Post by cjm on Jul 19, 2016 14:50:51 GMT
“We are governing this country now, and we will decide what English is acceptable. If you don’t like our decisions, you can leave the country quite easily. There are no lions at the Johannesburg International Airport, and an air ticket to London is relatively cheap"
Journal for Language Teaching 36 no 1&2
Marné Pienaar
Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory, Rand Afrikaans University
The use of plain language - not that Simple
ABSTRACT
The inception of democracy in South Africa in 1994 also saw the birth of a new language
dispensation granting ll languages official status. This, as well as the fact that English is often
claimed to be the de facto lingua franca despite the fact that it is not by far the largest language
in terms of mother tongue speakers, carries with it concerns relating to successful communication.
One solution that has been offered is the introduction of plain language. However, factors such as
cross-cultural inference, specific discourse strategies and post-colonial discourse style seem to play
an important role in this complex multilingual and multicultural society. These aspects should also
be borne in mind in the debate concerning the use of BSAE in the English L2 classroom.
1. Background
The majority of the users of English in South Africa are second language speakers with a
varying degree of proficiency in English. Although the debate on the practical implementation
of multilingualism is still rife and political lip service is paid to it, politicians in particular do not
adhere to the call for the implementation of multilingualism. This should be regarded as rather
short-sighted on their side, considering that research indicates that 46% of South Africans under-
stand very little (if anything at all) when leaders use English only (PANSALBnews, 2000: 8).
In an article on English language proficiency in South Africa, De Kadt (2000: 31) concludes
(that) “the type of English-language proficiency appropriate to South Africa (should) involve the
ability to communicate with speakers of a range of varieties of English”. She suggests that such
proficiency will pose challenges to both native and non-native speakers of English, and will
require considerable input from educationalists. In my opinion, registers and domains should also
be taken into consideration as successful communication generally depends on discourse strategies
and conventions that are also register and domain-specific.
Criticism relating to the use of ‘bad’ English is not limited to politicians and is rampant in
both the public and private domains. This is evident from letters in the daily press where
“complaints” regarding the use of “bad” English on radio and television are numerous (also see
Ridge, 1995: 48; Webb & Kembo-Sure, 2000: 19). However, the impression one gets from reading
these letters indicates that the so-called “bad” English might simply be different varieties of
146
Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig 36 nr I&2
English and to be more specific, Black South African English (BSAE). Smit (2000: 135) defines
BSAE as “the English of ESL (English Second Language — MP) speakers whose first languages
are Bantu languages” and points out that “this description already includes the two factors that
account for the extreme heterogeneity of BSAE: firstly that it is a second language and, secondly,
that there is a range of first languages to be considered”. In other words: varying degrees of
language proficiency and competence as well as varying degrees of first language have a role to
play. In the past, BSAE was generally associated with a relatively low social status, particularly
when compared to White South African English (WSAE) (see, Smit, 2000: 135). It is therefore not
surprising that politicians who are speakers of BSAE are especially prone to criticism. They are
often considered to be incoherent, not to the point and evasive.
This could well be true of politicians elsewhere, as the historical and procedural nature of
language within a legislative context should be viewed as a specialised register with its own
conventions, which may be inaccessible to the uninitiated. In the light of the above, the National
Parliament of South Africa set out to implement the use of plain language within the national and
provincial legislative context. Research indicates that emphasis should be placed on documents
generated on committee level, as these often form the basis for debates in the legislatures and also
for the drafting of legislation.
However, as pointed out above, the use of inaccessible language is not limited to written texts.
When spontaneous speeches by politicians are assessed, it seems as if the extent of their use of
vague language, unclear or imprecise formulation also warrants a call for the use of plain
language. In a study conducted to formulate a suitable interpretation and translation model for the
Gauteng Legislature, all the members interviewed indicated that some of their colleagues who are
BSAE speakers, lacked proficiency in English and expressed a need for a training course in plain
language use. (Pienaar & Slabbert, 1999: 20.
2. Plain language
The immediate questions that arise are: What is plain language use and what are the perceived
benefits of implementing it? On first impression it seems as if the use of plain language is
generally aimed at written texts. It involves aspects such as vocabulary, sentence structure, text
organisation, tone, readability, etc. Within the South African context, plain language is used for
instance, when new legislation is rewritten with a view to distributing the information to the larger
community. The plain language (English) version is then translated into the official indigenous
languages. The translated version might take the form of a summary or in some cases might even
be reduced to a comic strip as was recently done with the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995) and
the Domestic Violence Act (Act 116 of 1998).
