2. CONTENTS:
1. Topic
2. Introduction
3. Statement of the problem
4. Research questions
5. Literature review
6. Hypotheses
7. Research methodology
8. Analysis of data
9. Bibliography
10. Appendix
3. 1. Topic:
A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF POST – APARTHEID IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION
OF THREE UWC STUDENTS
2. Introduction:
If one looks back on apartheid, most South African citizens know that it was a very cruel
system of legal racial separation which dominated South Africa from 1948 until 1993.
However, even though apartheid is over, South Africa is still faced with its repercussions.
During the apartheid era, different races were separated into different regions and
discrimination against people of colour was not only accepted, but it was legally employed,
with whites having superiority over other races, regarding job opportunities, housing,
education, etc. The focus of this research project is to look at the construction of students
identities around apartheid in a post-apartheid South Africa. The main aim or focus is to
explore the different ways in which each individual subject uses their preferred language to
construct their identity and substantiate and position themselves around the theme of
apartheid. Through this, the research project aims to heighten our understanding of the ways
in which identity is understood and constructed and the ways in which people use language to
emphasize their identity and position around apartheid in 2010, 16 years after the official end
to apartheid in 1994.
3. Statement of the problem:
The main aim of this research project is to explore how subjects in post-apartheid South-
Africa use their preferred language to construct and negotiate their identities. Other factors
also include how the subjects include their personal experiences and how they interpret them,
as well as how they position themselves and others in relation to these personal experiences.
Another interest is also exploring how even though we live in a post-apartheid South Africa,
linguistic practises and choices affect and influence the construction of identity, as well as
how the analysing of the data obtained from the interview is elicited and understood.
4. 4. Researchquestions:
This research essay which explores identity construction around apartheid in a post-apartheid
era aims to investigate the following research questions:
1) Do the participants in this interview perceive racism as still prevalent in South Africa
even though we live in a “new South Africa,” or is it just more indirect and what are
their views or experiences of it?
2) What do the subjects know about apartheid, who told them about it, what did the
people say about it and what do the subjects think about it?
3) How do the subjects perform their identities and state their position regarding the
theme of apartheid?
5. 5. Literature review:
In the literature review section of my research essay I will include the theories and concepts
of many different authors regarding their contribution to the concept of identity as well as
discourse, owing to the fact that the concept of identity and discourse are the core factors
around which my research essay is based. Therefore, I will use their theories and notions as a
conceptual framework in order to analyse my research data which I have gathered. The
authors which I will be using include Blommaert (2005), Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004),
Johnstone (2008) and Cameron (2001).
According to Blommaert (2005: 203), identity can be seen as who and what we are. Even
though it sounds very simple and straight forward, in everyday life we continuously find
ourselves busy with identity rituals, which refers to making friends, going on a date, etc
(Blommaert, 2005: 203). Blommaert (2005: 203) states that the reason for this is because
these rituals require intricate narratives about ones self and requests for such narratives from
the interlocutor, meaning getting to know one another. According to Blommaert (2005: 203),
the ‘who and what you are’ depends on context, occasion, and purpose, and it involves a
process of representation which is semiotic, where semiosis refers to symbols, narratives, and
textual genres like standard forms and the CV. Therefore, in every aspect identity is semiotic
because every act of semiosis is an act of identity, in which we ‘release’ information about
ourselves (Blommaert, 2005: 203).
Everyday we as individuals ‘release’ information about ourselves and are acts which are very
complex and involve a large variety of situating processes. These refer to placing the
individual in relation to several layers of grouping which is real and sociological, as well as
‘categories’ which involve age category, sex, professional category, as well as national,
cultural and ethnolinguistic categories (Blommaert, 2005: 204). Another factor also involves
placing this complex in relation to other complexes which are similar, such as young versus
old, male versus female, highly educated versus less educated, etc, and thus placing this
identification in relation to the current situation by making a selection that forms a ‘relevant’
identity (Blommaert, 2005: 204).
Blommaert (2005: 204) states that in discourse-orientated studies, there has also been a lot of
work regarding gender identities, race, as well as class, and especially on racism. However,
the complexity of this area is very immense due to the fact that questions on identity lead to
group concepts such as ‘culture’ or ‘society,’ which includes ‘speech community’ and
6. ‘ethnicity,’ which are very problematic owing to the fact that remarks on identity can be
spread over such identities, as well as on racism, anti-semitism, nationalism, feminism and
even on intercultural communication and translation studies (Blommaert, 2005: 204).
If one thinks of it, many authors as well as people would agree that people do not have one
single identity. However, Blommaert (2005: 205) states that identities are constructed in
practises that produce, enact or perform identity and thus identity is seen as identification
which is an outcome of socially conditioned semiotic work. Therefore, Judith Butler (1990)
cited in Blommaert (2005: 205) emphasized the ‘performative’ nature of gender identity thus
stating that gender identity is something that is performed and enacted on a continuous basis.
Hence, an example could be in the work of Don Kulick (1998) cited in Blommaert (2005:
205) whereby Brazilian transsexuals perform identity rituals regarding gender & sexuality. In
order to be the perfect object of homosexual desire male homosexuals would transform their
bodies in such a way that they are the perfect sexual partner, but not in order to be female, but
rather to be an attractive partner in male homosexual activities.
Another factor also to be considered regarding identity is that in order for it to be established
it has to be recognised by others (Blommaert, 2005: 205). This means that a lot of what
happens in the identity area is done by others and not by oneself, because many people would
never willingly call themselves ‘liars,’ ‘cheaters,’ or ‘white trash,’ but they do carry these
names around because someone else gave them. Thus, Blommaert (2005: 205) states that
whether or not you want to belong to a group or not, one is often grouped by others through a
process of social categorization called ‘othering.’
Identity as a form of semiotic potential has two main advantages, the first advantage being
the performance approach to identities. According to Blommaert (2005: 208) the
performative approach to identity looks at identity as a form of socially meaningful practise.
Discourses on how bad or good students are performing during a semester can be seen as an
example of professional group identity, which performs specific forms of ‘othering’ which is
also an ingredient of performative identity. The range of identities depends on the range of
semiotic resources that are available through which recognisable identities can be constructed
(Blommaert, 2005: 208). In the work of Rampton (1995) cited in Blommaert (2005: 208)
regarding the speech of urban, multi-ethnic youth in London and South Midlands of England,
the smallest parts of talk can be turned into identity markers. An example could be a single
7. word pronounced with a Jamaican accent by a British youngster which could be seen as an
alignment with Caribbean Rasta culture and group identity (Blommaert, 2005: 208).
Relational identities also refer to people’s own in-group identities, such as pupils in a class
which can be seen as micro-identities and another example can be macro-identities of ethnic
minorities in Britain, for example when the individuals switch to ‘Posh’ which is an imitation
of upper-class British English, it expresses a complex set of ethnic, sexual and social class
relations (Blommaert, 2005: 208).
The second advantage regarding identity as a form of semiotic potential is that it allows one
to set identities in the framework of having different parts and it being arranged so that
hierarchies in identities can develop (Blommaert, 2005: 211). Identities are part of an
arranged system, and the particular arrangement of identities and their resources will depend
on the specific environment in which one lives, which means that there are ‘values’ that
cannot be exchanged for certain linguistic resources across societies (Blommaert, 2005: 211).
For example, being very proficient in East African English might be a source of prestige in
Nairobi, but it may be the object of stigmatization in countries such as London. Thus, with
identities it is no different and Blommaert (2005: 211) provides a few examples such as how
being a Rasta in Jamaica may be different from being a Rasta in New York, as well as a
professor at UCT may be different from a professor at Harvard.
According to Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 21) negotiable identities refer to all identity
options which can be and are contested and resisted by particular individuals and groups.
Identity is thus negotiated in many areas including ethnicity and nationality, social class and
status, sexuality, religion, and so on. However, to analyse how identities are shaped,
produced and negotiated we use ‘positioning theory,’ which allows one to bring together the
views of identities that are located in discourses and narratives (Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004: 21). According to Davies and Harre (1990) cited in Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004:20)
‘positioning’ is the process by which selves are located in conversation as subjective,
coherent participants in story lines that are produced jointly and informed by certain
discourses.
Agency and choice are important in positioning and instances of reflective positioning are
often argued by others and many people are caught up in tension between self-chosen
identities and other people’s attempts to position them in a different way (Pavlenko &
Blackledge, 2004: 20). Hence, negotiation of identities can be seen as an interaction between
8. reflective positioning (self representation) and interactive positioning, which involves other
people attempting to position or reposition individuals or groups (Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004: 20).
In a study done by Doran cited in Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 23) regarding the
negotiation of identities in the home domain, it involves a language variety that is spoken
among multi-ethnic youth living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods outside Paris known as
‘Verlan.’. According to Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 23), the ‘street language’ has also
become a recognisable socio-dialect in the low-income areas and is characterized by Standard
French which borrows from Arabic, English, and many other languages. Hence, it is used to
express the multilingual as well as the multicultural identities that are found in the specific
communities where it is spoken.
Regarding social identity and identification, the most universal way in which humans deal
with other humans is by categorizing them (Johnstone, 2008: 150). Decisions on how to
interact with others is partly based on categorizations such as, people may be different with
women than with men, different with foreigners than with fellow South Africans, or different
with African-Americans than with ‘whites’ (Johnstone, 2008: 150). Thus, people often act as
if identities were natural and predictable, like for example as if gender (‘man’ vs. ‘women’)
were caused by biological sex and as if nationality were a result of place of birth, and as if
ethnicity could be defined based on skin colour (Johnstone, 2008: 150). However, no
categorization schemes are actually ‘natural’ and people range on a spectrum of cultural
gender, which means that some people choose gender identifications that do not associate
with their biological sex (Johnstone, 2008: 150).
