Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa

Front matter

MULTILINGUALISM andthe PUblic Sector in South Africa

Munene Mwaniki sb

ULTILINGUALISM and the Public Sector in South Africa

Dedication

For my teacher and friend - Prof. Abakholwa Moses Sindane who at a defining moment in my career took me under his wings and introduced me to the scholarly discourse of public management. This changed the trajectory of my career and I will forever be grateful. & For my Std. 1 - 3 Teacher - Silvano Mutokaa Ireri.

For laying the foundation for what has so far been a rewarding academic career. To this unsung hero of Kenya’s basic education system, I am eternally grateful.

Munene

Contents

Preface i Introducing the Discourses on Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa 1 — 1.1 troduction 1 1.2 The language management method and the writing style aad AU PIESUP POSES a iecesieracesssnscsssiesccoubenchsted sedsuteschsbavisdantsdessstecdeatessdesatlantecderéciatenecd 2 ea 1.2.1 Historical/Historiographical/Comparative method 8 = 1.2.2 Psycho-sociolinguistic method o.. ees eeesseseecseeeseeseeeseessteesteeseesnteeseeeee 14 aW 1:2:3 Ethnographic method sssrinin nan 18 <x 1.2.4 Decision sciences Method wssssssessseesssnsessneessssessneesssnsessnsessseeesssteesaes 22 1.2.5 Development sciences method ou. eessesssecsstesseeseesstesseesseeesteeseessteeseeees 24 a 1.2.6 (Critical) discourse analysis 27 O 13 Why a book on multilingualism and the public sector in South AfTICA? sssri iniaa 29 1.4 Themes addressed in the DOOK ...sssssssssssesssessseesssseessneessseesssneessseeessnses 32 1.5 Outline of the rest Of the DOOK sisii 33 Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa: An overview 41 N 2.1 TESORO Jstttuntesinnd tasavaa iiaeiai attention TTe enn aR aE cE 41 2.2 Miltilini SU aliSIm: sesscsisccecsieettisccteticsteatecnccencesmcrinieeci aaua aa 44 ma 2.3 The public sector and its core areas of Mandate „s.s.s 44 CI} 2.3.1 Public sector and service delivery ..eesscsssessssseeseesenssienestseeesesieetn 44 = 2.3.2 Public sector and the creation of an enabling environment Q for private Enterprise iiini iiaii 47 <x 2.3.3 Public sector and the processes of democratisation... 48 2.3.3.1 Institutions and processes supporting constitutional a LENIN O CAC soe sto cease a cee cede see needa ead arses ceria et eae 49 QJ 2.3.3.2 Consultation 49 2.3.3.3 Participation 50 2.3.4 Public sector and the discourses and processes Of developMeNt sisii a a nonlin 52 2.3.5 Public sector and engendering a culture of (COTS EREUEL OM ANUS UM mariin aa dS 54 2.4 The place of multilingualism in public sector’s core mandate ALAS oiite teianei eridan earair naiiai aei airi 55 2.5 Conclusion: Public sector reform as a driver of mainstreaming multi-lingualism into the public sector „sss. 57

