Challenges in Intellectualizing Sesotho for Use in Academic Publications

Introduction

The landscape of publishing in South Africa is primarily influenced by the prevalence of English and Afrikaans, despite the country being recognized as a multilingual and multicultural nation. According to Rosalie Finlayson and Mbulungeni Madiba (2002), there are between 24 and 30 spoken languages in South Africa. Of these languages, the South African Constitution officially recognizes a total of 12 languages, namely Afrikaans, isiZulu, isiXhosa, Siswati, isiNdebele, Sesotho, Sepedi, Setswana, English, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, and South African Sign Language (Republic of South Africa 1996). The 11 official written languages are typically grouped into five categories. The language groups are illustrated in Table 1 below. Note that the groupings in Table 1 include the South African Sign Language, which is not a spoken language.

Ongoing debates persist regarding whether Afrikaans should be considered an Indigenous language of Southern Africa or an adopted foreign language (Webb and Kriel 2000). However, for the purposes of this article, we define Indigenous languages as the nine officially recognized South African Bantu languages. The Nguni group languages, as well as the Sotho-Tswana languages, are largely mutually intelligible. That is, the speakers of these languages can understand each other without difficulty. However, it is important to note that Tshivenda and the languages in the Sotho-Tswana language group have limited spoken mutual intelligibility. Similarly, Xitsonga and the Nguni group exhibit very limited mutual intelligibility.

There exist published written materials in all official languages of South Africa. Even so, it is noteworthy that publishing is not confined solely to official languages. As such, there also exist publications in numerous Southern African languages that have yet to attain official status. Unfortunately, despite the available language options for publishing in South Africa and the affordances brought by the democratic government of the country since 1994, there have not been many developments in multilingual publication (Möller 2013). Instead, English and Afrikaans are still at the forefront of publications of all types in South Africa (Morgan 2006).

Academic publications in Southern Africa are also primarily authored in English and Afrikaans. Consequently, the Indigenous Bantu languages, primarily utilized for oral communication before attaining official status in 1996, continue to experience limited usage in written communication. Thus, the underrepresentation of Southern African Indigenous languages in both academic and non-academic publications persists as a pervasive issue, with these languages remaining marginalized across various aspects of linguistic expression.

To address the marginalization of previously overlooked Indigenous languages, Finlayson and Madiba (2002) advocate for a deliberate process of intellectualization. It is worth noting that we use the term “intellectualization” cautiously, recognizing the controversy surrounding its application in the context of Indigenous African languages (Kaschula and Maseko 2014). We align our understanding of intellectualization with Irina Turner’s (2023) perspective, wherein intellectualization is seen as a means of catching up and closing the language resource gap resulting from years of neglect. This perspective challenges the notion that intellectualization serves as a method to catch up with linguistic complexity. Instead, an intellectualized language has the capacity to embrace the intellectual complexities of modernity and advanced contemporary thought, thereby aligning itself with sophisticated linguistic techniques (Prah 2007). Moreover, an intellectualized language gains empowerment, an enhanced status, and versatility across various domains (Letsoalo 2021). Desirably, an intellectualized language should have the capacity to discuss any issue regardless of its complexity (Khumalo 2017).

The lack of Sesotho terminology in our research presented a challenge when conveying complex concepts. We discovered that some ideas were easier to express in English than in Sesotho. Intellectualizing Sesotho will enable us to convey these concepts more easily in the future, facilitating discussions at the conventional register levels associated with complex issues.

It is important to note that the process of intellectualization is not isolated; instead, it must commence as languages develop, with the languages becoming intellectualized through active usage (Maseko 2011). As such, although Indigenous Southern African languages were previously confined to home use and excluded from public domains (Koai and Fredericks 2019), their recent integration into various public domains such as government, mainstream media, academia, and publishing signifies an elevated status and expanded scope of use. In this article, we consider the intellectualization of Sesotho across multiple fronts: the public education system, accessible dictionaries, university-level classroom instruction, and academic publishing.

