Among other descriptions to define language, one of its major characteristics is that it constantly changes. This means that over time, new variations of the same language develop. The introduction of technology and advancement of visual language such as emojis add more nuances and intricacies to language interpretation. Emojis are used to enhance texts written in different languages or language variations, among other factors, their interpretations may vary based on different age groups, gender, linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the interlocutors. For example, one of the questions included in an exemplary annual national exam paper for grade 2 isiZulu Home Language provided by the Department of Basic Education in 2012, the learners were requested to choose a synonym for the term ukuthukuthela (to be angry) between the following terms: ukujabula (to be happy)/ ukwenama (to be happy)/ ukukhathazeka (to be worried) and ukudinwa. The correct answer being ukudinwa. This is a controversial response when one considers the issue of language variation based on how the term ukudinwa is used by isiZulu speakers from different locations in South Africa.

In reality, if isiZulu speakers from different provinces in South Africa were to react with an emoji expressing the emotion of the term ukudinwa, the majority of speakers who speak isiZulu language varieties from KwaZulu-Natal would react with an angry emoji while the majority of those who speak isiZulu language varieties from Gauteng and Mpumalanga would react with a tired emoji. If such texts were to be analysed or translated into English as part of linguistic evidence for a court case, it is plausible that the linguistic expert or translator focusing only on the standard language variety of the term would interpret the term ukudinwa supporting the emoji expressions in all the isiZulu language varieties as the interlocutors being angry when they wrote the texts. The modern definition of the term as used in the KwaZulu-Natal language varieties supersedes its older definition as it is still maintained by those who speak isiZulu language varieties from Mpumalanga and Gauteng. This observation is made based on the isiZulu language proverb which says “ungadinwa nangomuso”, which has nothing to do with being angry but shows encouragement that one should never get tired of doing good.

Dr Mbali Sunrise Dhlamini, Lecturer at the Department of African Language Studies at UWC (front). Image: Shelley Christians/UWC

When providing expert linguistic analysis of emojis in relation to the Judge Mbenenge misconduct investigation, Dr Zakeera Docrat underscored the sizeable amount of data set that one would need in order to accurately analyse and interpret texts and emojis used by the concerned speaker(s). As linguists involved in African language learning and teaching, we take this statement as a call to revisit issues on language variations in the South African classrooms. Language variations in a language may be visible in lexical or functional morphemes, in affixes and even in tone among other components. This highlights the need in a country that boasts 12 official languages such as South Africa to have methods and instruments to collect language data sets that will recognise and reflect the languages and language variations of the entire country’s population.

The pitfall is that institutional language policies such as the National Language Policy Framework for Higher Education Institutions (2020) and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), although advocating for linguistic rights and for the promotion of all languages and their speech communities, they do not provide explicit advice in terms of how language variations should be treated especially in the educational sector where students and teachers of different ethnolinguistic and cultural backgrounds meet. This means that teachers, academics and individual organisations have to decide on how language variation will be addressed in their own contexts. This has resulted to some educators and academics refusing to accept the usage of the ‘non-standard’ language varieties in the classrooms and also discouraging their usage in the media. They argue that such language variations are ‘impure’, ‘corrupt’ and not fit particularly for the educational environment.

Professor Russell H Kaschula, UWC Research Chair: Forensic Linguistics and Multilingualism and HOD: UWC Department of African Language Studies Image: Shelley Christians/UWC

The problematic aspect of those who refuse to accept the utilisation of the non-standard African language varieties is that they disregard the historical fact of how the standard language varieties were selected in the first place. It is common knowledge that language standardisation in South Africa was created by missionaries who reduced African languages to writing with the aim to promote Christianity. It was later exploited by the apartheid government in the creation of homelands that were not only racially divided but also ethnolinguistically segregated. It was in the homelands that language teachers were taught that there are ‘pure’ and ‘standard’ language varieties that had to be spoken and promoted, and that all learners should copy these varieties as representation of their own identities. It is therefore interesting that, although, so much has been done to eradicate the ills of apartheid, particularly in the South African educational system, the issue of language variation and segregation is just ignored. This is viewed as a sign of having double standards for individuals who will complain about other language issues that come as a consequence of the apartheid government, but decide to keep others if they make them ‘superior’ in terms of perceived language rights and belonging.          

Hence, we view the linguistic expert interpretation of emojis in court as an important step towards rethinking and revising issues to promote language access and inclusivity in all domains. We advocate that language variation should be studied as a ‘linguistic right’ as opposed to being viewed as ‘breaking a language’. No one should lose marks or be ridiculed inside or outside the classroom for speaking their own languages and varieties in the best way they know. Students should not be forced to replace their language varieties with the so-called standard language as this results in loss of identities, cultures and also creates a situation of ‘silencing’ where a learner is afraid even to speak in public in case they utter a ‘corrupt’ word.

The best approach would be to document all language variations of the South African languages as used in different contexts by speakers of different backgrounds. The educational environment should be one of the first places to document and distribute the language data sets.

Learners should be sensitised about language variation from an early age. The ‘non-standard’ language varieties and the history of their speech communities should be studied in the classrooms together with the standard language varieties. All this highlights the importance of considering the language data set in relation to the profiles of those involved in the conversation, report or learning and teaching environment. This would promote intracultural and intercultural awareness and tolerance from teachers and fellow-students alike. This would further promote good citizenship even beyond the educational arena. In the same way as the emoji has variations, so do language varieties. In an educational environment we should be encouraging and looking for understanding and cognition rather than fixating on the use of standard language debate that has been handed to us by apartheid and a discredited regime.