African Perspectives on Decolonising Linguistics

Key findings from this study

• The authors propose that African multilingual communities employ fluid language practices contradicting imposed singular-mother-tongue ideologies, instead positioning multiple languages as simultaneous functional repertoires without hierarchical distinction.
• The study identifies that written forms of African languages, inherited from colonial and missionary standardization, introduce grammatical rules absent from spoken usage, creating pedagogical obstacles for learners whose everyday practices differ substantially from prescribed norms.
• The authors demonstrate that African linguistic data undergoes asymmetrical extraction to Global North institutions for theoretical processing, while indigenous researchers remain excluded from authorship and intellectual leadership despite providing access to primary data and cultural expertise.
• The framework establishes that translanguaging functions as documented resistance strategy through which African learners defy monolingual classroom prescriptions by strategically deploying multiple languages for complex meaning-making and knowledge construction.

Overview

This work examines linguistic decolonisation in Africa through critical analysis of how Global North frameworks have distorted African multilingual realities and perpetuated colonial hierarchies in language scholarship. The author argues that imposed language policies, particularly English-medium instruction, contradict actual African sociolinguistic practices where multilingualism is the norm and languages coexist without hierarchical distinction. The text traces how missionary and colonial legacies shaped African language grammars, writing systems, and phonological descriptions in ways disconnected from speakers' everyday practices. It identifies structural inequities in linguistic knowledge production, where African data extraction enriches Global North institutions while indigenous researchers remain excluded from theoretical leadership and authorship.

Methods and approach

The author employs reflexive autoethnographic narrative grounded in personal experience growing up multilingual in Eastern Zambia, supplemented by synthesis of scholarship on African sociolinguistics, language policy, and postcolonial theory. Analysis examines historical trajectories of language education policy in Zambia following independence, documenting the shift from African-medium to English-medium instruction. The work critiques linguistic theories derived from Global North contexts—particularly additive bilingualism models and mother-tongue ideology—by comparing their prescriptions against documented language practices in African informal and formal settings. Case studies of written systems in Chewa/Nyanja and Khoisan languages demonstrate gaps between prescribed grammatical rules and speaker behaviour. The framework also analyzes asymmetries in research methodologies, publishing venues, and authorship patterns in global linguistics scholarship.

Results

The study found that African multilingual communities maintain fluid communicative repertoires where multiple languages function simultaneously as mother tongue without fixed hierarchical boundaries, yet educational policies impose singular-language-per-speaker models derived from monolingual Global North contexts. Translanguaging emerges as documented counter-hegemonic practice through which African learners resist monolingual classroom restrictions by strategically deploying multiple languages for meaning-making and knowledge construction, demonstrating learning occurs when complex arguments translate across languages. Analysis reveals standardized written forms of African languages, particularly Chewa/Nyanja and Sepedi, diverge significantly from spoken usage through inherited colonial and missionary grammatical rules that obscure rather than clarify linguistic structure, with speakers requiring mastery of eight or more grammatical distinctions absent in everyday languaging. Documentation shows that in Khoisan language scholarship, only one mother-tongue speaker has completed doctoral study in formal properties despite sustained data collection by non-native researchers since colonial times, while few instances exist of indigenous speakers receiving co-authorship credit. The authors demonstrate that research asymmetries flow directionally from Global South to Global North, where African linguistic data undergoes processing into theories subsequently reintroduced to African contexts, contrasting with absence of ethnographic research by Global South academics studying Global North speech patterns.

Implications

These findings indicate that decolonising African linguistics requires developing theories grounded in African sociolinguistic realities rather than imposing Global North frameworks that misrepresent language communities as isolated monolingual enclaves competing for resources. Language development strategies must acknowledge that additive bilingualism theory proves inadequate for populations already multilingual, necessitating frameworks recognizing fluid multilingualism as the baseline condition. Educational policies should align medium-of-instruction choices with documented community multilingual practices rather than pursuing English monolingualism, while standardised written forms of African languages require reconstruction to reflect actual speaker conventions rather than inherited colonial prescriptions. Rebalancing knowledge production demands structural intervention in research funding, methodology design, and authorship practices to enable African scholars intellectual leadership over African language research. Publishing opportunities must expand beyond Global North-affiliated venues to legitimize scholarship in African languages and by African institutions, while collaborative research protocols should eliminate requirements for Global North gatekeeping partners that reproduce asymmetrical power relations.

Scope and limitations

This summary is based on the study abstract and available metadata. It does not include a full analysis of the complete paper, supplementary materials, or underlying datasets unless explicitly stated. Findings should be interpreted in the context of the original publication.