Language Matters 2011

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254327799
The politics of the English language in

Zimbabwe
Article in Language Matters · November 2011

DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2011.581679
CITATIONS READS
2 3,557
2 authors, including:
Dion Nkomo
Rhodes University
34 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Dion Nkomo on 10 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Rhodes], [Dion Nkomo]
On: 04 January 2012, At: 03:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Language Matters
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlms20
The politics of the English language in

Zimbabwe
a b c
Maxwell Kadenge & Dion Nkomo
a
Department of Linguistics, University of the Witwatersrand
b
School of Languages – African Languages Studies, Rhodes University
c
Department of Afrikaans and Dutch, Stellenbosch University
Available online: 20 Dec 2011
To cite this article: Maxwell Kadenge & Dion Nkomo (2011): The politics of the English language in Zimbabwe,
Language Matters, 42:2, 248-263
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2011.581679
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and
drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The politics of the English language in Zimbabwe
Maxwell Kadenge
Department of Linguistics
University of the Witwatersrand
maxwell.kadenge@wits.ac.za
Dion Nkomo
School of Languages – African Languages Studies
Downloaded by [University of Rhodes], [Dion Nkomo] at 03:34 04 January 2012
Rhodes University
Department of Afrikaans and Dutch
Stellenbosch University
d.nkomo@ru.ac.za
Abstract
This article explores the politics of the English language in Zimbabwe, as reflected in
the country’s language policy, language practices and language scholarship. English is
the country’s sole official language. The majority of Zimbabweans who speak it learn it
as an additional language. Those who are incompetent in it are disadvantaged because
the language is the main medium of instruction throughout the education system, a
measure of educational achievement and an important qualification for higher education
and employment. With notable exceptions, mainstream language planning scholarship
regards English as the medium of oppression and a killer language as far as indigenous
languages are concerned, subsequently pushing for the status elevation and develop-
ment of the latter as the only possible solution to the country’s language problems. The
authors suggest that a multilingual language policy will also need to devise strategies
of directly addressing problems associated with English, in addition to promoting indig-
enous languages as alternatives.
Key words: community languages, English language, language planning, language

policy, official language, Zimbabwean English
Introduction
English is Zimbabwe’s sole national official language (Thondhlana 2000, 1). It is spoken
mainly as a second language or even third language by the majority of Zimbabweans.
Just like French in African countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
the Ivory Coast, or Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique, English was brought to
Anglophone African countries, including Zimbabwe, as an ‘accompanist’ to colonialism
(Pennycook 2006, 101). As explained by Ndhlovu (2009, 137), given that Zimbabwe
was a British colony for over a century, colonial policies ensured the entrenchment
ISSN Print: 1022-8195 Language Matters

ISSN Online: 1753-5395 42 (2) 2011
© University of South Africa Press pp.248–263
DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2011.581679
Language matters process.indd 248 12/9/11 12:10 PM

The politics of the English language in Zimbabwe 249
of English as the language of records and documentation. At the attainment of

independence, the position of English remained unchanged. This was a general trend
in Africa, as Bamgbose (2003) illustrates that former colonial languages remained the
sole official or co-official languages, together with selected African languages. While
he provides a balanced analysis of the reasons why African states took such a language
planning course, Bamgbose (2003), like many other African scholars (see, for example,
Alexander 2000; Chimhundu 1993; Hadebe 1998; Magwa 2006; Mkanganwi 1980 and
1992; Mutasa 2006; Mutasa & Ogutu 2008; Ndhlovu 2008, among others), remains
critical of the marginalisation of indigenous African languages.
The present article examines the status of English in terms of Zimbabwean language
policy, practices and scholarship. It observes that historical, political and socio-
economic factors surrounding the language have affected language policy scholarship
and language planning efforts. Of particular note is the hyper-emotional scholarship
which seems to be characterised by ‘the politics of replacement’, in that the authors
aggressively push for nothing but for ‘their languages to take up the position of English’
(Ndhlovu 2009, 139). In such radical scholarship, it is unclear whether English should
have a place in a comprehensive national language policy – something which remains
an outstanding issue more than 30 years after Zimbabwe’s independence.
This article also highlights that while the marginalisation of indigenous languages (and
consequently their speakers, due to the status of English) has been deservedly criticised,
English and the aspects which make its status problematic have never been addressed
in a direct way. Accordingly, the authors aim to point out some flaws regarding the oft-
suggested status elevation of African languages. First, as comprehensively articulated
by Ndhlovu (2008, 2009), efforts at elevating African languages have been exclusionary
and susceptible to ‘internal colonialism’ in that they have largely focused on Shona
and Ndebele. Second, elevating African languages without a direct focus on English,
which clearly remains central in Zimbabwe’s national and international affairs, is likely
to render the language continually elitist – if not more elitist than it currently is. It is
noteworthy that the marginalisation or neglect of English in Zimbabwe (referred to in
this article) does not occur in practice, but occurs in research and related scholarship. It
is recommended that linguistic research be done on Zimbabwean English and how its
acquisition can be improved. The production of specifically Zimbabwean dictionaries
of English is one way in which English acquisition could be enhanced.
Far from trying to block the status elevation and development of African languages,
which are necessary to correct some hegemonic tendencies of English, and far from
merely attempting to protect English with its hegemonic tendencies, it is these authors’
considered view that a multilingual national language policy should facilitate the
promotion and development of indigenous languages, while facilitating the learning and
use of English in a manner that meets the nation’s local and international needs. Within
such a policy framework, Zimbabweans would be able to use their native languages

