The South African media’s framing of the introduction of Mandarin into the South African school curriculum A research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Richard Frank 0517441W Supervisor: Alan Finlay Declaration I, Richard Frank, know and accept plagiarism (to use another’s work and present it as one’s own) is wrong. Consequently, I declare that this research report is my own unaided work. Signed _____________ Date: 15 February 2016 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Wits China-Africa Reporting Project for the generous bursary that made it possible to complete this research. I would also like to thank my supervisor Alan Finlay for guiding me through the research process. Finally I would like to extend my appreciation to Barry van Wyk, Brigitte Read and Ruth Becker for their support. 2 Abstract This research report examines the way the media framed the introduction of Mandarin to the South African school curriculum, and the relationship between frame sponsors and the frames employed by the media. The dramatic growth of Chinese investment and its related social and political influence in Africa has been greeted by a mixed response. The media has often characterised the relationship in a binary way, as either Chinese imperialism or a developmental relationship. To improve China’s image, the Chinese government has embarked upon a policy of soft power, which extends into influencing educational language policy, to encourage more people to learn Mandarin and understand Chinese culture. To explore the media articulation of the China-South Africa relationship media framing theory was employed. The frame analysis was conducted by analysing the content of 50 articles published in the South African press between March and October 2015. The analysis found three mega-frames: imperialism, globalisation and nationalism. The imperialism and globalisation frames are consistent with other academic and media literature that considers the China-Africa relationship as either colonial or a natural outcome of global market dynamics. The role of frame sponsors and their influence on the framing process was also explored. The majority of frame sponsors were official government, trade union and academic sources, suggesting an elite contestation. Notably absent were Chinese frame sponsors and the views of teachers, parents or learners. Government frame sponsors promoted the globalisation mega-frame while trade union sources promoted the imperialism and nationalism frames. The results suggest that the South African media articulates the China-South Africa relationship using the binary of colonial predator or developmental partner, where a more nuanced reading may prove more fruitful in understanding the dynamics of their relationship. 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction, aims and rationale .......................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2. The aim ........................................................................................................................................ 9 1.3. Rationale .................................................................................................................................... 10 2. Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Frames ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1. Organising principles .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2. Shared .................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.3. Persistent ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.4. Symbolic ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5. Structure .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Framing ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3. Frame devices in text ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Frame sponsors .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Operationalising the theory ........................................................................................................ 16 2.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 18 3. Literature review ............................................................................................................................... 19 3.1. China in Africa ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. China-Africa media research ..................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Language and power .................................................................................................................. 21 3.4. Soft power and language ............................................................................................................ 23 3.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 24 4. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Sample selection and size .......................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Frame sponsor analysis .............................................................................................................. 25 4.3. Frame identification ................................................................................................................... 26 4.4. Coding procedure ....................................................................................................................... 26 4.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 26 5. Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 28 5.1. Coverage types and publishers ................................................................................................... 28 5.2. Frame analysis ............................................................................................................................ 29 5.2.1. Imperialism ......................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.2. Globalisation ....................................................................................................................... 38 4 5.2.3. Nationalism ......................................................................................................................... 44 5.2.4. Absent or minimised frames ............................................................................................... 46 5.2.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 47 5.3. Frame sponsors .......................................................................................................................... 47 5.3.1. Nationality ........................................................................................................................... 48 5.3.2. Type .................................................................................................................................... 49 5.3.3. Frame sponsor analysis ....................................................................................................... 50 5.3.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 51 6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 52 6.1. Binary frames ............................................................................................................................. 52 6.2. Frame relationships .................................................................................................................... 53 6.3. The construction of frames ........................................................................................................ 54 6.4. Framing and counter-framing .................................................................................................... 56 7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 57 8. Sources referenced ............................................................................................................................ 60 5 List of tables Table 1: Percentage of articles by section ............................................................................................. 28 Table 2: Percentage of articles by publication ...................................................................................... 