The Role of Language Policy in Linguistic Landscape

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/271929721
The role of language policy in linguistic landscape changes in a rural area of

the Free State Province of South Africa
Article in Language Matters · November 2012

DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2012.741098
CITATIONS READS
4 217
1 author:
Lodewyk Theodorus Du Plessis

University of the Free State
52 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Multilingual studies View project
Language diversity management in educational settings in Namur (BE) and Bloemfontein (SA) – a focus on its practical dimensions View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lodewyk Theodorus Du Plessis on 08 August 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

This article was downloaded by: [Mr Theodorus du Plessis]
On: 23 November 2012, At: 00:23
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Language Matters: Studies in the

Languages of Africa
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlms20
The role of language policy in linguistic

landscape changes in a rural area of the
Free State Province of South Africa
a
Theodorus du Plessis
a
Department of Language Management and Language Practice,
Version of record first published: 22 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Theodorus du Plessis (2012): The role of language policy in linguistic landscape
changes in a rural area of the Free State Province of South Africa, Language Matters: Studies in the
Languages of Africa, 43:2, 263-282
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2012.741098
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The role of language policy in linguistic landscape changes in a rural
area of the Free State Province of South Africa
Theodorus du Plessis
Department of Language Management and Language Practice
dplesslt@ufs.ac.za
Downloaded by [Mr Theodorus du Plessis] at 00:23 23 November 2012
Abstract
Following previous studies on language policy and language visibility changes in
the Free State Province of South Africa, which yielded evidence of the systematic
Anglicisation of the public domain, a question arose as to whether the same tendency
is encountered in a rural context. In pursuance of this, a comprehensive linguistic
landscape survey was conducted during 2008 and 2009 in three major towns of
the Kopanong Municipality, in the rural southern Free State. The resulting dataset
(1 549 signs) was analysed for evidence of sociolinguistic reconfiguration and changes
in language choice, as observable on public signs. A central finding is that changes
in the linguistic landscape of the three towns involve a dual process: the erasure of
Afrikaans, coinciding with increased monolingualisation (elevating English); and the
re-bilingualisation (elevating Bantu languages) of signs. Although language policy does
play some role, it is actually the lack of language visibility regulations that spearheads
most of the changes.
Key words: bilingualisation, language choice, language policy, language visibility,

linguistic landscape, monolingualisation
Introduction
Changes in language visibility (LV) have been a central, and in some quarters even a
rather controversial, feature of political regime-change in the Free State Province of
post-1994 South Africa. Two immediate and very prominent changes initiated by the
ascending African National Congress (ANC) government were to change the bilingual
provincial name from Oranje Vrystaat/Orange Free State to the monolingual English
version, Free State, in 1995 (Moll 2009) and to adopt a new English-only provincial
motor-vehicle licence mark, FS (for ‘Free State’), in 1997 (Du Plessis 2007). Both
instances resulted in a reduction of official visibility in Afrikaans (contrary to the
constitutional dictate regarding language equitability and parity of esteem). Increased
visibility in (Southern) Sotho, the dominant Bantu language1 in the region and one of
ISSN Print: 1022-8195 Language Matters

ISSN Online: 1753-5395 43 (2) 2012
© University of South Africa Press pp. 263—282
DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2012.741098
264 Theodorus du Plessis
the ‘historically disadvantaged’ languages constitutionally ‘earmarked’ for special treat-

ment by the state (RSA [Republic of South Africa] 1996), is absent. As reported in a
local newspaper, the rationale for these steps was to help establish a provincial identity
(Coetzee 2002) – in other words, one in which Anglicisation seems to comprise a central
instrument. A remark made by the then Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of the
Free State Province responsible for Public Transport, which was prominently reported
in a local newspaper, best sums up the language politics underlying these changes:
The time has gone where everything should also get an Afrikaans name. (Botha 2000)
[referring to the English provincial name and acronym – TdP]
Local government in the province seems to have followed suit. In 1999, the City of
Bloemfontein announced that all municipal accounts would henceforth only be made
available in English (Koch 2007). From 1998 onwards, as part of a new amalgamated
municipal structure, the Mangaung Local Municipality (MLM) started introducing
predominantly English-only municipal signs (Du Plessis 2010). This monolingualisa-
tion of the LL seems to mark political regime-change in the Free State.
A striking aspect of this development is that in the case of the provincial changes,
monolingualisation is effected in the absence of a covert provincial language policy
(Mathebula and Du Plessis 2010); but in the case of the MLM, monolingualisation
is applied despite an overt municipal language policy that actually requires bilingual
municipal signage (Du Plessis 2010). The strong degree of convergence in LV measures
at both provincial and municipal level therefore seems to comprise evidence of what
Schiffman (1996, 30) terms ‘covert’ or de facto language policy, as opposed to ‘overt’
or de jure language policy. This implies that changes in the linguistic landscape of the
Free State are initiated by covert, rather than overt, language policy.
Since the identified convergence applies specifically to measures taken at provincial

level and at municipal level within an urban setting, a question arises as to whether the
same can be said of measures taken at municipal level within a rural setting. In other
words, can changes in LV patterns in a rural setting within this province be similarly
related to covert language policy initiatives that seem to be driven from the centre? The
underlying assumption is that the urban–rural dichotomy does play a role in language
policy, an aspect raised in McCarty (2011) – which, however, warrants further research.
This article presents the findings of a study on the role of language policy in LV changes
in three towns of the southern Free State, one of the most rural areas of this province.
An analysis is presented of LV patterns in 1 549 linguistic landscape items that were
collected during 2008 and 2009 in three towns in the Kopanong Local Municipality
(KoLM), a municipality that was established after 2008 as part of the Xhariep District
Municipality (XDM). The three towns are Philippolis (PP), Springfontein (SF) and
The role of language policy in linguistic landscape changes ... 265
Trompsburg (TB). Special attention is given to evidence of post-1994 changes in LV

patterns and their relation to changed language policy measures. The study builds on
research already conducted in the area, focusing on language attitudes (Yperzeele 2009;
Yperzeele, Cuvelier, Meeuwis and Vandekerckhove 2009), as well as on the role of
agency in the regulation of the LL in the area (Du Plessis 2011; Kotze and Du Plessis
2010). The current study specifically investigates the role of central legal instruments
that regulate LV, departing from two related studies: that of Backhaus (2009), who
compared LV regulatory measures between Quebec and Hong Kong, and that of Salo
(2012), who specifically studied the role of regulatory measures within North Calotte,
a rural and historically multilingual region spanning the northernmost parts of Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Russia.
Language policy and the linguistic landscape

