuses

English

English

Technikon

Witwatersrand

English

English


TABLE

3

(Continued)

University

Campus

andmode

Institutionallanguage

Languagerequirem

ents

Languageassistance

Instruction

Administration

Students

Appointm

ents

Students

Staff

UFS

Bloem

fontein

Afrikaansand

English

(PME)

Afrikaans

andEnglish

Inlanguage

ofinstruction

orboth

According

toinherent

requirem

ent

ofpost

Language

proficiency

courses

to

students

below

desired

standard

Appropriate

language

proficiency

courses

Postgraduate

DMEor

single-m

edium

educationsubject

toapproval

e-degree

English

English

QwaQwa

English

English

Vista

campus

English

English

UP

Notspecified

Afrikaans

orEnglish

bAfrikaans

andEnglish

No discrim

ination

ongroundsof

competency

Accordingto

inherent

requirem

ent

ofpost

Tuitionin

language

ofinstruction

Support

and

trainingto

communicate

in

Afrikaans

andEnglish

Notspecified

Afrikaans

andEnglish

b

US

Undergraduate

Afrikaans(default

language);English

under

special

circumstances

Afrikaans

(default

language);English

ifcircumstances

require

Academ

ic

literacy

Postgraduate

Afrikaans

andEnglish

aRequires

proficiency

test

inchosenMoI.

bSubject

todem

andandwhen

academ

icallyandeconomicallyjustifiable.

theo du plessis104

Policy on Institutional Language

From the foregoing summary it is clear that as far as policy on insti-tutional language is concerned, none of the historically Afrikaans-medium universities is still predominantly Afrikaans-medium.Instead, English is accommodated in a variety of ways, even at thetwo relatively monolingual Afrikaans campuses. Two campuses stillprovide for Afrikaans-medium instruction at undergraduate level,namely the University of Stellenbosch, as well as the Potchefstroomcampus of the North-West University. However, both also makeprovision for English-medium instruction at postgraduate level.They are thus very careful not to exclude the use of English asmedium of instruction where required. Since the Potchefstroomcampus now forms part of the North-West University, this techni-cally leaves only the University of Stellenbosch as a relativelymonolingual Afrikaans-medium university (at undergraduate andadministrative level).

It can also be seen that only two historically Afrikaans-mediumuniversities explicitly state the model of bilingual education thatthey implement, namely the University of Johannesburg and theUniversity of the Free State, suggesting a certain commitment toparallel-medium education as a viable option to maintain Afri-kaans at tertiary level (and to cater for a still significant number ofAfrikaans-speaking students). It is further noticeable that the Uni-versity of Pretoria’s language policy is not prescriptive at all in thisregard. It may be concluded on the basis hereof that the parallel-medium option may be chosen where it is academically and eco-nomically viable, but that the dual-medium option may also bechosen. The latter option will effectively take the University of Pre-toria back to the situation that prevailed before 1948, although thepolicy is not as clear on the matter as it was then.

It is further noticeable that the historically Afrikaans-mediumuniversities’ policies on the medium of administration largely fol-low the policies on the medium of instruction. The University ofStellenbosch seems to be the only university that still uses Afri-kaans as its primary medium of administration (as far as its policyis concerned).

Policy on Language Requirements

As far as policy on language requirements is concerned, we notethat two historically Afrikaans-medium universities, the Universi-ties of the Free State and Johannesburg respectively, actually


state that a certain level of language competency is required inthe chosen language of instruction. Both their language policiesalso provide for measures to establish such competency. TheUniversity of Pretoria’s language policy, on the other hand, pre-cludes discrimination on the grounds of language competency,both with regard to students and staff. Only the University ofthe Free State has a provision regarding language requirementsfor staff members.

Policy on Language Assistance

All of the language policy statements of the historically Afrikaans-medium universities include some provision on language assistanceto students, but only the Universities of the Free State and Pretoriainclude a form of assistance for staff. The nature of the languageassistance varies. It is notable that the North-West University is theonly university that does not provide for such assistance in bothlanguages of instruction.

Language Policy for Maintenance or Survival?