250 Maxwell Kadenge and Dion Nkomo
in expanded functional spaces, while at the same time communicating effectively

in English, when necessary. Such a policy may not be achieved as long as there are
academics who advance a language planning philosophy that is akin to nationalist
majority black empowerment politics – something which has benefited only those
sections of the population connected to the political leadership over the past 30 years.
Inspired by some ideas of the ‘disinvention’ and ‘reconstitution’ of languages project

(Makoni & Pennycook 2006), which proffers that ‘languages, conceptions of language-
ness and the metalanguages used to describe them are invention’, our main argument is
that instead of promoting and protecting languages, the objectives of language planning
should be to ‘promote people … and to enhance communication between them’ (Makoni
& Mashiri 2006, 63). However, in order not to get entangled in the complexities of this
project, our appropriation of the disinvention ideas is admittedly selective, in as much
as our critique of the scholarship which fights English hegemony is not a total negation.
Furthermore, we acknowledge and welcome the fresh language planning perspectives
of Finex Ndhlovu in his various publications, although we regard burying the English
issue in the past limited when it comes to curbing English hegemony – a problem which
affects many African nations.
The status of English in Zimbabwe: Language policy and practices

Zimbabwe does not have a documented national language policy to which reference
may be made. However, there is now a substantial body of scholarship discussing the
country’s national language policy. Such a policy has been inferred from practices in a
number of domains in which the role of language(s) is crucial. This is not unusual, as
Bamgbose (1991, 2003) argues that the unavailability of a written language policy does
not mean the absence of policy, given that some policies are characterised by ‘avoidance’
or ‘declaration without implementation’ (ibid, 111). Thus, quite often, language policy
is covert and can only be inferred from observed practices. Whether overt or covert,
‘language policy is ever present …’ (Bamgbose 2003, 419).
This fact has been attested to by many scholars such as Nyati-Ramahobo (2004, 52) in
the case of Botswana. Concerning Zimbabwe, Ndhlovu (2009, 130) cites a number of
policy documents which he believes are reflective of the country’s national language
policy and language planning activities. These are:
• The 1987 Education Act (Section 55 of Part XI)

• The Cultural Policy of Zimbabwe
• The Position Paper on Zimbabwe’s Language Policy
• The National Language Policy Advisory Panel report (NLPAP)
• The Nziramasanga Report on Education and Training in Zimbabwe
To the above, it is important to add the country’s constitution (Government of Zimbabwe

1996) which, through Articles 13, 18, 82 and 87, makes stipulations regarding language

usage in the legal sector (see NLPAP 1998, 25). As far as language policy and planning
in Zimbabwe are concerned, the above documents may be placed into two categories.
First, there are those which reflect the country’s present national language policy, on
which the prevailing language practices in education, media, law, administration and
business are predicated. Second, there are those documents which reflect the desired
policy by pushing for changes in the present policy. It is hoped that the new constitution
will include a language policy component, just as the South African constitution does,
since the ongoing constitution-making process (which is meant to facilitate elections
and end an excess of a decade-long stand-off between the ZANU-PF and MDC parties)
also focused on the issue.
The Education Act and the referenced articles of the constitution regarding language use
in the legal fraternity are the major documents which have been cited as clear instances
of language policy. The other documents are critical of the former and have been used
as the basis for reshaping Zimbabwe’s language policy and practices. Since this section
seeks to capture the status of English in post-colonial Zimbabwean language policy and
practices, it focuses on the Education Act and the constitutional stipulations regarding
language use in law. The latter will be discussed later as perspectives and efforts towards
a ‘better’ policy.
The first three provisions of the Education Act (Government of Zimbabwe 1987) pertain
directly to the role of English in Zimbabwean education and are thus relevant for this
discussion. They stipulate that:
1. Subject to this section, the three main languages of this country, namely, Shona,
Ndebele and English, shall be taught in all primary schools from the first grade as
follows.
a) Shona and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of the
residents is Shona; or
b) Ndebele and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of
the residents is Ndebele.
2. Prior to the fourth grade, either of the two languages referred to in paragraph (a)
or (b) of subsection (1) may be used as the medium of instruction, depending upon
which language is more commonly spoken and understood better by the pupils.
3. From the fourth grade, English shall be the medium of instruction: Provided that
Shona and/or Ndebele shall be taught as subjects on an equal-time-allocation basis
as the English language.
Although the above stipulations do not refer to English in isolation but together with the
other Zimbabwean languages, they have been rightfully interpreted as responsible for
English hegemony in the country’s education and society at large. Not only do they make
English a school subject throughout the education system, they also entrench it as the
medium of instruction from the fourth grade and a measure of educational achievement. It