The rationale behind this is that the jargon and terminology, which characterize legal and leg-
islative texts, are of such a nature that it they generally inaccessible to the lay person. Furthermore,
the legislation would typically be drawn up in English only and given the limited proficiency lev-
els in English in this country, it cannot be assumed that the content of the legislation will become
widely known.
LEAP, the Legal Entities Assessment Project, also pointed out that simply translating Legalese
from one language to another does not mean that the text would be more accessible to speakers of
other languages. They even go as far as saying that any development or training in translation that
might lead to a form of Legalese in any language that does not yet suffer from this unnecessary
complication, should be resisted! (PANSALBnews, 2001: 8) Ultimately, plain language seeks to
ensure intelligible texts. LEAP assesses texts according to the following criteria: clarity, logical
147
Journal for Language Teaching 36 no I&2
arrangement, flow of information, economy of language and consistency in terminology. “If the
given texts are to be rendered intelligible, all these factors must be taken into account. It is a
process of simplification and rearrangement rather than merely rewording: excising repetition,
grouping related concepts, defining words where they first appear, cutting down over-elaboration
and avoiding unnecessary cross-reference.” (PANSALBnews, 2001: 8)
From the above it should be clear that the use of opaque language does not necessarily relate to
a lack of proficiency. On the contrary, one of the ironies of Legalese is exactly the fact that it
became opaque through a long process of trying to be as clear as possible. However, what is also
true, is that most attempts at the use of plain language have been aimed primarily at written texts.
It is possible to apply the principles of plain language, for instance, to speeches read by politicians.
In contrast, the nature of debates in parliament, the provincial legislatures as well as in television
and radio interviews, requires spontaneous speech and off-the-cuff responses. It is in this area
particularly, that accusations relating to “bad” English are rife. Although limited proficiency may
be a contributing factor in some instances, this article would like to suggest further factors which
might go a long way to explain why the use of plain language in oral texts is not that simple in
South Africa.
3. Factors influencing the use of plain language
3.1 Cross-cultural inference
It is generally accepted that Grice’s co-operative principle (Grice, 1981) might well be more or
less applicable to some languages, but is not necessarily representative of all. The maxims of
quality, quantity, relevance and manner might also be interpreted differently by different speech
communities. While these maxims might be applied differently by various communities, it is also
true that the maxims of quality and relevance are particularly prone to manipulation in political
discourse (see Wilson, 1990: 10 on truth, linguistics and pragmatics). However, it is also true that
quantity and relevance in the strict Gricean sense of the word are not applicable to discourse
conventions in many African communities. This can be illustrated by amongst other things,
greeting, thanking and leave-taking conventions (see Ndoleriire, 2000: 279) which are relatively
long and could therefore be seen as flouting the quantity maxim. Many African communities also
consider it inappropriate to “get to the point” too quickly as this could be interpreted as impolite
given the convention that important information should be held back until the setting is adequately
established. In this sense the maxim of manner is also not adhered to. In short: not making your
contribution more informative than required (quantity), making your contributions relevant
(relevance), avoiding obscurity and being brief (manner) should be considered as relative and
applicable to some speech communities only.
This argument is also supported by Roberts and Sayers (1998: 28). In a study on the
application of Grice’s maxims in interviews in Britain, they stated: “in interethnic encounters what
constitutes cooperativeness will be even more difficult to tie down since principles of cooperation
will be encoded differently in different languages and cultures.” According to them, the flouting of
the cooperative principle is regularly interpreted negatively in terms of wrong attitude,
incompetence or inadequate socialization into the white majority culture.
In the light of the above, it could be argued that perceived opacity in the speeches of South
African politicians may therefore well be typical of political speeches per se but also a reflection
of linguistic conventions in the African languages. The voiced irritation could therefore be seen as
an example of cross-cultural miscommunication or misinterpretation.