It is interesting that the same authors to whom we attribute the concept linguistic
landscape were also among the first to identify the rather intimate relation between
language policy and the linguistic landscape – an aspect that is not always recognised.
In their introduction of the concept of LL, Landry and Bourhis (1997, 24) start off by
mentioning that the notion first emerged in the field of language planning, a concept
that they do not distinguish from that of language policy. Landry and Bourhis (ibid,
25) point out that the regulation of the language of public signs has not been dealt with
adequately in the literature on language planning – a shortcoming they wish to redress.
The results of their study show that ‘language planners as well as language activists can
ill afford to ignore the issue of the linguistic landscape as a tool to promote language
maintenance or reverse language shift’ (ibid, 46).
This instrumental value of the linguistic landscape in relation to language policy (and
language planning) was indeed taken up in further studies in the field, as documented
in a range of core publications in recent years (cf. Backhaus 2007; Gorter 2006;
GorterMarten and Van Mensel 2012; Shohamy, Ben-Rafael and Barni 2010; Shohamy
and Gorter 2009). Two important schools of thought have emerged with regard to this
relation. One school, building on the initial thinking of Landry and Bourhis (1997),
describes language policy intervention in the LL as a positive outcome of (careful)
language planning that is essentially aimed at elevating a designated (usually minority)
language. The study on the cost-effectiveness of minority language policies by Grin
and Vaillancourt (1999) is an example of research from this school of thought. They
are specifically interested in ‘the visibility of language’ as a type of language policy
measure or language policy intervention that can yield a variety of positive language-
use outcomes. The work by Backhaus (2007) also follows this positive interventionist
line of thinking.
Another school of thought does not rule out the effect of language policy intervention
altogether, but rather emphasises the fact that the causal relation is not necessarily uni-
directional and one-dimensional. Examples of this approach can be found in the work
of Shohamy (2006) and Spolsky (2004, 2009), who stress LL as ‘evidence of language
policy’ (Spolsky 2009, 252). For Shohamy (2006, 112), the linguistic landscape (as
part of the public space) is a mechanism affecting de facto language policy, ‘a major
mechanism of language manipulation’ (ibid, 123). The difference between the two
viewpoints lies in their emphasis. Spolsky and Shohamy (1999) and others underplay
the causal relationship between language policy and language-use outcomes, while
Grin and Vaillancourt (1999) and others seem to emphasise this relationship.
Backhaus (2009) offers a useful study that specifically concentrates on the regula-
tory dimension of creating an official ‘linguistic cityscape’ (Spolsky 2009, 67), and
how this aspect of the ‘public linguistic space’ (ibid, 65) is consciously shaped and
controlled by rules and regulations – arguably two of the most powerful mechanisms
of language policy identified by Shohamy (2006, 59). One of the key findings made
by Backhaus (2009, 166–168) relates to the cardinal difference between Quebec and
Tokyo regarding the regulation of LV. His comparison shows, by implication, that
primary language legislation in Quebec carries relatively more weight than secondary
language legislation in Tokyo, in realising LV. The difference can also be related to a
difference in language regimes.
Of particular interest here is the ongoing change that is registered on LL objects – a

phenomenon that Backhaus (2005, 103) relates to the ‘diachronic development’ of the
linguistic landscape. Following Fishman’s notion of language shift in formal written
language, Pavlenko (2008, 276, 282) refers to these registered changes as ‘language
shift outcomes’; in other words, the result of different forms of (top-down) language
intervention, an indication of a ‘language regime … in a state of transition’ (Backhaus
2005, 118). In her overview of Kyivan sociolinguistic history, Pavlenko (2010, 148)
makes a similar finding: changes in the linguistic landscape should not necessarily be
regarded as only comprising a reflection of overall (and perhaps unintended) language
shift; rather, they are ‘a direct outcome of changes in political regimes’. Top-down-
initiated changes, whereby a ‘new’ language is imposed on society, usually go hand in
hand with (political) regime change, thereby contributing to intended language shift
(Pavlenko 2008, 282). Studies in this vein have hitherto dealt primarily with factors
that contribute to the dynamics of this kind of intended language shift in the urban
linguistic landscape.
However, Salo (2012, 243) correctly points out that fewer studies have been conducted
on linguistic landscape changes in urbanised rural or peripheral settings – or even, for
that matter, in ‘off-the-map’ urban settings (Visser and Marais 2008, iv), in other words,
centres that feature less frequently in the literature on urban change. For instance, do
language-regime changes play out in similar fashion in rural settings? Salo (2012,
243) suggests that studies have hitherto identified globalisation as one of the primary
and overall linguistic landscape change factors. In her study on the visibility of Sámi
languages in North Calotte, a rural and historically multilingual region spanning the
northernmost parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, Salo (ibid, 246, 256) found
that language intervention through language laws and regulations plays a major role in
ensuring (changes in) LV for minority languages, but that these laws and regulations
can also be viewed as part of globalisation factors. Together, these factors ensure that
although the majority language of each region is always present, that language is most
often accompanied by a Sámi language, particularly on institutional and tourism signs,
and by a ‘global tourism’ language (ibid, 252–253). These factors have resulted in ‘mul-
tilayered multilingualism with indigenous minority languages, national and neighboring
majority languages, and global tourism languages all visible in the linguistic landscape
of the four villages’ of North Calotte (ibid, 245). Consequently, these interventions
have led to the establishment of new language hierarchies in the region. The evidence
from Salo’s study therefore suggests that globalisation seems to spread its tentacles
into rural settings, too – but sometimes in unexpected ways. This is borne out by a
number of positive outcomes for the whole Sámi revitalisation movement to which
she alludes, and which actually relate to the global language revitalisation movement.
Salo’s findings do seem to present rural evidence of ‘a language regime in a state of