has also been observed that practices in school are such that English is even more dominant
than is designated in the policy. For example, many schools adopt it as a medium of
instruction long before the fourth grade (NLPAP 1998, 27; Nziramasanga 1999, 163). The
NLPAP (1998, 28) also argues that the ideal of equal time allocation, emphasised in the
third provision, is undermined by the fact that English is both a subject and the medium of
instruction – a position not enjoyed by other languages. Mlambo (2002, 11) also observes
that ‘some periods allocated to the teaching of Shona are used for the teaching of English
… because many teachers and headmasters feel that the English language … deserves
greater attention than Shona and Ndebele’. All this is testimony to the high status of
English in Zimbabwean education.
When one looks at the covert and overt language policies as well as language practices
in other public and private sector domains, it is not difficult to understand the dominance
of English in the education sector, as presented in the preceding paragraph. Such is the
dominance of English in virtually all formal spheres of Zimbabwean life, which explains
why the education sector gives English so much focus. In Zimbabwe, the General
Certificate of Ordinary Education (‘O’ Level) has, for a long time, been the standard
qualification for professional training as teachers and nurses, or even for employment.
When the General Certificate of Advanced Education (‘A’ Level) increasingly became
the norm (especially for those wishing to proceed to university), the ‘O’ Level certificate
remained a prerequisite entry qualification, such that those who failed ‘O’ Level would
not proceed. English is made the most important school subject, since a full ‘O’ Level
certificate is defined as comprising at least ‘five ‘O’ Level passes at Grade C or better
including English …’ (Nziramasanga 1999, 158). An English pass is so decisive that ‘O’
Level candidates who pass five subjects excluding it may have to repeat until they get
it right, in order to qualify for those positions which require the ‘O’ Level certificate.
The ‘O’ Level English pass is necessary because English is the official language:
the constitution makes this very clear in its linguistic provisions for the legal sector.
The linguistic requirement for legal practitioners is that they should have trained in a
country in which English is the official language, according to Articles 82 and 87 of
the constitution. The language of the trial, according to Article 18(3)(f), is English. In
the event that the arrested or detained does not understand the language of the trial,
reasons of arrest or detention will be communicated via an interpreter. Accordingly, the
NLPAP (1998, 25) aptly concludes that in Zimbabwe, ‘law is practised in English and
… therefore, English is the official language of the country’.
Besides education and law, the media, administration and business are some of the
sectors in which English dominance prevails in Zimbabwe. However, it is in education
and law where these practices are predicated on policy documents. For that reason, the
practices in the other sectors will not be pursued any further here, as they have been
comprehensively and accurately analysed in previous works (see, for example, Hadebe
1998; Mlambo 2009; Ndhlovu 2009; NLPAP 1998). In the next section, we look at two

competing perspectives on the history behind the dominance of English in Zimbabwe.

The historical perspectives are helpful in understanding the most preferred alternative
language policy options, as well as their strengths and limitations.
Historical perspectives regarding English dominance in Zimbabwe

As observed by Ndhlovu (2008, 60), mainstream language policy debate in postcolonial
Africa has paid a great deal of attention to the critique of language hierarchisation,
diglossia and the exclusive promotion of former colonial languages. In so doing, the
history and politics of the day have provided the context within which the issues have been
discussed. This is not misplaced, given that ‘most policy decisions on language status are
bureaucratic’ (Bamgbose 2003, 423). English has been the most suspect language for its
dominance, which is also a global concern – including within the European Union (see
Phillipson 2003). Phillipson (1999) argues strongly that the spread of English cannot be
separated from the imperialist tendencies of Britain and America, and hence constitutes a
form of linguistic imperialism.
In postcolonial Zimbabwe, the dominance of English has been critiqued in a very strong
anti-colonial tone akin to the rhetoric regarding neo-colonial tendencies of Britain and
other Western nations. For instance, the presidential commission set up to advise on
education and teacher training in Zimbabwe, led by Charles T. Nziramasanga (henceforth
Nziramasanga 1999), argues that ‘ the colonial master may have left the country as a result
of the protracted liberation war but continues to dominate Zimbabwe through English’
(Nziramasanga 1999, 167). Besides Nziramasanga’s work, the literature abounds with
such perspectives, for example, Magwa (2006, 2008), Mutasa (2006), and Mutasa and
Ogutu (2008). What makes such literature less satisfactory, though, is the fact that it barely
provides substantial evidence of the imposition of English on Africans by the Rhodesian
government, although Ndhlovu (2009, 137) finds it reasonable that English would
be entrenched since Zimbabwe was a British colony for over a century. Regarding the
imposition of English, inferences can only be made in the work of Nziramasanga (1999),
who argues that educational policies in post-independence Zimbabwe aimed at dismantling
‘restrictive racial and educational structures and improving access to education’ (ibid, 34),
while constantly citing English as having been one such barrier. From this, it is implied that
English was imposed through colonial education which, in turn, played a complicit role in
the marginalisation and oppression of Africans in colonial Zimbabwe.
However, while there is no doubt about the segregational politics and policies of Southern
Rhodesia (colonial Zimbabwe), including its language policies, some scholars such as
Makoni, Dube and Mashiri (2006), and Makoni and Mashiri (2006) refute the claim that
English was imposed. They argue that ‘in British colonial Africa, particularly in Southern
Rhodesia, the colonial powers did not feel it was necessary to impose their own language
on the local population’ (Makoni et al. 2006, 394). They proceed to argue that what was
imperialistic regarding language policy in colonial Zimbabwe and other colonies was ‘not

the imposition of English on Africans but the imposition of European variants of African
languages on Africans through the judicial system or through the educational system’ (see
also Makoni & Mashiri 2006 for a detailed discussion). This view corresponds, to a large
extent, with Chimhundu’s (1992) acclaimed critique of missionary work as the invention
of tribalism in Zimbabwe. On the imposition of English, the argument that Makoni et al.
(2006) put forward corroborates that of Pennycook (2002, 96), who proffers that colonial
subjects’ access to English was at times denied as a way of ‘playing it safe’. According
to Pennycook, the inferior education which was provided was packaged in ‘vernacular
languages’. Thus, it is not surprising that the struggle against colonial injustices included
demands to be taught English or in English, which Ranger (2003, in Makoni et al. 2006,
400) describes as the ‘language of the revolution’. Makoni, Dube and Mashiri (2006)
report Zimbabwean cases similar to the 1976 Soweto uprising, when South African
youths risked their lives demanding to be taught in English. The first incident involved
students who marched 19 miles from Domboshawa to present-day Harare to make that
demand, while the other is a case of communities who demanded to be taught English
before industrial subjects at Umchingwe School (ibid, 401–402). The difference is that
the Soweto uprising was also done in protest against the imposition of Afrikaans, which
was associated with apartheid (Alexander 2000, 11).
If the version of the history of English in colonial Zimbabwe – provided by Makoni et al.
(2006), as well as Makoni and Mashiri (2006) – is true, then the historical perspective of
scholars such as Magwa (2006, 2008), in as much as it is akin to the political propaganda
of ZANU-PF (which blames all the present social, economic and political ills in
Zimbabwe on Britain) requires rigorous scrutiny, should it need to inform the formulation
and implementation of a national language policy. Just as Zimbabwe’s postcolonial
nation-building efforts claim to revolve around the so-called indigenous majority while
marginalising minority groups, the anti-colonial perspective is likely to be biased when it
comes to minority languages, as shown by Ndhlovu (2009), and English, as will be shown
below. In any case, should we continue to blame colonialism for problems related to the
status of English in Zimbabwe 30 years after independence? Doing so may not yield a
better language policy, as it conveniently ignores the country’s own failings as far as this
issue is concerned.
Perspectives and practices towards a better policy