148
Journal for Language Teaching 36 no I&2
Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig 36 nr I&2
3.2 Discourse strategies in trade unions
Research indicates that the use of long incoherent speeches followed by a direct appellative, is
typical of a discourse strategy used in trade union negotiations in South Africa. Given the fact that
many politicians in South Africa started their political careers in trade unions, the use of opaque
language can no longer solely be contributed to a lack of proficiency in English, (or for that matter
inference of alternative discourse conventions) but should also be seen as a carefully developed
discourse strategy. In a study done by Slabbert and Finlayson (2000) the conclusion is drawn that
the strategies used by speakers of WSAE and BSAE differed substantially in a negotiating
situation. BSAE speakers seemed to make use of strategies in which meaning was deliberately
confused and tentativeness was high. In essence this strategy entailed a semantic power play where
long, incoherent speeches was followed by short to-the-point suggestions. This strategy often
resulted in the BSAE speaker turning the discussion to his/her advantage in that the recipients
(WSAE speakers) literally grabbed on to what they understood and therefore allowed the change
strategy. Slabbert & Finlayson indicated that this seemed to have been a deliberate strategy that
could be traced back to negotiation training in trade unions.
3.3 Post-colonial discourse style
The fact that African countries opt for the use of colonial languages after independence does not
mean that the colonial variety is kept intact (Webb and Kembo-Sure, 2000: 38). A new variety
generally replaces the colonial variety. In this sense a new identity is associated with the specific
use of a former colonial language. The perceived opacity of BSAE might well also be a marker of
identity and social power.
In an assessment of high school pupils’ attitudes towards the pronunciation of BSAE, Van
Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 187) concluded that the attitude towards English in South
Africa has changed dramatically in recent years. Sotho-speaking participants revealed the most
positive attitude towards acrolectical, or Educated BSAE. Researchers over the past three decades
had previously found that black South Africans are more favourably disposed towards Standard
White varieties of English. The changing socio-political milieu is seen as the probable cause of
this change. They argue that “an acrolectal variety of BSAE probably performs two functions for
its speakers. Firstly, in maintaining its difference from WSAE, it serves as a marker of cultural
identity within the complex, multilingual and multicultural identities of black users of English in
South Africa. Secondly, it is probably close enough to WSAE as far as its linguistic properties are
concerned to ensure that effective communication takes place. As BSAE is the selected variety of
the New South African elite, it might increasingly come to serve as an idealised target for language
acquisition by BSAE learners in secondary education, even if it is not the language of their
teachers”. Van Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 205—206).
This change in attitude towards BSAE was also reiterated at a conference held in Johannesburg
in 1997 during which a young black South African delivered a paper entitled ‘English? Yes. But
whose English? Your English or Mine?’ According to Webb and Kembu-Sure (2000: 19) his
message could be summed up as follows: “We are governing this country now, and we will decide
what English is acceptable. If you don’t like our decisions, you can leave the country quite easily.
There are no lions at the Johannesburg International Airport, and an air ticket to London is
relatively cheap”. Although Webb and Kembo-Sure also indicate that this attitude is rather
extreme, they do however point out that this does illustrate the intensity of the debate which, in
their opinion is understandable, given the colonial history of the country.
149
4. Can plain language bridge the gap?
In a discussion on effective communication, Gudykunst (1994: 26-28) lists the following as rea-
sons underlying misinterpretation between members of different linguistic and cultural back-
grounds:
* messages may be transmitted in a way that cannot be understood by others (e. g. pronunciation
or accents may hinder understanding)
* the communication rules of the countries from which the communicators come may differ and
influence how messages are interpreted
* one of the communicators may not be able to speak the other’s language (e. g. one person is just
learning the other’s language and is not fluent)
* one person may not understand how to accomplish a certain task or interpret a specific utter-
ance within a social context
* one person may make errors in attributions because of his or her group identity
* the communicators may not be familiar with the topic being discussed.
When the production and reception of political speeches in South Africa are measured against
these indicators, they all seem to apply. Indeed a variety of accents exist that might hinder com-
munication (a common example relates to emphasis — BSAE-speakers typically shift emphasis
pronouncing “category” as “cetAgory”). Communication rules (or discourse strategies) differ
among the various speech communities. The levels of proficiency in English varies dramatically.
The political arena has very specific conventions associated with it. Different varieties of English
act as specific markers of identity and lastly a lack of adequate background knowledge of political
topics would clearly contribute to a lesser understanding.
