Reconceptualising multilingualism on African radio: a multilingual accommodation theory

ABSTRACT

Media organisations in radio broadcasting are gradually fine-tuning to accommodate multilingual socio-cultural identities. Africa presents unique challenges of lingual diversity which some of the media, particularly public radio have struggled to accommodate. This article advocates for multilingual accommodation on radio to foster more liberating and inclusive ways for multilingual speakers. It is a conceptual paper informed by the Afrikology perspective which we find more useful in tackling African issues from a more realistic perspective. Using radio as a medium of ethnic lingualism, we argue that Africans should tackle their own multilingualism issues. We chose radio because it is the most used medium of communication in Africa, reflective of grassroots social identities. We cite cases of multilingualism in Southern Africa to propose what we refer to as multilingual accommodation in radio broadcasting. The article argues that majority languages in Africa are not monolingualism but family languages of numerous dialects reflecting the co-existence of diverse ethnolinguistics in the pre-colonial era. We define multilingualism as abilities of co-existence in African contexts and the reflection of this co-existence in radio broadcasting. By multilingual accommodation, we suggest sustenance of multilingual programmes by radio hosts, guests and participants in both minoritised and majorised indigenous languages.

KEYWORDS:

• African radio
• multilingualism
• public sphere
• Afrikology
• non-domination
• multilingual accommodation

Introduction

Radio as a public sphere reflects the linguistic identities of historical actors constructed through societal power (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Spitulnik, 1998). Radio also acts as a platform where social identities are fiercely conveyed between linguists and publics through language mix and clashes (Heller, 1999; Jaworski, 2007; Johnson, 2001; Milani, 2007). Though all media are fiercely contested platforms, radio has the capacity to accommodate lingual diversity, especially in Africa where a variety of ethnolinguistic groups exist (Mano, 2012; Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; 2023b). Thus, radio acts as a contested public sphere capable of producing inclusive local content that can meet the expectations of its miscellaneous audience (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b). The challenges now and then are that not all radio stations broadcast in multiple indigenous languages to a multilingual audience. Several studies have shown that broadcast media in Africa, especially public radio have had challenges of failing to offer equal coverage in multiple indigenous languages (Dube & Wozniak, 2021; Mabika & Salawu, 2014; Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Ndhlovu, 2009). These studies pinpoint the complexity of lingual diversity within a multilingual community (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a, 2023b; Salawu, 2021). Given such challenges, this article seeks to reconceptualise multilingualism to proffer practical ways in which Africa can accommodate multilingual speakers on radio.

The article begins with reviewing multilingualism from the conceptions of Eurocentric and Afrocentric studies. We build our argument of African multilingualism through the lens of pre-colonial and modern realities of co-existence. While multilingualism is becoming a widely defined concept, many studies focus on sociolinguistics and education (Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021; Motinyane, 2020; Kaschula & Wolff, 2020); with little emphasis on the phenomena in radio broadcasting yet radio can accommodate diversity and multilingual speakers. Ndhlovu and Makalela (2021) argue that multilingual countries continue to grapple with issues of language policies and ways to implement multilingual curriculum in educational institutions. Actually, several Afrocentric studies on multilingualism call for decolonisation and transformation of the educational curriculum and sectors of society (Motinyane, 2020; Kaschula & Wolff, 2020; Ndhlovu & Makalela, 2021). This article takes a different approach by focusing on multilingualism in radio broadcasting. We grapple with questions: what is multilingualism in the African context and what are pragmatic ways to enhance multilingualism in radio broadcasting? The article further recommends what we call multilingual accommodation theory as the pragmatic way to accommodate all ethnolinguistic groups (minority and majority languages) in the public sphere of radio broadcasting.

Scholars are of the agreement that media organisations now consider multilingualism for social change to transform language regimes and hierarchies (Johnson & Ensslin, 2007; Johnson & Milani, 2010; Spitulnik, 1998); since the multilingual context consists of majority and minority indigenous languages (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a, 2023b). By majority, we refer to the indigenous language spoken by many while minority languages are spoken by a few. The term ‘African’ in this article denotes indigenous languages unique to Africa. In our endeavour to reconceptualise multilingualism on African radio, we explore cases from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Zambia. We argue that colonialism complicated multilingualism by erecting ‘monolingualism’ in the likeness of Europe in which one country is dominated by one language. Using Afrikology as our conceptual basis, we argue that pre-colonial Africa was not monolingual but multilingual.