This overview suggests that in their respective language policystatements, historically Afrikaans-medium universities have gener-ally opted to concentrate on arrangements regarding the institu-tional language, both in terms of the medium of instruction andmedium of administration. We note a variety of policy provisions,ranging from being rather detailed and prescriptive, as in the caseof the University of the Free State, to being more liberal or open-ended, as in the case of the University of Pretoria. Nevertheless,the policy statements are generally clear in respect of the fact thattwo languages, Afrikaans and English, are used as institutional lan-guages. One of the most notable aspects is the built-in differentia-tion between different campuses and modes of delivery. The mostobvious of these differentiations is between the medium of instruc-tion policy for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Despitethese differentiations, the language dispensations still seem to beclassified primarily in terms of language policies at undergraduatelevel (and in some cases even seem to be limited to the main cam-pus) which may prove to be problematic in future.

It is very striking that, without exception, the historically Afri-kaans-medium universities do not describe themselves as bilingualuniversities, nor do they consider their language policies to bepromoting bilingualism which suggests that parallel bilingualism (or

theo du plessis106

double monolingualism) is the preferred (and even the default) optionwhen using two languages as media of instruction. Dual-mediumeducation is not completely discarded, as indicated by the phrase‘Afrikaans or English’ in the language policy statement, althoughthe phrase could also be referring to the single-medium option. Thedual-medium (or single-medium) option features at postgraduate le-vel and in special cases such as after-hours tuition. The Universityof Pretoria allows parallel- and dual-medium education, as well assingle-medium tuition, subject to certain conditions.

It would thus appear that integrated bilingualism as manifestedin the dual-medium education option is not being considered bythe historically Afrikaans-medium universities as an alternative toparallel-medium education (or to single-medium education). Dual-medium education is still viewed with suspicion and wrongly asso-ciated with a mixed-medium approach, where both languages areused within the same situation; usually to the detriment of the sub-ordinate language (Steyn, 1994: 55–56; Vermeulen, 2001: 134,136–138). The preference for parallel-medium education creates theimpression that the historically Afrikaans-medium universities aremore interested in survival than in the notion of bilingual highereducation. The reasons for this require further exploration but areprobably partially related to the historical animosity against bilin-gual education (and specifically against dual-medium education)that developed during the Union period (Foley, 2004: 68 for scepti-cism at the University of the Witwatersrand regarding bilingualeducation).

In the absence of the monolingual option, historicallyAfrikaans-medium universities are thus compelled to maintain Afri-kaans within a bilingual higher education model. Whether they willsucceed where their bilingual predecessors have failed, is anothermatter. Our overview suggests that the need to maintain Afrikaansas a language of instruction is one of the driving forces behind lan-guage policy at the historically Afrikaans-medium universities.However, this very commitment might also become the Achilles’heel of these institutions. Bolsman and Uys (2001: 183) havealready alluded to the limitations that the Afrikaans-medium issuemight create within the process of transformation and marketisa-tion of higher education in South Africa. Brink (2004: 14) pointsout similar challenges arising from fierce competition within thetertiary sector. In the end, the need to survive might weigh moreheavily than language sentiment.


Conclusion

The changes within the higher education domain in South Africahave created an entirely new landscape where the need for survivalis more eminent than ever before. Political pressure to transform isthe foremost among these changes. Transformation is probably thesingle most important factor behind the effective down-scaling ofAfrikaans within the public sector and the renewed favoured posi-tion of English. According to Giliomee (2003: 27) the maintenanceof some public prominence for Afrikaans within this environmentrequires a ‘juggling act’.

With the option of maintaining the erstwhile status quo of single-medium Afrikaans universities ruled out, the historically Afrikaans-medium universities have had to juggle for another position. Toopt for the transformation model would imply a shift towardsEnglish. Integrated bilingualism achieved through dual-mediumeducation (bilingual studies), or even a gradual move towards dom-inant English-medium instruction, would be possible routes to take.On the other hand, the reform model might imply that Afrikaans isto be maintained at all costs, an option that might wrongly brandhistorically Afrikaans-medium universities as non-transformationistin orientation. Pure parallel-medium education at both undergradu-ate and postgraduate level would, in this case, be the option to se-lect. To the contrary, historically Afrikaans-medium universitieshave opted for a combination of these two approaches through theprinciple of differentiation in medium-of-education-policy. Al-though parallel bilingual education has been taken as the preferredmodel, the language policies adopted by the historically Afrikaans-medium universities allow for various deviations, depending on themode of delivery (i.e. tuition after hours, postgraduate tuition, dis-tance education, e-learning, etc.) and in accordance with the differ-ent campuses (i.e. main campus, satellite campus, etc.). In fact, inthe majority of the cases discussed, parallel-medium education isprimarily applied at full-time undergraduate level. Preliminary dataon the language practices at the historically Afrikaans-medium uni-versities seem to suggest that parallel-medium education is subjectto financial feasibility.