In an effort to achieve the intellectualization of Indigenous languages, the South African Constitution has mandated a language board, the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB), to focus exclusively on the intentional development of previously marginalized languages of South Africa, including those that have been afforded official status and those that are yet to be afforded official status. The board has since released numerous policies to guide the intellectualization and the esteemed use of all official languages. Even so, Russell Kaschula and Pamela Maseko (2014) highlight the policy fatigue in South Africa whereby a lot of policies have been developed but relatively little action has been undertaken. Nonetheless, we expand more on evidence of action to intellectualize the Indigenous languages of South Africa.

In this article, we are particularly interested in the language resources that are available for Sesotho and the efforts to improve publications in the language. Apart from the comprehensive survey reports generated by the South African Centre for Digital Language Resources (SADiLaR) for all official languages in South Africa, there is also a specific analysis of the basic language resource kit (BLARK) content for Sesotho (Sibeko and Setaka 2022). In their findings, Johannes Sibeko and Mmasibidi Setaka (2022) concluded that while Sesotho has experienced some development in terms of language resources, there remains a considerable need for further development. In this article, we highlight the need to further develop Sesotho for academic publishing.

Our Objective

The objective of this article is two-fold. First, it seeks to highlight the challenges associated with publishing academic materials in languages other than English within the South African context, with a specific emphasis on Sesotho. Second, the article aims to provide an overview of initiatives designed for the intellectualization of Indigenous languages in South Africa. The overarching goal is to identify resources utilized for the intellectualization of Indigenous South African languages, including Sesotho, in order to explore opportunities for their use in academic discourses.

While our discussion is centered on Sesotho, we acknowledge that the conditions described are not unique to either Sesotho or the broader Sotho-Tswana, or even the Sotho-Makua-Venda, language groups. Instead, they resonate with the broader context of many Southern African languages. Nevertheless, we give particular emphasis to Sesotho as it serves as our regular working language of focus and offers a platform for authentic reflections.

The subsequent sections of this article will present a background on Sesotho, address challenges related to Sesotho as a low-resourced language of learning, explore the dominance of English, and discuss challenges related to publishing in Sesotho. Our article ends with a concluding section, wherein we suggest recommendations for the composition and publication of works in Sesotho and other, particularly African, languages facing resource constraints, marginalization, and reduced usage.

Background on Sesotho as a Language

Sesotho serves as the home language for over 10 million individuals across South Africa, Lesotho, and Zimbabwe (Mojela 2016; Ndlovu 2011; Van Heerden et al. 2010). Like other Indigenous languages in the region, Sesotho underwent a development process, including written forms, primarily driven by Christian religious initiatives. The Christian missionaries introduced writing and reading in Sesotho in the 1830s to assist them in carrying out their religious missions (Lekhetho 2013; Nhlapo 2021). In fact, the orthographies of Sesotho were determined during the translations of the Christian Bible (Moleleki 2012). Since then, like other official languages in Southern Africa, Sesotho has evolved into a language of instruction in educational settings within these countries. The use of Sesotho in print has over time extended to include, among others, the creation of newspaper articles, magazines, media, government communications, educational texts, and literature (Koai and Fredericks 2019; Moeketsi 2014; Sibeko and Setaka 2022).¹ It is also used in politics, media, religion, culture, and other domains (Marjie 2021).

Sesotho is also a subject of academic and educational inquiry. Note that the teaching of all 12 official languages as language subjects is incorporated into both elementary and higher education institutions in South Africa. In the South African basic education sector, Sesotho is taught at three proficiency levels: first language (L1), first additional language (L2), and second additional language (L3) levels. At the tertiary levels, Sesotho is taught from linguistics, applied linguistics, translation, communication, pedagogic, and literary perspectives. Consequently, there is a body of research on Sesotho from these different perspectives. This aligns with Turner (2023), who asserts that higher education drives intellectual transformation. Unfortunately, the majority of the findings from academic investigations are presented exclusively in English regardless of the language repertoires of the authors and possibly intended benefactors. For instance, the majority of journal articles on the structures of Sesotho and Sesotho infant language acquisition are written in English regardless of the authors’ expertise in Sesotho.