Writing on the concept of Afrikology, Motsaathebe (2010) argues that African problems should be resolved by Africans. As a philosophical epistemological and methodological approach, Afrikology goes beyond Eurocentricism by recognising knowledge systems in Africa (Nabudere, 2007). Afrikology ‘is a true philosophy of knowledge and wisdom based on African cosmogonies because it is Afri – in that it is inspired by the ideas originally produced from the cradle of humankind located in Africa’ (Wanda, 2013, p. 2). It does not necessarily claim to be entirely Afrocentrism but utilises Africa as a base that has experienced historical and cultural transitions from pre-colonialism, colonialism and post-colonialism (Motsaathebe, 2010; Nabudere, 2007; Wanda, 2013). Thus, the aim of this article is to redefine multilingualism from the context of African ethnolinguistic realities, before and after colonialism. Nabudere (2007) argues that Afrikology encompasses epistemological and methodological issues that can create a self-understanding of Africa and its position in the global world. Thus, our approach to multilingualism does not only define multilingualism from the context of globalisation and modern migrations (Canagarajah, 2007; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007; Kramsch, 2010) but also recognises Africansocio-cultural and linguistic groups before colonisation.

It is vital to examine how multilingualism on African radio manifests itself since African stories should be told by Africans. Nabudere (2007) argues that African scholars must produce knowledge useful to solve African challenges and renovate the African culture which has been in crisis since colonialism. Inspired by the African Renaissance, Nabudere (2007, p. 8) notes that ‘the process of re-awakening and recovery has to be one of a historical deconstruction, and consciousness raising’. On the other hand, Motsaathebe (2010, p. 98) argues that.

renaissance of Africa is essentially a project in the search of identity which had been displaced by the onslaught of foreign culture, languages and other hegemonic devises deliberately deigned to subjugate Africans and socialise them in the culture, language and customs of the colonial masters.

In this paper, we show that Eurocentric perspective of multilingualism limits the fluidity of African identity as we seek to redefine multilingualism from the African experience.

Defining multilingualism

To build our case of multilingualism on African radio, this paper begins by reviewing several definitions. It is important to note that multilingualism is a complex phenomenon viewed from different contextual lens and disciplines such as sociolinguistics, linguistics and psycholinguists. It is a social construct that has no fixed definition and its practical ways of implementation are always characterised by contestation of interpretations. A multilingual speaker is ‘anyone who can communicate in more than one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive (through listening and reading)’ (Li, 2008, p. 4). The European Commission (2007, p. 6) defines multilingualism as ‘the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage, on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-to-day lives’. Some scholars have shown that multilingual speakers reflect ever-changing language practices in the community as they shape a context of linguistic engagement (Canagarajah, 2007; Kramsch, 2010; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). Makoni and Pennycook (2007, p. 22) define multilingualism as the ‘pluralisation of monolingualism’ while Heller (1999) views it as a parallel of monolingualism. Monolingualism refers to autonomous dominant languages (Cormack & Hourigan, 2007; Cormack & Hourigan, 2007; May, 2007; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Williams, 2008).

Actually, many definitions of multilingualism in the context of Africa centre on the notion of social cohesion (Barlow, 2022; Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2016; Lo Bianco, 2017; Xeketwana, 2021). Terms associated with multilingualism are social inclusion, social cohesion and a combination of languages (Cenoz, 2013; Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2016); little is said about the co-existence of socio-linguistic identities from a pre-colonial context. In this article, we debate that the notion of ‘monolingualism’ is not African because Africa reflects multilingual complexities that resulted in common or similar languages viewed as majority languages today. We argue that multilingualism did not begin in the colonial or post-colonial due to globalisation and migrations as emphasised by other scholars (Canagarajah, 2007; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007; Kramsch, 2010); but it has been an existing phenomenon in Africa within ethnic states such as the Ndebele state in Zimbabwe where diverse ethnolinguistic groups co-existed within a caste system. Modern globalisation through migrations and human interactions can only be a dimension or extension of multilingualism which already existed in Africa.