transition’, as referred to by Backhaus (see above); but these findings also point to a
need for a broader understanding of language-regime change and the factors involved.
What is required is an understanding that brings us closer to the view held by Coulmas
(2005, 7), namely that different globalisation factors impact on language regimes. Not
all of these factors necessarily contribute to the spread of global languages; but they
all impact in some way on language regimes, and can contribute to the reconfiguration
of linguistic landscape items, as the rural linguistic landscape data from Salo’s study
indeed confirm.
Coulmas (2005, 7) defines a language regime as ‘a set of constraints on individual

language choices’ consisting of habits, legal provisions and ideologies (in addition to
global ideologies). Coulmas (ibid.) further isolates four globalisation factors that impact
on language regimes, i.e. economic (the marketisation of the world, liberalisation and
deregulation), political (democratisation), ideological (universalism and pluralism) and
technological. Some of the resultant changes could contribute to unintended language
shift, and others, to intended language shift. For instance, the advancement of English in
the post-Soviet states cannot simply be attributed to ‘globalisation’ without being more
specific. How else would one explain, in the same breath, the advancement (which is
sometimes even rather draconian in character) of the so-called titular languages in these
countries? Whereas the rise of English could be attributed to the economic aspect of
globalisation, which impacts on changes in habits, the promotion of the titular languages
comes as a direct result of the democratisation aspect of globalisation, which in turn
impacts on legal provisions regarding language – in other words, on language laws or

language regulation generally. The downscaling of the Sámi languages (referred to in
the study by Salo [2012]) during the establishment of states in the North Calotte region,
can therefore be attributed to the ideology of the nation-state, while the revitalisation
of these languages can be attributed to the ideology of linguistic human rights. English
seems to feature as the global language on both institutional and tourism signs, in ad-
dition to the mentioned languages; and also on information signs (more specifically
advertising signs), which can be attributed to economic factors.
Proceeding from the above, the current study views language policy as a form of
language intervention effecting change in the LL. These changes essentially relate to
altered LV patterns on public signs, brought about by altered regulatory measures man-
datorily instituted by the authorities after 1994. The changes occur within the context
of a changing language regime which – as pointed out in the beginning – approaches
English as the preferred language.
Regulating language visibility on public signs in South Africa

Du Plessis (2011) has already provided an overview of the regulation of language vis-
ibility in South Africa, as well as in the Free State Province. His overview identifies the
lack of alignment between constitutional directives on official language use and policy
on language visibility as a cardinal weakness in regulating the South African landscape,
dating back to pre-1994. Post-1994 language policy does not necessarily correct this – at
least, not if one judges by the updated versions of the three central regulatory manuals,
i.e. South African road traffic signs manual (SARTSM) (DoT [National Department of
Transport] 1997), the South African manual for outdoor advertising control (SAMOAC)
(DEAT and DoT 1998), and the Corporate identity and branding guidelines (CIBG)
(RSA 2005). Some corrections are being made in post-1994 provincial and municipal
language policy, but as a study on the regulation of LV in Bloemfontein has found,
such policy mostly lacks clarity and prescriptiveness (Du Plessis 2010).
With regard to the regulation of LV in the Free State, and more particularly in the KoLM,
Du Plessis (2011) shows that no overt LV policy currently exists, either at provincial
level or at the KoLM. The draft language policy for the XDM does, however, make
provision for bilingual signage on signs that fall under the jurisdiction of the munici-
pality. This shortcoming opens the door for covert policy measures to take effect, and
to actually become the dictating force in LL change in the area.
The implications for change in the LL of KoLM are discussed here in relation to the
methodological challenge of distinguishing pre-1994 signs from post-1994 signs.
Methodology
The official website of the XDM (notably in English only) projects the region as
‘(a)n area of unfound diversity’ (XDM 2009). PP (founded in 1823) is the oldest town
in the province and an important tourist destination (KLM 2008a); TB (founded in
1891) is the capital of both municipalities (KLM 2008b); and SF (founded in 1904) is
an important railway junction, and historically a centre for so-called Settler (English-
speaking migrant) families (KLM 2008c).
The diversity referred to on the XDM website includes language. Afrikaans and Sotho
(more specifically Southern Sotho) are the prominent languages in Kopanong; 40.1 per
cent of the population in the area speak Sotho, 32.4 per cent Afrikaans and 22.7 per
cent Xhosa, a prominent Bantu language of the neighbouring Eastern Cape Province
(Statistics South Africa [SSA] 2008). However, Afrikaans is recognised as the lingua
franca of the region (Yperzeele and Kotze 2008). More importantly, less than one per
cent of the entire population use English as their home language (SSA 2008).
Not only is the region multilingual, it is also multiracial – an important societal variable
in South Africa. Almost 75 per cent of the inhabitants of the area are designated ‘black’
in terms of South Africa’s racial classification, while 16.2 per cent are ‘coloured’ and
9.1 per cent ‘white’ (SSA 2008).
The methodology used in collecting the LV data is described in detail in Kotze and Du
Plessis (2010) and Du Plessis (2011).
Since the signs displaying the Bantu languages are relatively few in number (143 out
of 1 549 signs, or 9.23 per cent of the signs), they are grouped together in the database
under one language category, namely ‘Bantu languages’.
Dating the recorded signs was one of the more challenging aspects of the analysis. Ide-
ally, the dating of public signs requires comparative data from different time periods.
Backhaus (2005, 130–131) discusses at least two related dating methods, involving
either successive ‘real-time’ surveys of the same linguistic landscape undertaken at
different points in time, or ‘apparent-time’ diachronic studies, where older and newer
editions (from different time periods) of a given sign co-exist in the linguistic landscape.
This approach enabled Spolsky and Cooper (1991, 5–8) to reconstruct changes in the
linguistic landscape of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Since the linguistic landscape is a relatively new research interest, we can expect few
studies in which the real-time approach is followed, and a larger number in which the
apparent-time approach is followed. Following the tradition in diachronic linguistics,
Backhaus (2005, 130) refers to the co-existence of signs as another aspect of ‘layer-
ing’. Layering in the linguistic landscape points to the existence of different language
regimes, and thus relates directly to the history of the area concerned. Many studies
of changes in the linguistic landscape rely on layering as a feature, as illustrated, for
instance, in the work of Pavlenko (2010) – a study that is particularly relevant to this
discussion. Nevertheless, layering is only relevant where older and newer versions of
the same signs can indeed be identified. The concept should preferably not be extended
to include completely new signs, of which no older versions exist.
A purely diachronic approach to studying linguistic landscape changes is therefore

limited by an absence of adequate evidence of layering – a problem encountered in the
Xhariep region. Nevertheless, our survey did identify evidence of change in the LL of
the three towns. A different approach towards dating therefore had to be devised, to
ensure that all the changes could be recorded.
In his study of layering in the city of Tokyo, Backhaus (2005, 131) identified four
important aspects of signs that could present evidence of changes, even in the absence
of layering, and following a more synchronic approach. These aspects are: (1) the
number of languages and scripts on recorded signs; (2) the quantity of foreign-language
information [or information in newly introduced languages]; (3) the occurrence of
idiosyncrasies; and (4) the proportion of languages and scripts in terms of changes
in, for instance, the language hierarchy of signs, or in the distinction made between
different languages, etc. A synchronic approach utilising these aspects for purposes of
identification assumes a direct correlation between political regime-change and language
regime-change – a relation that has already been confirmed by various studies. The
three aspects of language regime change identified by Coulmas (2005, 7), i.e. habits,
legal provisions and ideologies, comprise a useful point of departure in determining
overall regime changes.
A second assumption that follows from this is that one would be able to frame the
sociolinguistic configurations of public signs in relation to the different language-
regime eras. Backhaus (2009) has illustrated this approach by concentrating only
on the relation between legal provisions regarding LV on public signs and recorded
sociolinguistic configurations, and subsequently, on language-choice patterns. The
advantage of isolating changes in legal provisions is that it presents a concrete (albeit
top-down) indicator for measuring change. Such an approach obviously further assumes
a multilingual context where LV is indeed regulated. It lastly presupposes a language
regime with a reasonable degree of language-policy congruence (Schiffman 1996, 18),
thereby simultaneously allowing for a degree of deviation from the laid-down norms
and rules, as one would usually expect in a liberal, democratic language dispensation.
Dating of public signs where the changing legal framework serves as a point of depar-
ture, and where the four aspects of layering are used to identify signs from different
time periods, could thus work in principle, even where no equivalent signs from differ-
ent periods co-exist. In other words, this approach could work for studying a context
where completely new and non-equivalent signs are added to the LL. Such an approach
therefore requires a more liberal understanding of layering as a feature of the LL.
Crucial to the type of synchronic analysis suggested here is background or contextual

knowledge of the LL being investigated. When one is specifically interested (as in
the current case) in the role of the legislative context, knowledge of the regulatory
framework of different eras serves as a basic starting point for reconstructing changes
in the sociolinguistic configuration of regulated public signs. To this end, it is vital to
consider the regulatory framework in terms of LV on public signs. This is done in the
next section.
The principle of language policy alignment thus served as a point of departure in dat-
ing the signage data collected in KoLM, primarily in terms of the aspects mentioned
by Backhaus (2005, 131). Information on specific signage that was provided by the
guides and other locals confirmed the author’s classification. Signage that displayed a
strong degree of alignment with statutory bilingualism could thus be classified as dating
from the pre-1994 era. As allowance has to be made for the fact that language policy
alignment is seldom perfect, evidence of ageing further assisted this process and also
helped in identifying pre-1994 signage that actually deviated from the former rigid
statutory bilingual prescriptions. Ageing could be determined through wear-and-tear
on signs, but also through design and presentation reflecting trends from the pre-1994
era, as pointed out by the author’s informants.
Table 1 presents a summary of a reconstruction of pre-1994 and post-1994 sociolinguistic

configurations on public signs, taking account of the role of different applicable legal
instruments in the South African case. This information served as a basis for dating the
corpus of public signs photographed in the three towns (PP, SF, TB). The reconstruction
also serves as a basis for analysing changes in language visibility patterns after 1994.
Table 1: Reconstruction of pre-1994 and post-1994 sociolinguistic configurations on

public signs, taking account of different legal instruments
Instrument Before 1994 After 1994

Covert statutory bilingualism Preferably a symbol
SARTSM
(English, Afrikaans) Otherwise English (SADC)
None (Covert statutory None
SAMOAC
bilingualism) (Probably English)
None
CIBG Statutory bilingualism
English examples
Preferably monolingual
Monolingual names
HGN names (in different
(in indigenous languages)
languages)
Provincial language Unspecified bilingual
Statutory bilingualism
policy/law “signage”
At least two municipal
Municipal by-laws Statutory bilingualism
languages
The notable aspect of this reconstruction is that the constitutional directive of the
minimum use of two official languages seems to be ignored by most of the relevant
instruments. This indicates an overall lack of language policy alignment when the
constitutional directive is taken as normative, in contrast to the pre-1994 dispensation,
where a much stronger degree of alignment between the different instruments and the
constitutional norm of statutory bilingualism in English and Afrikaans is evident.
Changes in language visibility on public signs in the KoLM

