• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 448

Part of Session 130: Language in Multilingual Cities (Other abstracts in this session)

Language policy and linguistic landscape in rural, post-apartheid South Africa

Authors: Kotze, Chrismi-Rinda
Submitted by: Kotze, Chrismi-Rinda (University of the Free State, South Africa)

One of the most prominent manifestations of language is the linguistic landscape (LL) – language in its written form situated in the public space. This form of communication has unique semiotic properties, including those of permanency and visibility. The LL reflects a visual manifestation of the discrepancy between official and de facto language policy, between top-down and bottom-up language policy actions. Certain countries have very strict LL regulations, fining sign owners who do not adhere to the regulations, or, taking the opposite approach, benefitting those who do. Often governments provide no or insufficient LL guidelines. As a result there are often great discrepancies between policies and the LL as well as between bottom-up and top-down signage initiatives. These discrepancies are even more obvious in highly diverse settings, and are further enhanced when complicated language policies or LL regulations are in place.

The most effective way to draw useful information from this linguistic quagmire is to approach it from an analytical framework based on the three variables generally operable in LL’s; agency, locality and functionality.  

Both top-down and bottom-up agencies act on their own initiative in the LL. Top-down LL-actions often do not comply with the LL regulations, particularly when the latter are open to interpretation. Bottom-up agencies tend to disregard LL regulations altogether, especially in areas where the regulations are not restrictive.

Locality can refer either to the type of area where the signage is found (commercial, administrative, residential) or an area that is sociolinguistically delineated. It is not uncommon to find “quarters” with unique sociolinguistic characteristics in diversified settings.  A further complication in multilingual settings is the multitude of linguistic codes between which the actor has to choose in order to achieve the maximum effect on the target audience. The same actors make differing choices within different localities (see for instance the interesting studies on the LL’s in Jerusalem). The LL-options available are also dependent on the functionality of the sign (identification, informative).

These three factors, agency, locality and functionality, provide a useful framework for an LL approach to analysing the degree to which a multilingual society (whether in an urban setting or not) depends on language policy or regulates language usage by itself. I propose to apply this analytical framework to data from the nine rural towns comprising the Kopanong Local Municipality in the southern Free State Province, South Africa. These towns are representative of the area and reflect the socio-political and economic changes and challenges facing post-apartheid South Africa. Including a rural component will add another, necessary dimension to the discussion on language policy in dynamic, multilingual settings.