Notwithstanding what Cenoz (2013) discusses as dimensions of multilingualism, for instance ‘the individual versus social dimension, the proficiency versus use dimension, and the bilingualism versus multilingualism dimension’; multilingualism is a social construct visible in societies where there are minority and majority indigenous language speakers. Literature has shown that minorities easily adjust to co-exist with majority languages because of majority dominance (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; 2023b). In other words, a multilingual individual speaking minority languages is likely to be more multilingual than a majority language speaker. Cenoz (2013, p. 5) argues that ‘traditionally, there have been more multilinguals in areas where regional or minority languages are spoken or in border areas’. The above submission cements our argument that multilingualism primarily reflects co-existence in areas where multiple languages are spoken, in the same manner, immigrants adjust, learn or adopt other languages through globalisation and transnational mobility. Social inclusion or cohesion only occurs if the dominant language speakers wilfully accommodate multilingual minorities. In this case, multilingualism is promoted in two ways: the code-switching and mixing of languages by minorities and the wilful accommodation of these abilities by dominant majority language speakers (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b).

The code-switching and mixing of languages are beginning to be more evident in the media (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b; Mpofu, 2023). Afrocentric scholars such as Makoni and Pennycook (2007) call for the reinvention of multilingualism given that languages are perceived as delimited entities created or imposed specifically within bounded communities, viewed as imagined communities (Anderson, 2006). Other studies on language and identity challenge this concept of monolingualism, arguing that identity is not static and should not be used to explain linguistic practices, hence the need to redefine multilingualism (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Even in media studies, scholars have begun to advocate for the recognition of minoritised languages in the public sphere (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; 2023b; Motsaathebe, 2010). Identity is not static but ‘plural, influx and hybrid so too is language’ (Rampton, 2006, p. 15). We argue that African languages continue to be plural and hybrid, and identity has changed due to the ongoing co-existence of ethnic language groups. For instance, the co-existence of minoritised language groups (Tonga/Dombe, Nambya, Lozi, Nyanja) in Zimbabwe are reflected in Lyeja FM community radio and the Breeze FM in the Zambezi valley as they have become known as the BaNizi(nzi) people. Our argument is that radio as a popular medium of communication especially in marginalised communities should reflect the hybrid identities and languages of the ongoing co-existence.

Cases from public radio broadcasting in Zimbabwe, namely the National FM reflect how radio has struggled to advance perceived ‘monolingualism’ (majority languages) by giving minoritised languages limited space (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; 2023b). This article argues that these majority languages are not monolingualism but family language groups reflecting a similarity of dialects and a history of co-existence among the languages speakers. There are many cases of linguistic similarities in Africa reflected on radio. For instance, Radio Thobela FM and Lesedi FM reflect identities unique to the SeSotho or Setswana (Lekgoathi & Lekgoathi, 2009) scattered in Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Lesotho. UKhozi FM of isiZulu, UMhlobo Wenene FM of isiXhosa and Ligwalagwala FM of the Swazi in South Africa also echo the Bantustan culture of the Nguni people in Southern Africa. Chikuni radio of the BaTonga, and Zeno FM of the Chewa/Nyanja and Lozi people in Zambia reflect linguistic similarities of the indigenous people in the Zambezi valley. Lozi in Zambia shares linguistic similarities with SeSotho in South Africa and Lesotho. There are many instances of linguistic resemblances in Africa across ethnolinguistic groups that cements our argument that majority languages are pluralistic family language dialects (not necessarily monolingualism) that reflect a pre-colonial co-existence (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Ndlovu, 2011; Salawu, 2021).

In Zimbabwe, what is termed Shona language is an umbrella name of diverse ethnic dialects namely Karanga, Zezuru, Manyika, Korekore (Moyo & Mathe, 2014). The term Shona was coined in colonial times describing Southern African people with lingual similarities. The Nguni people (Zulus, Xhosas, Ndebeles and Swazis) in South Africa in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Swaziland share lingual similarities. The Tonga people scattered across Zimbabwe and Zambia, also have lingual similarities connected through dialects such as Toka-Leya, Basimalundu, Dombe and others. The Tonga groups are also scattered across Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and some parts of South Africa. Tonga is spoken in Inhambane Mozambique while Giyani and Malamulele in South Africa share similarities of Tonga in Mozambique (Gerdes, 2003; Matsinhe, 2006). The South African Tonga is known as XiTsonga and is similar to that of Mozambique while that of Zambia and Zimbabwe has more resemblance. We, thus argue that traditional Africa has always been multilingual evident through the dialectical pluralistic of what is called majority language today. Although defined as transnational identities (Cenoz, 2013) these are multilingual identities formed through historical co-existence and separation of borders could not erase their linguistic similarities.

