The National Language Policy Framework (NLPF) of South Africa states that citizens’ language choices must be used for official correspondence. This gives provision for all official languages. Furthermore, the policy requires the government to utilise language facilities (such as interpreting and translation services) for a fair distribution of information. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many citizens felt deprived of information because their languages were not prioritised. This happened despite the policy’s requirement for the government to publish information in at least six languages. Despite having the capacity to use all official languages, the government adopted a monolingual approach to information dissemination. For instance, the COVID-19 information was disseminated in English and occasionally translated into other languages at a later stage. This raises concerns about citizens’ linguistic rights. This article focuses on the use of language during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. It makes inferences from the NLPF by assessing its implementation during a crisis. A qualitative research design was adopted, and document analysis was used to review some of the government publications published during the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework of multiculturalism is used to explain how government departments should view linguistic diversity as a national strength and recognise its importance in supporting minority linguistic groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaku et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: