Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet

LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012
version of SALB II, deficiencies which have not been addressed in the later versions of
SALB II that have been published subsequent to the public hearing of January 2012. SALB II
fares rather poorly in comparison with other corrective normalising language laws such as the
Welsh Language Act. It is therefore concluded that a normative analysis rather be abandoned
and that attention be devoted to the glaring weaknesses of SALB II as a corrective
normalising language law, inter alia: (a) the overall tendency towards vague and idealistic
provisions which might be impossible to implement; (b) an exaggerated emphasis of the role
of the line-function department (Arts and Culture); (c) overlap with the role and work of the
Pan-South African Language Board; (d) the absence of a clear objective with the official
languages; and (e) shortcomings in provisions regarding communication with the citizenry.
The findings of this study therefore have implications for the further discussion of the South
African Languages Bill which could help analysts ask the right questions and make
appropriate suggestions. It also has demonstrated the usefulness of the proposed measuring
scheme for making a relatively rational structural comparison of different language laws on
the basis of the presence of core sociolinguistic principles of language legislation.
Key words: language legislation; language acts; a (national) language law
1. Inleiding
Reaksies op die 2011-taalwetsontwerp vir Suid-Afrika is sedert die kabinet se goedkeuring
daarvan op 22 Junie 2011 (GCIS 2011) redelik wyd in omloop, nieteenstaande die feit dat ’n
amptelike teks eers op 12 Oktober 2011 vir kommentaar in die Staatskoerant gepubliseer is
(RSA 2011b). Kommentaar tot en met die openbare verhoor van die Parlementêre
Portefeuljekomitee vir Kuns en Kultuur gedurende Januarie 2012 was gebaseer op ’n nieamptelike
teks wat vanaf 13 Julie 2011 op die internet beskikbaar gestel is (RSA 2011a). 1 Die
Departement Kuns en Kultuur (hierna ook soms “die Departement”), die
lynfunksiedepartement vir taal in Suid-Afrika en opsteller van die wetsontwerp, het self tot
onlangs nie ’n teks beskikbaar gestel nie. 2 ’n Woordvoerder het wel die outentisiteit van die
nie-amptelike internet-teks bevestig (Sukumane 2011). Die gepubliseerde weergawe bevat
een bykomende klousule wat as ’n nuwe Artikel 10 (“Compliance by various national
departments, national public enterprises and national public entities”) ingevoer is, asook ’n
volledige memorandum. Origens is die inhoud grootliks dieselfde.
Die 2011-taalwetsontwerp (voortaan soms ook “SALB II”) skyn, wat die regering betref,
uitvoering te gee aan ’n hofbevel van 14 Maart 2010 in die sogenaamde Lourens-saak. In die
gemelde kabinetsnotule word inderdaad (maar opvallend saaklik) vermeld dat die 2011wetsontwerp
(in die notule afwisselend getiteld The South African Language Bill, 2011 /
South African Official Languages Bill, 2011) “will respond directly to the obligation imposed
by section 6 of the Constitution. The Bill only provides for the regulation and monitoring of
the use of official languages by national government” (GCIS 2011). Die hofbevel gelas
inderdaad die nasionale regering om, soos regter R. du Plessis beveel het, “die gemelde
verpligting [om deur wetgewende en ander maatreëls die nasionale regering se gebruik van
amptelike tale te reël en te monitor] binne twee jaar vanaf datum van hierdie bevel na te kom
313