Relying on globalisation and migration developments, Kelly-Holmes and Milani (2013, p.468) believe that ‘there is virtually no contemporary context that can be described as monolingual’. We also pinpoint that there is no pre-colonial African context of co-existence that can be described as monolingual. In fact, what has been called ethnic hegemony by major languages is also reinforced by the assimilation of other inherent neighbouring languages. Anderson (2006) speaks of monolingual or multilingual as imagined communities sharing language and discourse on media platforms, meaning the majorised languages are but social constructs (Spitulnik, 1998). In other words, it is possible to reconstruct or redefine linguistic identities, particularly through the media.

Thus, as a point of departure, we define multilingualism as the abilities of co-existence and the reflection of co-existence in the media. By co-existence, we mean the tolerance, adjustment and recognition to accommodate other indigenous language speakers. Having the social realities of ethnic co-existence, multilingualism becomes evident among social actors or speakers on radio. Such identities can be reflected by speakers on radio as put by Gal and Woolard (2001) that speakers of some languages invoke the kind of authentic representations of particular communities. The multilingualism of such speakers on radio can reflect tolerance among and between persons and communities. Many a time, representation on media involves the reflection of imagined communities (Anderson, 2006) leading to questions such as who is being represented, named, interpreted commented?. According to Jaffe (2007), such speakers have agency closely linked to authenticity and authority of representation.

Having said the above, we argue that monolingualism is an imagined Eurocentric construct which was literally non-existent in traditional Africa. We draw instances from the multilingual BaNizi(nzi)¹ people (reflected on Lyeja FM community radio and Breeze FM) in Zimbabwe, multilingual groups of BaTonga in Zambia (Zeno FM and Chikuni FM) and the Nguni language radio stations in South Africa to show how multilingualism can be enhanced in radio broadcasting.

Radio broadcasting in multilingual contexts

African media has been struggling to accommodate the elusive imaginations of ‘monolingualism’ by pursuing the superiority of hegemonic languages such as Shona and isiNdebele in Zimbabwe, isiZulu in South Africa, Yoruba or Hausa languages in Nigeria (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Salawu, 2021) thereby getting caught up in a multilingual deadlock. This is because the above-mentioned majority languages amongst others have been defined as monolingualism in the likeness of Eurocentric monolingualism instead of viewing them as family languages of dialects that share linguistic similarities. In 2013, Zimbabwe officialised 16 indigenous languages in the Constitution to solve the country’s multilingual problem ignored since independence, unlike South Africa which had traditional recognition for Bantu languages from the Bantustan structure, although some of the languages remain disadvantaged in public media. As aforesaid, the dominance of one indigenous language in one nation reflects a context disturbed by colonialism. We are against this notion that Europe invented multilingualism and has the power to reinvent it (Wright, 2000). Wright (2000) argues that Europe invented multilingualism through the division or designation of Africa into colonial territories as assembled ethnic groups in one national territory and separated others into another national territory. The number of language speakers of a language per territory led to the dominance of one language speakers over others (Heller, 1999; 2007). We would like to submit that Europe did not invent multilingualism by dividing ethnic groups, it actually complicated African multilingualism. The designation of country boundaries minoritised or majorised some ethnolinguistic groups creating competition for dominance instead of co-existence.

For instance, the Tonga people of Southern Africa were divided into Zimbabwe and Zambia, leaving many in Zambia and a few in Zimbabwe. However, the pre-colonial multilingual realities remain resistant through the manifest of the so-called transitional identities because people of similar groups of dialects can tune into radio stations across nations. Today, Tonga people in Zimbabwe can tune into the Chikuni FM radio in Zambia and the Chewa can also listen to Zeno FM across the borders yet speaking dissimilar and similar terms that resemble a pre-colonial co-existence of some sort. The Khoisan divided into small groups across Botswana, South Africa and Namibia a can tune to X-K FM radio in South Africa for the Khoisan people. This means geographical colonial boundaries did not construct multilingualism. Unlike other scholars who believe multilingualism was exported by Europe through colonialism (Wright, 2000), we argue that Europe did not export multilingualism to Africa but complicated its pre-existence.