It is clear that the call for plain language use probably stems from a situation that is, on the one
hand, typical of a cross-cultural communication process and on the other variety, register and
domain specific. It is unlikely that the principles of plain language could be successfully applied in
spontaneous political speeches. It is improbable that the underlying discourse strategies associated
with the BSAE speakers’ mother tongues as well as the variety of English spoken by them would
be affected by WSAE speakers’ insistence that the way they speak is “bad”.
5. Conclusion
Van Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 206) are of the opinion that WSAE and BSAE are
relatively close to each other as far as linguistic properties are concerned. They also state that “this
closeness should go a long way to allying the concern expressed by commentators such as De
Klerk (1999), Titlestad (1996) and Wright (1996), namely that the adoption of a non-standard
variety of English may pose a severe threat to intelligibility”.
In view of the above, the criticism relating to the use of BSAE should therefore be seen against
the background of a changing socio-political situation, in which the speakers of one variety of
English, in this case WSAE, have become aware of the challenge (threat?) posed by another
variety. Intelligibility is not really at stake. The real difference between the varieties relates instead
to cross-cultural discourse where discourse strategies typical to African languages are used in
BSAE. This is experienced as inappropriate linguistic behaviour and equated with a lack of
proficiency in English.
As politicians often are in the public spotlight, conventions typical in political rhetoric and
trade union negotiation style also contribute to change in conventions thus far considered appro-
priate by WSAE speakers. However, as role-models for other speakers of BSAE, these alternative
150
Tydskrifvir Taalonderrig 36 nr 1&2
non-Gricean conventions have become markers of identity and will probably contribute to their
acceptance as norms by BSAE speakers in particular.
It is clear that the use of plain language is a complex issue which entails more than simply
adhering to conventions of one particular variety of English.
This state of affairs could also have interesting implications for the use of BSAE in the English
L2 classroom.
References
Cole, P. (ed.) 1981. Radical Pragmatics. London/New York: Academic Press.
Connoly, William E. 1991. Identity/Discourse. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
De Kadt, E. 2000. English language proñciency in South Africa at the turn of the millennium.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18: 25—32.
Finlayson, R. & Slabbert, S. 2000. The language of transformation. Paper presented at the Rand
Afrikaans University, September 2001.
Grice, HP. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole (ed.).
Gudykunst, William, B. 1994. Bridging Differences. Effective Intergroup Communication.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.
Ndoleriire, Oswald, K. 2000. Cross-cultural communication in Africa. In: V. Webb & Kembo-
Sure (ed.), African Voices. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa. 268—285.
PANSALBnews, July—September 2002.
PAN SALBnews, J anuary—March 2001.
Pienaar, M. 2001. Simultane tolkdienste aan die Suid-Afrikaanse provinsiale wetgewers: ’n paar
gevaartekens. Paper read at the 5th Language International Conference, July 2002.
Pienaar, M. & Slabbert, S. 1999. A suitable interpretation and translation model for the Gauteng
Legislature. Unpublished final report. Project Funded by the European Union Parliamentary
Support Programme.
Ridge, E. 1995. Persuasion — South African Language in Action. Per Linguam, vol. 11(2): 47—59.
Roberts, C. and Sayers, P. 1998. Keeping the gate: how judgements are made in interethnic
interviews. In: P. Trudgill and J. Cheshire (ed.). 25—43.
Smit, U. 2000. Investigating BSAE in the new Millennium — on the potential and problems of
language attitude research. South African Journal of Linguistics. Supplement 38: 133—148.
South Africa (Republic) Labour Relations Act. (Act 66 of 1995). Pretoria: Government Printer.
South Africa (Republic) Domestic Violence Act (Act 116 of 1998). Pretoria: Government Printer.
Trudgill, P. & Cheshire, J. 1998. The Sociolinguistics Reader, vol. 1. Multilingualism and
Variation. London: Arnold.
Van Rooy, B., Van Rooy, S. & Van Wyk, H. 2000. An assessment of high school pupils’ attitudes
towards the pronunciation of Black South African English South African Journal of
Linguistics Supplement 38: 187—213.
Webb, V. & Kembo-Sure (ed.) 2000. African Voices. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dr. Marné Pienaar is a senior lecturer in the
Dept. of Linguistics and Literary Theory at Dept. of Linguistics and Literary Theory
RAU. Her fields of interest include: cognitive
linguistics, translation and interpreting studies,
pragmatics and sociolinguistics.