Of the 1 549 signs in the database, 77.5 per cent (1 200) belong to the post-1994 era,
while only 22.5 per cent (349) date back to the pre-1994 era. More significantly, 85.7
per cent (1 327) of the 1 549 signs display unregulated LV, while only 14.3 per cent
(222) display regulated LV. This division suggests, from the outset, that post-1994
signs displaying regulated LV probably have a far smaller impact on changes than the
overwhelming number of signs displaying unregulated LV. A further analysis could
nevertheless provide insight into the nature of changes in the LL of the three towns,
especially in view of the sharp increase in signs displaying unregulated LV in the post-
1994 era. Unregulated LV relates mostly to bottom-up decisions (primarily the private
sector) or self-regulated decisions on language use (mostly the public, but also the
private sector). Comparing these two categories of signs makes it possible to determine
important trends regarding language choice among both top-down and bottom-up sign
owners. An analysis of changes in the resultant sociolinguistic configurations on these
categories of signs could provide insight into the degree of convergence with the post-
1994 regulatory LV framework.
Changes in the sociolinguistic configurations on public signs

Table 2 compares changes in regulated sociolinguistic configurations on the 222/1 549
public signs that were recorded in the three towns for the pre-1994 and post-1994 eras.
Table 2: Changes in regulated sociolinguistic configurations found on public signs in

PP, SF, TB (n = 222)
CIBG SARTSM Municipal By-law

Sociolinguistic
configuration Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Change Change Change
1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994
Bilingual 57.1% 13.3% -0.44 47.1% 67.7% 0.21 50.0% 75.0% 0.25
Monolingual 42.9% 80.0% 0.37 52.9% 32.3% -0.21 50.0% 25.0% -0.25
Quadrilingual 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Trilingual 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Uncertain 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Considering the results for public signs where LV is regulated, it is notable that pre-
1994 signs were not overwhelmingly bilingual as one might have expected, given the
perception regarding enforced statutory bilingualism. A second notable feature of the
results is that the proportion of bilingual and monolingual signs displaying LV has
actually remained virtually unchanged since 1994. A degree of convergence is evident
regarding sociolinguistic configurations for signs that are regulated by SARTSM and
the (non-existing) municipal by-law (XDM 2003). The relative decrease in bilingual
signage correlates with the relative increase in monolingual signage, obviously result-
ing in an overall increase in monolingual signage. In view of the finding by Yperzeele,
Cuvelier, Meeuwis and Vandekerckhove (2009), one would expect local authorities to
take a more pragmatic approach to their handling of the language question. This would
explain the degree of convergence here, as these signs were erected by locally-based
authorities.
In the case of CIBG-regulated signs, the decrease in bilingual signage is more drastic,
while the increase in monolingual signage is similarly significantly higher.
All-in-all, these results point to two clear trends, i.e. a tendency towards the de-
bilingualisation of the LL and a monolingualisation of this landscape as far as signs
displaying regulated LV are concerned. These processes seem to have been brought
about by the implementation of the language provisions of the post-1994 legal instru-
ments involved. The results for CIBG-regulated signs, on the other hand, reveal an
actual reverse development, in that the tendency here seems to be to reduce bilingual
signage and to increase monolingual signage. CIBG-regulated signs, however, are
erected by provincial and national authorities that do not necessarily follow the same
localised language management model. This would explain the divergence with regard
to the changes in sociolinguistic configurations on these signs.
Table 3 reflects the results of our study of sociolinguistic configurations on public signs
displaying unregulated LV. The second column, headed ‘Unregulated’, represents results
pertaining to signs for which no regulations whatsoever exist, as explained earlier.
Table 3: Changes in unregulated sociolinguistic configurations found on public signs in

PP, SF and TB (n = 1 327)
Sociolinguistic SAMOAC Unregulated

configuration Pre-1994 Post-1994 Change Pre-1994 Post-1994 Change
Bilingual 38.0% 30.5% -0.07 40.9% 18.2% -0.23
Monolingual 55.6% 63.7% 0.08 48.9% 63.3% 0.14
Quadrilingual 0.0% 0.3% 0.00 4.5% 5.7% 0.01
Trilingual 6.5% 5.5% -0.01 5.7% 8.7% 0.03
Uncertain 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 4.1% 0.04
As far as unregulated LV is concerned, a different tendency is noticeable with regard

to the proportions of bilingual as opposed to monolingual signage, even before 1994.
Whereas this ratio has remained virtually unchanged since before 1994 for SAMOAC-
regulated signs, it has, in fact, changed significantly since 1994 in the case of signs
displaying unregulated LV. The latter finding points to a relatively higher degree of
monolingualisation on completely unregulated signs.
If the results for unregulated LV are considered together, the trend that emerges is
that, where LV regulations do not apply, the resultant signage tends to be monolingual.
Changes in language choice on public signs

Given the overall picture with regard to the sociolinguistic configurations of public
signs in the three towns, the focus now falls on an analysis of details concerning the
language choice within these configurations.
Table 4 depicts changes in language choice on signs displaying regulated LV. Only
the top five language choices and combinations are considered, as the results for the
others are insignificant.
Table 4: Changes in language choice found on public signs in PP, SF and TB, displaying
regulated LV (n = 222)
CIBG SARTSM Municipal By-law