Cy 31 Jfolacoleh) (ei s(0) | ee 61 3.2 South Africa’s constitutionalism.... 62 aa 3:2:1 CONS tit tiOmali Sr sssssesssssccsssctsctstesenctscgercssnstsaeet canettcantrsannetaetstaaneteseattanesteatnt ate 62 ea) 3:2:2 -Constitutional Vales sssssicssccscsssscsanctsssecassassecetedanesteaneessrndesateeaanetesentesaenetaanttaet 64 = 3.2.3 A project in transformative constitutionalism and Au progressive realisation of rights oc... cesssesesseesstesctecsstessteeseessteesttenseesnees 69 <x 3.2.4 A framework for mitigation and advancement of advanced Cultural POlitICS ssis iaiia 70 a 3.3 Constitutional interpretation - the bulwark of understanding 3.3.1 Grammatical interpretation sossa 73 3:3:2. -Systematic intërpretatiðti ssns hese tafe sdzesptentcsesusttestestconstaceentbatee 76 3.3.3 Teleological interpretation .. 78 3:3:4 Historical intèrpretátión:-: siinsesse iiiki ieaiaia 81 3.3.5 Comparative interpretation sisii inaandaa 82 3:3. “The linguistic turns: casei ee A ee 83 3.4 Justiciability of language right 0... cessesssseceesseeesseecsteeesteesneesteeeseeesteeeneens 84 3.5 Multilingualism - an integral part of South Africa’s constitutional project one eecseecstecseessteeesecsneecsteseseesateeeseesseecsteesseessteeeateeseesnees 86 3.6 Multilingualism - an integral part of South Africa’s CONteMPOrary/FULUTISTIC reality ssiri 87 Legislative and Policy imperatives for Multilingualism in South Africa’s Public Sector 91 = 4.1 Tt CUCEIOM aE A 91 4.2 The fundamental principle of legislative and policy ad consistency with the Constitutions: 92 Cr) 4.2.1 Section 6 language provisions 93 = 4.2.2 Language provisions in the Bill of Rights 96 A 4.3 Legislative imperative Srini ani 96 <T 4.3.1 National legislation on multilingualism... cesses 97 as 4.3.3 Local government legislation on multilingualism... 99 CO 4.4 Policy 1M PELAatiVES isisi oti terete retest ete 100 4.4.1 The “integrated stream approach” (ISA) to public policy- MAKING In SOUtH AR Cal vianna sect eeiete es ecdesteenewtteettesaneaeeee 100 4.4.2 National policies on multilingualism... eeeeeseessteeeseeeteeeeeeteeentees 102 4.4.2.1 Sectoral policies on multilingualism oe ceeeeeeseestesceeeseesteeeeeateeentees 102 4.4.3 Provincial policies on multilingualism uu... ceesceseeeseessesseeeeeeeeteeetees 104 4.4.4 Local government policies on multilingualism 104 4.6 The need for coordination and logistical support „s... 105

Human Resource and Organisational Culture Imperatives for Multilingualism in South Africa’s Public Sector 109 LAO 51 INFO QU CEI OD esasicssscscccenccsscsecdstgnasactossactsseendaarrracictanencestveedtctttestcesamecsanet anitteanctate 109 5.2 HUMAN FESOUTCE IMPETALIVES cscccsicssccscceacssccaieesceaieesceciacsactsderascsaercactanneactinnss 111 fa 5.3.1 Managerial language specialists msiseme 114 Aa 5321 Ti i aac ct ae asters A Sei 117 <1 5322 Translator See E E E 117 a 5.3.2.3 Lexicographers and terminologists 118 5.4.1 Organisational culture defined oe eeeseesseecseecsteeeeesseesseeeeseessteestenneesnees 119 5.4.3 Competency cornerstones supporting successful organisational CUltUT ëse a 120 5.4.4 South Africa’s public sector organisational culture in relation tö mültülingta liS M sssrin Ben See ee a 121 5.5 Training and management development 122 Capital and Infrastructure Imperatives for Multilingualism in South Africa’s Public Sector 127 O 6.1 Tmt QUCEI OD assinssscscassscossacecscncosscscosancecsastadaret iiaiai iiaii 127 6.2 Shifts in the budget process: From incremental to performance X püdgeting -sisri a i 128 h a| 6.2.1 Performance budgeting 130 = 6.2.2 Reasons for adopting performance budgeting and aw lessos léafftsaniminisiniansianinnan 131 <x 6.3 Implementation of performance budgeting in South Africa and the opportunities it provides for the implementation as Of multiline alisi sin a a S 132 CO 64 Paradigm changes in public management and their implications on securing capital and infrastructure resources for the public SëCtOr sisri sssiinii iaieiiea iion 137 6.5.1 Public-Public Partnerships (PUPS)... cscesesssesstesssesstessteeeeessteesttenneessees 146 6.5.1.1 The partnership’s Objective sssini 146 693. “CONTACTING sssri ii ii 151 6:9:4 Donor funded ProjeCtS::--sisissisns iisimmin iiinis 153 6.7 Discounting the capital and infrastructure challenge „sesse 154