2006
Republic of South Africa.
mpi@lw.rau.ac.za
151
Marné Pienaar
Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory, Rand Afrikaans University
The use of plain language - not that Simple
ABSTRACT
The inception of democracy in South Africa in 1994 also saw the birth of a new language
dispensation granting ll languages official status. This, as well as the fact that English is often
claimed to be the de facto lingua franca despite the fact that it is not by far the largest language
in terms of mother tongue speakers, carries with it concerns relating to successful communication.
One solution that has been offered is the introduction of plain language. However, factors such as
cross-cultural inference, specific discourse strategies and post-colonial discourse style seem to play
an important role in this complex multilingual and multicultural society. These aspects should also
be borne in mind in the debate concerning the use of BSAE in the English L2 classroom.
1. Background
The majority of the users of English in South Africa are second language speakers with a
varying degree of proficiency in English. Although the debate on the practical implementation
of multilingualism is still rife and political lip service is paid to it, politicians in particular do not
adhere to the call for the implementation of multilingualism. This should be regarded as rather
short-sighted on their side, considering that research indicates that 46% of South Africans under-
stand very little (if anything at all) when leaders use English only (PANSALBnews, 2000: 8).
In an article on English language proficiency in South Africa, De Kadt (2000: 31) concludes
(that) “the type of English-language proficiency appropriate to South Africa (should) involve the
ability to communicate with speakers of a range of varieties of English”. She suggests that such
proficiency will pose challenges to both native and non-native speakers of English, and will
require considerable input from educationalists. In my opinion, registers and domains should also
be taken into consideration as successful communication generally depends on discourse strategies
and conventions that are also register and domain-specific.
Criticism relating to the use of ‘bad’ English is not limited to politicians and is rampant in
both the public and private domains. This is evident from letters in the daily press where
“complaints” regarding the use of “bad” English on radio and television are numerous (also see
Ridge, 1995: 48; Webb & Kembo-Sure, 2000: 19). However, the impression one gets from reading
these letters indicates that the so-called “bad” English might simply be different varieties of
146
Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig 36 nr I&2
English and to be more specific, Black South African English (BSAE). Smit (2000: 135) defines
BSAE as “the English of ESL (English Second Language — MP) speakers whose first languages
are Bantu languages” and points out that “this description already includes the two factors that
account for the extreme heterogeneity of BSAE: firstly that it is a second language and, secondly,
that there is a range of first languages to be considered”. In other words: varying degrees of
language proficiency and competence as well as varying degrees of first language have a role to
play. In the past, BSAE was generally associated with a relatively low social status, particularly
when compared to White South African English (WSAE) (see, Smit, 2000: 135). It is therefore not
surprising that politicians who are speakers of BSAE are especially prone to criticism. They are
often considered to be incoherent, not to the point and evasive.
This could well be true of politicians elsewhere, as the historical and procedural nature of
language within a legislative context should be viewed as a specialised register with its own
conventions, which may be inaccessible to the uninitiated. In the light of the above, the National
Parliament of South Africa set out to implement the use of plain language within the national and
provincial legislative context. Research indicates that emphasis should be placed on documents
generated on committee level, as these often form the basis for debates in the legislatures and also
for the drafting of legislation.
However, as pointed out above, the use of inaccessible language is not limited to written texts.
When spontaneous speeches by politicians are assessed, it seems as if the extent of their use of
vague language, unclear or imprecise formulation also warrants a call for the use of plain
language. In a study conducted to formulate a suitable interpretation and translation model for the
Gauteng Legislature, all the members interviewed indicated that some of their colleagues who are
BSAE speakers, lacked proficiency in English and expressed a need for a training course in plain
language use. (Pienaar & Slabbert, 1999: 20.
2. Plain language
The immediate questions that arise are: What is plain language use and what are the perceived
benefits of implementing it? On first impression it seems as if the use of plain language is
generally aimed at written texts. It involves aspects such as vocabulary, sentence structure, text
organisation, tone, readability, etc. Within the South African context, plain language is used for
instance, when new legislation is rewritten with a view to distributing the information to the larger
community. The plain language (English) version is then translated into the official indigenous
languages. The translated version might take the form of a summary or in some cases might even
be reduced to a comic strip as was recently done with the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995) and
the Domestic Violence Act (Act 116 of 1998).