Despite the interest in Indigenous African languages, it is disheartening to note that the practice of publishing original research in the Indigenous languages of Southern Africa remains exceedingly rare and continues to be overlooked and undermined (Letsoalo 2021). In South Africa, this worrisome condition is not exclusive to Sesotho. For instance, it took almost two centuries of writing in isiXhosa before the first doctorate theses were produced in the language, a development that materialized in 2017. This timeline of publishing theses in isiXhosa is particularly poignant as it unfolded 23 years after South Africa gained freedom from oppression and 21 years since the Constitution underscored the significance of using all official languages and fostering equality and respect among the diverse official languages of the country.

Challenges Against Sesotho as a Language of Learning

The Language in Education Policy (LiEP) of South Africa advocates for additive bi/multilingualism (Plüddemann 2017). Additionally, the LiEP permits schools to tailor their school-based language policies to their specific contexts. While one provision of the LiEP allows schools to introduce a new language of instruction when at least 40 learners from grades 1 to 6 and 35 learners from grades 7 to 12 require access to that specific language (Department of Basic Education 1997), the default policy mandates the use of English for teaching from grade 4 onward (Chitapi 2018). Furthermore, education stakeholders (including parents and the school governing bodies) are prone to showing a preference for English as a medium of instruction (Gordon and Harvey 2019). Consequently, Sesotho, like other Indigenous languages, is confined to being taught solely as a language subject and is not officially utilized as the medium of instruction in other content subjects such as mathematics or the sciences. For this reason, our subsequent discussion of the Sesotho curriculum is limited to its role as a language subject.

According to Omphile Marupi and Erasmos Charamba (2022), schools in the Gwanda region of Zimbabwe are dominated by Sotho home language learners, and as such, the learners are reported to have insufficient command of English, which is their medium of instruction (Charamba and Marupi 2023). As a solution, Marupi and Charamba recommend that Sesotho be the official medium of instruction alongside English in the region, instead of a monolingual English medium of instruction.

Mosisili Sebotsa and Malefane Victor Koele (2020) argue that the teaching of Sesotho in Lesothan schools remains traditional, employing grammar translation methods, despite Sesotho being the home language for approximately 97% of the population in Lesotho. In fact, they identify several deficiencies in the curriculum and the traditional teaching approach of Sesotho. The use of traditional language pedagogies in the Lesothan Sesotho classes indicates the negligence of Indigenous languages in Lesothan’s basic education. Additionally, Nkonko Kamwangamalu, Richard Baldauf, and Robert Kaplan (2016) note that parents of learners in Lesotho are generally dissatisfied with the mother tongue as the medium of instruction and prefer English. It is important to note that in both Lesotho and South Africa, the first three school grades are taught in the mother tongue before transitioning to English as the medium of instruction starting in the fourth grade (Kolobe and Matsoso 2020; Maodi 2018).

The curricula for Indigenous languages in South Africa, including that of Sesotho, face shortcomings as they are translated from a generic English curriculum. Although efforts are made to adapt the different language curricula to the specific contexts of the distinct languages, they continue to fall short in addressing other aspects of the specific Indigenous languages that are not covered in the English curriculum. Furthermore, the use of the translated English curriculum in South African schools underscores the hegemony of English and the lower status accorded to Indigenous languages, which lack the space for the development of their own individualized and context-specific curricula.

To address the limitedness of the Sesotho curriculum, consideration could be an incorporation of non-standardized varieties of the Sotho languages, such as Sepitori. Sepitori, serving as a lingua franca among Black residents in the Pretoria region of Southern Africa, has the potential to contribute to the enrichment of Sotho languages, particularly in vocabulary acquisition and within the teaching and learning contexts (Ditsele 2014, 2019, 2022; Ditsele and Mann 2014; Wagner, Ditsele, and Makgato 2020). In this way, learners with non-official varieties of Sesotho can also participate easily in the Sesotho classrooms.