Preface

Since South Africa’s democratic transition, a lot of research has been carried out and published on South Africa’s language question. Much of this research has been published in journal articles or chapters in books save for a few books that tackle the breadth and width of the language question in South Africa. That South Africa’s language question attracts enduring attention is hardly a surprise. After centuries of colonialism, some of it under the Dutch and some of it under the British; and decades of Afrikaner-led apartheid in which language was used to serve the ends of social exclusion for some and social inclusion for others; and the political-ideological debate that accompanied the end of apartheid, language has always featured prominently in almost any debate on the future of South Africa. The adoption of eleven languages as official languages in South Africa’s 1996 Constitution further entrenched the place of the language question in contemporary South Africa’s discursive space and collective psyche. In essence, the interrogation of South Africa’s language question is an enduring preoccupation.

The current book contributes to the discourse on language in South Africa with a specific focus on multilingualism and the public sector The public sector generally includes all institutions and organisations which operate within the three branches of government; are engaged in the implementation of government policy and the administration of laws within the three spheres of government; and are ultimately accountable and responsible to a political authority. The public sector therefore includes all national State departments and provincial administrations, public enterprises, municipalities, institutions of higher learning, research agencies and a number of control and regulatory institutions which fall within the different branches and spheres of government. The book argues for and demonstrates the relevance of putting into place appropriate language policies to help the majority of the people of South Africa take an active part in nation-building endeavours; processes in which the public sector is key. The discussion tackles the intricacies of the public sector from a constitutional; legislative and policy; human resource and organisational culture; capital and infrastructure point of view; and builds a case for the provision of multilingual services in the public sector - as the benchmark of public sector service provision.

I hope and trust that the book will make a modest contribution to the debate around the language question in South Africa. I extend a word of gratitude to the peer reviewers for their invaluable suggestions and insights. I am deeply grateful to the Office of the Dean - Faculty of the Humanities and the Directorate for Research Development at the University of the Free State for financing the publication of the book. Lastly, my heartfelt thanks to the editorial and publishing team at SUN MeDIA

Bloemfontein for their cooperation and sterling efforts in getting the book published timeously.

Munene Mwaniki March 2012

Chapter 1

Introducing the Discourses on Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa

Comments from the peer reviewers pointed out that the book as it was originally structured (where the current Chapter 2 was the first chapter) “would be too demanding for the average reader, as it delves too quickly and too directly into some of the main issues discussed later in the manuscript” and that “the style is occasionally too dense, and sometimes too ‘legalistic’ for easy reading”. The reviewers recommended that an ‘introduction’ to the entire book was necessary. This chapter is such an introduction and serves the purpose of ‘easing’ readers into the discussions and debates in the subsequent chapters. To achieve this objective, the chapter explores three key questions, namely:

(i) why is a distinctive writing style adopted for the book? (ii) What motivated the writing of a book on multilingualism and the public sector in South Africa?

(iii) What themes should such a book address?

The writing style used in the book is inextricably related to the language management method; the methodological framework used in the book. Turning to the question of what motivated writing a book on multilingualism and the public sector in South Africa, suffice to submit that the book is motivated by the need to interrogate and extend the discourses that underpin multilingualism in South Africa; and an intimate appreciation of the central, though often under-stated symbiotic relationship between language dynamics and the public sector in many a polity. There is a dearth of in-depth research into such language/public sector relationships and dynamics. Admittedly, themes that a book on multilingualism and the public sector in South Africa (and possibly elsewhere) should address itself to are many and varied. For purposes of the current discussion, however, the following are identified as core themes: a specification of the symbiotic relationship between language dynamics and the public sector in South Africa with specific reference to the place of multilingualism in the public sector’s core mandate areas; multilingualism and South Africa’s constitutionalism; legislative and policy requisites for multilingualism in South Africa’s public sector; human resource and organisational culture imperatives for multilingualism in South Africa’s public sector; capital and infrastructure imperatives for multilingualism in South Africa’s public sector; and the facilitative role that multilingualism can play in the public sector service delivery conundrum.