All the other documents that have been produced to inform the formulation of a national
language policy, such as the Cultural Policy of Zimbabwe (Government of Zimbabwe 1999),
the Position Paper on Zimbabwe’s Language Policy (Government of Zimbabwe 1997), the
National Language Policy Advisory Panel (NLPAP 1998) report, and the Nziramasanga
Commission Report on Education and Training, have criticised the language practices in
education and other public sectors for entrenching the dominance of English. One reason is
that the role of English is hegemonic, since it prevails at the expense of indigenous languages
which are marginalised and subsequently underdeveloped. Another reason is that the role
played by English at the expense of indigenous languages is exclusionary, as it marginalises

the majority of Zimbabweans who are not proficient in the language. The net effect is that
English-dominated language practices in Zimbabwe are among the major causes of social,
cultural, political and economic problems facing the country. This is the main perspective
that has informed scholarly works on the subject, as exemplified by Chimhundu (1993),
Hadebe (1998), Magwa (2006, 2008); Mkanganwi (1980, 1992), Mushunje (2001) and
Viriri (2003), inter alia, with others clearly stretching the argument too far. For example,
Magwa (2006, 159) is of the opinion that
Zimbabwe is a country that is failing to progress socially, politically, technologically and eco-
nomically because it is so overwhelmingly depended [sic] on foreign languages for its philo-
sophical and scientific discourses at all levels of learning and administration ….
The issue of English hegemony is indeed genuine. It is true that many learners are
disadvantaged by the dominance of English as a school subject and medium of
instruction in schools, which affects their performance not only in English but also
in other subjects taught in English (Nziramasanga 1999, 165). It is also true that the
formulation of laws in parliament and their application in both modern and traditional
courts is not democratic, since not all key role players such as parliamentarians,
traditional chiefs as well as the citizens who are the subjects of these laws are proficient
in English (Chronicle 2010; Dhlamini 2001; Hansard 1996a and b, 1997; NLPAP 1998,
25). However, it is unfortunate that some scholars make statements such as that quoted
above, and fail to substantiate them in a scholarly way to show the causal relationship
between the dominance of English and Zimbabwe’s socio-economic and political crises
which, in political circles have been blamed on colonialism and, lately, on economic
sanctions. One has the impression that the issue is overplayed to direct language planning
in a certain direction. Thus, in a language similar to the rhetoric that characterised the land
reform programme as the correction of colonial injustices, Magwa (2006, 159) suggests
that ‘Zimbabwe desperately needs a “final push” towards total decolonization of the mind
through the use of indigenous languages’. In this suggestion one finds an echo of one of
the recommendations of the NLPAP (1998, 35), namely that a ‘comprehensive National
Language Policy should deliberately take English out of dominance by upgrading
and improving the use of indigenous languages’. Yet the NLPAP (ibid, 39) made its
recommendations in the context of a set of principles which included the following:
• Recognising the complementary roles of local, regional, national and international

languages that are based on community needs, choices and usage patterns;
• Prevention of the use of the adopted international language for the purpose of
exploitation or domination or division;
• Reversal of trends towards the perpetuation of cultural domination through the use
of languages of foreign origin in the more crucial domains.
The first listed principle undoubtedly advocates a multilingual policy, in which

languages of local and foreign origin complement each other. The other two principles
argue against the hegemonic role of languages of foreign origin (presumably including

English) over indigenous languages. The rest of the guiding principles, which are not
listed here, emphasise the recognition, protection, promotion and development of
indigenous languages. Those are the principles which have been pursued selectively
and quite often uncritically by some of the scholars cited above. Consequently, from
the kind of scholarship being critiqued here, one finds the ‘real danger of getting carried
away and swinging from one extreme to the other; and of achieving negative results in
the end’, which the NLPAP (1998, 52) warned of.
If the recommendations made by the NLPAP (1998) are used as benchmarks, significant
progress has been made on African languages, both in practical and scholarly terms. For
example, the work that has been done through the African Languages Lexical (ALLEX)
Project, now the African Languages Research Institute (ALRI), at the University of
Zimbabwe (see, for example, Chabata 2007 and 2008) deserves special recognition. The
major source of criticism and discontent has been the minority language communities
(see, for example, Mumpande 2006; Ndhlovu 2006 and 2009; Nyika 2008) in the sense
that too much attention has been focused on Shona and Ndebele. It has been argued that
as part of nation-building, language planning in postcolonial Zimbabwe is not holistic
in that it only promotes selected languages in a counter-hegemonic way (i.e. curbing
the linguistic dominance of English while unfortunately entrenching similar dominance
over a host of other languages in the so-called Shona-speaking and Ndebele-speaking
communities, following Doke’s [1931] recommendations [see Ndhlovu 2006]).
As far as we are concerned, traits of the politics of replacements inevitably emerge