Furthermore, we are convinced that the inclusion of non-standardized varieties may contribute to the preservation of these languages. For instance, Sheena Shah, Letzadzo Kometsi, and Matthias Brenzinger (2022) report a decline in the number of speakers of SiPhuthi, a non-official Sotho language, with only a few hundred speakers remaining. While factors that influence the decline of SiPhuthi language users extend beyond this article’s scope, integrating SiPhuthi into the Sesotho curriculum may aid in enhancing it and simultaneously contribute to the preservation of SiPhuthi.

The Dominance of English

As people seek interconnectedness, they move towards global languages like English (Adelson 2021). According to Dean Odeh (2016) such an over-embracement of English in African contexts makes it a predator language, as it drives out and replaces the Indigenous languages. Unfortunately, such a replacement leads to the death of Indigenous languages in a process called linguicide.

One of the issues that arise from the dominance of English in African contexts is the ignorance of other languages in a multilingual country such as South Africa. For instance, Kathleen Heugh (2021) discusses the prevalence of multilingualism as a medium of instruction in various African countries, including South Africa, where innovative approaches such as translanguaging and code-switching are gradually finding a place in classrooms. Unfortunately, as illustrated by previous studies, societal perceptions of English proficiency contribute to associations between linguistic inadequacy in English and presumptions of illiteracy (Alamu 2017; Alexander 2009; Mda 2010). The negative effect of this perception is worsened by the reference to Indigenous languages as vernaculars (Mda 2010). Nonetheless, the enhancement of education in non-English first-language contexts is central to the promotion of literacy in local Indigenous languages.

The introduction of marginalized languages to academic scholarship is important for language development and the empowerment of Indigenous language users. However, Mark Fettes (2023) highlights the absence of explicit mentions of language learning in the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Even so, a connection can be drawn between language learning and the fourth SDG, focusing on quality education (Bekteshi and Xhaferi 2020; Vuzo 2018). In this regard, drawing attention to the pivotal role of language as a medium of instruction in the pursuit of educational excellence aligns with the examination of quality education, emphasizing the significance of the language used in the learning and teaching process.

The potential decolonization of curricula by developing Indigenous languages as mediums of teaching and learning has been examined in previous studies. However, there are concerns when curricula are translated from English, as exemplified in South Africa where the basic education language curricula are derived from the English generic curriculum (Sibeko and van Zaanen 2021). This issue of inauthentic language subject content through translated curricula raises important considerations about the cultural relevance and authenticity of educational content. Thus, the use of Indigenous languages is pivotal in decolonizing both our mindsets and pedagogical approaches.

Publishing in Sesotho

Mojalefa Koai and Brenton Grant Fredericks (2019) argue that despite efforts to elevate Sesotho to the status of an intellectual language, Sesotho continues to face marginalization, even in regions where it holds official language status.² In the Free State province of South Africa, for instance, where Sesotho is both the official and home language for the majority of residents, English remains the primary language of communication (Koai and Fredericks 2019; Moeketsi 2014). This situation persists despite the implementation of a language policy aimed at addressing the marginalization of Sesotho in the province (Koai and Fredericks 2019). Regrettably, Sesotho is often relegated to an ad hoc role alongside English and Afrikaans, rather than being utilized as the primary medium of communication, resulting in its limited usage. Consequently, we find it unsurprising that Sesotho faces a gradual adoption rate, particularly in the realm of both academic and non-academic publishing.

In our exploration for this article, it appears that academic publications in Sesotho are predominantly limited to the realms of theses, dissertations, and journal articles. According to Kaschula and Maseko (2014), the use of Indigenous African languages in the publication of postgraduate research in the form of theses and dissertations is vital in the intellectualization of African Indigenous languages. Furthermore, the incorporation of Indigenous languages into thesis publications within the South African context is a pivotal step in the process of decolonizing education (Mbamalu 2018; Mahlakoana 2017).