28 Table 3: Identified frames ..................................................................................................................... 31 Table 4: Frame sponsors by nationality ................................................................................................ 48 Table 5: Number of articles by frame sponsor ...................................................................................... 49 6 1. Introduction, aims and rationale 1.1. Introduction In March 2015, the South African government issued a notice, which stated that Mandarin would be included as an optional subject in public school curriculum in 2016 (“Mandarin to be offered in SA state schools,” 2015). This was backed up by an August 2015 Department of Education circular, which was widely reported in the media (Dipa, 2015; Nkosi, 2015a). The circular added Mandarin to the other optional languages in the curriculum, which include German, Arabic, Serbian, Italian, Latin, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu, Urdu, Hebrew and Gujarati, and which, with the exception of Latin, are all languages of ethnic groupings in South Africa (Siswa, 2015). There are between 250,000 and 350,000 Chinese living in South Africa (Park, 2009). On face value, the introduction of Mandarin as an optional subject could be seen as a positive change - giving South African learners the opportunity to learn one of the world’s major languages, and giving the South African Chinese population the option to study Mandarin. The number of overseas Chinese-language learners grew from less than 30 million in 2004 to 100 million in 2014, with over 5- million students having taken Chinese-language proficiency tests, showing the growing popularity of the language (Want China Times, 2014). In 2013, more than 10,000 South Africans were learning Mandarin in universities and secondary and primary schools (“Education helps build relationships”, 2013). However, the change of syllabus was met with criticism from teachers’ unions and commentators, among others, who described the language introduction as a form of colonialism and an attack on the promotion of indigenous languages. A Lexis-Nexis search reveals no evidence that similar reactions have occurred when other languages have been added to the syllabus. The debate over the introduction of Mandarin may be seen broadly as a reflection on how the media represents South Africa’s relationship with China - economically, socially and politically. For some, what is at stake is South Africa’s economic future that is largely in the hands of the global market, with China as one of the key players. For others, it is the South African national identity, reflected by the country’s language and cultural choices. South African has a colourful history of language policy negotiation. Under apartheid, Afrikaans was seen as the language of the oppressor and was the central reason for the 1976 Soweto Uprising after school children rejected Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in local schools. At the time, The 7 World published a letter from a student, which stated: "Our parents are prepared to suffer under the white man's rule. They have been living for years under these laws and they have become immune to them. But we strongly refuse to swallow an education that is designed to make us slaves in the country of our birth." (Mwakikagile, 2008, p. 89) English, on the other hand, was the language of the colonising British, imposed on the country in 1822 when the British proclaimed it as the language of the government, church and schools (Marjorie, 1982). Throughout Africa, the introduction of foreign languages has been seen as either the forerunner or the crowning act of colonisation. In post-apartheid South Africa, the South Africa has adopted 11 official languages. The South African Constitution states that all official languages “must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably” (The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996), however, practically English is seen as the primary language for business and governance (“Tongues under threat,” 2011). Language policy is thus an emotive issue and a useful barometer on the receptiveness of South Africans to Chinese soft-power1 initiatives. China is central to South Africa’s economic future. South Africa is China’s largest trading partner in Africa, worth $20.2 billion (Dews, 2014). This reflects China’s dramatic increase in trade with Africa over the past two decades, with China surpassing the United States of America (US) in 2009 as Africa’s largest trading partner. By 2012, China’s trade with Africa was more than double that of the US, reaching $198.5 billion versus US-African trade of $99.8 billion (Dews, 2014). China’s growing relationship with Africa represents a massive geopolitical shift, a change that will “increasingly be mediated through journalistic representations and the flow and counterflow of media capital” (Wasserman, 2013). Media representations of the China-Africa and China-South Africa relationship have been explored by several researchers (De Beer & Schreiner, 2009; Mørk, 2012; Umejei, 2014; Wasserman, 2013; Wekesa, 2013) using content analysis and framing analysis. While it should be noted that the role of China in Africa is not homogenous, with different sovereign 1 Soft power, coined by Joseph Nye, is “the ability to get what one wants by attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payment” (Nye, 2012). China’s soft-power policy was introduced in 2007 by President Hu Jintao. 8 relationships between China and African states, a brief review of press coverage of Mandarin being introduced into public school curriculums in Africa does provide valuable context to this study. African press coverage is cautiously optimistic with pro-China stories often using human interest framing to tell the story of students learning the language and finding opportunities locally as translators, or studying further abroad in China. However, common areas of criticism include the introduction of Mandarin as a colonising act that reduces the prominence of indigenous languages. There is also a defensiveness and conflict-orientation in some of the coverage. In an article headlined “Learning of Chinese in Schools will be Optional”, the Kenyan News Agency suggests that the CEO of Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development Julius Jwan has “defended the introduction of Chinese language into the Kenyan curriculum” (“Learning of Chinese in Schools will be Optional,” 2015), while in a proposed introduction of compulsory Mandarin, the registrar at the University of Zimbabwe, said that Mandarin, like English, was just another “evil language used to colonise us and brainwash us” (Caulderwood, 2015). In Nigeria, a similar defensiveness is found in coverage. In “Administrator defends teaching of Mandarin in Nigerian schools”, the administrator of Grace High School in Lagos, Tokunboh Edun, “explained that the school will continue to teach her students Chinese language, also known as Mandarin, despite criticism by stakeholders that Nigerian children are learning more foreign languages at the expense of indigenous languages” (“Administrator defends teaching of Mandarin in Nigerian schools,” 2015). I intend to use framing theory and framing analysis to explore the way the South African press has framed the decision by the South African government to introduce Mandarin as a second language option in South African schools. 1.2. The aim The aim of this research is to analyse the press’s framing of the South African government decision to introduce Mandarin into the South African school curriculum as an optional language choice. By using framing analysis, I am going to answer the following questions: 1. How does the press frame the introduction of Mandarin into the South African school curriculum? a. What frames can be identified, and what is the frame frequency? b. Which sources are most prominent in advancing particular frames? c. What is the relationship between the sources and the frames identified? 9