from most scholars who champion the elevation of indigenous African languages,
although Ndhlovu (2009, 148) reports that minority language speakers are happy to
learn and use Shona or Ndebele. While it is clear that English dominance is set to prevail
for quite some time, given the central role the language is accorded in education and
other sectors, it is not clear how certain problems associated with this language may be
solved by simply promoting indigenous African languages. One gets the impression that
once indigenous languages are elevated and developed (even though it may take much
longer), the language problems would be over. Makoni and Mashiri (2006, 64) oppose
such thinking when they write:
The position we are adopting is the converse to the conventional models of language planning,
whose main goals are to promote the status of languages …. The models assume that by chang-
ing the status of a language we will alter their social and economic status. We are arguing that
changes in the status of language can occur as a result of changes in the social, political and
economic status of its speaker …. People’s social-economic status will not necessarily improve
because the status of their languages has been changed.
Among other things, this quotation indicates the limitations of blaming Zimbabwe’s
socio-economic and political problems on the dominance of English. Again, if we were
to accept the arguments that Shona and Ndebele have become so hegemonic over the
minority languages (almost in the same way as English over the rest of the languages),
and that this has impacted on the socio-economic and political status of Zimbabweans, we

would be ignoring the reality that Zimbabwe’s socio-economic problems of recent years
have been felt by most Zimbabweans – regardless of their native languages. However,
those who are competent in English have been in a better position to survive both in
Zimbabwe and in other countries where no other Zimbabwean languages are spoken.
Therefore, while Ndhlovu (2009, 3) considers English hegemony as ‘an old and exhausted
theme’, we find his arguments insightful in as much they expand the scope of language
planning scholarship in Zimbabwe. However, we concur with Makoni et al. (2006,
393) that ‘Zimbabwean language policy is faced with the challenge of implementing a
language policy even if it revolves around English’. As Fishman (1996, 639) argues, ‘the
sociolinguistic factors that are behind the spread of English are now indigenous in most
countries of the world, and part and parcel of daily life and social stratification’. On this
account, insights from the ‘disinvention’ project are relevant, particularly Pennycook’s
(2006) debunking of the myths surrounding English as an international language.
Pennycook (ibid, 101) unravels the collusive, delusive and exclusionary attributes of
English in the context of problems associated with colonialism and globalisation. In
the same way as Makoni and Mashiri (2006) regard indigenous African languages as
inventions, Pennycook (2006) argues that just like the British Empire, English was
also ‘invented’. Thus, since English was the language of the colonial master during
the colonial era, while indigenous languages belonged to the colonised, English has
continued to be regarded as a foreign language in the post-colonies. The ideologies
created around the languages have not shifted, such that instead of addressing language
planning ideologies, language planning seems to continue fighting languages or the
‘owners’ of the languages – even in instances where they are no longer in control.
The Zimbabwean perspective on the problematic nature of the role assumed by English
(as far as the policy documents cited in this section and most of the available literature
are concerned) ought to be the problem of low proficiency or incompetence in the
language. The majority of Zimbabweans are barely literate in English (Nziramasanga
1999, 162). According to the 2010 Nationmaster statistics (attributed to Ethnologue)
almost 50 per cent of the Zimbabwean population speak English, with about 5 300 000
speaking it as an additional language, while 250 000 speak it as a first language, out of
a population of around 12 million. The statistics are problematic in that they only show
the number of people who claim to speak the language, without providing information
on their proficiency and language skills. De Kadt (2000, 25) underlines the importance
of proficiency because it is inextricably related to the purpose for which the members
of a specific community need the language. In Zimbabwe, English proficiency may
be regarded as an ‘O’ Level pass in English as a subject, as this allows one academic
ascendance to ‘A’ Level and beyond, as well as access to employment. Mlambo (2002,
2009) employs terms such as ‘native variety’, ‘near-native variety’, ‘acrolect’, ‘mesolect’
and ‘basilect’ to categorise the levels of English fluency in Zimbabwe, observing that
the acrolect is spoken by educated people who hold university degrees, people such as doctors, law-
yers, professors, lecturers, secondary school teachers and top government officials. The mesolect va-

riety can be said to be a variety … spoken by middle-class Zimbabweans who do not have university
degrees. And lastly, a basilect is … spoken by Zimbabweans with only primary education. (2002, 49)
Based on Mlambo’s distinction, it may be argued that a much smaller portion of the
Zimbabwean population than the statistics of nationmaster.com and Ethnologue indicate, is
proficient in English. Surely if 50 per cent of the population were proficient, the language
would not be a serious problem. Thus one cannot but agree that such statistics provided
by international organisations are ‘no more than guestimates’ and that ‘English remains a
minority, but powerful language used by an elite’ (Bamgbose 2003, 420). This is where
the problem emanates, because the language is used for vital socio-economic and political
communication.
In the light of the foregoing, at least two distinct problems regarding language
practices that need to be addressed through the formulation and implementation of a
comprehensive national language policy may be identified. These are the low proficiency
of the majority of Zimbabweans in English (currently the sole official language), and
the inadequately developed and marginalised indigenous languages which need to be
elevated. While significant efforts have been made to address the latter, barely any
recognisable attempts have been made with regard to English and this presents a real
danger in the formulation of a comprehensive national language policy – especially
given the fact that the development and status elevation of indigenous languages will
require a lengthy period of time.
Harnessing English in a multilingual national language policy