Personal identity which involves discourse and the self is also very important, because
Johnstone (2008: 155) argues the ways of understanding social identity and its relationship to
discourse are based on the idea that the ‘selves’ we present to others are changeable, strategic
and jointly constructed. Hence, we use the resources contained in language to exercise a
variety of social identities, adapted to the situations we find ourselves in and the ways in
which we are socially positioned by others (Johnstone, 2008: 155). Johnstone (2008: 155)
also states that we can also use language to create and project a coherent and more durable
personal identity, which involves showing that we are agents which are autonomous and that
we have continuous life histories which are not permanently continuous, as well as
biographies without any gaps.
9. Many people ask questions such as ‘what is discourse’, and ‘why should one analyse it?’
According to Cameron (2001: 7), people are highly skilled users of spoken language and that
life in many ways can be compared to a series of conversations. Talking is something we
often take for granted. Therefore, when linguists and other social scientists analyse spoken
discourse their aim is to make explicit what normally gets taken for granted, and it is also to
show what talking accomplishes in people’s lives and in society (Cameron, 2001: 7).
Working with spoken discourse is also an interdisciplinary enterprise and those involved
include anthropologists, linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, media students,
or law students (Cameron, 2001: 7). The term used for what these people do is known as
discourse analysis. Cameron (2001: 7), states that ‘discourse analysis’ is an umbrella term
that allows for variation in subject matter and approach. For example discourse analysis is not
only involved with spoken discourse. It can deal with language use in any channel or
medium, this means that discourse analysists may work with written data, data from sign
languages of the deaf, images and textual graphics (Cameron, 2001: 7). Therefore, discourse
can be defined as spoken or written text that is used to communicate or convey something
meaningful in a certain context. Hence, discourse analysis can be defined as analysis of
language in use.
There are also some discourse analysists, such as linguists, that are mostly concerned with
describing complex structures of language use and ask questions such as, ‘how does turn-
taking work in conversation?’ According to Cameron (2001: 7) they study talk because they
want to know about talk, and examples of discourse texts include real-life texts that are
observed, recordings or transcriptions of conversations, newspaper articles, speeches, novels,
signs, radio broadcasts, court proceedings, and so on. However, some researchers who are not
linguists are more concerned with the fact that ‘life is in many ways a series of
conversations,’ which means that ‘people’s talk’ can be a source of information regarding
other parts of their lives (Cameron, 2001: 7). Cameron (2001: 8) also states that even though
sociologists and social psychologists do not necessarily study discourse, their methods
however produce discourse data. For example interviews and ethnographic studies using
participant observation all involve verbal interaction between the researcher and subjects, or
between subjects themselves.
10. According to Cameron (2001: 8) anyone who has been educated in a highly literate society
will have developed the ability to read and write, and also to think analytically about written
texts. For example in school students learn how to do ‘close reading’ of literary texts, like the
structure of a poem. However, it is much less likely that they learned to approach ordinary
talk or any kind of spoken language in the same way. Cameron (2001: 8) states that people
acquire an extensive meta-language during school, which is a ‘language about language’ used
to describe the structures of writing terms like ‘letter,’ ‘comma,’ ‘sentence,’ and so on.
Spoken language rather than written language often comes to mind when one thinks of the
word ‘conversation.’ However, the youth of today constantly interact with one another
through social network applications such as ‘Facebook’ and ‘Mxit.’ Therefore, they often
define what they are doing as ‘chatting’ or ‘having a conversation’ even though the medium
is written and not spoken language (Cameron, 2001: 9). Cameron (2001: 9) also states that
we are people who use language and have quite a large vocabulary for distinguishing
different kinds of talk. Hence, we can describe interactions in terms of their tone, level of
formality, as well as subject matter through using terms like argument, chat, discussion and
gossip. We can also describe spoken language events in terms of their setting, context or
purpose, through using terms such as interview, debate and seminar (Cameron, 2001: 9).
Conversation in English has a ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ use and Cameron (2001: 10) states that
it is generic because we can use it to describe a broad range of different kinds of spoken
interaction. It also seems more adequate to apply it to interactions characterized by
informality, spontaneity and egalitarian (equal) relationships between participants. Hence, it
is also more adequate to use the term conversation to refer to ‘chat’ or ‘gossip’ than for a
seminar or medical consultation.
Regarding language and language in use, Cameron (2001: 10) argues that language is seen as
a ‘system of systems’ through the perspective of linguists. Each system of language has its
own unique form of structure or organization, for example the sound system of language,
which is phonology, does not have the same kinds of units or rules for combining units as the
grammatical system of language (Cameron, 2001: 10). In a sense it can be seen as a
‘language hierarchy’ since words are larger than sounds and sentences are larger than words.
Therefore, regarding this hierarchical paradigm Cameron (2001: 10) argues that you ascend
from one level of organization to the next as your language units become larger. According to
Cameron (2001: 11), if discourse analysis deals with ‘language above the sentence’ the main
aim is to find patterns such as structure and organization within units which are larger and
11. more extended than one sentence. For example if there are two sentences, namely A and B,
we assume A is followed by B meaning ‘A first, then B.’ Cameron (2001: 12) thus states that
we make sense of discourse partly by making guesses based on knowledge about the world,
which can be interpreted as one’s schemata. Cameron (2001: 12) also states that a ‘text’ can
be smaller than a sentence, for example the ‘LADIES’ sign on the door of a public toilet and
the letter ‘P’ to indicate parking for cars. Hence, what makes these texts is that each of them
is intended to convey a complete message in the specific contexts. Therefore, its
interpretation relies on real-world knowledge that is not found in the text itself. This means
that one should have a sense of background knowledge regarding the world and society. For
example looking up the word ‘LADIES’ in a dictionary would not on its own give you a clear
message of what it conveys when written on a door. Thus, someone might even think it
means there are ladies behind the door (Cameron, 2001: 13).
A distinctive feature of discourse analysis is the fact that it has an overt concern with what
and how language communicates when it is used purposefully in certain contexts (Cameron,
2001: 13). Another feature is also how the phenomena we find in ‘real language’ can be
explained by referring to the communicative purposes of the text or interaction. Structuralism
refers to the interest in the abstract form and structure of language, whereas functionalism
refers to the interest in the purpose of language, or simply put, what language is used to do
(Cameron, 2001: 13).
In the conclusion of my literature review I would like to say that it is evident that the theories
and concepts provided by all of the different authors regarding their work on identity proved
to be very interesting and also broadened one’s knowledge regarding the way in which we
represent ourselves and others within society. Therefore, I will be making use of some of the
concepts and theories provided by these authors in order to create my own framework
through which I will analyse my research data. Some of the concepts that I will be looking at
and which I viewed as important are the positioning theory and negotiable identities by
Pavlenko & Blackledge (2004). Other concepts which I will be using include Blommaert
(2005), the performative approach to identity as well as the way in which identity is
constructed in situations that perform identity. This means that nobody has just one fixed
identity. The work by Johnstone (2008) regarding personal identity, discourse and the self
will also be used within my conceptual framework of analysis.
12. 6. Hypotheses:
My predictions for the study will include:
There will be similarities in the way that each subject’s identity is constructed, as well
as their positioning regarding apartheid.
Each subject will have similar views on apartheid, as well as opinions. Thus, through
discourse analysis there will be reoccurring themes and patterns among the subjects.
There will be a better understanding regarding the ways in which the students
construct their identity by using the qualitative research approach known as discourse
analysis.
13. 7. Methodology:
In this section of my research essay I will be explaining the research approach regarding my
research data and the procedure that I have undertaken towards collecting my data. I will be
making use of the qualitative research method known as discourse analysis as well as
transcription in order to analyse my research data. Therefore, I will also provide some
background information regarding discourse analysis as a qualitative research approach as
well as transcription and the steps and factors one should keep in mind when transcribing
data. In this section I will also include my research procedure that I have used which is
considered very important. Hence, I will be explaining the description of my subjects, the
instruments used, the procedure and the method of analysis.
According to Cameron (2001: 13) discourse analysis is a popular qualitative research method
and it is seen as an alternative to using questionnaires, which produce statistical data. Thus, if
a researcher wants to find out what a group of people do in their leisure time, a researcher
using discourse analysis as a method will spend time talking in depth to a sample of the
people of interest, telling them to analyse the topic in their own way and in their own words
(Cameron, 2001: 13). Afterwards, the researcher would record the subject’s speech, then
transcribe and analyse it in order to find recurring themes in the way people talk about leisure
activities (Cameron, 2001: 13).
Cameron (2001: 13) also states that when people answer a researcher’s questions, whether in
a face-to-face interview or by completing a written form, they are constructing a certain
representation of themselves for the researchers benefit. For example they may be telling the
researcher what they think he or she wants to hear, or what they would like him or her to
believe (Cameron, 2001: 13). Therefore, it is unavoidable because people do not simply
answer questions in any situation without first making sure who is asking the questions and
why (Cameron, 2001: 13). Cameron (2001: 13) also states that when discourse analysis is
compared to quantitative methods like questionnaires, standardized instruments produce
impressions of certainty and consistency, which is misleading. This means that the results are
rather generic and the real subjective experiences are not captured. An advantage of discourse
analysis is that it generates data by getting people to engage, or observing them while they
engage in talking (Cameron, 2001: 13). Talking is thus familiar to them and normal, unlike
asking them to take a questionnaire (Cameron, 2001: 13). Therefore, Cameron (2001: 13)
14. states that discourse analysis can be seen as a method for investigating the ‘social voices’
available to the people, whose talk analysts collect.