Africa had mobility and trade among ethnic groups and states before colonialism. The mobility of Africans across states was later restricted by territoriality brought by colonialism which organised districts and divided communities. The division of Africa into territories was not determined by language or ethnicities but by geographical boundaries per mountain and rivers, disrupting common cultures among a people of similar multilingual or co-existence. Stroud (2007, p. 26) argues that ‘by projecting languages into delimited geographical areas in ways that mimicked the situation in the European nation-state, linguistic descriptions united some people into communities of speakers and divided others’. The notion of ‘monolingualism’ is derived from the colonial majorisation of languages whose speakers got united within a colonial national territory while others got divided (Ricento, 2000). For instance, the Shona dialects (Karanga, Zezuru, Manyika, Korekore) are dominant in Zimbabwe as Shona (a group of languages not necessarily a monolingualism) on public radio (National FM, Khulumani FM, Power FM, Radio Zimbabwe and Classic 263). As Makoni and Pennycook (2007, p. 21) put it that ‘the struggle for language rights and multilingualism is all too often conducted on a terrain on which the existence of languages as real entities is left unquestioned’.

The UKhozi FM mainly broadcasts in isiZulu, UMhlobo Wenene FM mainly in isiXhosa but these languages share multilingual similarities of Nguni²languages. Due to the promotion of the elusive ‘monolingualism’ which should be perceived as multilingual family of languages, alienated languages from the group became marginalised as minority languages. Likewise public and commercial radio broadcasting are now in pursuit of Eurocentric concept of monolingualism to profit on the majorisation of languages (Salawu, 2021; Ndlovu 2011). Other than public and commercial radio, community radio somehow seems to have an accommodative approach to multilingual speakers, redirecting and reinventing African identity. However, some minoritised groups tend to compete for dominance on the limited platform of community radio (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b). This is because community radio happens to broadcast in a multilingual geographical area where the radio station becomes insufficient to cover other minoritised languages thereby brewing competition for coverage amongst minoritised groups (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a). Between 2021 and 2022, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) opened up 14 community radio airwaves for other minority languages but still these community radio stations were limited to accommodate all minority languages, especially in a multilingual community (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a). South Africa has more than 165 community radio stations so far in an effort to accommodate multilingualism. Kelly-Homes and Milani (2011) note that media organisations know that they are in trouble if they would ignore the existence of multilingualism.

As aforesaid, multilingualism reflects co-existence abilities in the form of tolerance, adjustment, recognition and accommodation of other indigenous language speakers even their accents. In light of globalisation and migrations, multilingualism can be an effect of interaction and co-existence where individuals accommodate each other. What remain ununiformly dissimilar may be accents because voices on radio can be interpreted as natural, foreign, exotic or alien(Gieve & Norton, 2007). For instance, the colonial English language is often interpreted as neutral, civilised, inclusive and tolerant (Cheshire & Moser, 1994; Kelly-Holmes, 2005; Motsaathebe, 2010). Thus, accents by speakers do reflect accommodation and adjustment through lingual diversity and ongoing co-existence of social identities. However, media bent on advancing hegemony or imperialism of dominant languages (Ndhlovu, 2009; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2009; Mpofu, 2013; Suarez, 2002); reflects less of these multilingual identities. For instance, in Zimbabwe, radio stations run by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Cooperation (National FM, Khulumani FM, Power FM, Radio Zimbabwe and Classic 263) are mainly dominant in Shona and isiNdebele languages. National FM broadcasts in 14 indigenous languages while Shona and Ndebele enjoy more airtime. Khulumani FM, a provincial radio station in Bulawayo is dominated by the Ndebele language while isiXhosa, yet minoritised language speakers, Kalanga, Tshivenda, SeSotho and BaTonga can communicate in these dominant languages(Dube & Wozniak, 2021).

The problem of majorising languages, so called ‘monolingualism’ also extends to commercial radio broadcasting. Commercial oligarchies go for languages spoken by the sheer size of ethnic population for profit purposes (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2009; Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b). Most commercial radio stations in Zimbabwe namely Breeze FM, Skyz Metro, YAFM, Capitalk 100.4 FM, and Hevoi FM prioritise either Shona or Ndebele because these majorised languages attract profit (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b). In South Africa, Zulu language enjoys commercial coverage while in Nigeria, Yoruba and Hausa languages are maximised for commercial purposes (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023b; Ndlovu, 2011; Salawu, 2021). Actually, it is an African problem in both public and commercial radio broadcasting where major indigenous languages enjoy media coverage at the expense of multilingual identities. Colonisation played a great role in constructing these complexities. In Africa, the commercialisation of major indigenous languages has been determined by several factors such as the cultural assertiveness of the language speakers against colonisation while weaker ethnic groups failed to survive (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Ndlovu, 2011; Salawu, 2021). The majorisation of other ethnic groups was not only in language but also in numbers which the polity and the media exploit for economic power (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Salawu, 2021). This article argues that instead of only focusing on the dominance of languages spoken by the majority, there is a need to accommodate multilingual speakers in both minoritised and majorised languages. We, therefore, suggest a non-domination approach that can be manifest in the accommodation of multilingual identities on radio.