The rationale behind this is that the jargon and terminology, which characterize legal and leg-
islative texts, are of such a nature that it they generally inaccessible to the lay person. Furthermore,
the legislation would typically be drawn up in English only and given the limited proficiency lev-
els in English in this country, it cannot be assumed that the content of the legislation will become
widely known.
LEAP, the Legal Entities Assessment Project, also pointed out that simply translating Legalese
from one language to another does not mean that the text would be more accessible to speakers of
other languages. They even go as far as saying that any development or training in translation that
might lead to a form of Legalese in any language that does not yet suffer from this unnecessary
complication, should be resisted! (PANSALBnews, 2001: 8) Ultimately, plain language seeks to
ensure intelligible texts. LEAP assesses texts according to the following criteria: clarity, logical
147
Journal for Language Teaching 36 no I&2
arrangement, flow of information, economy of language and consistency in terminology. “If the
given texts are to be rendered intelligible, all these factors must be taken into account. It is a
process of simplification and rearrangement rather than merely rewording: excising repetition,
grouping related concepts, defining words where they first appear, cutting down over-elaboration
and avoiding unnecessary cross-reference.” (PANSALBnews, 2001: 8)
From the above it should be clear that the use of opaque language does not necessarily relate to
a lack of proficiency. On the contrary, one of the ironies of Legalese is exactly the fact that it
became opaque through a long process of trying to be as clear as possible. However, what is also
true, is that most attempts at the use of plain language have been aimed primarily at written texts.
It is possible to apply the principles of plain language, for instance, to speeches read by politicians.
In contrast, the nature of debates in parliament, the provincial legislatures as well as in television
and radio interviews, requires spontaneous speech and off-the-cuff responses. It is in this area
particularly, that accusations relating to “bad” English are rife. Although limited proficiency may
be a contributing factor in some instances, this article would like to suggest further factors which
might go a long way to explain why the use of plain language in oral texts is not that simple in
South Africa.
3. Factors influencing the use of plain language
3.1 Cross-cultural inference
It is generally accepted that Grice’s co-operative principle (Grice, 1981) might well be more or
less applicable to some languages, but is not necessarily representative of all. The maxims of
quality, quantity, relevance and manner might also be interpreted differently by different speech
communities. While these maxims might be applied differently by various communities, it is also
true that the maxims of quality and relevance are particularly prone to manipulation in political
discourse (see Wilson, 1990: 10 on truth, linguistics and pragmatics). However, it is also true that
quantity and relevance in the strict Gricean sense of the word are not applicable to discourse
conventions in many African communities. This can be illustrated by amongst other things,
greeting, thanking and leave-taking conventions (see Ndoleriire, 2000: 279) which are relatively
long and could therefore be seen as flouting the quantity maxim. Many African communities also
consider it inappropriate to “get to the point” too quickly as this could be interpreted as impolite
given the convention that important information should be held back until the setting is adequately
established. In this sense the maxim of manner is also not adhered to. In short: not making your
contribution more informative than required (quantity), making your contributions relevant
(relevance), avoiding obscurity and being brief (manner) should be considered as relative and
applicable to some speech communities only.
This argument is also supported by Roberts and Sayers (1998: 28). In a study on the
application of Grice’s maxims in interviews in Britain, they stated: “in interethnic encounters what
constitutes cooperativeness will be even more difficult to tie down since principles of cooperation
will be encoded differently in different languages and cultures.” According to them, the flouting of
the cooperative principle is regularly interpreted negatively in terms of wrong attitude,
incompetence or inadequate socialization into the white majority culture.
In the light of the above, it could be argued that perceived opacity in the speeches of South
African politicians may therefore well be typical of political speeches per se but also a reflection
of linguistic conventions in the African languages. The voiced irritation could therefore be seen as
an example of cross-cultural miscommunication or misinterpretation.