According to Johnstone (2008: 23) there are nearly as many ways to transcribe speech as
there are researchers who actually transcribe data. Standardized transcription systems are
used that include discourse analysis such as Conversation Analysis, but there is no single
‘right way’ to represent speech on the page (Johnstone, 2008: 23). Therefore, through this
statement one can see that there are many different ways to transcribe data with Conversation
Analysis just being the more ‘popular’ or generic. Many people do not realise this and
newcomers to discourse analysis soon find out that any way that a person represents spoken
data in writing is necessarily selective and different selections emphasize and “hide” different
aspects of speech.
Johnstone (2008: 23) states that a transcript can be seen as a partial representation of speech
and the decisions of the transcriber regarding what and what not to include can have practical
as well as theoretical consequences. For example a transcript that includes interruptions and
overlapping turns shows that conversation is co-constructed, whereas a play-script transcript
gives the idea that each speaker had an independent conversation. Highly detailed transcripts
may also be difficult to read, whereas easy-to-read transcripts include less specific
information but no transcription system could be universally ideal for all purposes
(Johnstone, 2008: 23).
However, not all transcription systems are good because if the transcriber decides to include
all the words that were spoken and a spelling-checker has deleted or omitted repeated words
such as stalling utterances, it would then be viewed as inadequate because a transcription
needs to be as accurate as possible and should try to include everything that was said
(Johnstone, 2008: 23). One can therefore see that a transcription can be seen as a ‘permanent
record’ of the spoken discourse that was recorded. Johnstone (2008: 23) also states that a
transcription cannot either include everything that was said and the most useful transcriptions
in discourse analysis research are those which emphasize what the researcher is interested in
and does not include too much distracting detail.
Regarding transcription as mentioned before, transcriptions that have too much detail are
difficult to read. Therefore Ochs (1999: 168) states that a transcript should not have too much
information, thus a more useful transcript is a more selective one and selectivity should
therefore be encouraged. However, selectivity should not be random and implicit and the
15. person who is transcribing the data should always be conscious regarding the filtering
process. The foundation of the selective transcription process should always be clear and
should reflect the research topic (Ochs, 1999: 168).
According to Cameron (2001: 33), if communication is not breaking down then participants
should be able to make sense of it regardless of how ‘incoherent’ it may seem. The same goes
for recurring features or utterances that occur in spoken discourse. Many factors need to be
considered when it comes to transcription such as, one must clearly state who is speaking and
how the contributions of different speakers join one another or how they are interrelated
(Cameron, 2001: 36). Narrative talk consists of long sequences produced by a single speaker
and if one person begins to tell a story then the other participants will allow him or her to
speak for a longer period (Cameron, 2001: 37). However, Cameron (2001: 37) states that the
talk is still interactive because the other participants are still present and may interject and
give short comments. Another factor is that when it comes to talk, meaning may be
embedded in other features such as pitch, pace, stress, rhythm, voice quality, loudness, etc
(Cameron, 2001: 37). Duration of pauses is also indicated through digits in brackets and
instances where the tone of the participant’s voice changes. For example a whisper, is
indicated through a curly bracket (Cameron, 2001: 38). One can see that these aspects of
transcription are very essential and should be considered by researchers and they should also
think of whether their input in transcribing data in detail is time well spent.
One very key factor regarding transcription of data is to know when to stop. It is important
because Cameron (2001: 39) states that there is never a point where your transcript is a “full
& trustworthy” representation of your data. Highly qualified researchers do not either get it
right the first time, because in many cases they listen to their recorded spoken data a second
time or realise the mistakes in their transcriptions (Cameron, 2001: 39). However, students
are different because they have a limited period of time to work on their data and they then
develop the ability to judge when the transcript is good enough. I have mentioned before that
highly detailed transcriptions are inadequate and the same goes for transcriptions with a little
detail. Hence, Cameron (2001: 39) states that what is worth including in a transcript depends
on what you want to do with that transcript afterwards.
16. Description of subjects:
The research study took place at an institutional setting, specifically the University of the
Western Cape. The subjects that I used were all university students, preferably UWC students
and the number of subjects that I used was three subjects. However, I did not use any first
year students, rather third to fourth year students between the ages of 20 and 22. The reason
why I used older students is because older students will show more maturity &
professionalism, as well as insight and understanding towards the research topic. The students
that I used were all from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Reason for this is because
the cultural diversity will heavily and interestingly influence the research questions and thus
the research topic.
Instruments used:
Regarding my collection of data, I used two qualitative research methods which includes
interviews and discourse analysis. I used interviews because questions and answers can be
rephrased and also clarified. Another reason is because new questions can be formulated in
response to the data. Therefore, the types of interviews that I used are open-ended interviews
because even though I prepared research questions for the subjects and there is some form of
structure, I did not however stick to the prepared questions. The research questions that I
have prepared served more as a basis for the subjects to get them conversing and the subjects
were also allowed to ask questions among one another. I used a tape recorder to record the
discussion in order for me to accurately “capture” the interview in its most natural form, so
that I could transcribe it on paper.
Procedure:
After I selected the three participants, who were male students from UWC, I informed the
subjects of my intentions and reasons for the investigation and how my results of the specific
research study will be used. I also informed my subjects that the data from the discussion will
be used for a research project and they have the right to remain anonymous, therefore I made
use of pseudonyms when I transcribed the research data onto paper in order for analysis. I
also informed my subjects that each of them will receive a consent form if they wish to
17. participate in the study, but they preferred a verbal consent due to the fact that they felt more
comfortable with a verbal than a contractual agreement.
Method of analysis:
After I obtained the adequate number of subjects, I conducted my interview with the subjects
in an institutional setting, namely UWC, but more specifically the seminar room in the
linguistics department. I analysed the discourse of the subjects through discourse analysis,
which means I intensively looked at their speech and how they answered the questions by
recording it on a tape recorder and then transcribing and analysing it by looking at specific
linguistic and discursive resources which the participants draw on, as well as recurring
themes that occur within the text regarding the way in which identity is constructed around
apartheid. I also informed them that the interview will be recorded for research purposes, and
that I will conceal the tape recorder in order to reduce anxiety, or intimidation, which in-turn
could influence the answers. However, the participants did not have a problem with the tape
recorder being visible on the table in the seminar room. I also limited the discussion between
20 minutes and 40 minutes in order not to have too much data, but I did not either abruptly
end the discussion when all of the subjects were engaging in the discussion. After I have
obtained sufficient data from the interview with the subjects, I used the data from the tape
recorder to transcribe each moment of dialogue and numbered each conversational turn and
also labelled different sections for each grouping of conversational turns which can be found
in the appendix for easy reference. I also kept any form of code-mixing that was evident in
order to exhibit lexical diversity, but also in order to keep the data in its “purest form.” I also
advised the subjects not to speak out of their turn because this could hamper the process of
transcribing the data and thus negatively affecting the data collection process. However, in
some instances the participants did overlap one another which showed that they were
enthusiastic towards answering the questions and contributed positively to my research data.
18. 8. Analysis of data:
In the analysis of my research data that I have gathered, I will be making use of discourse
analysis whereby I will look at the discursive and linguistic resources that the participants
within the current research study use in order to construct a certain identity for themselves. I
will also be making use of various theoretical assumptions provided by the authors mentioned
in my literature review. The theory that I will be using as a framework for the analysis of my
research data includes Pavlenko and Blackledge’s (2004) positioning theory and Blommaert’s
(2005) work on individuals performing identity rituals. However, first I will look at the
context of the research data through Halliday’s (1989) framework. Hence, according to
Bronislaw Malinowski (1923, 1935) cited in Halliday and Hasan (1989: 7) there are two
levels of context which include the context of situation and the context of culture. The
context of situation as stated by Bronislaw Malinowski (1923) cited in Halliday and Hasan
(1989: 6), refers to the total environment of the text and is the concrete area in which the
communication takes place, including who said what, to whom, when, where and why.
Halliday and Hasan (1989: 12) state that the context of situation consists of Field, Tenor and
Mode and all these factors together can be seen as the register of the text or ‘the three features
of the context of situation.’ Regarding the Field factor, Halliday and Hasan (1989: 12) state
that it refers to what is happening between whom, the topic, where it is taking place and the
reason for it taking place. The context of situation is also part of Field. Hence, regarding my
research data, the physical context will be the seminar room in which the communication
transaction took place, which is located within the linguistics department on the UWC
campus. The communication process that is taking place is between three participants who
are all from different ethnic backgrounds and cultures. The communication process is in the
form of an interview or dialogue with the topic revolving around the construction of student’s
identities around the notion of apartheid.
The reasons why it can be seen as an interview or dialogue is because I asked structured as
well as non-structured questions and each of the participants replied to these questions as
accurately as possible, but also elaborating on the questions asked by the researcher and
elaborating on statements made by the other participants and also interjecting and
overlapping throughout the communication process. The communication process can also be
seen as transactional because the main aim or function is to exchange information. This refers
to the senders and receivers who are the participants of the interview, as well as myself who
19. is the researcher, sending and receiving messages regarding questions asked by me who is the
researcher, or among the participants themselves based on the topic of the interview being
conducted. However, it can also be seen as interpersonal because at certain times the
participants and the researcher try to build a sort of relationship with each other in the form of
empathic understanding and acknowledging that they know what the other person is saying or
understand where they come from, for example in section A, turn 4, when Dan says, “The
same with me I would also say that...” as well as in section A, turn 8, when the Interviewer
says, “Like... I can like relate to like all three of you...”
