Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet
Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet
LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012 principle in question. Although the measuring is subjective, it does reveal results that provide deeper insight into the structuring of different language acts. This instrument is then tested comparing four prototypical language acts: the Official Languages Act of Canada (OLA in Table 1 below) and Estonia’s Language Act, or Keeleseadus (Ks) as typical prototypes of institutionalising language legislation (establishing multilingual and monolingual language regimes respectively) on the one hand and Quebec’s Charte de la langue française (Clf) and Wales’ Welsh Language Act (WLA) as prototypical normalising language acts (of the promotional and corrective normalising type respectively). The end result of this comparative analysis is shown in Table 1. Table 1. The extent of the presence of sociolinguistic principles of language legislation in four prototypical language acts Principles Fundamenta l Domain- determining Legal instrumental Proclamation of official language Treatment of linking language issue Object of language act Communications with citizenry Language of education Linguistic aspects of citizenship Institutionalising language legislation Multilingua l Normalising language legislation Monolingual Promotional Corrective OLA Ks Clf WLA 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Variety 5 3 5 5 Authoritativenes s Demarcation of language rights 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 0 Total 38 36 33 20 The comparison in Table 1 not only accentuates the principal differences between the two broad categories of language legislation, but also highlights some important shared features, 311
LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012 such as communication with the public, the demarcation of language rights, etc. It shows that one should be careful in comparing language acts that might not be of the same category and type, which stresses the importance of a structural analysis and the weakness of normative approaches where the one act serves as a norm for the other without taking cognisance of their inherent differences. A similar analytical comparison is then made between SALB I and SALB II. This enables the analyst to conduct a relatively rational comparison between the two versions without following a normative approach (Table 2 below). Table 2. A comparison between SALB I and SALB II using the scheme for measuring the presence of sociolinguistic principles of language legislation in different language acts Principles SALB I SALB II Fundamental Domain - determining Legal instrumental Proclamation of official language Treatment of linking language issue Object of language act Communications with citizenry Language of education Linguistic aspects of citizenship 3 0 3 0 5 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Variety 5 5 Authoritativeness 5 5 Demarcation of language rights 3 0 Total 27 16 The comparison reveals, among other things, that the version of SALB II published in October 2011 proposes, in essence, a completely different type of statutory measure from that of SALB I, published in 2003, signifying an important shift in thinking within government circles regarding a language law. The core finding is that, in actual fact, it should not be appraised as a potential national language act of the institutionalising type, but rather as a kind of administrative language measure – and even as a language scheme, in other words as a corrective normalising language act similar to what the Welsh have. It implies that the tendency among especially Afrikaans activists and scholars to treat SALB I as normative in their analysis of SALB II might run the risk of comparing the proverbial apples with pears, which might draw our focus away from the actual inherent deficiencies of the October 2011 312
- Page 297 and 298: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 299 and 300: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 301 and 302: 90 Grondwet artt. 7(2) en 8(1). 91
- Page 303 and 304: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 305 and 306: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 307 and 308: 5.2 Vereistes vir kennisgewing van
- Page 309 and 310: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 311 and 312: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 313 and 314: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 315 and 316: 5 Sien art. 8; Otto en Otto (2010,
- Page 317 and 318: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 319 and 320: 93 Par. 14 (my kursivering). LitNet
- Page 321 and 322: Opsomming LitNet Akademies Jaargang
- Page 323 and 324: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 325 and 326: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 327 and 328: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 329 and 330: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 331 and 332: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 333 and 334: Universiteit van die Witwatersrand
- Page 335 and 336: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 337 and 338: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 339 and 340: 11. Gevolgtrekking LitNet Akademies
- Page 341 and 342: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 343 and 344: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 345 and 346: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 347: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 351 and 352: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 353 and 354: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 355 and 356: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 357 and 358: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 359 and 360: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 361 and 362: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 363 and 364: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 365 and 366: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 367 and 368: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 369 and 370: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 371 and 372: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 373 and 374: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 375 and 376: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 377 and 378: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 379 and 380: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 381 and 382: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 383 and 384: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 385 and 386: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 387 and 388: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 389 and 390: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 391 and 392: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 393 and 394: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 395 and 396: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
- Page 397 and 398: LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Aug
<strong>LitNet</strong> Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012<br />
such as c<strong>om</strong>munication with the public, the demarcation of language rights, etc. It shows that<br />
one should be careful <strong>in</strong> c<strong>om</strong>par<strong>in</strong>g language acts that might not be of the same ca<strong>te</strong>gory and<br />
type, which stresses the importance of a structural analysis and the weakness of normative<br />
approaches where the one act serves as a norm for the other without tak<strong>in</strong>g cognisance of<br />
their <strong>in</strong>herent differences.<br />
A similar analytical c<strong>om</strong>parison is then made between SALB I and SALB II. This enables the<br />
analyst to conduct a relatively rational c<strong>om</strong>parison between the two versions without<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g a normative approach (Table 2 below).<br />
Table 2. A c<strong>om</strong>parison between SALB I and SALB II us<strong>in</strong>g the scheme for measur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the presence of sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of language legislation <strong>in</strong> different language<br />
acts<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples SALB I SALB II<br />
Fundamental<br />
D<strong>om</strong>a<strong>in</strong> -<br />
de<strong>te</strong>rm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
Legal<br />
<strong>in</strong>strumental<br />
Proclamation of<br />
official language<br />
Treatment of<br />
l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g language<br />
issue<br />
Object of<br />
language act<br />
C<strong>om</strong>munications<br />
with citizenry<br />
Language of<br />
education<br />
L<strong>in</strong>guistic aspects<br />
of citizenship<br />
3 0<br />
3 0<br />
5 3<br />
3 3<br />
0 0<br />
0 0<br />
Variety 5 5<br />
Authoritativeness 5 5<br />
Demarcation of<br />
language rights<br />
3 0<br />
Total 27 16<br />
The c<strong>om</strong>parison reveals, among other th<strong>in</strong>gs, that the version of SALB II published <strong>in</strong><br />
October 2011 proposes, <strong>in</strong> essence, a c<strong>om</strong>ple<strong>te</strong>ly different type of statutory measure fr<strong>om</strong> that<br />
of SALB I, published <strong>in</strong> 2003, signify<strong>in</strong>g an important shift <strong>in</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> government<br />
circles regard<strong>in</strong>g a language law. The core f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is that, <strong>in</strong> actual fact, it should not be<br />
appraised as a po<strong>te</strong>ntial national language act of the <strong>in</strong>stitutionalis<strong>in</strong>g type, but rather as a<br />
k<strong>in</strong>d of adm<strong>in</strong>istrative language measure – and even as a language scheme, <strong>in</strong> other words as<br />
a corrective normalis<strong>in</strong>g language act similar to what the Welsh have. It implies that the<br />
<strong>te</strong>ndency among especially Afrikaans activists and scholars to treat SALB I as normative <strong>in</strong><br />
their analysis of SALB II might run the risk of c<strong>om</strong>par<strong>in</strong>g the proverbial apples with pears,<br />
which might draw our focus away fr<strong>om</strong> the actual <strong>in</strong>herent deficiencies of the October 2011<br />
312