Towards a non-domination approach

We propose a non-dominant approach to the issue of multilingualism on African radio. The concept of non-domination has been emphasised by several scholars especially those dealing with multiculturalism. Bachvarova (2014, p. 653) argues that multiculturalism is a non-domination principle, providing ‘equality both between and within groups’ not to ‘rehearse and reinforce the cultural values of the majority’. The issues of tolerance, individual and group rights still matter in society. The question is how to strike a balance between and among groups exercising linguistic cultural autonomy on radio. Cultures tend to produce distinct values or traditional norms that shape communities. These communities have historical relationships which multiculturally require democratic dialogue-based approaches or autonomy-based approaches to strike a balance between and among groups (Bachvarova, 2014; Kymlicka, 1995). Kymlicka (1995) argues that societal culture is defined by language and history among other aspects that entail the moral and material capacities of effective autonomy. In other words, people are more committed to a culture they are attached to through customs of language and history. We, therefore, note that most minority ethnolinguistic groups tend to be assimilated or dominated by languages and histories of major cultural groups thereby making it difficult for minorities to exercise cultural autonomy or even preserve their own history. However, multiculturalism always aims to accommodate minority language groups without restricting the autonomy of majority language groups in the name of solidarity (Bachvarova, 2014). Without the need to disadvantage the cultural autonomy of major ethnic groups like Shona or isiNdebele in Zimbabwe and isiZulu in South Africa, this article advocates for an inclusive multilingual approach among diverse ethnolinguistic groups and radio being the multilingual public sphere.

The political theory of multiculturalism questions, therefore, the possible ways in which socio-economic and political institutions can be reformed to enfranchise minorities or treat everyone as moral equals to neutralise the domination or monopoly of one ethnolinguistic group. Multiculturalism supports non-domination perspective based on the inclusion or accommodation of minorities’ cultural or religious privileges by the state not only on paper but throughout the education system, polity and all media (Bachvarova, 2014; Hayward, 2000; Maynor, 2003). Linguistic human rights studies rely on multiculturalism for the inclusion or accommodation of diverse cultures or languages by people of the same state to make up inclusive polities (Parekh, 2000). The notion of multiculturalism essentially aims to solve the problem of having unrecognised languages or cultural norms subjugated by majority populations. Majority populations organised around traditional norms or cultural assertiveness intuitively dominate and perpetuate the marginalisation of languages spoken by minorities (Ndlovu, 2011; Pelinka, 2007; Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a).

Minority languages in Africa are not only side-lined within the cultural sphere but also in the public sphere of political power and class functions in relation to the population of ethnolinguistic groups. Languages tend to be commercialised on commercial radio (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2009; Ndlovu, 2011; Salawu, 2021). This article argues multilingualism can also be commercialised because communities are becoming more fluid and identities are ever-changing. We argue that the inclusion of minority ethnolinguistic groups in the polity can reinforce multilingualism, and even promote their participation on radio. Bachvarova (2014, p. 653) argues that ‘by whatever processes, majorities and minorities come to be defined and their formation is itself a general feature of sociality since it is not functionally possible for public institutions to be completely divorced from this formation’. The argument extends to the notion of minority inclusion in political institutions, their political representation whose participation normally gets trampled by the electoral privileges of majority democracy. On the other hand, the politics of belonging or ethnicity comes to play due to ethnic differences (Njamnjoh, 2005) yet democracy should be guided by equality and justice among diverse groups (Benhabib, 2002; Deveaux, 2006; Parekh, 2000; Song, 2007).