Tenor refers to who the participants are that are taking part, their relationship, such as status
and power, as well as feelings and attitudes (Halliday & Hasan, 1989: 12). Tenor can also be
referred to as ‘interpersonal meanings.’ The participants were all UWC students and the two
out of the three participants were of a black ethnic background and were also BCom. Finance
undergraduate third-year students. Pseudonyms were also used namely ‘Ben’ and ‘Jimmy.’
They were also friends thus they were familiar with each other, but they had no relationship
with the researcher which was myself. However, the third participant which is from a
coloured ethnic background had no relationship with the other two African participants, but
had a relationship with the researcher because we are friends. The coloured participant had
the pseudonym ‘Dan.’ Dan is also a student at UWC and is a BA Psychology third-year
undergraduate student. All of these factors can also be seen as the social context which refers
to the relationships of the participants, and so on. The age of the participants is also more or
less within the same range, ranging between 19 and 21. The social status of the participants is
also egalitarian owing to the fact that they all come from middle-class backgrounds.
The relationship of the participants is of an equal status of power owing to the fact that all
three of the participants are undergraduate students at UWC and thus there is no sense of
anybody being superior or subordinate. I have mentioned before that the two black
participants know each other in the form of friendship and this reveals a sense of solidarity as
opposed to the relationship between the two black participants and myself which is rather
distant. This also influences the subjectivity of the answers that are produced by the
participants because owing to the fact that we come from different cultures and ethnic
backgrounds, the participant might answer a question with more discretion because the
person might not want to be reflected in a negative light, or might not want to discriminate
against other cultures especially if the interviewer is from a different culture and ethnic
background with the topic of the interview being rather controversial, such as apartheid. For
20. example in section H, turn 130, when Jimmy says, “... honestly, ah... I can’t comment on that
but...”
Cameron (2001: 14) states whenever people answer questions whether in an interview or
questionnaire they always attempt to construct an image of themselves that will benefit the
researcher. This statement by Cameron (2001) can therefore be applied to the example of
Jimmy, regarding the way in which the participant is rather careful regarding what he says.
This basically means that the participant will often tell the researcher what they want to hear.
Hence, even though one might use a video camera during an interview to capture the non-
verbal behaviour one still will never know what goes on in people’s heads and this in turn
will always affect the density of the research data. In the case of Jimmy’s answer in the
interview that I conducted, he attempts to construct an identity that reflects post-apartheid
discourse owing to the fact that he does not want to mention any racial factors that will
degrade other ethnicities and thus deeming him politically incorrect. This can also be seen as
a way of ‘breaking away’ from the apartheid discourses when racial tension between racial
groups were high and racial labels that are now considered taboo, were often mentioned.
The fact that Jimmy does not either really want to comment on the question asked can also
serve as a marker of him trying to preserve his image for the interviewer considering the fact
that all South Africans know that apartheid is over. However, there were instances of
contradiction with regards to the participant Jimmy because at the beginning of the interview
he was rather explicit in mention certain racial labels (‘Kaffirs’ in section C, turn 50) but
becomes rather discrete later on during the interview and infers more censorship with regards
to certain questions.
The fact that the physical context was rather formal and closely represented a small
classroom also influenced the way questions were answered. The fact that a tape recorder was
used and was not hidden could also be the cause of the stuttering by the participants owing to
the fact that the tape recorder contributes to the formality and causes the participants to be
rather nervous, for example in section A, turn 11, when Dan says, “.... in, in, in terms of...”
and in section A, turn 2, when Jimmy says, “... by... by, by physical or...” This can be seen as
an example of how context shapes text.
21. There is also a distant relationship between the two black participants and the coloured
participant with regards to friendship. However, there is a sense of solidarity between the
coloured participant and myself because we are friends. Thus power distance is also
minimized. This also positively affects the reader position, which is the position whereby the
reader/researcher interprets the data. Hence, the fact that we are friends and come from the
same ethnic background makes it easier for me as the researcher to interpret the implicit
meanings embedded within the text. For example in section A, turn 11, when Dan says,
“...high school... white children tended to have that same mentality that their parents had...”
This can be easily interpreted from my perspective owing to the fact that we have been
friends for a long time and went to the same high school. Therefore, just by reading his turn
once I already know what he means because I have experienced it as well. Thus, the meaning
and understanding of the context of the text is perceived and understood by the interpreter or
researcher and decontextualization is thus avoided.
The interview is also collaboratively constructed owing to the fact that the turns of the
participants overlap as they agree or tend to elaborate on each other’s statements and in some
instances one can see how some of the participants dominate the interview with regards to
certain questions. Jimmy for instance has more turns in comparison to the other participants.
This can also be seen as the participant constructing a knowledgeable identity by giving more
insight and in-depth answers expressing his views and opinions that will benefit the
researcher and in-turn the research data as well.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1989: 12), Mode refers to the way in which the message is
communicated and incorporates the role of language, the fact that it is written, spoken, in
dialogue form, planned, spontaneous, etc. The Mode of the interview is spoken even though
the transcription of the data is a written version. The construction of the interview is also
spontaneous which can be seen through repetitions, overlapping turns, hesitations, false
starts, etc. For example in section A, turn 1, when the Interviewer says, “So basically umm...”
and in section A, turn 11, when Dan says, “I would... I would also like to – I would say
like...” The languages used in the interview are also informal and colloquial, for example in
section A, turn 7, “coz,” and in section D, turn 69, “gonna.”
Regarding the non-verbal behaviour that I have witnessed during the interview, at times one
of the participants would smile at some of the statements being made by the other participants
and even I would laugh for some things that were said during the interview and the way they
22. said it, for example in section G, turn 121, Interviewer, “= = *laughs*= =” All these factors
thus give a sense of informality and ‘comfortableness’ within the interview. The interview is
also context-embedded because the interview relies on background knowledge or schemata
on apartheid. The fact that the interview is context-embedded infers that everybody including
myself, shares knowledge on apartheid. This is evident because there was no need for an
introductory explanation regarding what apartheid is and what its consequences were because
all the participants had a shared knowledge of South African history. The style of
conversation is also in the form of a dialogue, owing to the fact that there are sequential
conversational turns which are always prevalent in dialogues and thus in an interview as well.
Referring back to the context of culture, Halliday and Hasan (1989: 6) state that context of
culture refers to the whole cultural history reflected in the text and the broader cultural
context which includes norms, ideologies, beliefs, and ways of doing things, social
discourses, and so on. Therefore within the research data the three participants reflect social
discourses and beliefs regarding what apartheid is and how they feel about it and their
positioning of their identity while living in a post-apartheid South Africa. It has been found
that most of the participants view apartheid in a negative light. A number of factors could
contribute to this belief which includes the fact that the three participants come from black
and coloured ethnic backgrounds and these ethnic backgrounds were the same groups of
people that were oppressed during the apartheid era. However, the three participants grew up
in a post-apartheid South Africa and through this factor they are trying to move past the old
notions of apartheid where one race has hatred for another race and also moving past, but not
forgetting what their parents and grandparents told them about apartheid.
The socio-political context is also a very important factor to be taken into consideration.
Regarding the research data, the socio-political context can be seen as the interview being
conducted during a post-apartheid South Africa, whereby apartheid laws have been abolished
and egalitarian rights have been issued for everybody. The interview has also taken place on
the 28 July 2010 at 12:50 pm on the premises of the University of the Western Cape with all
the participants being of a coloured and black ethnicity.
Referring back to the social discourse of apartheid being negative and the participants trying
to ‘break away,’ the participants state that they think apartheid is bad, for example in section
F, turn 92, when Ben says, “Ja... for me apartheid is a bad thing...” Here one can see how the
participant has positioned himself against apartheid through stating their views explicitly on
23. the topic. Another example could be in section J, turn 151-155, when Dan says, “... when you
see on the news these white people standing together and saying they gonna kill these people
= =” and it continues in turn 155, when Dan says, “= = they angry and it makes you angry
too...” Here one can see how the participant experiences dissatisfaction with the fact that even
in a post-apartheid South Africa there is still racial tension between races. Hence, the old
notions of apartheid are still present and he positions himself as against the notion of ‘white
people still holding on to apartheid ideologies’ and therefore they think they are more
superior and should dominate, because he also constructs an identity in this context that
builds on the discourse of fighting for one’s rights that were usually prevalent with oppressed
communities during the apartheid era. For example in section J, turn 155, when Dan says, “...
I’m not gonna stand back if this guy has to do something to me, I’m gonna take him on.”
The two black participants namely Jimmy and Ben create an identity for themselves that
constructs them as being part of a post-apartheid South Africa. Take for example the
participant Jimmy in section C, turn 48-50, when Jimmy says, “... they have their inner
emotions of apartheid...” and it continues in turn 50, when Jimmy says, “...calling people
“Kaffirs” are banned.” Here he states that even though the apartheid laws have been
abolished, white people still have anger towards black people but they may not use terms
such as “Kaffirs” that were frequently used during the apartheid era. Hence, one can see how
he constructs himself as ‘moving away’ from that discourse of being angry towards white
people because they oppressed black and coloured ethnic groups. Thus he breaks away from
that discourse, which can be portrayed as memories and discourses that should be ‘buried.’
Through the fact that he uses the pronoun ‘they,’ he constructs himself as being separate from
the group of people being mentioned. Therefore, the white people, who are constructed as
still having hatred towards ethnic groups other than white, are still seen as holding on to old
apartheid discourses of social oppression even though they find themselves living in a post-
apartheid South Africa.
Another example whereby a participant creates a post-apartheid identity for himself could be
seen in section C, turn 51, when Ben says, “... some people like ah... maybe he wanted to get
a job and then didn’t get a job... They have that tendency to like... “ok because he’s white
that’s why he got the job...” Here one can see that how during the apartheid era skin colour
was always chosen over qualifications when it came to the working world and now the
participant states that even though one is living in a post-apartheid South Africa some black
people still try to incorporate those apartheid discourses of race to substantiate or compensate
24. for a certain circumstance where something went wrong. This can be seen as ‘the race card.’
Thus he detaches himself from these ideologies and discourses which are associated with
certain black people, which can also be seen in the use of the pronoun ‘they’ and the phrase
‘some people.’ Another example whereby the participant states that some black people still
hold on to apartheid discourses can be seen in section C, turn 51, when Ben says, “... like ah
that person he didn’t, he didn’t qualify for the job... he is not competent... when all wrong
things happen to those people ne they always blame it on the... their skin colour...”
The construction of a post-apartheid identity of the participant Ben can easily be seen through
the way in which he views white people and thus his perspective and subjective opinion is
clearly stated. Hence, through doing this the participant Ben attempts to assert his ‘sameness,’
and the discourse of equality of races. He views them in a positive light and considers himself
to be very fond of them. Thus, it can be seen as a construction of an identity that has
progressed form discourses of social oppression into an era of egalitarian relationships. This
can be seen in section C, turn 53, when Ben says, “... I go to school with them they are my
friends [2.0] and I trust them = =”
The construction of post-apartheid identities is very prevalent among the participants, with
each participant rather constructing their post-apartheid identity according to their different
experiences and feelings. In the case of Dan he positions himself as still being stuck between
apartheid and post-apartheid discourses owing to the fact that while he was still at primary
school and high school white children would still have apartheid mentality and grasp or hold
on to the discourses of oppression that was ‘inherited’ from their parents. Like for instance in
section A, turn 11, when Dan says, “... when I was growing up like high school and, and, and
primary school white children tended to have that same mentality that their parents had...”
Hence, the participant Dan views apartheid in a negative light, for example in section A, turn
17, when Dan says “... I didn’t open up to white people because of the apartheid thing...”
Through this one can also depict the participant holding on to old apartheid discourses that
forbid friendships and relationships with other races owing to the fact that he did not make
any friends from other ethnic backgrounds, for example in section A, turn 17, when Dan says,
“I didn’t really open up...” However, as time progressed his post apartheid identity also
became evident during his high school career when he started to build friendships with white
people. For example in section A, turn 19, when Dan says, “... only in high school I started,
when everything started opening up... I could actually build relationships with white people.”
25. Thus, the participant has ‘broken away’ from the ‘chains’ which can be seen as the fear of the
unknown, for example in section A, turn 17, when Dan says, “... I didn’t know what to
expect...” Therefore the fear of not knowing what to expect prevented him from constructing
himself in a light that is more acceptable in a post-apartheid South Africa.
The participant Dan also extends his construction of a post-racial identity which is evident
through the transition from old apartheid discourses inferring the inhibition to build or form
relationships with white people, towards a more post-racial identity in which relationships
with any race is acceptable as seen in section A, turn 17. He thus constructs himself as a
person, who accepts others for who they are regardless of their skin colour, for example in
section F, turn 99, when Dan says, “... I’m finding out that people from, from, from every
culture any race they are just people... you can get along with anyone.” The participant also
builds on the discourse that others are changing their views and are showing a transition from
‘old’ to ‘new’ with regards to relationships with other races and ideologies that they may
have about other races existing during the apartheid era and those which currently exist
during the post-apartheid South Africa. Hence, inferring that other people are also
constructing new identities for themselves in order to incorporate themselves in an
‘apartheid-free’ South Africa. For example in section F, turn 99, when Dan says, “... people
are opening up now people are... are, are engaging...” This can be seen as new identities
being constructed by the participants and other people that can be performed in different
contexts and domains within a post-apartheid South Africa released from apartheid.
A further extension of a post-apartheid identity can be seen within the data of the participant
Jimmy. Reason for this is because he refers to apartheid and social oppression being a thing
of the past and is no longer a relevant factor within the ‘new South Africa’ that we are living
in and apartheid and the notions and ideologies that are associated with it can no longer affect
anyone, for example in section K, turn 168, when Jimmy says, “Ja, apartheid can’t play any
issue any more...” It is therefore evident that the participant Jimmy constructs himself as
being part of a new generation that is not affected by apartheid. Another example in which
the participant moves past the notion of apartheid and its constraints can also be seen in
section K, turn 168, when Jimmy says, “... we can’t say we are focused on apartheid and so
on...” Through this statement one can depict the participant positioning himself in such a way
that he portrays apartheid as being something that is in the past and is no longer an element
which requires attention. Therefore, through the use of inclusive pronouns such as ‘we’
(section K, turn 168), one can see how the participant infers a sense of alignment with the
26. people living in South Africa. Hence, he constructs a post-apartheid identity for the rest of the
individuals living in South Africa as well, positioning them as well as himself as ‘moving on’
and departing from the old notions of apartheid.
During the apartheid era white people were given preference over black and coloured people
with regards to jobs. Hence, since we are living in a post-apartheid South Africa the ruling of
government has changed and new implementations have been developed and introduced into
the working area, namely Black Economic Empowerment or B.E.E. This is a way for the
government to compensate for the lack of black people receiving job preference during the
apartheid era and thus B.E.E ensures that black people are given preference over other races
with regards to job positions in the professional working world. However, the participant
Jimmy positions himself as against Black Economic Empowerment and believes that it
should end, for example in section K, turn 170, when Jimmy says, “... it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s high
time that... B.E.E is going to end up stopping...” This therefore contributes to the post-
apartheid identity that he is creating for himself, because even though he comes from a black
ethnic background and B.E.E benefits individuals from such backgrounds, the participant still
positions himself as against B.E.E and constructs his identity based on discourses that involve
believing in equal rights of people, hence egalitarian rights, and the fact that qualifications
should be chosen over skin colour. Other examples include his statements in section K, turn
170, when Jimmy says, “... everyone is born equal in 1994 everyone has equal rights...” as
well as in section K, turn 172, when Jimmy says, “... is not about... what colour of skin you
have... it’s what qualifications do you have for this specific job...”
It is therefore also evident that within all the instances in which the participants position
themselves as ‘moving away’ form notions and discourses of racial separation. They position
themselves to a more ‘aspirant identity’ whereby they no longer see things in terms of black
and white and whereby they position their personal identity or selves within a egalitarian
paradigm free of racial discourses.
Throughout the research data the participants base their knowledge of apartheid on the stories
that were told to them by their relatives. This allows one to see the knowledge of apartheid
being learnt and not experienced. The fact that the knowledge of apartheid was learnt, the
participants get a subjective experience from the people who have experienced apartheid,
namely their relatives and this in turn causes the participants to have a pre-constructed image
of white people while living in a post-apartheid South Africa. Hence, this pre-conception of
27. white people influences the judgement of the participants and therefore while taking into
consideration the stories that were told to them about apartheid by their relatives, they try to
move past these notions and prejudices. This therefore contributes to the work of Pavlenko
and Blackledge (2004) regarding the negotiation of identity in multilingual contexts, but
more specifically on assumed or imposed identities. Imposed identities are seen as those
identities which are not negotiable in a particular place or time (Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004: 21). Therefore, an imposed identity of white people being ‘bad’ is pre-constructed by
relatives through the stories that are told to the children regarding white people and apartheid.
For example the participant Jimmy became aware of apartheid during his adolescent years
which is evident in section A, turn 2, when Jimmy says, “... I first heard about apartheid with
regards to South Africa... when I was a teenager growing up then we use to heard these
stories from our parents...” All of the participants gained knowledge about apartheid through
parents, but not all the participants experienced actual apartheid, except for the participant
Jimmy and Ben. An example of when the participant Jimmy experienced apartheid could be
in section A, turn 2 as well, when Jimmy says, “... when I was in high school I think because
you had some schools you couldn’t go to, it says white schools only.”
However, there is also a contradiction with regards to the participant Jimmy when he states
that he did experience apartheid for the first time during high school (section A, turn 2), but
then he states in the same conversational turn (section A, turn 2) that he has not experienced
it emotionally or physically, for example in section A, turn 2, when Jimmy says, “... I didn’t...
specialize it or see it by... by, by physical or emotional...” The participant Dan also states that
he only heard about apartheid from his parents as well, for example in section A, turn 4, when
Dan says, “... I also just heard stories from my parents...” This therefore also builds on the
discourse that it is knowledge regarding what his relatives experienced regarding apartheid
and is a subjective experience, for example in section A, turn 4, when Dan says, “... my
parents telling us about we couldn’t go to white places there was whites only allowed...” and
in the case of Jimmy in section A, turn 2, when Jimmy says, “... heard these stories from our
parents... they were beaten by whites...”
The same accounts for the participant Ben who hasn’t experienced apartheid directly but
gained knowledge through stories that he heard from his parents, for example in section A,
turn 5, when Ben says “... I never experienced apartheid I just heard stories about my
parents...” However, Ben has been part of an anti-apartheid protest march that is known as a
28. “toyi-toyi” but at that time he was unaware that it was part of a cause to fight apartheid.
Hence, indirectly he has experienced apartheid even if it was not suffering any consequence,
through being part of an anti-apartheid protest movement with his parents. This is evident in
section A, turn 5, when Ben says, “... I use to go with the ah... ah toyi-toyi people and go and
follow them but I didn’t know why...” and in section A, turn 7, when Ben says, “... I only
hear it now that it was apartheid... in the struggle to... fight apartheid...” He also constructs a
post-apartheid identity for himself in which he positions himself as moving past old apartheid
notions and constructs some white people as still holding on to prejudicial discourses
associated with apartheid. From a linguistic perspective, this can be seen through the use of
the pronoun ‘they’ (section A, turn 7) which serves as a sense of detachment and isolation
from the white people he is referring to and thus deeming him separate. Therefore, he is
distancing himself from those specific white people who still exhibit old apartheid discourses
and ideologies. For example in section A, turn 7, when Ben says, “... there are people... who
have a tendency to, to, to undermine other people...” as well as in section A, turn 7, when Ben
says, “... like as if like they are, they are, they are still holding back to the apartheid times...”
The participants construct a post-apartheid identity for themselves throughout the interview,
but are still influenced by the stories of apartheid told to them by their parents. Thus
influencing their positioning regarding white people and the identity they construct for white
people. For example in section B, turn 27, when Jimmy says, “... we were influenced by our
parents that we mustn’t play with whites...” and in section C, turn 53, when Ben says, “...
when we grow up ne, ah... our parents tell us that no... ah... don’t ever trust a white man...”
The participant Dan also exhibits discourse of old apartheid notions that he gained from the
stories his parents told him. This can therefore be seen as a factor influencing his perception
and judgement regarding white people. For example in section D, turn 64-67, when Dan says,
“The same thing you wouldn’t trust [2.0] a white person in the way that you would trust
someone = =” and it continues in turn 67, when Dan says, “= = from your own ethnicity = =”
The influence of the stories regarding apartheid were evident throughout the research data,
for example in section E, turn 86, when Jimmy says, “.... my mom says white are racism so
you have the tendency to think white people are racism...” Regarding this, I have previously
mentioned that the stories regarding apartheid that are told by the parents construct a rather
imposed identity of white people and thus a pre-constructed image is already ‘painted’ of
white people, an example could also be in section E, turn 86, when Jimmy says, “... EVEN IF
that person didn’t do anything to you, didn’t harm you, just greeted you nicely, you just keep
29. quiet because you heard that white people are racist...” as well as in section B, turn 27, when
Jimmy says, “... even in growing up you still have that thing that... whites are not friendly...”
Hence, it is evident how white people are constructed in a rather negative light.
The participant Dan draws on the discourse that apartheid’s ideologies and notions still linger
within the post-apartheid South Africa, owing to the fact that the knowledge of apartheid was
learnt through parents and so on, and the subjective experiences and stories are internalized
and are still stuck in all of the minds of the participants. For example in section F, turn 93,
when Dan says, “... even though apartheid is finished now I think we are still affected by it...
‘coz of our parents = =” and it continues in turn 95, when Dan says, “= = it’s in your head it’s
always gonna be there...” However, he positions himself as moving past these old notions and
assumptions of white people and rather perceives everyone as equal regardless of the race.
For example in section F, turn 99, Dan: “... my parents or my forefathers words... I take it into
consideration but I don’t judge [2.0] from what they have experienced.” Hence, this
contributes to his post-apartheid identity construction.
The participant Jimmy also contrasts the nature of ‘old’ and ‘new’ discourse of culture and
youth during the apartheid era and the youth during the post-apartheid era. The participant
builds on the discourse that the youth of today are integrating with other cultures and
individuals from different ethnic backgrounds. This contrasts with the older generation who
grew up during the apartheid era with social oppression being rife and integration with other
races and cultures were impossible and socially unacceptable. For example in section G, turn
118, when Jimmy says, “... apartheid is not basically ah [2.0] there within the youth of South
Africa... the youth of South Africa, they are mingling, they are mingling together...” This
example can be seen as the ‘new youth’ which contrasts with the older generation, for
example in section G, turn 120, when Jimmy says, “... you didn’t see the, the, the, the
forefathers or the grandparents going to the matches = =” which further continues in turn 122,
when Jimmy says, “= = because they knew that they were gonna be involved with blacks,
involved with certain races so they wouldn’t like that atmosphere...”
Hence, the participant creates a post-apartheid identity, not only for himself but he also
creates a post-apartheid group identity for the youth of today which can be based on the
discourse of ‘integration.’ Through this discourse of being ‘united’ and ‘integrated,’ the
participant Jimmy also draws on the World Cup as being a catalyst for the different cultures
and races uniting in South Africa and can thus also be seen as a method of bringing everyone
30. together since we are living in a South Africa that is no longer divided. For example in
section G, turn 118-120, when Jimmy says, “... like for example this World Cup everyone
was = =” and it continues in turn 120, when Jimmy says, “= = united the spirit of Ubunye and
all of it...”
Discourses of the nation being ‘united’ and the individuals living in South Africa
representing a post-apartheid identity which revolves around ‘racial integration’ is further
extended in section H, turn 134, when Jimmy says, “... people are trying to get mingling
together because you see now there’s whites in the PSL, there’s blacks in the rugby... this
sport is bringing the nation united...” It is therefore evident regarding the way in which the
participant draws on the theme of sport and sporting events having a major impact on uniting
the nation and restoring equality among individuals from all different cultures and ethnic
backgrounds living in South Africa.
The way in which the participant Ben positions himself with regards to the government also
reflects a post-apartheid identity for himself which also builds on the discourse of ‘unity’ and
‘being one’ which is taken out of the context of sport and is further extended to politics, or
rather ‘political morality.’ This is evident through the fact that he doesn’t believe in defining
one’s race which in turn allows one to see the differences among one another, when in actual
fact everyone are just people. For example in section I, turn 144, when Ben says, “= = you
see, I don’t believe in race sometimes I wonder why the government ah... ah... forms... us to,
to, to write your race there.” Another example substantiating this argument is also evident in
section I, turn 144, when Ben says, “I don’t believe in race I believe that we all one...”
I have mentioned before that through the subjective stories told by the participant’s relatives,
a pre-constructed image or imposed identity consisting of negative connotations is created for
the participants and thus influencing their perception of white people while living in a post-
apartheid South Africa. However, coming from the perspective of the white youth in South
Africa, their knowledge of apartheid was not either really experienced owing to their age but
their knowledge of apartheid was also gained from their relatives who in-turn also tell them
stories about their subjective experiences regarding apartheid. Hence, an imposed identity is
also created for black people and is also constructed from negative connotations. Therefore
one can see that the construction of identities from either ethnic background is constructed
out of negative connotations through the relatives of white and black people. Thus, in a sense
it can be seen as a sort of egalitarian imposed identity construction of white and black people,
31. which means that both black and white individuals are subjected to the same racial
stereotyping.
An example whereby the subjective stories told by the parents influenced the individuals can
be seen in section B, turn 27, whereby the participant Jimmy states that the positioning of the
self with regards to white people is in actual fact directional from both sides. For example
when Jimmy says, “... the whites were influenced by their parents that they mustn’t play with
blacks...” Hence, one can see that imposed identities of black people were also constructed
for white youth living in a post-apartheid South Africa through the knowledge gained by
relatives. Another example whereby the participant positions white people as having the same
prejudice and oppressive ideologies as their parents, can be seen within the ‘Ventersdorp
context’ where racial tension took place between white and black communities. For example
in section B, turn 27, when Jimmy says, “- the farmers are treating the workers with the...
with the mind of their parents...” Another example regarding imposed identity construction
from the perspective of white people can be seen in section B, turn 29, when Jimmy says, “...
they have the mentality that, “my father didn’t like the workers he treated the workers badly,”
so now he has to do what his father or his grandfather did...” However, this can be seen as a
shift from the social discourse of ‘racial separation’ whereby the participant Jimmy states that
black and whites should not integrate with each other (section B, turn 27), to a more
aggressive and active social discourse of ‘physical oppression’ whereby the participant
Jimmy talks about the treatment of black and coloured people by white people, as mentioned
before (section B, turn 29).
In my research data the participant Jimmy positions certain white people living in a post-
apartheid South Africa as exhibiting a history of racial prejudice and violence, with reasons
tracing back to the stories and knowledge gained from their relatives who constructed
imposed identities for black people. Therefore, the participant Jimmy states that the white
people internalize the stories regarding black people and apartheid that are told to them by
their relatives and in some instances witness the treatment of black and coloured people by
their parents. For example in section G, turn 111, when Jimmy says, “... they saw what their
grandfathers and fathers did so they thought that, that was correct...” as well as in turn 111,
when Jimmy says, “... their fathers didn’t... didn’t, didn’t say this was incorrect or this was
correct...” Thus, some white individuals assumed this sort of treatment with black and
coloured people was deemed socially appropriate and correct. Therefore, they ‘appropriate’
32. the use of violence and social oppressive discourses as a normal way to treat black and
coloured people or people from different ethnic backgrounds.
Throughout the research data the participants often position themselves as being separate or
‘detached’ either from white or black individuals exhibiting old apartheid discourses, or both
black and white individuals. Hence, I will be using the framework of reflective and
interactive positioning provided by Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) to look at the way in
which the participants position themselves and others. According to Pavlenko and Blackledge
(2004: 20) interactive positioning involves people attempting to position or reposition
individuals or groups, as mentioned before. Therefore, analysing the data and looking at it
from a linguistic point of view, the participants often use the pronoun ‘they” to separate
themselves from white and black people who exhibit racial discourses and to indicate that
they themselves are different from these people. Thus, they position white and black people
in a certain light which can be seen as interactive positioning. In this example, the participant
Jimmy positions white people exhibiting old apartheid discourses in a certain light by means
of interactive positioning. For example in section B, turn 29, when Jimmy says, “... they have
the mentality that “my father didn’t like the workers...” In this example the participant Jimmy
explains how there is a hereditary apartheid influence with regards to white people and by
using the pronoun ‘they,’ he positions them as being separate from him. In a sense this can
also be seen as reflective positioning because he is positioning himself as being separate from
these white people as well. Hence, through detaching himself from the old apartheid
discourses and ideologies he is also in turn constructing and contributing to his post-apartheid
identity that negates all racial prejudices.
Another example whereby the participant Jimmy detaches himself from white people and
their apartheid discourses can be seen in section C, turn 48, when Jimmy says, “... they have
their inner emotions of apartheid...” Here it is evident in this example how the participant
Jimmy positions certain white people as still exhibiting apartheid discourses which may no
longer be openly expressed owing to the fact that the apartheid laws have been abolished.
Another example of detachment through the use of pronouns, which includes the possessive
pronoun ‘their’ and ‘they’ can also be seen in section C, turn 50, when Jimmy says, “... they
can’t express their inner anger towards the people that they hate...” However, Jimmy also
distances himself from discourses whereby one race is given preference over the other, as in
the case of B.E.E. Jimmy also distances himself from his parent’s prejudices regarding white
people and therefore views everyone as being equal, regardless of the skin colour.
33. The participant Dan also shows detachment from white people through the use of pronouns
which are evident in section D, turn 71, when Dan says, “... I mean you do feel anger towards
them...” Here the participant Dan states that he does feel a sense of anger towards white
people owing to the stories that he heard from his relatives regarding apartheid. Since this is
knowledge gained and not experienced, the participant Dan contradicts himself due to the fact
that he states that one shouldn’t feel angry towards white people who haven’t experienced
apartheid inferring the youth of today. However, the participant Dan states that he does feel
anger towards white people even though he didn’t either experience apartheid. For example
in section D, turn 71, when Dan states, “... I mean you do feel anger towards them but I mean
you can’t feel anger towards the ones that are maybe your age...” and in section D, turn 73,
when Dan states, “= = I mean they didn’t experience it you didn’t experience it...”
I have previously mentioned that the participants use certain linguistic resources which are
available to them like pronouns to position white people as being separate and hence they
detach themselves from people with white ethnic backgrounds. Hence, in the same light the
participants also make use of pronouns to construct an integrated identity among one another
which includes groups of people. Therefore I will be using reflective positioning to look at
how the participants position themselves. According to Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 20)
reflective positioning is concerned with the self-representation of identities within texts, as
mentioned before. Examples whereby an inclusive pronoun is used to indicate integration and
unity can be seen in section F, turn 92, when Ben says, “... if this apartheid stories cannot be
told maybe... our people will be together...” In this example the participant constructs
himself as being together and shows a sense of alignment with all black people, thus inferring
the people who were socially oppressed during apartheid. Hence, the possessive pronoun
‘our’ which is used indicates detachment from white people but also unification and
togetherness among black people. It is therefore evident how the discourse of unity emerges
once again.
The participant Jimmy also makes use of inclusive pronouns which in turn emphasizes unity,
as well as involvement. For example in section K, turn 168, when Jimmy says, “... we can’t
say we are focused on apartheid...” In this example the participant Jimmy positions himself as
being aligned with the all the people living in South Africa and states that apartheid is no
longer an issue and that the focus should be diverted away from apartheid since it has been
abolished. The fact that the participant Jimmy uses the pronoun ‘we’ constructs him as
showing a sense of alignment with all the people living in South Africa. The use of inclusive
34. pronouns is also further extended to section H, turn 130, when Jimmy says, “... we people, we
most specifically the blacks...” In this example the participant Jimmy is more specific and
exhibits a sense of alignment with black individuals in South Africa.
Therefore, through analysing the linguistic resources used by the participants, it is evident
how the participants use pronouns to detach themselves from white and black people
exhibiting apartheid discourses and thus deeming them separate. They also use inclusive
pronouns to indicate unity and alignment among themselves and people living in South
Africa, as well as their specific ethnic backgrounds which are black, as in the case of Jimmy
and Ben.
Throughout the research data it was evident how the participants or the UWC students
negotiate post-apartheid identities for themselves by drawing on linguistic and discursive
resources. More specifically, it is evident how the participant Jimmy positions himself as
being separate form white individuals who exhibit old apartheid discourses, but also
constructs his post-apartheid identity around the discourse that everyone should be equal and
unified. Jimmy also detaches himself from the notion of one race having preference over the
other, as in the case of the B.E.E example. Ben also detaches himself from white people who
exhibit old apartheid discourses, as well as black individuals who continually play the ‘race
card.’ Regarding the participant Dan, he also detaches himself from white people that still
hold on to old apartheid discourses. This can also be seen as a recurring theme which is
similar among all of the participants. Another similarity regarding the construction of the
participant’s identities is that all of them believe that everyone should be seen as equal and
that skin colour should not be a factor, as well as their knowledge of apartheid being
subjective and gained from stories told by their parents or relatives. This can also be seen as
the main factor in the construction of each of the participant’s identity.
Opposing discourses include black and white individuals exhibiting old apartheid discourses
and the fact that all of the participants want to ‘break away’ and move past their parent’s
prejudicial discourses regarding white people. However, what is different regarding the three
participants is that Dan only shows detachment towards white people exhibiting old apartheid
discourses and excludes other races. Therefore he is rather race specific. The fact that the
participants use pronouns such as ‘our,’ ‘we’ and ‘them’ is to indicate a sense of alignment or
detachment which metaphorically creates a ‘barrier’ in order to include or exclude
individuals, such as certain black or white people.
35. In my conclusion of my research essay, I would like to say that it was also evident how the
participants performed identity rituals through explaining and positioning themselves with
regards to the notion of apartheid in the form of narratives about themselves. This therefore
also contributes to the work by Blommaert (2005) regarding identity. In the analysis of my
data I have also found that regarding the main factors of my research topic which is apartheid
and post-apartheid identity construction, culture and ethnicity were very influential and
beneficial regarding the way in which the participants constructed their identity. This is
owing to the fact that all three of the participants come from non-white ethnic backgrounds or
more specifically black and coloured ethnic backgrounds. Therefore their interpretation and
perspective regarding apartheid is rather similar and thus recurring patterns and themes
regarding apartheid emerged from the data. The work of Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004)
regarding positioning theory also proved to be very substantial in the analysis of my research
data with regards to interactive positioning, whereby the participants position white and
people who exhibit apartheid discourses in a certain light, as well as reflective positioning
whereby the participants position themselves as separate from prejudice white people and
acknowledging apartheid and having a sense of awareness, but also constructing a post-
apartheid identity which allows them to look forward and negate all racial prejudices.
36. 9. Bibliography:
Blommaert, J. (2005). Identity. In Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Pages 203-232.
Cameron, D. (2001). What is discourse and why analyse it? In Working with Spoken
Discourse. London: Sage. Pages 7-17.
Cameron, D. (2001). Transcribing spoken discourse. In Working with Spoken Discourse.
London: Sage. Pages 31-44.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989). Context of situation. In Language, context and text:
Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pages
3-14.
Johnstone, B. (2008). Introduction. In Discourse Analysis (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pages 1-30.
Johnstone, B. (2008). Participants in Discourse: Relationships, Roles, Identities. In Discourse
Analysis (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell. Pages 128-161.
Ochs, E. (1999). Transcription as theory. In Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (eds.), The
Discourse Reader. London: Routledge. Pages 167-182.
Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (2004). New theoretical approaches to the study of the
negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (eds.),
Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pages 1-
33.
37. 10. Appendix:
Transcribing conventions:
Short pauses: indicated by three dots (...)
Longer pauses: indicated in brackets [3.0]
Overlapping speech: indicated by = =
Loudness of tone: indicated by capital letters
False Starts: indicated by -
The conversational turns have been numbered for ease of reference.
Section A
1. Interviewer: So basically umm... this the first interview regarding the notion – how,
how students construct their identity regarding the... notion of apartheid ah... date is
28 July ah... 2010 ah... 12:50. So basically people like what I wanted to ask you is...
like from your point of view right, where did you first hear about apartheid with
regards to South Africa?