The discussion adopts a critical, post-structuralist view of discourse as “ways of understanding and constructing the social world”. This view is concerned with the ways in which power relations are played out within institutions. In this body of work, the term ‘discourse’ is often used in the plural. Discourses are seen as socially constitutive systems of meaning which are embedded in particular social, institutional and historical contexts and “as different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice” (Fairclough, 1992:3). They are viewed as sources of power - the power to define boundaries and categories and to construct objects and social subjects (Martin- Jones & De Mejia, 2008:xiii). Within this perspective, the dynamics attendant to language and the public sector in South Africa constitute a discourse - a way of understanding and constructing the social world; a socially constituted system of meaning that is embedded in the particular South

African social, institutional and historical context.

1.2 The language management method and the writing style it presupposes

In contemporary epistemology, the inextricable relationship between method and theory is widely acknowledged. As Gee (2011:11) notes

.. any method always goes with a theory. Method and theory cannot be separated, despite the fact that methods are often taught as if they could stand alone.

In turn, different methods presuppose different writing styles. Consequently, to explicate the language management method and the writing style it presupposes requires an exposition of language management theory. Mwaniki (2010; 2011b) provide a succinct albeit brief overview of language management theory. The current discussion of language management theory is based on insights elaborated on in Mwaniki (2010; 2011b). Language management theory has long been developing with a key figure in its epistemology being J.V. Neustupny, who has written extensively on the subject since the 1970s. Other contributors include Mwaniki (2004), Nekvapil (2009) and Spolsky (2009). The main source of contributions by J.V. Neustupny is Neustupny and Nekvapil (2003), which condenses Neustupny’s contributions on language management theory over time.

Introducing the Discourses on Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa

According to Neustupny and Nekvapil (2003), language management theory originated in the ‘language correction’ theory, developed in the 1970s and 1980s mainly by Neustupny and Jernudd, which grew as an extension and adjustment of language planning theory. Here, ‘management’ refers to a wide range of acts of attention to ‘language problems’ In the language planning theory of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, ‘language problems’ were viewed in the narrow sense of the word. Current language management theory aims to incorporate not only the whole of language (defined in the traditional narrow sense), but a wide range of additional problems, implicating discourse and communication in intercultural contact situations (Neustupny & Nekvapil, 2003:185) to name but a few. Neustupny and Nekvapil (2003) distinguish between the simple and the organised management of language: simple management is the management of problems as they appear in individual communication acts; e.g. the problem of spelling a particular word, or how to redress the use of an expression a speaker has just uttered, but now considers not to be sufficiently polite. Organised management occurs at a different level, and its main features are: more than one person participates in the management process; discourse about management takes place; and thought and ideology intervene. Since these features are present to varying degrees, there is a gradual transition between the two extremes: simple and organised. Language management theory maintains that, in principle, language problems originate in simple management and from there are transferred to organised management. However, this does not mean that organised management would be a mere summary of simple management acts. There is more to it. Finally, the results of organised management are again transferred to discourse: without correcting individual discourse, the whole management process would make little sense (Neustupny & Nekvapil, 2003:185).

A second prominent feature of language management theory, according to Neustupny and Nekvapil (2003:185-186) is its processuality. Both simple and organised management are seen as developing in a number of stages - they commence with the ‘deviation’ from the norm, with different participants often possessing different norms or ‘expectations’. Following the deviation stage, the deviation may be ‘noted’, a noted deviation may be ‘evaluated’, and subsequently an ‘adjustment plan’ selected. In the last stage, the plan may be ‘implemented’. The third feature of language management theory is the establishment of a hierarchy between language (in the narrow sense), and communication and socioeconomic management. Language management alone makes little sense. A fourth feature is the insistence on recognising the multiplicity of interests within a community. Language management is not a value-less, objective ‘scientific’ process. Also, the capacity to implement one’s interest, i.e. ‘power’, is subject to variation, and no language management system can overlook this. A fifth feature is that while language planning theory turned its attention mostly to society-wide management networks (e.g. governmental committees or various arms of government), language management theory emphasises management at a number of levels: the individual, associations, social organisations, media, economic bodies, educational institutions, local government, central government, or international organisations (Neustupny & Nekvapil, 2003:186).

