Abstract
This study explored the role played by economic, cultural, and political power and influence when a particular dialect was elevated to the status of an official standard language. This was a qualitative study that employed text analysis where journal articles, dissertations, theses, academic books and Parliamentary Joint Constitutional Review minutes were considered for data collection and analysis. In order to supplement the above-mentioned method, 267 research participants involving students (undergraduate and postgraduate) and lecturers from the selected five South African universities, including members of the language authorities, were also invited to participate in the study. Self-administered survey questionnaires and face-to-face interviews were chosen as qualitative methods for data collection. From a dialectal point of view, this study indicated that all official standard languages were dialects before. However, these dialects were considered superior and elevated to the status of official languages because of socio-economic power and political influence. This article further recorded that the status type of language planning in the South African context is quite political in nature, not less linguistic. It was against this background that the researchers claim that there is no official standard language that was not a dialect before.
Highlights
IntroductionWhat problematises the thrust of this article is the conception and narrative that Sepedi should not be accepted as the official standard language because it is a dialect similar to Tau, Roka, Kone, Mphahlele, Tšhwene, Mathabatha, Matlala, Dikgale, Mothiba, Nkwana, Molepo, Mamabolo, Tlokwa, Birwa, Kwena, Moletši, Hananwa, Lobedu, Phalaborwa, Nareng, Maake, Mametša, Tlhabine, Pulana, Pai and Kutswe (Doke 1954; Mokgokong 1966; Mojela 1997; Mönnig 1967)
A research problem that triggered this study is when it was found that the L1 speakers of Sepedi lacked knowledge of how South African indigenous languages were escalated to the status of an official language. It is for this reason that this study aimed to explore how the socio-economic, cultural, and political power and influence played a role when a particular dialect was elevated to the status of an official language
Qualitative theme 2: Some official standard languages were dialects The findings of this study revealed that it is important for speech communities, sociolinguists, dialectologists and language planners to accept that the standardisation of the South African indigenous languages that are cited in the Constitution was purely based on the dialects or varieties of the strongest tribes and ethnic groups
Summary
What problematises the thrust of this article is the conception and narrative that Sepedi should not be accepted as the official standard language because it is a dialect similar to Tau, Roka, Kone, Mphahlele, Tšhwene, Mathabatha, Matlala, Dikgale, Mothiba, Nkwana, Molepo, Mamabolo, Tlokwa, Birwa, Kwena, Moletši, Hananwa, Lobedu, Phalaborwa, Nareng, Maake, Mametša, Tlhabine, Pulana, Pai and Kutswe (Doke 1954; Mokgokong 1966; Mojela 1997; Mönnig 1967) It is for this reason that this study aimed to explore how the socio-economic, cultural, and political power and influence played a role when a particular dialect was elevated to the status of an official language
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