In the light of the preceding sections, this article suggests that a strongly anti-English
approach to language planning in Zimbabwe will not solve the linguistic problems
facing the country, or their socio-economic, cultural and political consequences.
Instead, a multilingual national language policy seems most desirable. Such a policy
can only thrive if it opens up functional spaces to the country’s different languages in a
manner that not only respects linguistic rights, but also empowers a cross-section of the
population, politically, socially, culturally and economically. This means resources will
be needed to support the requirements of all the languages, even though the different
languages would naturally have different needs.
As demonstrated in the foregoing, the present language policy is not enabling as far as the
indigenous (national and minority) languages are concerned. Their level of development
compounds the situation, because in addition to advocacy, changes in attitude towards
indigenous languages and the need for political will to support their status elevation,
a great deal of resources are needed to develop them, so they may be equipped for
expanded social roles. Nevertheless, much ground has been covered and significant
progress has been made in terms of advocacy, orthographic, lexicographic and scholarly
work, to equip the languages and explore further channels for their development. What
remains amiss is a documented and binding policy.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said for English, which enjoys prestige and
international status as a sophisticated language which is capable of handling formal and
advanced knowledge, and can facilitate its development and communication. It is this
international pedigree which has probably endowed the language with such dominance
and prestige in Zimbabwean language policy and practices, as already shown. However,
low proficiency in this language among the majority of Zimbabweans and the associated
disadvantages have reinforced its association with the oppressive tendencies of
colonialism – not even those of the post-colonial dispensation – which may as well be
perpetrated in the context of language policies revolving around indigenous languages
(Ndhlovu 2009). The point being made is that instead of viewing English as a ‘killer’
language insofar as indigenous languages and cultures are concerned, or as a medium
of oppression in as far as the majority of Zimbabweans who are not proficient in the
language are concerned, Zimbabweans should try to harness English together with the
indigenous languages for socio-economic, political and cultural development. As one
of the key languages in the desired multilingual language policy, English also needs
attention with a view to critically investigating problems associated with its role, and
devising strategies and methods of minimising the associated consequences. This needs
to be considered in full awareness of the fact that the needs of English on the one hand
and indigenous languages on the other are very different, for a variety of sociolinguistic
reasons. The following are some of the recommendations policy makers and language
scholars may consider, when seeking solutions to the problems associated with English:
• A change in attitude towards English – especially from more informed policy makers,
educationalists and academics whose opinions may influence the formulation and
implementation of a comprehensive national language policy. First and foremost,
English no longer needs to be referred to as a ‘foreign language’, as is the case in
a number of policy documents and scholarly works. At best, it is a former colonial
language or an ‘ex-colonial language’ (Alexander 2000, 5). Continuing to regard it
as a foreign language undermines its current and future positive role in Zimbabwean
society. This is seen as hypocritical, when coming from the elite who send their
children to schools which promote English at the expense of indigenous languages
(see Mlambo 2002 and 2009). Informed by the World Englishes framework and
inspired by Chisanga and Kamwangamalu’s (1997) concept of the ‘ownership
of the English language in southern Africa’, Kadenge (2010, 47) concludes that
‘the distinct variety of English spoken in Zimbabwe is legitimately owned by
Zimbabweans … English has effectively become one of Zimbabwe’s languages’.
• Academic research is needed on English learning processes and practices in
Zimbabwe, in order to understand the challenges involved and to investigate
possible ways of addressing those challenges. Mlambo’s (2002) model is worth
adopting and its implications should be tested at various educational levels.
• Academic research should be conducted on problems encountered in the teaching,
learning and use of English by Zimbabweans, at various levels and in different
domains. Studies such as that by Kadenge et al. (2009), which investigate the
possibility of teaching English pronunciation using L1 pronunciation to Shona

L1 students, are good examples. Similar methods have been investigated with
encouraging results in other countries (specifically as regards teaching other
aspects of English, such as vocabulary using L1) (see, for example, Miles 2004;
Soulignavong & Souvannasy 2009).
• Academic research on the prospects of an array of language support-oriented
practices, such as translation and lexicography, needs to be promoted. For example,
it may be worthwhile to investigate the extent to which dictionaries, thesauri and
other lexicographic products may support the teaching, learning and use of English
in Zimbabwe. Research may investigate the user-friendliness of the available
English dictionaries in addressing the various problems faced by different types
of learners of English in the Zimbabwean context, and whether certain types of
English dictionaries (such as children’s dictionaries) may be locally produced.

• The status of the English learnt and used in Zimbabwe in the context of the worldwide
emergence of new Englishes or world Englishes should be investigated. Is it still
British English? Is it an interlanguage (Makoni 1993)? Can it be constituted and
identified as Zimbabwean English (Kadenge 2010; Mlambo 2009)? If so, what are
its features? Who speaks it? Is it accepted in formal settings? The ideas proffered
by Makoni (1993), Makoni, Dube and Mashiri (2006), Mlambo (2002, 2009)
and Kadenge (2009, 2010) need to be pursued further, mainly to examine their
implications for the learning and teaching of English in Zimbabwe.
Conclusion: The irony of scholarly neglect of English