Mwaniki (2004) posits that language management theory is a complex of theoretical precepts deriving from decision-making theory, sociolinguistic theory, modernisation theory, systems theory, management theory (especially as advanced by the public value management paradigm), phenomenology, and human development theory that seeks to understand and explain the interactive dynamics of language in society and language and society, especially in multilingual societies; with an aim of formulating approaches and/or frameworks that can be deployed to harness language resources in society. Mwaniki (2011b) observes that to the theories already specified, social psychology, social cultural theory and game theory could be added as further theories that contribute to the construction of language management theory.

According to Mwaniki (2011b) an important aspect of this characterisation of language management theory is the notion of “complex of theoretical precepts”. This reference discounts the view that language management theory as constructed could be viewed as “a collection of theoretical precepts”. Rather, through the use of the reference ‘complex’ in characterising the theories that constitute language management theory, this characterisation points out to the requisite inherent interconnectedness of the theories that make up language management theory. This inherent interconnectedness is a defining feature of language management theory. It derives partly from the phenomena that the theory seeks to account for - language and its pervasiveness in society - and partly from having systems theory as one of the constitutive theories of language management theory. Systems theory not only provides requisite tools to identify and account for the multiplicity of variables in language management scenarios (including linguistic, political, legal, economic, socio-cultural, management, educational and technological variables), it is also a potent tool in the overall understanding of the complexities of the interaction of social phenomena and the nature of scientific inquiry. In short, systems theory ‘ties-up’ all theoretical precepts of language management theory into a coherent network of theory. However, there is a far more important interpretation of the notion ‘complex’ in the characterisation of language management theory. This is an interpretation that has far-reaching implications to language management epistemology, namely the open-endedness of language management theory. As the scientific community makes further theoretical advances in accounting for language-related phenomena, this open-ended nature of language management theory leverages the addition of more theoretical precepts.

To Nekvapil (2009), Language Management Theory (LMT), the basis of which was formulated by J.V. Neustupny and B.H. Jernudd, has already been developing for several decades. The birth and formation of LMT became further removed from language planning theory and incorporated particular features into it, which culminated in LMT. Nekvapil (2009:1) points out that LMT is based on the idea that it is necessary to differentiate between two processes (and thus two sets of rules) in language use:

Introducing the Discourses on Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa

(i) The process which enables the generation of utterances or communicative acts; and

(ii) The process the object of which is the utterances or communicative acts themselves, whether they have already been generated, are currently being generated, or are anticipated.

Various labels have been used for both processes, the most common being the pair ‘generative’ - ‘corrective’. The expression ‘corrective’, however, suggested only some aspects of process (b), which is why Jernudd and Neustupny (1987) programmatically introduced the term ‘management’ for this process (far less attention was devoted to process (a)). ‘Management’ in LMT is thus meta-linguistic activity or “behaviour towards language”. The mutual relationship between the generative and management processes is aptly characterised by Jernudd:

Language behaviour as generation of utterances is accompanied by behaviour towards language as management. The former is shaped by and allows overt expression of the latter (Jernudd 2000:195 cited by Nekvapil 2009:1-2).