148
Journal for Language Teaching 36 no I&2
Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig 36 nr I&2
3.2 Discourse strategies in trade unions
Research indicates that the use of long incoherent speeches followed by a direct appellative, is
typical of a discourse strategy used in trade union negotiations in South Africa. Given the fact that
many politicians in South Africa started their political careers in trade unions, the use of opaque
language can no longer solely be contributed to a lack of proficiency in English, (or for that matter
inference of alternative discourse conventions) but should also be seen as a carefully developed
discourse strategy. In a study done by Slabbert and Finlayson (2000) the conclusion is drawn that
the strategies used by speakers of WSAE and BSAE differed substantially in a negotiating
situation. BSAE speakers seemed to make use of strategies in which meaning was deliberately
confused and tentativeness was high. In essence this strategy entailed a semantic power play where
long, incoherent speeches was followed by short to-the-point suggestions. This strategy often
resulted in the BSAE speaker turning the discussion to his/her advantage in that the recipients
(WSAE speakers) literally grabbed on to what they understood and therefore allowed the change
strategy. Slabbert & Finlayson indicated that this seemed to have been a deliberate strategy that
could be traced back to negotiation training in trade unions.
3.3 Post-colonial discourse style
The fact that African countries opt for the use of colonial languages after independence does not
mean that the colonial variety is kept intact (Webb and Kembo-Sure, 2000: 38). A new variety
generally replaces the colonial variety. In this sense a new identity is associated with the specific
use of a former colonial language. The perceived opacity of BSAE might well also be a marker of
identity and social power.
In an assessment of high school pupils’ attitudes towards the pronunciation of BSAE, Van
Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 187) concluded that the attitude towards English in South
Africa has changed dramatically in recent years. Sotho-speaking participants revealed the most
positive attitude towards acrolectical, or Educated BSAE. Researchers over the past three decades
had previously found that black South Africans are more favourably disposed towards Standard
White varieties of English. The changing socio-political milieu is seen as the probable cause of
this change. They argue that “an acrolectal variety of BSAE probably performs two functions for
its speakers. Firstly, in maintaining its difference from WSAE, it serves as a marker of cultural
identity within the complex, multilingual and multicultural identities of black users of English in
South Africa. Secondly, it is probably close enough to WSAE as far as its linguistic properties are
concerned to ensure that effective communication takes place. As BSAE is the selected variety of
the New South African elite, it might increasingly come to serve as an idealised target for language
acquisition by BSAE learners in secondary education, even if it is not the language of their
teachers”. Van Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 205—206).
This change in attitude towards BSAE was also reiterated at a conference held in Johannesburg
in 1997 during which a young black South African delivered a paper entitled ‘English? Yes. But
whose English? Your English or Mine?’ According to Webb and Kembu-Sure (2000: 19) his
message could be summed up as follows: “We are governing this country now, and we will decide
what English is acceptable. If you don’t like our decisions, you can leave the country quite easily.
There are no lions at the Johannesburg International Airport, and an air ticket to London is
relatively cheap”. Although Webb and Kembo-Sure also indicate that this attitude is rather
extreme, they do however point out that this does illustrate the intensity of the debate which, in
their opinion is understandable, given the colonial history of the country.
149
4. Can plain language bridge the gap?
In a discussion on effective communication, Gudykunst (1994: 26-28) lists the following as rea-
sons underlying misinterpretation between members of different linguistic and cultural back-
grounds:
* messages may be transmitted in a way that cannot be understood by others (e. g. pronunciation
or accents may hinder understanding)
* the communication rules of the countries from which the communicators come may differ and
influence how messages are interpreted
* one of the communicators may not be able to speak the other’s language (e. g. one person is just
learning the other’s language and is not fluent)
* one person may not understand how to accomplish a certain task or interpret a specific utter-
ance within a social context
* one person may make errors in attributions because of his or her group identity
* the communicators may not be familiar with the topic being discussed.
When the production and reception of political speeches in South Africa are measured against
these indicators, they all seem to apply. Indeed a variety of accents exist that might hinder com-
munication (a common example relates to emphasis — BSAE-speakers typically shift emphasis
pronouncing “category” as “cetAgory”). Communication rules (or discourse strategies) differ
among the various speech communities. The levels of proficiency in English varies dramatically.
The political arena has very specific conventions associated with it. Different varieties of English
act as specific markers of identity and lastly a lack of adequate background knowledge of political
topics would clearly contribute to a lesser understanding.
It is clear that the call for plain language use probably stems from a situation that is, on the one
hand, typical of a cross-cultural communication process and on the other variety, register and
domain specific. It is unlikely that the principles of plain language could be successfully applied in
spontaneous political speeches. It is improbable that the underlying discourse strategies associated
with the BSAE speakers’ mother tongues as well as the variety of English spoken by them would
be affected by WSAE speakers’ insistence that the way they speak is “bad”.