At present, English is still regarded as a foreign language in mainstream language
planning and scholarly discourse in Zimbabwe. It is not very clear how the development
and promotion of indigenous languages alone will address all the problems related to
the functions of English. This is not a case of killing two birds with one stone, but of
letting the other bird go – something policy makers may be unwilling to do. Therefore, a
language planning approach which exclusively focuses on indigenous languages will only
provide an alternative to English, and will perhaps create a multilingual Zimbabwean
society in which some individuals will be proficient in English, while those who are not
will be allowed to use indigenous languages. This may be problematic in the democratic
society which we yearn for, because when it comes to choices, many people may choose
English: as the NLPAP (1998, 29) observes, the majority of Zimbabweans who read (even
for leisure), prefer to read in English. Bamgbose (2003, 422) argues that ‘it is not so much
wanting to learn English’ but ‘needing to learn it, because not learning English is not
really a choice’. This is why even in a country such as South Africa, where the constitution
has elevated nine indigenous languages to serve as official languages alongside Afrikaans
and English, it remains necessary to learn English (Alexander 1989, 10; Ndhlovu 2008).
In countries like Japan and China, which are often cited for developing and using their
indigenous languages, teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and teaching
English as a second language (TESL) programmes are dominant because of the added
benefits citizens can access through English.

The point being made is that while promoting and developing indigenous languages
is a noble idea, it may fail to have the envisaged positive socio-economic, cultural and
political impacts, as long as is not undertaken alongside efforts to harness English as one
of the important languages in the country’s linguistic profile. In the event that it happens,
those citizens with a strong command of both English and an indigenous language will
still have an advantage over their counterparts with no command of English. Thus,
social stratification is bound to continue. As Makoni and Pennycook (2006, 31) advise,
this would be an unfortunate case of language planning where it bears ‘unexpected
adverse effects on exactly the same people whose interests we think we are promoting
or safeguarding’. Then not only will English remain ‘a recurring decimal’, as Bamgbose
(2003, 419) argues, but so will the national language policy itself.
References
Alexander, N. 1989. Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape
Town: Buchu Books.
Alexander, N. 2000. English unassailable but unattainable: The dilemma of language policy
in South African education. PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 3. Cape Town: PRAESA.
Bamgbose, A. 1991. Language and the nation: The language question in sub-Saharan
Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bamgbose, A. 2003. A Recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. World
Englishes 22(4): 419–431.
Chabata, E. 2007. The African Languages Research Institute: A milestone in the development
of African languages. Lexikos 17: 278–291.
Chabata, E. 2008. Language development: Progress and challenges in a multilingual
Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 26(1): 13–26.
Chimhundu, H. 1992. Early missionaries and the ethnolinguistic factor during the invention
of tribalism in Zimbabwe. Journal of African History 33: 87–109.
Chimhundu, H. 1993. The status of African languages in Zimbabwe. Southern African
Political and Economic Monthly (SAPEM) (October): 57–59.
Chisanga, T. and N.M. Kamwangamalu. 1997. Owning the other tongue: The English language
in southern Africa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(2): 88–98.
Chronicle. 2010. Translate Leaders Act into vernacular languages. Chronicle Online, 21
October. www.chronicle.zw (accessed 21 October 2010).
De Kadt, E. 2000. English language proficiency in South Africa at the turn of the millennium.
Southern African Linguistics and Language Studies 18: 25–32.
Dhlamini, N. 2001. Loss or gain in translation. B.A Honours dissertation, University of
Zimbabwe, Harare.
Doke, C.M. 1931. Report on the unification of Shona dialects. Hartford: Stephen Austin and
Sons.
Fishman, J.A. 1996. Summary and interpretation: Post-imperial English, 1940–1990. In
Post-imperial English, ed. J.A. Fishman, A.W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez, 623–641.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Government of Zimbabwe. 1987. The Education Act (amended in 1990). Harare:
Government Printer.

Government of Zimbabwe. 1990. The cultural policy of Zimbabwe. Harare: Government

Printers.
Government of Zimbabwe. 1996. Constitution of Zimbabwe. Revised edition. Harare:
Government Printer.
Government of Zimbabwe. 1997. Position Paper on Zimbabwe’s Language Policy. Harare:
Government Printer.
Government of Zimbabwe. 1998. Report on the Formulation of a National Language Policy.
Harare: Government Printer.
Hadebe, S. 1998. Sociolinguistic issues and human factor development. In The Human
factor approach to development in Africa, ed. V. Chivaura and C.G. Mararike, 121–134.
Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Hansard. 11 September 1996a. Harare: Parliament of Zimbabwe.

Hansard. 4 September 1996b. Harare: Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Hansard. 23 July 1997. Harare: Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Kadenge, M. 2009. African Englishes: The indigenisation of English vowels by L1 Shona
speakers. Journal of Pan African Studies 3(1): 156–173.
Kadenge, M. 2010. Zimbabwean English: A sociophonological exploration. South African
Journal of African Languages 30(1): 35–51.
Kadenge, M., P. Mabugu and S. Dube. 2009. Teaching English pronunciation via Shona:
A classroom experiment (Zimbabwe). In Language Teacher Research in Africa, ed. L.
Makalela, 21–36. USA: TESOL Publishers.
Magwa, W. 2006. Towards an African renaissance in language planning: A review of
strategies to promote the use of indigenous languages as tools for development – the
case of higher education sector in Zimbabwe. In African languages in the 21st century:
The main challenges, ed. D.E. Mutasa, 150–179. Pretoria: Simba Guru Publishers.
Magwa, W. 2008. Facing challenges of mother tongue medium education in Zimbabwe.
In Teaching and administering in African languages, ed. D.E. Mutasa and E.T. Ogutu,
181–205. Pretoria: Simba Guru Publishers.
Makoni, S.B. 1993. Is Zimbabwean English a type of new English? African Study Monographs
14(2): 97–207.
Makoni, S., B. Dube and P. Mashiri. 2006. Zimbabwe colonial and post-colonial language
policy and planning practices. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(4): 377–414.
Makoni, S. and P. Mashiri. 2006. Critical historiography: Does language planning in Africa
need a construct of language as part of its theoretical apparatus? In Disinventing and
reconstituting languages, ed. S. Makoni and A. Pennycook, 62–81. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook. 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Miles, R. 2004. Evaluating the use of L1 in the English language classroom. Master’s thesis,
University of Birmingham.
Mkanganwi, K.G. 1980. Zimbabwe: Socioliguistically speaking. Sociolinguistic Newsletter
12(2): 1–35.
Mkanganwi, K.G. 1992. Language planning in southern Africa. In Democratically speaking:
International perspectives on language planning, ed. N.T. Crawhall, 6–11. South Africa:
National Language Project.
Mlambo, M. 2002. The development of English as a second language at four urban
Zimbabwean schools. PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town.