Language
Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Choice Change Change Change
1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994
English only 14.3% 53.3% 0.39 34.3% 16.1% -0.18 0.0% 25.0% 0.25
Afrikaans only 28.6% 23.3% -0.05 17.9% 9.7% -0.08 33.3% 0.0% -0.33
English/
Bantu 0.0% 10.0% 0.10 0.0% 16.1% 0.16 0.0% 62.5% 0.63
language
Afrikaans/
English/
0.0% 6.7% 0.07 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
Bantu
language
Afrikaans/
57.1% 3.3% -0.54 46.4% 41.9% -0.04 50.0% 12.5% -0.38
English
On average, just over half of regulated public signs displayed conventional Afrikaans/
English bilingualism before 1994, while 26.6 per cent displayed Afrikaans only and
16.2 per cent English only. This situation has clearly undergone a change since 1994.
Also notable post-1994 is a sharp increase of signs displaying a new English/Bantu-
language bilingual format.
Essentially, these results indicate a tendency to no longer use Afrikaans on signs,

whether in bilingual or monolingual format. It also points to the two most significant
post-1994 aspects of language choice: (1) a preference for English monolingual signs;
and (2) a preference for a Bantu language in combination with English where bilingual
signs are required.
Again, the highest degree of change in LV is observed on CIBG-regulated signs, with

a sharp reduction in Afrikaans/English signs after 1994 and a clear move towards
English-only signage. Another significant change pertains to the increased use of a
Bantu language alongside English on post-1994 bilingual signage, effected by all three
legal instruments, with the municipal by-law accounting for the highest proportion of
such changes. The highest proportional degree of change, reflecting the removal of
Afrikaans-only from signage, can also be seen on signs regulated by this instrument.
Table 5 displays results for unregulated LV. Again, only the results for the top five
language choices are included.
Table 5: Changes in language choice found on public signs in PP, SF and TB, displaying
unregulated LV ( n = 1 327)
SAMOAC Unregulated
Language choice Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Change Change
1994 1994 1994 1994
English only 25.0% 48.2% 0.23 11.4% 38.9% 0.27
Afrikaans only 28.7% 14.5% -0.14 35.2% 17.7% -0.18
English/Bantu
0.9% 5.8% 0.05 3.4% 12.0% 0.09
language
Afrikaans/English/
6.5% 5.0% -0.02 5.7% 8.4% 0.03
Bantu language
Afrikaans/English 35.2% 23.9% -0.11 35.2% 5.4% -0.30
A similar trend emerges – as in the case of signs displaying regulated LV – with pre-
1994 signs displaying unregulated Afrikaans/English bilingualism decreasing after
1994. Monolingual Afrikaans signs have also diminished since 1994, while English
monolingual signs have significantly increased. However, the drop in conventional
bilingual signage is much more pronounced for unregulated signs than for SAMOC-
regulated signs.
The biggest changes in language choice on SAMOAC signs are observed on English-
only signs. Changes in Afrikaans/English bilingual signage and Afrikaans-only signage
point to an overall reduction in the use of Afrikaans, but the differences are not statis-
tically significant as yet. Changes in language choice on unregulated signs are much
more pronounced, by comparison. The biggest change in language choice here relates
to a sharp reduction in Afrikaans/English signage, and an equivalent sharp increase in
English-only signs. The decrease in Afrikaans-only signage is also significant.
What is important about these unregulated-LV results is that English/Bantu-language

signage does not feature as strongly as in the case of signs where LV is regulated.
Discussion
The comparison of the LL data in this study reveals definite changes in LV patterns
after 1994, both for LV-regulated signs and non-LV-regulated signs (cf. Table 6).
Table 6: Percentage changes after 1994 in sociolinguistic configurations of public signs

in PP, SF and TB (n = 1 200)
Sociolinguistic Municipal
CIBG SARTSM SAMOAC Unreg.
configuration by-law
Bilingual -0.44 0.21 0.25 -0.07 -0.23

Monolingual 0.37 -0.21 -0.25 0.08 0.14
Quadrilingual 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Trilingual 0.07 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.03
Uncertain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
Regarding changes in sociolinguistic configurations, a difference is evident between

regulated LV and unregulated LV. Whereas the bilingual and monolingual configura-
tions of signs displaying regulated LV have changed significantly (more than 0.15
points), the same cannot be said of signs displaying unregulated LV. SAMOAC-regulated
signs show virtually no change in configuration, while unregulated signs only show
a significant change in bilingual configuration. However, a significant convergence is
evident between unregulated signs and CIBG-regulated signs with regard to the reduc-
tion in bilingual signage. Changes on (locally produced) unregulated signs seem to be
following the CIBG trend, in other words, there is a tendency to reduce bilingual LV
and increase monolingual LV, although the latter cannot be considered a significant
change as yet. This seems to contradict an earlier notion regarding the role of local-
ised language management. This apparent contradiction can probably be attributed to
the fact that these signs are not put up by the authorities, but by private individuals.
It would therefore be appropriate to consider the possibility that new signs ‘from the
outside’ may act as a stimulus for locals to express their aspirations towards a ‘better
life’ through signs that resonate more closely with ‘perceived language policy’. One
could thus attribute this trend to ‘globalisation’.
Table 7: Percentage changes after 1994 in language choice on public signs in PP,
SF and TB (n = 1 373)
Sociolinguistic
CIBG SARTSM Municipal By-law SAMOAC Unregulated
configuration
English only 0.39 -0.18 0.25 0.23 0.27
English/Bantu
0.10 0.16 0.63 0.05 0.09
language
Foreign language 0.00 0.03 -0.17 -0.01 0.02
Afrikaans only -0.05 -0.08 -0.33 -0.14 -0.18
Afrikaans/English -0.54 -0.04 -0.38 -0.11 -0.30
The results in Table 7 reveal the actual changes in the LV of the three towns since
1994. An overall trend that emerges is the language choice on new public signs, which
reflect a clear break from conventions associated with the previous language regime.
One tendency relates to the reduction of monolingual Afrikaans signs and signs dis-
playing conventional Afrikaans/English bilingualism. Another tendency relates to the
increasing number of new signs displaying the new English/Bantu-language bilingual
format, or displaying English only.
Increased use of English only is most conspicuous on CIBG-regulated signs and un-
regulated signs. Signs regulated by the municipal by-law also reflect this tendency, as
do SAMOAC-regulated signs. Increased English/Bantu-language bilingualism is most
notable on signs regulated by the municipal by-law, and on SARTSM-regulated signs.