Nekvapil (2009:2) further explains that the derivation of the concept ‘management’ from language use (parole, performance) provided LMT with an essential feature that differentiated it from language planning theory. Concrete utterances and the analysis of what happens in the concrete interactions moved to the centre of attention. This is why it was only logical that Conversational Analysis came to be utilised, particularly in conjunction with the concept of repair/correction, which was in the central sphere of interest in both Conversational Analysis and LMT. At first glance, it may not be clear how the analysis of concrete interactions is related to language planning. The latter is usually understood as the decision making of state organs or their agencies regarding language, for example, the determination and development of official languages, orthography reforms, or the standardisation of terms. The question then arises whether language planning needs the analysis of conversation or, more generally, of interactive events. To respond to this question, Nekvapil (2009:2) posits that, first of all, it is necessary to point to the fact that LMT works with the basic distinction between ‘simple management’ and ‘organised management’. The process, the objects of which are features of an on-going interaction, is ‘simple management’. An example of simple management is when a moderator in a television interview uses a colloquial expression and after uttering it immediately adds the equivalent standard expression (in Conversational Analysis terminology, this is called self-initiated self-repair). In addition to simple management, LMT considers the existence of more complex management processes, which are trans-situational and sometimes demonstrate a lesser degree of organisation and sometimes a greater degree. LMT uses the term ‘organised management’ for this type of management. We are us able to claim that the language planning theory of the 1960s and 1970s dealt precisely (and only) with organised management.

In sum, according to Nekvapil (2009:8-9), the scope of LMT is very broad. This is due to the fact that this theory is oriented above all to the following three elements of management:

= Both simple and organised management and the relationships between them; = Language management in relation to communication and socio-cultural management; and m A process view of management.

In effect, LMT should communicate with contemporary ethnomethodological theories of repair, Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics, theories of language acquisition, critical discourse analysis, theories of language rights, language imperialism theory, multicultural policy theories etc. In a further step, it could perhaps integrate some aspects of these theories or knowledge acquired on the basis of the theories. LMT is also prepared for research on the history of language management.

Another contributor to language management theory is Spolsky (2009), who submits that language policy is all about choices, and the goal of a theory of language policy is to account for the choices made by individual speakers on the basis of rule-governed patterns recognised by the speech community (or communities) of which they are members. Some of these choices are the result of ‘management’, reflecting conscious and explicit efforts by language managers to control the choices (Spolsky 2009:1). Spolsky (2009:1-2) further submits that the slow progress in developing a theory of language management brings to light the difficulties faced by all social sciences in their endeavours to produce a satisfactory framework accounting for human behaviour. Citing Watts (2007:4 89), Spolsky (2009:2) traces the problem of accounting for human behaviour to the complexity of social phenomena, and suggests that the best way to capture this complexity is by using network analysis while recognising the great difficulty in analysing social networks that are not static, not unitary, and exist in a larger framework. Such analysis is currently beyond the state of the art in language policy, but it does hint at the principal components that need to be taken into account: individuals, organisations, institutional and regulatory structures, as well as their interaction. All of these will also be key elements in a theory of language policy and management. The theory starts with a number of assumptions: the first is that while language policy is intended to account for individual choices, it is (like other aspects of language) a social phenomenon, dependent on the beliefs and consensual behaviours of members of a speech community. The second assumption is that language policy has three interrelated but independently describable components - practice, beliefs and management. Language ‘practices’ are the observable behaviours and choices, i.e. what people actually do. They are the linguistic features chosen, the (variety of) language used. The second important component of language policy is made up of ‘beliefs’ about language (i.e. ideology). The beliefs that are most significant to language policy and management are the values or statuses assigned to named languages, varieties and features. The status of a variant or variety derives from how many people use it and the importance of the users, and the social and economic benefits a speaker can expect from using it. The third component of language policy is ‘management, the explicit and observable effort by someone/some group that has or claims authority over participants in the domain to modify their practices or beliefs (Spolsky,

Introducing the Discourses on Multilingualism and the Public Sector in South Africa

2009:4). Language management requires a detailed understanding of multilingualism and social structure, and of multidimensional social and demographic space (Spolsky, 2009:260).

The preceding exposition captures, albeit briefly, the core of the complexities that define and characterise language management theory. The question that arises at this point in the discussion is: what kind of method would such a theory presuppose? Before venturing on to answer this question, and cognisant of the epistemological fact that ‘language management’ is a larger construct of scholarly and research endeavour than ‘language policy and planning’, it may be important to step back in time and draw on the wisdom of one of the leading scholars on language policy with regard to the place of method in language policy and planning epistemology. The idea is to extrapolate these observations in an attempt to construct a viable characterisation of the place of method in language management epistemology. Ricento (2006:129), providing an overview of methodological perspectives in language policy documents that

. while it is useful to examine methods and techniques available from different disciplinary

perspectives, language policy and planning (LPP), as an interdisciplinary field, requires an understanding and use of multiple methods in exploring important questions about language status, language identity, language use, and other topics that fall within the purview of research.