We, therefore, argue that multilingual minorities should be propelled into mainstream socio-political and economic system of the polity. In this article, we refer to three levels that determine the equal social standing of minority ethnolinguistic groups with other majority populations, namely their involvement in the country’s economic power (income levels), allocation of resources and class system (Salawu, 2021: Ndlovu, 2011). Thus, multilingualism on radio, even commercial radio should not only be a matter of representation of these ethnolinguistic groups but their success as a community. As we have shown radio has also commercialised majority indigenous languages like isiZulu on UKhozi FM and Khaya FM. Some studies have shown that the success of indigenous language media is also determined by the economic power of the indigenous language groups (Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; 2023b; Ndlovu, 2011; Salawu, 2021). Other studies have also shown that the democratic approach to multiculturalism includes the inclusion of marginalised groups into the spheres of public deliberations (Benhabib, 2002; Deveaux, 2006; Parekh, 2000; Song, 2007). Thus, we argue all ethnolinguistic groups should be accommodated in the polity for their language success in the indigenous language media with or without economic power. This is how colonialism complicated multilingualism whereby ethnic groups compete for dominance (Bachvarova, 2014; Hayward, 2000; Maynor, 2003). We, therefore, argue that multilingualism can be used multiculturally for socio-economic and political inclusion drawing the interest of media organisations. Most scholars have shown that media has the potential to reflect linguistic cultural diversity by exploiting the newsworthiness of multilingualism (Blackledge, 2004; Mathe & Motsaathebe, 2023a; Milani, 2008; 2010; Silverstein, 1996).

Since identity is non-static, this article further argues that language systems hinder the fluidity of identities. Although many governments, especially in Africa have started recognising diverse language groups including minorities, we note that language recognition should not be only on paper but also in practice. For instance, the 2013 constitution of Zimbabwe recognised numerous languages in Zimbabwe but some of these languages are still invisible in the media. Community radio stations will enhance multilingualism in Africa, if governments would license more, just like in South Africa where there are more than 165 community radio stations. Our perspective is that African communities should be able to interact in diverse languages without the dominance of one ethnic group. From this premise of non-domination approach, we suggest what we call multilingual accommodation theory. We argue along the lines of cultural non-domination noting that multiculturalism can be achieved through multilingual accommodation.

Multilingual accommodation theory

Given our definition of multilingualism as the ability to co-existence in the form of tolerance, adjustment, recognition and accommodation of other indigenous language speakers even their accents. We, therefore, propose what we call multilingual accommodation in radio broadcasting. Our argument stems from the fact that communities consist of several majorised and minoritised indigenous languages. The co-existence of the ethnolinguistic groups of majorised and minoritised languages produces a commonality of multilingualism which this study takes into consideration. As we have mentioned some ethnolinguistic groups like the Nguni and the BaNizi(nzi) are a pluralism of languages that developed into one but with different dialects, we also highlight that the co-existence of people of different dialects can morph into a multilingual commonality. This article argues that languages can develop over a period of time determined by the co-existence and mobility of the language speakers just as we have experienced with globalisation and migrations. We believe that identities also transmute along with lingual abilities of a people in co-existence or faced with interactive socio-cultural conversions.

There are lingual terms known to the people of co-existence which were not known to the language speakers of old. Thus, the contemporary world has witnessed the mobility and interaction of major and minoritised indigenous language speakers. The lingual flexibility is mostly found among the speakers of the minoritised languages who are forced to align themselves with the popularity of majorised languages. Mathe and Motsaathebe (2023b) give a reflection of minority language speakers on Breeze FM (commercial radio) in Zimbabwe who are more multilingual and able to switch to the languages of the majority. This lingual flexibility puts such language speakers in a position of change or transformation to conversate in different dialects. While such lingual transformations take place, the speakers of the majorised languages also find themselves unconsciously adopting lingual terms from the interactive minoritised ethnolinguistic groups in co-existence. For instance, words like ‘mara’ and ‘neh’ in South Africa are colloquial terms common across people of different dialects in co-existence. Such colloquial terms reflect certain identities of commonality or multilingualism shared in an area of linguistic co-existence.

Instead of pursuing the so called hegemonic ‘monolingualism’, radio broadcasting organisations can take into consideration multilingualism of co-existence. The media has the mandate to accommodate transforming or ever-changing social identities. Borrowing from the political theory of multiculturalism, the media has the mandate to reflect the enfranchisement of ever-changing identities which effortlessly morphed into equality of co-existence, diffusing the dominance of one ethnolinguistic group. Radio in particular can transmit the verbal multilingualism of language speakers. Although accents of language speakers in indigenous languages convey abstract identities or imagined origins of identity, there must be an appreciation of multilingualism regardless of inert accents. We define multilingual accommodation as the ability to appreciate the ever-changing identities of a people in co-existence and giving meaningful coverage to multilingual speakers. In other words, the pursuit of hegemonic monolingualism somehow delays the evolution of fluid social identities. Our proposition of multilingual accommodation does not seek to threaten or restrict the autonomy of majorised languages but simply points to the already occurring realities of co-existence.

The practical way towards multilingual accommodation is to accommodate multilingual speakers and promote multilingual radio programmes. Featuring multilingual speakers involves appreciating both minoritised and majorised languages and bringing into interface speakers of such languages without the need to amplify the autonomy of dominant languages. Multilingual speakers are able to switch or mix languages captivating a multilingual audience. Such a culture of multilingualism should be promoted through radio hosts, radio programmes and multilingual radio guests and participants. It is in our view that multilingual programmes can create or promote communal commonality and harmony by diffusing the cultural dominance of one ethnic group. We also assume that multilingual programmes can promote an imagined sense of harmony among ethnic groups. In other words, radio broadcasting should reflect the realities of social interactions within a multilingual community.

Future directions

The preceding discussions provide a great vantage point to reconceptualise multilingualism in the context of Africa and proffer more liberating ways for multilingual accommodation in multicultural and multilingual contexts. Instead of endorsing one ethnic group, we argue that communities can accommodate multilingualism and the media can always follow suit since it has to serve the community in which it operates. By multilingual accommodation, we mean giving meaningful coverage to multilingual speakers on radio. For instance, the BaNizi(nzi) people in the Zambezi valley can discourse in Tonga/ Dombe, Nambya and Nyanja and have developed lingual similarities known as ChiNizi. It is our view that such a culture of multilingualism should be promoted on radio to encourage social or communal harmony. The dominant languages like isiNdebele and Shona can always be accommodated by the multilingual speakers at various times. From the Afrikology perspective, we argue that ethnic groups who co-existed for many years should be able to define their co-existence and language. Rather than focusing on one indigenous language, the co-existence should be able to unite the speakers behind a common multilingualism. Multilingual communities should be able to define their common lingual terms. Some groups in Africa like the Nguni people have common language terms. Media such as Radio should front this multingualism. This move bodes well with the Afrikological proposition that insists on empowering solutions for African problems as opposed to the foreign imposition of worldviews and ways of doing that have resulted in multiple inequalities and injustices in Africa. By reconceptualising multilingualism and/or monolingualism in Africa from an Afrikological standpoint, it will be possible to dismantle the asymmetrical linguistic and cultural relations and achieve cultural non-domination in Africa.

Conclusion

This study has a number of theoretical and policy implications. Premised on the concept of Afrikology, the article suggests a non-dominant approach to accommodate all social identities of majorised and minoritised ethnolinguistic groups. The paper brings to the fore the argument that majority languages in Africa are not monolingualism but family languages of numerous dialects that reflect a pre-colonial co-existence of diverse ethnolinguistics which developed into linguistic similarities. There are many supporting evidence in the paper used to support this notion of co-existence. From our definition of multilingualism, we amplify the abilities of co-existence. Our argument stems from the fact that Africa has always been multilingual before the partitioning of states into nations. We argue that colonialism disrupted the co-existence of Africans of lingual commonality. From this partitioning of states, some indigenous languages became majorised and others minoritised. Our conclusion is that monolingualism does not exist in Africa hence the need to accommodate multilingualism on radio rather than pursuing the elusive hegemonic or cultural autonomy of majorised indigenous languages. The article proposes multilingual accommodation referring to the promotion of multilingual radio programmes through multilingual speakers, hosts, guests or participants. We assume that such programmes have the potential to promote communal synchronisation where one ethnolinguistic group would not exercise monopoly over others.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 BaNizi (nzi) is an umbrella name that refers to the ethnolinguistic groups of the Zambezi valley who have co-existed for more than 100 years. BaNizi is common term that reflects their lingual similarities grown out of the co-existence. These ethnolinguistic groups comprise of the BaNambya, BaTonga (particularly BaDombe, a dialect of Tonga), Nambya, BaLozi and BaNyanja and are minority ethnolinguistic groups whose languages were recognised in the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe.

2 Nguni languages refer to the ethnic languages found in the Southern part of Southern Africa. These consists of isiZulu, isiXhosa, isiNdebele/Matabele and Swati.