Activity 2A

As mentioned previously, every attempt was made to duplicate Activity 2A as closely as possible to Activity 1A in order to attain results that could be compared. An analysis of the recordings for Activity 2A revealed some interesting information:

 A difference in linguistic repertoire

There was a difference in the linguistic repertoire of the participants between Activity 1A and Activity 2A. Table 4.2 indicates the number of words spoken by each group and Figure 4.5 indicates that the use of English during the activity for Group 1 was 82.8% of the time, Group 2 was 98.1% of the time, Group 3 was 71.9% of the time, Group 4 was 96.8% of the time and Group 5 was 92.3% of the time. The use of English by Group 3 was significantly lower than for the other groups, however, these did not appear to be any clear reason for this.

Table 4.2: Word count of linguistic repertoire of groups for Activity 2A GROUPS

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 NUMBER OF WORDS

English 424 721 271 754 168

Afrikaans 11 14 18 22 5

L1 77 0 88 22 9

Total Words 512 735 377 779 182

Figure 4.5: Linguistic repertoire of groups for Activity 2A

However, a comparison of the data for Activity 1A and Activity 1B reveals that the participants did not speak any more English during Activity 2A, they in fact spoke less in total during the activity and spoke more of their L1 in Activity 1A.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

82,8% 98,1% 71,9% 96,8% _92,3% 15,0% 23,3% 2,8% 4,9% 2,1% 1,9% _4,8% 0,4% _2,7%

English

L1

Afrikaans

Table 4.3: Comparison of linguistic repertoire for Activity 1A and 2A ACTIVITY 1A ACTIVITY 2A English 2335 2338 L1 389 196 Afrikaans 57 51 TOTAL WORDS 2778 2585

 Less interaction between group members

There was a lot less interaction between the participants during Activity 2A than during Activity 1A. This was evident during the recording of the activity when the researcher noticed a marked difference in the noise level of the participants and noted this down. Transcribing the recordings was much easier for Activity 2A than it was for Activity 1A because there was less background noise. Analysis of the recordings revealed many instances of little or no interaction between the group members and at times the interaction appeared strained or only took place between two members of the group as with Example 13:

Example 13

2A1P: The quality he won’t be able to read it. 2A1S: Ja.

Translation: [Yes.]

2A1P: The quality is very bad. 2A1S: Ja, eish.

Translation: [Yes, slang for something like ‘Oh, dear’ – no translation available] 2A1P: But, anyways, ja.

Translation: [But, anyways, yes.]

[Comment: This is followed by another long pause where no one speaks, then 1T and 1W start speaking quietly to each other {inaudible}]

In another group (Example 14), one person tries to get the other members of the group involved in a discussion on preparing for the presentation, and continuously waits for answers but does not receive any:

Example 14

2A4S: I think we should live a lot. I think what we should write about, we also need to live a bit more and actually be more social in order just to what you call apparently hakere re tlameha re tho le [Translation: we must receive a call] and we should think back, what, how positive it can be and how negative it can be. [Long pause but no one answers]. Cause I wrote, can we really live without cell phones and now that we have become addicts to cell phones [pauses]. What do we say after that? [Pauses again but no one answers]. What do you wanna do? [Still no answer from the group].

 Participants interacting with each other rather than with the group

There were a number of instances where participants spoke very quietly to each other and excluded the other members of the group − as indicated in the example above that took place between 2A1S and 2A1P. These interactions were also too quiet for transcription or even identification of which aspect of their linguistic repertoire was used.

 No participation by some group members

Some of the participants interacted very seldom with members of the group, such as in Group 4 where participant 4T did not participate in any of the interactions between the group members, and in Group 5, participant 5T only spoke twice, the first time in answer to being told each person must take two topics (Example 15):

Example 15

2A5T: Two? Okay I take advantages and disadvantages.

The rest of the time the participant had his head down and was reading or writing until (s)he spoke for the second time and announced (Example 16):

Example 16

2A5T: I’m done.

During Activity 2A, it was noticed that participants appeared to point more or gesture to each other as in this example (Example 17) where the participant points to the instruction paper:

Example 17

2A4Z: What’s this? [pointing], a hobby, play guitar, Right! There’s a lot of … sho! Don’t say there’s no advantages, right there [pointing again]

In Example 18, the one participant does not answer, but rather points, causing the other participant to check that he is understanding correctly:

Example 18

2A5P You’ll take the conclusion né. Just also take the introduction because it’s going to be short and short. Sharp, then I’ll take … which two can you take?

2A5Z: [No answer, points to paper.] 2A5P: This one, né? And which one? 2A5Z: [Shrugs]

 A difference in the number of languages used

During Activity 1A, all the members of each of the groups used English, Afrikaans or their L1 when communicating with each other. However, during Activity 2A, the linguistic repertoires of the members of some of the groups were extended to the L1s of other members in the group such as in Example 19:

Example 19

2A3Z: No, hakere, onore wa buwa buwa.

Translation: [No, (take note) you wanted to say something, say it.] 2A3S: Ja, introduction, conclusion, first, second [pointing] 2A3W: Ene wa nthusa, wautlwa

This conversation started with the Zulu participant speaking English, then Zulu, the Sesotho participant answered in Afrikaans then in English and the Setswana participant responds in Sesotho.

In a further interaction, the following were recorded (examples 20 to 24):

Example 20

2A1S: Di ja batho ditho tsea. I don’t like MTN 100 percent what, what. Di a ja daai ding 100 percent.

Translation: [They eat people that thing (direct translation). I don’t like MTN 100 percent what, what. They eat people that thing 100 percent].

In Example 21, the Sesotho participant makes a statement in Sesotho and repeats part of the statement in Afrikaans.

Example 21

2A1W: Ha di je. No 100 percent not.

Translation: [No, they don’t eat [people]. No 100 percent not.]

The Setswana participant answers the Sesotho participant in Sesotho (Example 22).

Example 22

2A1T: Di etsang?

Translation: [What are they doing?]

The Tsonga participant asks a question in Sesotho (Example 23).

Example 23

2A1W: O bela for free. Translation: [You phone for free.]

The Setswana participant then answers using the Afrikaans word ‘bel’ as slang (Example 24).

In Example 24 for Group 4, the Sesotho participant asks a question in English and the Zulu participant answers with the combination of Sesotho and English.

Example 24

2A4S: Even though an advantage is what? 2A4Z: Then ke kenye a reason.

Translation: [Then I must give a reason.]