Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2013, Page: 13-15
The Grouping Together of the Nine Official African Languages for Academic Purposes: an Instance of Alien Rule
Paul H. Nkuna, Department of African Languages; University of South Africa
Received: Dec. 10, 2012;       Published: Jan. 10, 2013
DOI: 10.11648/j.edu.20130201.13      View  2557      Downloads  119
Abstract
While it has become established practice, the grouping together of the nine official African languages for academic purposes neglects the individual teaching and learning, use and status of these languages in the higher education system in South Africa. Drawing principally on Dubrow and Friedman’s argument, I argue that the grouping together for academic purposes of the nine official African languages rests on academic receivership of the ‘African languages’ domain, enhanced by Bantu philologists. Now redefined, ‘African languages’ as an entity has become a force influencing the teaching and learning of and research relating to the nine official African languages – isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga. The discussion focuses on the status of the nine official African languages at South African universities and their grouping under the umbrella of ‘African languages’.
Keywords
Grouping, African Languages, Alien Rule, Nine Official Lsnguages, Academic Receivership, Discourse
To cite this article
Paul H. Nkuna, The Grouping Together of the Nine Official African Languages for Academic Purposes: an Instance of Alien Rule, Education Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 13-15. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130201.13
Reference
[1]
Brincker, P. H. and Huber, M. (1904). Contributions towards Bantu Philology. Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 3, No. 11, April:300-305.
[2]
Crabtree, W.A. (1913). The Systematic Study of African Languages. Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 12, No. 46, January: 177-189.
[3]
Cross, M. (1986).Historical Review of Education in South Africa, towards an assessment. Comparative Education, Vol. 22, No. 3: 185–200.
[4]
Doke, C.M. (1984). The Growth of Comparative Bantu Philology. In C.M.Doke and D.T. Cole (54-79). Contributions to the History of Bantu Linguistics. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
[5]
Dubrow, G. and Friedman,D. 2005. Academic Receivership as Alien Rule. Prepared for the Conference on Alien Rule and Its Discontents, University of Washington, 3-4 June: 1-19.
[6]
Errington, J. (2001). Colonial linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30: 19–39.
[7]
Kleiner, A. (2003).Are You In With The In Crowd? Harvard Business Review. July: 86–92.
[8]
Lalu, P. 2011. Restless Natives, Native Questions. Mail & Guardian, 26 August.
[9]
Meinhof, C. (1926). The Problems of Comparative Philology in Africa: Part II. Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 26, No. 101, October: 40-46
[10]
Meinhof, C. (1928). The Problem of Comparative Philology in Africa. Journal of the Royal African Society. Vol. 26, No. 101:40-46.
[11]
Tucker, A.N. (1948). Obituary, Carl Meinhof. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 12, No. 2: 493–496.
[12]
Tucker, A.N. (1957). Philology and Africa. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,University of London, Vol. 20, No.1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph Turner,Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies: 541–554.
[13]
Werner, A. (1929). Some Bantu Linguistic Problems. Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 28, No. 110:,155-165.
[14]
Ziolkowski, J.(1990). "What Is Philology", Introduction. Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, What Is Philology: 1-12.
Browse journals by subject