2. Jimmy: Ah... I first heard about apartheid ah... with regards to South Africa
when [3.0] especially when I was a teenager growing up then we use to heard these
stories from our parents that they were... they were beaten by whites etcetera, etcetera
because they had to carry dompasses and – but... to me apartheid only came... when I
was in high school I think because you had some schools you couldn’t go to, it says
white schools only. Then you had schools you couldn’t go to, you had beaches you
can’t go swim at etcetera, etcetera, and yeah you couldn’t play with white children
but... it all came up to... consciousness and thinking of black people it couldn’t be just
an a... ah... what do you say ah... a going through a phase, it’s just like a phase
because ah... we as teenagers or youth in South Africa some of us didn’t experience
that much of apartheid we didn’t have to carry dompasses or anything. We only –
when we realized everything and could see everything or could do everything for
ourselves it was then time that apartheid was gone it was past 1994. So apartheid I
only realized it, there was apartheid by my parents by the stories I heard, by the... by
the post I heard, by the T.V’s, by the movies I watched, that there was apartheid but,
38. to me basically apartheid I didn’t... specialize it or see it by... by, by physical or
emotional but it happened to me that I see that there was apartheid.
3. Interviewer: I know what you mean ja.
4. Dan: The same with me I would also say that... growing up – I was born in 1988... I
didn’t really – I also just heard stories from my parents telling us about we couldn’t
go to white places there was whites only allowed in certain places in certain areas,
but... I didn’t experience apartheid myself... the whole apartheid laws and all that, I
wasn’t – it was abolished by the time before I went to school even and I was too
young to remember... the whole “all the laws and stuff” like, about apartheid.
AFTERWARDS – after... really... going to school really finding out this then my
parents started talking to me about apartheid, telling me how hard it was and all of
these things but I’ve... I haven’t experienced – I think because of my age I haven’t
experienced apartheid first hand.
5. Ben: Ja, I guess it’s all... ja... and to me it’s like that ‘coz I never experienced
apartheid I just heard stories about my parents and see on T.V’s and filims, but when,
when, I was young... ah... I use to go with the ah... ah toyi-toyi people and go and
follow them but I didn’t know why then = =
6. Interviewer: = = mmm = =
7. Ben: = = then I, I only hear it now that it was apartheid and then there were umm...
in the struggle to... to fight apartheid ‘coz they anti-apartheid people, but sometimes
nowadays ne there are people... ah... who have a tendency to, to, to undermine other
people and then – like as if like they are, they are, they are still holding back to the
apartheid times.. ja... ah... now it’s over.
8. Interviewer: Like... I can like relate to like all three of you ‘coz I mean like it’s
basically like passive aggressiveness that, that you have I know you mean like... like
you didn’t experience it like physically = =
9. Ben: = = ja = =
10. Interviewer: = = but through the stories that you like heard from your parents and
stuff, like that you like experienced it like from their point of view, you know what I
mean? So...
11. Dan: I would... I would also like to – I would say like even... when I was growing
up like high school and, and even primary school white children tended to have that
same mentality that their parents had... with regard – but like they would be your
friend but they would still NOT BE YOUR FRIEND in, in, in, in terms of like = =
39. 12. Jimmy: = = ja, ja = =
13. Dan: = = really like, the way they would be with their other white friends = =
14. Ben: = = ah ha = =
15. Dan: = = it wasn’t really that you could see that, = =
16. Jimmy: = = mmm = =
17. Dan: = = you could tell it and then myself also I didn’t really open up, I didn’t open
up to white people because of the apartheid thing because I didn’t know what to
expect because of also these laws that was abolished = =
18. Jimmy: = = mmm = =
19. Dan: = = and this whole system I didn’t really know what to expect so I really
didn’t engage in any – only in high school I started, when everything started opening
up I could actually talk more, people started talking about stuff and, and, and, and I
could actually build relationships with white people.
Section B
20. Interviewer: So like basically like with regards to that as well like, from your, your
perspective right, you know that we living in a new South Africa like everybody
states like you know like on television = =
21. Jimmy: = = ja = =
22. Interviewer: = = they try to promote this new South Africa the whole “cultural
togetherness” = =
23. Jimmy: = = united = =
24. Interviewer: = = ah... do you think apartheid and racism... ok, ok basically like ja
those, those specific factors are still prevalent in South Africa?
25. Jimmy: In South Africa ah... you might say there is possibility that... apartheid
and racism is still there... ah... to regards to the, to the, to the recent event the, the
Ventersdorp = =
26. Interviewer: = = mmm, mmm = =
27. Jimmy: = = ja, you can see people are being – the farmers are treating the
workers with the... with the mind of their parents because it only comes to the mind
these things ah... we were influenced by our parents that we mustn’t play with whites,
the whites were influenced by their parents that they mustn’t play with blacks, that
sticks to the mentality of the children even in growing up you still have that thing
that... whites are... non-friendly to me because you are not friends with whites. So
40. today we are bringing those thoughts back to us like the Ventersdorp ah... people out
there still... they young – probably the farms now are being owned by the children of
the farmers = =
28. Interviewer: = = mmm = =
29. Jimmy: = = but they, they have the mentality that; “my father didn’t like the
workers he treated the workers badly,” so now he has to do what his father or his
grandfather did... but apartheid is still there in certain places ah... I could say ah...
semi-rural places, the places that are not well developed yet but in cities it’s not likely
there is apartheid.
30. Interviewer: Like also like with regards to... umm... what’s that, what’s that AWB
leader that died?
31. Jimmy: Ah...
32. Interviewer: That they murdered... umm...
33. Dan: What’s that guy’s name man?
34. Jimmy: Terre Blanche!
35. Interviewer: Terre Blanche like... did you see like in the... in the – on the news
right, like you could like see like all... like the whites they were all like segregated = =
36. Ben: = = ah ha = =
37. Interviewer: = = like ja, nobody must comment on them = =
38. Jimmy: = = ja = =
39. Interviewer: = = because this is gonna cause a war so like through that you can also
like see that even though like in a indirect manner they don’t like use like the
oppressive words = =
40. Jimmy: = = ja = =
41. Interviewer: = = with regards to like to refer to people during the apartheid era = =
42. Jimmy: = = ja = =
43. Interviewer: = = you can still see like the feelings that they have towards the people
is like still... like, = =
44. Ben: = = ja = =
45. Interviewer: = = like in the apartheid regime as well.
46. Ben: Mhm.
47. Jimmy: Mhm.
Section C
41. 48. Jimmy: Ja... that, that’s what I’m trying to say basically is that they, they have
their inner emotions of apartheid but since now they are binded by law = =
49. Interviewer: = = mmm = =
50. Jimmy: = = because that some certain names as in example “Kaffirs,” calling
people “Kaffirs” are banned. If you call a people “Kaffirs” then you would go behind
jails they, they can’t express their inner anger towards the people that they hate but...
within themselves they still have the, the inner emotions that they, they don’t like
blacks they don’t like certain people they don’t – they still have the apartheid within
them.
51. Ben: Ja... and some people like ah... maybe... non-white people have the tendency
to when, when they ah... not umm... like achieving something or maybe he wanted to
get a job and then didn’t get a job maybe a white, a white person get it ne... they have
that tendency to like... “ok because he’s white that’s why he got the job” but ah [2.0]
when you see him... like ah that person he didn’t, he didn’t qualify for the job he
doesn’t ah... he is not competent with that job ne ja... but then when... when all wrong
things happen to those people ne they always blame it on the... their skin colour and
something like that = =
52. Interviewer: = = mmm, mmm.
53. Ben: I think they, they still feeling inferior to white people. You see when we grow
up ne, ah... our parents tell us that “no”... ah... “don’t ever trust a white man... don’t
ever...” you see that’s always stuck on my mind but... I go to school with them they
are my friends [2.0] and I trust them = =
54. Interviewer: = = mmm = =
55. Ben: = = but that voice... sticks in my mind “you never trust a white man.” I don’t
know why.
Section D
56. Interviewer: It’s probably due to the fact that you know it’s your parents = =
57. Ben: = = mmm = =
58. Interviewer: = = you like from, from ,from like childhood stages = =
59. Jimmy: = = ja = =
60. Interviewer: = = everything that your parents tells you is correct so obviously even
though you like go through life you, you like learn to make friends with like people of
different races = =
42. 61. Jimmy: = = it is ja = =
62. Ben: = = mmm = =
63. Interviewer: = = that voice is still in the back of your mind if you know what I
mean.
64. Dan: The same thing you wouldn’t trust [2.0] a white person in the way that you
would trust someone = =
65. Jimmy: = = ja = =
66. Ben: = = mmm = =
67. Dan: = = from your own ethnicity = =
68. Jimmy: = = race = =
69. Dan: = = and I still think that the, the racial tension like in certain – of
people will ALWAYS be there because it’s gonna be past on from generation to
generation it’s always gonna be stories = =
70. Ben: = = mhm = =
71. Dan: = = being told and you, people do – I mean you do feel anger towards
them but I mean you can’t feel anger towards the ones that are maybe your age
because = =
72. Interviewer: = = mmm = =
73. Dan: = = I mean they didn’t experience it, you didn’t experience it... but... I
don’t know maybe in a couple of years I don’t know maybe something I = =
74. Interviewer: = = like = =
75. Dan: = = I hope it changes = =
76. Interviewer: = = Like ‘coz I mean like on a, on a, on a personal basis right... umm...
I was also like basically like in a co-ed school right, NOT a co-ed school but like a
inter-racial school like but it’s basically... dominated by whites but it’s not like = =
77. Jimmy: = = ja = =
78. Interviewer: = = it’s a old school like with lots of tradition and so, but it’s like...
white dominance you know what I mean like = =
79. Jimmy: = = yeah = =
80. Ben: = = mmm = =
81. Interviewer: = = and... like you can like see as well like the separation between the
coloureds = =
82. Jimmy: = = the whites = =