Ricento (2006) identifies the historical, ethnographic, linguistic, geolinguistic, and psycho-sociological methods as methods clearly linked with extant theoretical approaches in language policy and planning. Working from this postulation, and remaining reminded of the fact that language managementis a larger construct than language policy and planning, it can be posited that language management method encompasses the methods identified by Ricento (2006), and more.

What kind of architecture therefore would language management method have? From the preceding elaboration of language management theory, itis postulated that language management method is a complex of methods derived from the constitutive theories of language management theory. An important aspect of language management method, like language management theory to which itis inextricably linked to, is its open-ended nature, i.e. as the repertoire of the constitutive theories of language management theory keeps on expanding so as to meet new and emerging epistemological demands, so does the repertoire of methods. The picture that emerges from this characterisation of language management method is that language management method is at once a ‘multidisciplinary method’; an ‘interdisciplinary method’; and a ‘transdisciplinary method’ -in sum, it is a ‘cross disciplinary method’. As a multidisciplinary method, it draws appropriately from multiple disciplines in an attempt to define and interrogate language-related problems outside the boundaries of linguistic science in an attempt to reach solutions based on a novel and broad-based interactive understanding of complex language-related situations and phenomena. As an interdisciplinary method, it crosses the traditional boundaries between linguistic disciplines or schools of thought in linguistics in an attempt to provide plausible explanations to language-related phenomena. For example, the language management method will not shy away from using insights deriving from generative grammar to explicate discourse underpinnings of ideologies that underlie language policy choices, for instance, how theta role (8-role) assignment in language policy texts predicates ideological orientations with regard to language policy choices and intended outcomes. As a transdisciplinary method, it seeks, using shared conceptual frameworks drawing together disciplinary-specific theories, concepts, and approaches, to address common language-related challenges, situations and phenomena especially as they relate to the optimisation of language resources for the most possible good for individuals and society.

The preceding characterisation of the language management method notwithstanding, it is possible to identify several methods that constitute the complex of methods that is language management method. Several of these can be identified including: historical/historiographical/ comparative method; psycho-socio-linguistic method; ethnolinguistic method; decision sciences method; development sciences method; and (critical) discourse analysis. These methods are elaborated on briefly in the following sub-sections.

1.2.1 Historical/Historiographical/Comparative method

History occupies a special place in language management research and as Ricento (2006:129) rightfully observes with regard to language policy and planning research - a logic that could be extended to language managementresearch, at both the micro-level of interpersonal communication or the macro-level of state formation. To these levels, other intervening levels such as institutional and societal levels can be added. At the micro-level of interpersonal communication, language management research relies on historical (or more appropriately diachronic) data in order to make sense of the factors and/or variables that underlie and motivate individual language choices over and through time and the concomitant results of such choices such as language death and language shift on the one extreme and language maintenance and language promotion on the other extreme. Language management research also relies on historical data and documentation in an attempt to make sense of language-related institutional policies and cultures. An example will suffice to explain this observation. As is documented in Chapter 5, any attempt at making sense of the challenges of implementing multilingualism in South Africa’s public sector needs to take cognisance of the peculiar historical circumstances in which South Africa’s public sector has evolved over the last 100 years; and in the process entrenching a peculiar organisational culture that has implications on language use within the public sector as an organisation. To quote from Chapter 5 .. apart from the public sectors of the pseudo-independent Bantustan Republics, much of the organisational culture of South Africa’s public sector was designed around bilingualism (English and Afrikaans) and sought to perpetuate this bilingual organisational culture. Vestiges of this bilingual organisational culture are still present in contemporary South Africa’s public sector where negative attitudes toward formerly marginalised African languages are rife despite the Constitutional provisions that point toward a multilingual dispensation.