This differentiated approach to language policy adopted by thehistorically Afrikaans-medium universities in the end represents acompromise between the need to reform (and thus maintain Afri-kaans, appease their traditional clientele, secure their traditional

theo du plessis108

sources of external funding, etc.) and the need to transform (andincrease access, become multilingual and multicultural, etc. DuPlessis, 2003: 75).

The fact that historically Afrikaans-medium universities have(perhaps unwittingly) opted for a bilingual approach in the short(and perhaps medium) term does not suggest a move towards bilin-gual higher education per se. Other motives such as language main-tenance, the need to survive, etc., are the deciding factors for themoment. Whether the bilingual approach favoured by the histori-cally Afrikaans-medium universities offers the best answer to theseand other challenges is a question that requires further debate andinvestigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With due recognition to Joseph Ntsole, Phumza Manqindi, RoenetteVrey, Vanessa White, Nikiwe Matebula and Chrismi-Rinda Kotzefor their assistance with collecting information for this paper. Therespective reviewers are thanked for their invaluable feedback on anearlier draft.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Patricia M. (2004). Diversity at a dual-medium university: Factorsaffecting first-year students’ attitudes. South African Journal of Higher Education18,(1), 202–220.

Amin, Martin E. (2000). Students’ sociocultural background as a discriminatingfactor in the evaluation of teaching in a bilingual university in central Africa.Teaching in Higher Education 5,(4), 435–445.

Amin, Martin E. (2002). Six factors of course and teaching evaluation in a bilingualuniversity in central Africa. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27,(3),281–291.

Anckar, Olle (2000). University education in a bilingual country: The case ofFinland. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 499–506.

Baker, Collin & Jones, Sylvia P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual

education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Beillard, Jean-Michel (2000). Bilingualism in the Canadian context: The case of the

University of Ottawa. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 469–476.Berthoud, Anne-Claude, Kalliokoski, Jyrki, Mackiewicz, Wolfgang, Truchot,

Claude & Van de Craen, Piet (2001). Multilingualism and New LearningEnvironments. Workshop 1: Universities and language policy in Europe.Reference document, European Year of Languages 2001, Freie Universitat Berlin,

Berlin, 28–30 June 2001. European Language Council.


Bolsman, Chris & Uys, Tina (2001). Pre-empting the challenges of transformationand marketisation of higher education: a case study of the Rand Afrikaans

University. Society in Transition 32,(2), 173–185.Brink, Chris (2004). Language-conscious universities: Case studies. 22 October 2004

(Version 2). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

Campisi, Sandra (2000). Case study on the university of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy.Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 477–486.

Council on Higher Education (2004). South African higher education in the first

decade of democracy, November. Available at: http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000081/index.php [Accessed 13/04/05].

Cluver, August D. de V. (1996). Variables affecting a language policy at tertiary level.In Chris Swanepoel, Wendy Kilfoil, Pieter Swanepoel & Rosemary Moeketsi

(Eds), Towards a language policy for UNISA. Proceedings of the Conference onLanguage Policy, 23 February 1996 (pp. 14–44). Pretoria: Sub-Faculty: Languages,Faculty of Arts, UNISA.

Department of Education. (1997). Language in education policy, 14 July. Availableat: http://education.pwv.gov.za/Policies%20and%20Reports/Policies/Language.htm [Accessed 08/04/03].

Department of Education. (2001). National Plan for Higher Education in SouthAfrica. Available at: http://education.pwv.gov.za/DoE_Sites/Hi...National%20Plan%20-%20Final%20Draft.htm [Accessed 14/03/01].

Du Plessis, Bertie (2001). Toewysing van universiteite volgens onderrigtaal:

demografiese, ekonomiese en onderwysdata. [Allocation of universities accordingto medium of instruction: demographic, economic and educational data.] InHermann Giliomee & Lawrence Schlemmer (Eds), Kruispad. Die toekoms van

Afrikaans as openbare taal [Crossroads. The future of Afrikaans as publiclanguage.] (pp. 15–33). Kaapstad: Tafelberg.

Du Plessis, Lodewyk T. (2003). Taalbeleid aan universiteite in Suid-Afrika. [Language

policy at universities in South Africa.]. Acta Academica Supplementum 2, 58–82.Du Preez, Amanda, Goosen, Danie, Rossouw, Johan & Schoeman, Marinus (2000).

Redaksioneel. [Editorial.]. Fragmente [Fragments] 5, 4–6.