5. Conclusion
Van Rooy, Van Rooyen and Van Wyk (2000: 206) are of the opinion that WSAE and BSAE are
relatively close to each other as far as linguistic properties are concerned. They also state that “this
closeness should go a long way to allying the concern expressed by commentators such as De
Klerk (1999), Titlestad (1996) and Wright (1996), namely that the adoption of a non-standard
variety of English may pose a severe threat to intelligibility”.
In view of the above, the criticism relating to the use of BSAE should therefore be seen against
the background of a changing socio-political situation, in which the speakers of one variety of
English, in this case WSAE, have become aware of the challenge (threat?) posed by another
variety. Intelligibility is not really at stake. The real difference between the varieties relates instead
to cross-cultural discourse where discourse strategies typical to African languages are used in
BSAE. This is experienced as inappropriate linguistic behaviour and equated with a lack of
proficiency in English.
As politicians often are in the public spotlight, conventions typical in political rhetoric and
trade union negotiation style also contribute to change in conventions thus far considered appro-
priate by WSAE speakers. However, as role-models for other speakers of BSAE, these alternative
150
Tydskrifvir Taalonderrig 36 nr 1&2
non-Gricean conventions have become markers of identity and will probably contribute to their
acceptance as norms by BSAE speakers in particular.
It is clear that the use of plain language is a complex issue which entails more than simply
adhering to conventions of one particular variety of English.
This state of affairs could also have interesting implications for the use of BSAE in the English
L2 classroom.
References
Cole, P. (ed.) 1981. Radical Pragmatics. London/New York: Academic Press.
Connoly, William E. 1991. Identity/Discourse. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
De Kadt, E. 2000. English language proñciency in South Africa at the turn of the millennium.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 18: 25—32.
Finlayson, R. & Slabbert, S. 2000. The language of transformation. Paper presented at the Rand
Afrikaans University, September 2001.
Grice, HP. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole (ed.).
Gudykunst, William, B. 1994. Bridging Differences. Effective Intergroup Communication.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.
Ndoleriire, Oswald, K. 2000. Cross-cultural communication in Africa. In: V. Webb & Kembo-
Sure (ed.), African Voices. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa. 268—285.
PANSALBnews, July—September 2002.
PAN SALBnews, J anuary—March 2001.
Pienaar, M. 2001. Simultane tolkdienste aan die Suid-Afrikaanse provinsiale wetgewers: ’n paar
gevaartekens. Paper read at the 5th Language International Conference, July 2002.
Pienaar, M. & Slabbert, S. 1999. A suitable interpretation and translation model for the Gauteng
Legislature. Unpublished final report. Project Funded by the European Union Parliamentary
Support Programme.
Ridge, E. 1995. Persuasion — South African Language in Action. Per Linguam, vol. 11(2): 47—59.
Roberts, C. and Sayers, P. 1998. Keeping the gate: how judgements are made in interethnic
interviews. In: P. Trudgill and J. Cheshire (ed.). 25—43.
Smit, U. 2000. Investigating BSAE in the new Millennium — on the potential and problems of
language attitude research. South African Journal of Linguistics. Supplement 38: 133—148.
South Africa (Republic) Labour Relations Act. (Act 66 of 1995). Pretoria: Government Printer.
South Africa (Republic) Domestic Violence Act (Act 116 of 1998). Pretoria: Government Printer.
Trudgill, P. & Cheshire, J. 1998. The Sociolinguistics Reader, vol. 1. Multilingualism and
Variation. London: Arnold.
Van Rooy, B., Van Rooy, S. & Van Wyk, H. 2000. An assessment of high school pupils’ attitudes
towards the pronunciation of Black South African English South African Journal of
Linguistics Supplement 38: 187—213.
Webb, V. & Kembo-Sure (ed.) 2000. African Voices. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dr. Marné Pienaar is a senior lecturer in the
Dept. of Linguistics and Literary Theory at Dept. of Linguistics and Literary Theory
RAU. Her fields of interest include: cognitive
linguistics, translation and interpreting studies,
pragmatics and sociolinguistics.
2006
Republic of South Africa.
mpi@lw.rau.ac.za
151