At this point, it is clear that publishing in the Sesotho language remains a challenge. The rest of this section explores the obstacles that hinder the development of Sesotho as a language suitable for academic publications. First, we address lexicographic challenges, followed by translation challenges and considerations of national and infrastructural contexts, target audiences, accessibility, and recognition. To conclude the section, we offer a brief reflection on our encounters with publishing academic texts in Sesotho.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This article highlighted the challenges associated with publishing academic materials in languages other than English in the South African context. The discussion focused on the specific case of publishing in Sesotho. Our interpretation of intellectualization aligned with Turner’s (2023) perspective, viewing it as a way to bridge the language resource gap rather than catching up with linguistic complexity. In this way, we focused our discussion on the language resources that are available for Indigenous languages in the South African context.

Among others, we reviewed attempts at intellectualizing South African official languages, paying special attention to Indigenous languages. The intellectualization of African Indigenous languages for contribution to academic scholarship remains an important venture. This article has demonstrated through the relation of a few projects and initiatives undertaken in the South African context that measures are being taken to address the marginalization of Indigenous languages in South Africa. While measures have been taken and resources developed for Indigenous languages, including Sesotho, there is a notable absence of specific initiatives addressing academic publishing in these languages.

The current state of disseminating academic research findings in Sesotho is dominated by the use of English. Although there are valid concerns with publishing in Sesotho and other Indigenous, marginalized, and historically oppressed languages, the negligence to publish in these languages further marginalizes them and slows down the rate at which the languages can be intellectualized. In this way, although there are many projects for developing terminology for Sesotho, if these are not strategically used in academic texts for Sesotho, the language will remain marginalized and under-intellectualized for academic discourses.

There are concerns when authors translate terms for their specific manuscripts, as was the case for our recent article in Sesotho. For instance, the translations raise concerns regarding reader comprehension when new terms are coined and presented without accompanying definitions, which is typical when terms are coined for specific journal articles. Moreover, given the historical context of English-based education and the potential challenges in understanding newly coined terms in Sesotho, authors may find it more accessible to publish in English.

The national and infrastructural context of South Africa facilitates the development of official languages. However, our concern lies in the dependence on translations into Indigenous languages. While translation projects may aim for equity and equality, they inadvertently introduce texts that may not resonate with the specific context of the Indigenous languages. Relying on English material raises the risk of resources for Indigenous languages continually being colonized and non-African, a sentiment shared by Prinsloo (2015). Through looking at lexicography, Prinsloo mentions that a further feature of early African language lexicography is often criticized by researchers for being Euro-centric. For example, many of the resources available for Sesotho in SADiLaR’s repository have been created with the use of government texts, which are genre specific.

As far as our knowledge extends for this article, there are no policies actively promoting the use of Indigenous languages in academic discourses. We have identified only two journals accredited by the Department of Higher Education in South Africa that permit and encourage publication in Indigenous languages, particularly in the context of linguistic and literary research. This limited scope, focusing solely on linguistic and literary research, suggests a need for a policy that advocates for a broader inclusion of Indigenous languages in discourses across various disciplines. Such an expansion would be crucial in showcasing that Indigenous languages are equally intellectual as English or Afrikaans in the Southern African context.

As previously mentioned, there is an issue regarding academic writing standards for Sesotho, and we assume a similar situation may exist for other Indigenous languages where academic publishing is not yet standardized. As a recommendation, we propose the development of a style guide for academic publishing in specific Indigenous languages. This guide could address simple issues, such as difficulties in finding titles for specific sections of papers, as well as more advanced concerns, such as specific sentence structures. By providing clarification on these academic writing matters, the guide would significantly assist interested authors in navigating the complexities of academic writing in Indigenous languages more effectively. Moreover, simplifying the writing process for authors could encourage more publications in Indigenous languages, contributing to the intellectualization of these languages for use in diverse academic discourses.

Currently, there are no repositories for publications in non-English languages in Southern Africa. We assume that establishing such a repository is crucial for the region, as it would simplify the discovery and access of works published in Indigenous languages. This access could highlight the volume of publications produced in Indigenous languages, providing authors writing in these languages with the recognition they deserve. Furthermore, the repository could serve as a catalyst for additional authors to publish in Indigenous languages, facilitate collaboration, streamline the identification of reviewers proficient in specific Indigenous languages, and discern trends in non-English publications across Southern Africa.