Embleton, Doug (1992). Languages in international business. An integrated strategy.In Doug Embleton & Stephen Hagen (Eds), Languages in international business. Apractical guide (pp. 1–31). London, Sydney: Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton.

Foley, Andrew (2004). Language policy for higher education in South Africa:

Implications and complications. South African Journal of Higher Education 18,(1),57–71.

Garcıa, Ofelia (1998). Bilingual education. In Florian Coulmas (Ed), The handbook

of sociolinguistics (pp. 405–420). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Garigue, Philippe (1985). Bilingual university education in Ontario. The Canadian

Modern Language Review 41,(5), 941–946.

Giliomee, Hermann (2001). Die taal- en kulturele uitdagings van die historiesAfrikaanse universiteite. [The language and cultural challenges of the historicallyAfrikaans universities.] In Hermann Giliomee & Lawrence Schlemmer (Eds),Kruispad. Die toekoms van Afrikaans as openbare taal [Crossroads. The future of

Afrikaans as public language.] (pp. 34–75). Kaapstad: Tafelberg.Giliomee, Hermann (2003). The rise and possible demise of Afrikaans as a public

language. PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 14. Cape Town: PRAESA, University

of Cape Town.

theo du plessis110

Jansen, Jonathan D. (2004). Changes and continuities in South Africa’s highereducation system, 1994 to 2004. In Linda Chisholm (Ed), Changing class.

Education and social change in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 293–314). London& New York: Zed Books.

Konchitis, Irina (2000). Bilingual and multilingual universities in the Republic of

Belarus. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 507–509.Kozma, Tamas & Radacsi, Imre (2000). Should we become more international or

more regional? Aspects of minority higher education in Europe. Higher Education

in Europe XXV,(1), 41–45.Langner, Michel & Imbach, Ruedi (2000). The university of Freiburg: A model for a

bilingual university. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 461–468.Maldonado, Norman I (2000). The teaching of English in Puerto Rico: one hundred

years of degrees of bilingualism. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 487–497.Ministry of Education. (2002). Language Policy for Higher Education. Available at:

http://education.pwv.gov.za/content/documents/67.pdf [Accessed 20/05/05].

Naude, Francois P. (1986). Die akademiese prestasies van Afrikaanssprekende enEngelssprekende studente aan ‘n tweetalige universiteit. [The academic performanceof Afrikaans and English speaking students at a bilingual university.] Doctoral

dissertation. Port Elizabeth: University of Port Elizabeth.Nelde, Peter H. (2003). New multilingualism—neue mehrsprachigkeit—le nouveau

plurilinguisme. Keynote address at Conference ‘‘Multilingual universities—prac-tices and standards’’, University of Freiburg/Fribourg, 19–20 September 2003.

Available at: http://www.unifr.ch/msu/en/tagung_03_publikationen_e.php?id=015&lang=en&sup=41[Accessed 09/08/05].

Ntokamunda, Justin K. (2004). Experience and perspective of dual use of English

and French as teaching languages at the National University of Rwanda. InK. Some. David & M. Khaemba. Battan (Eds), Internationalisation of highereducation: The African experience and perspective (pp. 69–71). Eldoret: Moi

University Press.Patten, Alan & Kymlicka, Will (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political

theory: Context, issues, and approaches. In Will Kymlicka & Alan Patten (Eds),

Language rights and political theory (pp. 1–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Purser, Lewis (2000). The bilingual university—general reflections on its origins,

mission, and functioning. Higher Education in Europe XXV,(4), 451–458.Rectors of the HAUs. (2005). Promoting and enlarging the scope of multilingualism in

higher education. Draft concept report prepared on behalf of the rectors of theUniversity of the Free State, the University of Johannesburg, the North-WestUniversity, the University of Pretoria and the Stellenbosch University, 19 April

2005. Manuscript.Schaller-Schwaner, Iris (2004). Workshop 2: The status of English at universities

with other languages (of instruction)/The role of minority languages. Draft

summary 09/02/04. Conference on ‘‘Multilingual universities—practices andstandards’’, University of Freiburg/Fribourg, 19–20 September 2003. Availableat: http://www.unifr.ch/msu/en/tagung_03_publikationen_e.php?id=015&lang=en&sup=41 Accessed 09/08/05].

Schlemmer, Lawrence & Hermann Giliomee (2001). Afrikaans by die kruispad.[Afrikaans at the crossroads] In Hermann Giliomee & Lawrence Schlemmer (Eds),Kruispad. Die toekoms van Afrikaans as openbare taal [Crossroads. The future of

Afrikaans as public language.] (pp. 115–135). Kaapstad: Tafelberg.