On the other hand, the reduction of Afrikaans-only signs is also most notable on signs
regulated by the municipal by-law and on unregulated signs. The erasure of Afrikaans/
English bilingualism is most notable in CIBG-regulated signs. Signs regulated by
the municipal by-law and unregulated signs also reflect this change. Although not as
yet significant, a similar tendency seems to be developing with regard to SAMOAC-
regulated signs.
What is interesting about these trends is that, except in the case of LV regulated by
SARTSM, English-only signs are the result of both locally applied regulations (mu-
nicipal by-law, SAMOAC and unregulated) and externally induced regulations (CIBG).
This tendency seems to point to the power of English even within this rural context – a
factor that can be attributed to globalisation in general. The introduction of English/
Bantu bilingualism on signs related to SARTSM and the municipal by-law can clearly
be linked to a local initiative.
Conclusion
This study of signage data from three towns in the KoLM reveals that some of the
changes in the LL of these sites have indeed been introduced by post-1994 regulations
on LV. This may partly be attributed to the SARTSM requirement that signs must be in
English where symbols are not used. However, this regulation is not applied consis-
tently, as some of the SARTSM signs also reflect adherence to LV provisions that can
be found in the draft municipal language policy, such as the English/Bantu-language
bilingual signs. A similar trend is notable for signs erected in terms of the municipal
by-law, but the lack of adequate data on such signs prohibits a conclusive finding.
Where sign manuals contain no definite regulations on LV, as in the case of CIBG
and SAMOAC, preference seems to be given to monolingual English signs – a choice
that may be ascribed to the dictates of a ‘perceived language policy’. In terms of this
perceived policy, English is regarded as the language of preference of the new regime.
The evidence of English monolingualisation found in the three towns of the KoLM thus
corroborates the evidence on LV changes in the Free State, referred to in the introduc-
tion. Owing to a more pragmatic approach to language matters in the rural setting of
this investigation, this monolingualisation has not as yet led to the type of language
conflict that has resulted from some of the other measures mentioned in the beginning.
This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that unregulated LV contributes significantly
to the move towards English-only monolingual signs. As some of the affected signs
relate more directly to commercial and private spaces, one could interpret this tendency
as a response to the opening up of the area to tourism, which is a direct result of the
introduction of a new democratic dispensation. It points to a desire among locals to
‘move with the times’ and to benefit from political and economic changes in the area.
Thus, in comparison to the study by Salo (2012, 246, 256), the KoLM data suggest that
language intervention through language laws and regulations does play a limited role in
ensuring (changes in) LV for minority languages – in this case, previously marginalised
languages such as the Bantu languages spoken in the area. However, globalisation
factors also play a role. Following Coulmas’ (2005, 7) approach to globalisation, at
least three factors contributing to the post-1994 language environment in KoLM can
be isolated. The impact of tourism relates to economic factors, while the impact of the
perceived language policy relates to political and ideological factors. The latter two
factors not only contribute to the move towards English monolingualisation, they also
drive the process aimed at removing Afrikaans from the LL. As in the case of Salo’s
(2012) research, the evidence from the KoLM study confirms that globalisation seems
to be spreading its tentacles into rural settings.
The evidence also suggests that not all changes are related to globalisation. Although
the replacement of Afrikaans/English bilingual signs with English/Bantu-language
signs may be attributed to political and ideological factors, since it contributes to the
erasure of Afrikaans from the LL, the impact of local language politics should also
not be ignored. However, it could also point to the strength of local language politics,
reflecting a form of resistance to change from the outside.
The more pragmatic approach to language matters in the Southern Free State seems
to be a development that contradicts the English-at-all-costs approach that has been
documented elsewhere in the Free State. This, in turn, suggests that language policy
change within rural settings is dynamic, warranting further research.
Note
1. Although it is not considered politically correct within the broader South African context, owing
to so-called apartheid associations, the term is nevertheless used here as the linguistically
correct one. The South African replacement term, ‘African languages’, is rather inaccurate and
somewhat misleading.
References
Backhaus, P. 2005. Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo – a diachronic look at the linguistic
landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176: 103–121.
Backhaus, P. 2007. Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism
in Tokyo. New York and Ontario: Multilingual Matters.
Backhaus, P. 2009. Rules and regulations in linguistic landscaping: A comparative
perspective. In Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery, ed. E. Shohamy,
157–172. New York: Routledge.
Botha, A. 2000. LUR reageer op kritiek van VF-hoë oor VS op nommerplate. Volksblad,
p. 2.
Coetzee, G. 2002. Meeste Vrystaters steun nuwe nommerplate, sê Malebo. Volksblad,
p. 2.
Coulmas, F. 2005. Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176: 3–15.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [DEAT] and National Department
of Transport [DoT]. 1998. South African manual for outdoor advertising control
(SAMOAC). Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and
Department of Transport.
Du Plessis, T. 2007. Language visibility and language exclusion: The case of the
monolingual number plate of the Free State province. In Multilingualism and exclusion:
Policy, practice and prospects, ed. P.D. Cuvelier, 24–39. Pretoria: Van Schaik
Publishers.
Du Plessis, T. 2010. Bloemfontein/Manguang, ‘City on the Move’. Language management
and transformation of a non-representative linguistic landscape. In Linguistic landscape
in the city, ed. E. Shohamy, 74–95. Bristol, Buffalo and Ontario: Multilingual Matters.
Du Plessis, T. 2011. Language visibility and language removal: A South African case
study in linguistic landscape change. Communicatio: South African Journal for
Communication Theory and Research 37(2): 194–224.
Gorter, D. 2006. Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters.
Gorter, D., H.F. Marten and L. van Mensel, eds. 2012. Minority languages in the linguistic
landscape. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grin, F. and F. Vaillancourt. 1999. The cost-effectiveness evaluation of minority language
policies: Case studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. ECMI Monograph
# 2. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI).
Koch, A. 2007. Moeg vir munisipaliteit se sloerdery. Letter to the editor. Volksblad.
Kopanong Local Municipality. 2008a. Towns: Philippolis. Kopanong Local Municipality.
http://www.kopanong.gov.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&It
emid=52 (accessed 17 May 2012).
Kopanong Local Municipality. 2008b. Towns: Trompsburg. Kopanong Local Municipality.
Kopanong Local Municipality. 2008c. Towns: Springfontein. Kopanong Local Municipality.
Kotze, C-R. and T. du Plessis. 2010. Language visibility in the Xhariep – a comparison of
the linguistic landscape of three neighbouring towns. Language Matters 41(1): 72–96.
Landry, R. and R.Y. Bourhis. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An
empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 23–49.
Mangaung Local Municipality (MLM). 2003. Mangaung Local Municipality language policy.
Approved by Council on 27 November 2003 under Item 51A3, and further amended
by Council on 27 May 2004 under Item 27A1.
Mathebula, N. and T. du Plessis. 2010. Language policy-making in the Free State: An
analysis of language policy activities between 1994 and 2007. Language Learning
Journal 38(3): 307–326.
McCarty, T. 2011. Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.
Moll, J., ed. 2009. Vrystaatse stryd teen eentalige naamgewing. Acta Academica 41(2):
211–229.
National Department of Transport [DoT]. 1997. Southern African Development Community
road traffic signs manual, 3rd edition. Pretoria: National Department of Transport.
Pavlenko, A. 2008. Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language
removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 11(3/4): 275–314.
Pavlenko, A. 2010. Linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A diachronic study. In Linguistic
landscape in the city, ed. E. Shohamy, 133–150. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
Republic of South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of
1996. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Republic of South Africa. 2005. Republic of South Africa’s National Coat of Arms:
Corporate identity and branding guidelines. Pretoria: Department of Arts and Culture.
Salo, H. 2012. Using linguistic landcape to examine the visibility of Sami languages in
the North Calotte. In Minority languages in the linguistic landscape, ed. D.M. Gorter,
243–259. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schiffman, H. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London and New York:
Routledge.
Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London
and New York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael and M. Barni, eds. 2010. Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol,
New York and Ontario: Multilingual Matters.
Shohamy, E. and D. Gorter, eds. 2009. Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery.
New York & London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. and R.L. Cooper. 1991. The languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Spolsky, B. and E. Shohamy. 1999. The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice.
Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Statistics South Africa [SSA]. 2008. Census 2001. http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01html
(accessed 18 March 2008).
Visser, G. and L. Marais. 2008. Preface. In Spatialities of urban change: Selected
themes from Bloemfontein at the beginning of the 21st century, ed. L. Marais, iii–ix.
Stellenbosch: SUN Press.
Xhariep District Municipality [XDM]. 2003. Proposed language by-law for Xhariep.
Trompsburg: Xhariep District Municipality.
Xhariep District Municipality. 2009. Home. Xhariep District Municipality. http://www.
xhariep.gov.za/Home/tabid/37/Default.aspx (accessed 17 May 2012).
Yperzeele, S. 2009. Are you being served? De rol van taalattitudes bij publieke
dienstleveringsinteracties in ruraal Zuid-Afrika. MA thesis, Ghent University.
Yperzeele, S., P. Cuvelier, M. Meeuwis and R. Vandekerckhove. 2009. Multilingualism and
language attitudes in the Xhariep District: The case of Kopanong. In MIDP Colloquium
2009: Multilingualism from below. Proceedings, ed. P.V. Cuvelier, 108–110, University
of Antwerp, 14–16 September.
Yperzeele, S. and C-R. Kotze. 2008. Investigation Xhariep: Field notes. Antwerp and
Bloemfontein: University of Antwerp and University of the Free State.
View publication stats