Mlambo, M. 2009. A survey of the language situation in Zimbabwe: Is there a Zimbabwean

variety of English? If so, who speaks it? English Today 25(2): 18–24.
Mumpande, I. 2006. Silent voices: Indigenous languages in Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.
Mushunje, E. 2001. Bilingual patterns in Harare. Master’s thesis, University of Zimbabwe,
Harare.
Mutasa, D., ed. 2006. African languages in the 21st century: The main challenges. Pretoria:
Simba Guru Publishers.
Mutasa, D. and E.E. Ogutu, 2008. Teaching and administering in African languages: A road-
map to African renaissance. Pretoria: Simba Guru Publishers.
National Language Policy Advisory Panel (NLPAP). 1998. Report on the formulation of a
national language. Unpublished manuscript, Harare.
Nationmaster statistics. n.d. www.nationmaster.com (accessed 28 October 2010).

Ndhlovu, F. 2006. Gramsci, Doke and the marginalisation of the Ndebele language of
Zimbabwe. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27(4): 302–318.
Ndhlovu, F. 2008. The conundrums of language policy and politics in South Africa and
Zimbabwe. Australia Journal of Linguistics 28(1): 59–80.
Ndhlovu, F. 2009. The politics of language and nation building in Zimbabwe. Bern: Peter
Lang.
Nyati-Ramahobo, L. 2004. The language planning situation in Botswana. In Language
planning and policy: Africa. Vol.1: Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa, ed.
R.B. Baldauf Jr. and R.B Kaplan, 21–78. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nyika, N. 2008. Our languages are equally important: Struggles for the revitalization of the
minority languages in Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language
Studies 26(4): 457–470.
Nziramasanga, C.T. 1999. Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education
and Training. Harare: Government Printer.
Pennycook, A. 2002. Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality.
In Language policies in education, ed. J.W. Tollefson, 91–110. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pennycook, A. 2006. The myth of English as an international language. In Disinventing
and reconstituting languages, ed. S. Makoni and A. Pennycook, 90–115. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. 1999. Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. 2003. English-only Europe: Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Ranger, T. 2003. The historical dimensions of democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe.
Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publishers.
Soulignavong, L. and B. Souvannasy. 2009. Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low
proficiency level students: A case study at the National University of Lagos. English
Language Teaching 2(3): 186–193.
Thondhlana, J. 2000. Contrastive rhetoric in Shona and English argumentative essays.
Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.
Viriri, A. 2003. Language planning in Zimbabwe: The conservation and management of
indigenous languages as intangible heritage. http://www.international.icomos.org/
victoriafalls2003/papers/ (accessed 19 September 2010).
Language matters
View publication stats process.indd 263 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language Matters 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Matters 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

The politics of the English language in

Article in Language Matters · November 2011

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The politics of the English language in

Available online: 20 Dec 2011

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2011.581679

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Key words: community languages, English language, language planning, language

ISSN Print: 1022-8195 Language Matters

Language matters process.indd 248 12/9/11 12:10 PM

of English as the language of records and documentation. At the attainment of

Language matters process.indd 249 12/9/11 12:10 PM

in expanded functional spaces, while at the same time communicating effectively

Inspired by some ideas of the ‘disinvention’ and ‘reconstitution’ of languages project

The status of English in Zimbabwe: Language policy and practices

• The 1987 Education Act (Section 55 of Part XI)

To the above, it is important to add the country’s constitution (Government of Zimbabwe

Language matters process.indd 250 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language matters process.indd 251 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language matters process.indd 252 12/9/11 12:10 PM

competing perspectives on the history behind the dominance of English in Zimbabwe.

Historical perspectives regarding English dominance in Zimbabwe

Language matters process.indd 253 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Perspectives and practices towards a better policy

Language matters process.indd 254 12/9/11 12:10 PM

• Recognising the complementary roles of local, regional, national and international

The first listed principle undoubtedly advocates a multilingual policy, in which

Language matters process.indd 255 12/9/11 12:10 PM

As far as we are concerned, traits of the politics of replacements inevitably emerge

Language matters process.indd 256 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language matters process.indd 257 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Harnessing English in a multilingual national language policy

Language matters process.indd 258 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language matters process.indd 259 12/9/11 12:10 PM

English dictionaries (such as children’s dictionaries) may be locally produced.

Conclusion: The irony of scholarly neglect of English

Language matters process.indd 260 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Language matters process.indd 261 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Government of Zimbabwe. 1990. The cultural policy of Zimbabwe. Harare: Government

Hansard. 11 September 1996a. Harare: Parliament of Zimbabwe.

Language matters process.indd 262 12/9/11 12:10 PM

Mlambo, M. 2009. A survey of the language situation in Zimbabwe: Is there a Zimbabwean

Nationmaster statistics. n.d. www.nationmaster.com (accessed 28 October 2010).

You might also like