Steyn, Japp C. (1993a). Die voertaalvraagstuk aan die Suid-Afrikaanse universiteitetot ongeveer 1930. [The medium of instruction question at the South African

universities until approximately 1930.]. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir TaalkundeSupplement [South African Journal of Linguistics Supplement] 18, 223–275.

Steyn, Japp C. (1993b). Die taalstryd aan die Grey Universiteitskollege ten tye van

die rektoraat van D.F. Malherbe. [The language struggle at the Grey UniversityCollege under the rectorship of D.F. Malherbe]. Acta Academica 25,(4), 87–117.

Steyn, Japp C. (1994). Afrikaans as Universiteitstaal: onlangse ontwikkelinge in

historiese en internasionale perspektief. [Afrikaans as University language: recentdevelopments in historical and international perspective]. Literator [Literarian]15,(1), 33–58.

Steyn, Japp C. (1997). Die posisie van Afrikaans as voertaal en die vak Afrikaans en

Nederlands aan universiteite. [The position of Afrikaans as medium of instructionand the subject Afrikaans and Dutch at universities.]. Tydskrif vir Geesteswe-tenskappe [Journal for Humanities] 37,(4), 236–247.

Thomas, Gareth (1997). The European challenge: Educating for a plurilingualEurope. Language Learning Journal 15, 74–80.

Torres-Guzman, Marıe E. (2002). Dual language programs: Key features and results.

Directions in Language and Education 14, 1–16.Treanor, Paul (2005). The languages of universities in Europe. Available at: http://

web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/lang.issues.html [Accessed 04/04/05].Truter, Elbie (2004). Die ontplooiing van die taalbeleid in die Suid-Afrikaanse

onderwys, 1652–1961 in besonder gedurende die Unietydperk [The developmentof language policy in the South Africa educational system from 1652 to 1961with special reference to the Union Government period.]. Acta Academica

Supplementum 2, 1–173.UNESCO-CEPES (2000). The bilingual university—its origins, mission, and func-

tioning. Report on an invitational seminar, UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest,

Romania, 15–19 March 2000.Van Coller, Hendrik P. (2003). Die medium van onderrig aan Suid-Afrikaanse

universiteite: die geval van Afrikaans [The medium of instruction at South African

universities: The case of Afrikaans.]. Koers [Direction] 68,(1), 87–105.Van der Walt, Christa (2004a). The challenge of multilingualism: in response to the

language policy for higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education18,(1), 140–152.

Vermeulen, Tienie (2001). Language of teaching and learning (LoTL): Perceptions ofteachers in the Vaal Triangle. Perspectives in Education 19,(3), 133–146.

Vonlanthen, Beat (2003). Mehrsprachigkeit—en thema fur die (hochschul)-politik?

Plurilinguisme—un enjeu pour le politique (universitaire)? Multilingualism—anissue for (university) policy? Keynote address at Conference ‘‘Multilingualuniversities—practices and standards’’, University of Freiburg/Fribourg, 19–20

September 2003. Available at: http://www.unifr.ch/msu/en/tagung_03_publika-tionen_e.php?id=015&lang=en&sup=41 [Accessed 09/08/05].

Webb, Vic (2005). Report on Conference: Bi- and multilingual universities—chal-lenges and future prospects, University of Helsinki, Finland, 1–3 September 2005.

Pretoria: University of Pretoria.Wiechers, Marinus (1996). Constitutional and legal aspects of language policy at

UNISA. In Chris Swanepoel, Wendy Kilfoil, Pieter Swanepoel & Rosemary

Moeketsi (Eds), Towards a language policy for UNISA. Proceedings of the

theo du plessis112

Conference on Language Policy, 23 February, 1996. Pretoria: Sub-Faculty:Languages, Faculty of Arts, UNISA, 8–13.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Theo du Plessis is Professor of Language Management and Director of theUnit for Language Management at the University of the Free State. He isChief Editor of the Van Schaik Publishers’ series, Studies in Language Policyin South Africa. The fourth title in this series, Multilingualism and ElectronicLanguage Management was published in 2005. Postal address forcorrespondence: Unit for Language Management, University of the FreeState, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein, 9300, Republic of South Africa; E-mail:[email protected]


theo du plessis - stellenbosch university plessis 2006... · 88 theo du plessis. education, 2001:...

Documents