The Role of Language Policy in Linguistic Landscape

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Language Policy in Linguistic Landscape

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The role of language policy in linguistic landscape changes in a rural area of

Article in Language Matters · November 2012

Lodewyk Theodorus Du Plessis

Multilingual studies View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Language Matters: Studies in the

The role of language policy in linguistic

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2012.741098

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Key words: bilingualisation, language choice, language policy, language visibility,

ISSN Print: 1022-8195 Language Matters

the ‘historically disadvantaged’ languages constitutionally ‘earmarked’ for special treat-

Since the identified convergence applies specifically to measures taken at provincial

Trompsburg (TB). Special attention is given to evidence of post-1994 changes in LV

Language policy and the linguistic landscape

Of particular interest here is the ongoing change that is registered on LL objects – a

Salo’s findings do seem to present rural evidence of ‘a language regime in a state of

Coulmas (2005, 7) defines a language regime as ‘a set of constraints on individual

impacts on legal provisions regarding language – in other words, on language laws or

Regulating language visibility on public signs in South Africa

A purely diachronic approach to studying linguistic landscape changes is therefore

Crucial to the type of synchronic analysis suggested here is background or contextual

Table 1 presents a summary of a reconstruction of pre-1994 and post-1994 sociolinguistic

Table 1: Reconstruction of pre-1994 and post-1994 sociolinguistic configurations on

Instrument Before 1994 After 1994

Changes in language visibility on public signs in the KoLM

Changes in the sociolinguistic configurations on public signs

Table 2: Changes in regulated sociolinguistic configurations found on public signs in

CIBG SARTSM Municipal By-law

Table 3: Changes in unregulated sociolinguistic configurations found on public signs in

Sociolinguistic SAMOAC Unregulated

As far as unregulated LV is concerned, a different tendency is noticeable with regard

Changes in language choice on public signs

CIBG SARTSM Municipal By-law

Essentially, these results indicate a tendency to no longer use Afrikaans on signs,

Again, the highest degree of change in LV is observed on CIBG-regulated signs, with

Afrikaans/English 35.2% 23.9% -0.11 35.2% 5.4% -0.30

What is important about these unregulated-LV results is that English/Bantu-language

Table 6: Percentage changes after 1994 in sociolinguistic configurations of public signs

Bilingual -0.44 0.21 0.25 -0.07 -0.23

Uncertain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

Regarding changes in sociolinguistic configurations, a difference is evident between

notable on signs regulated by the municipal by-law, and on SARTSM-regulated signs.

Coulmas, F. 2005. Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International

View publication stats

You might also like