Introduction
Problems facing indigenous language press in Africa are a reflection of problems facing the languages of the continent in general. In most parts of Africa, communication in indigenous languages has been adversely affected by the choice of the colonial language as the official language. Salawu (2006a) notes that the story of indigenous language newspapers rising and dying is the same across most parts of Africa. In 1930, there were 19 registered African language newspapers in South Africa. They included the isiXhosa Imvo Zabantsundu and Inkundla ya Bantu. Today, most of those newspapers are non-existent. As recently as the 1990s, there used to be newspapers in 15 Ghanaian languages; today, there are none (Salawu 2006b). In the colonial Democratic Republic of Congo, there were more than 150 periodicals in indigenous languages. Today, the story is quite different (Vinck 2006). In Cameroon, there is hardly a noteworthy indigenous language newspaper (Tanjong and Muluh 2006). Of all the newspapers in the first to the fourth ‘waves' of indigenous language press in Nigeria (Folarin and Mohammed 1996), only Gaskiya Tafi Kwabo (established in 1937) still exists till today. Iroyin Yoruba, established in 1945, existed till 1996 when it was finally laid to rest. Meanwhile, many other newspapers that had come after Gaskiya and Iroyin Yoruba had ceased to exist. Writing about (scholarly) writing and publishing in Africa, Mulokozi (2007, 105) observes that besides attitudinal, policy and technical constraints, other constraints include a limited audience for works in some of the languages; shortage of writers well versed in the languages and willing to write in those languages; lack of academic scholarly tradition; lack of reference resources; lack of specialised terminologies; and hesitancy of publishers to publish works in those languages.
There are however some outstanding success stories in African language newspaper publishing. In Yorubaland (Nigeria) today, for instance, there are still some Yoruba newspapers serving the people. Among them, Alaroye is a particularly phenomenal success. In South Africa, there is a daily Zulu newspaper called Isolezwe. The newspaper has become a household name among its readers, while its popularity is attested to by the fact that it sells on average over 100,000 copies per day.1 Rumour has it that the newspaper, launched in 2002, has even lured readers away from established English newspapers (Salawu 2006b, 55). Ilanga and UmAfrika, both in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, have been in existence since 1903 and 1929 respectively. And, among the 125 newspapers in Ethiopia, 108 are in Amharic, two in Oromo and one in Tigre. Ethiopia is one of the three countries in Africa (with Tanzania and Somalia) where a local language is used as a medium of instruction to a high level and for official and administrative purposes.
What is of curiosity to this present paper is the reason why businesses in African language press are unstable. In order to unravel this, we turn to sociolinguistics and language politics in Africa. This is followed by discussions of critical political economy and field theory. From there, the paper turns to the Models of Managing Local Language Press, as postulated by Salawu (2013). Lastly, we look at political economy-induced factors that could explain why or not an African language newspaper could flourish.
Sociolinguistics and language politics in Africa
Sociolinguistics has typically addressed two central issues: the utility of language in various spheres (e.g. education, media, judiciary etc.) and the role of language in the formation of identities (Chibita 2006, 241). Fasold (1984) notes that sociolinguistics addresses the parameters that society or sectors of society assign to languages, as well as attitudes towards those languages and their roles. Sociolinguistics deals specifically with the role that language plays in the media as a key public domain.
The literature on language policy and planning (LPP) research (in Africa) is said to be in three phases (Ricento 2000). The first phase (early 1960s) marked the designation of the Languages of Wider Communication, such as English, as languages for use in limited, formal and specialised domains and indigenous languages as those for general purposes. Sociolinguistic research during this phase held that linguistic homogeneity was more appropriate for furthering the goals of modernisation and Westernisation than linguistic diversity, which was seen as an obstacle (cf. Chibita 2006, 243; Salawu 2007). Similarly, the argument during this phase was that homogeneity or having a ‘unifying’ language was important in nation formation. Thus the notion of designating as national languages only such languages deemed developed or ‘developable’. Some countries in East Africa such as Tanzania and Kenya took this seriously and downplayed the use of the different indigenous languages in the public domain in favor of a lingua franca, Kiswahili.
The second phase (roughly from the early 1970s through the late 1980s) of LPP research indicated a realisation that language policy and planning were not neutral academic exercises, but were informed by political and economic motives related to the interests of key Western nations (Ricento 2000, 14). Research in this phase demonstrated that favouring the colonial languages (like English, French and Portuguese in Africa) as neutral media to aid the development process in developing countries was informed by the need to further the economic interests of countries in the metropolis and not by any inherent superiority of the languages themselves (Ricento 2000, cited in Chibita 2006). Features of the third phase (roughly from the mid 1980s to the present day) of LPP research are related to trends such as globalisation, postmodernism and linguistic human rights. This third phase of LPP research has witnessed the expression of fears about the possible (or is it imminent?) death of minority languages as a result of the threat of globalisation (see Salawu 2010). The languages of the global North have remained dominant simply because their patrons control large amounts of global wealth. The dominant languages thus continue to wield undue power over the majority of the world's languages. Ricento (2000), however, observes that advocates of language maintenance have identified a correlation between linguistic diversity and biodiversity.
The politics of language in Africa today is a legacy of colonialism. The traditions and conventions of language politics in Africa are formed by the colonial legacy (du Plessis 2011). Meeuwis (2011) presents an insightful analysis of different colonial approaches to language. While England, Germany and Belgium adopted a policy of adaptationism (also called acculturationism or indirect rule), France and Poland adopted assimilationism. Those were the policies adopted by the colonial lords in political as well as in linguistic and cultural spheres of their colonies.
The mass media in Africa is predominated by foreign and colonial languages (Salawu 2011). In the anglophone world of Africa, English language media is the mainstream media. In the francophone world of Africa, French is the language (Diallo 2011). The lusophone Africa has Portuguese as the language of dominance. Writing about the situation in Kenya, Ngugi wa Thiong'o wrote, ‘English became more than a language: it was the language and all the others had to bow before it in deference’ (Ngugi 1986, 11). Ngugi (1993) offers an explanation of the positions of West European languages and African languages:
Today, the West European languages and African languages are where they are in relation to one another, not because they are inherently progressive or backward but because of the history of oppression on the one hand, and the resistance to that oppression on the other. (Ngugi 1993, 36)
Recognising, though, that the West European languages are the languages of power, he, nevertheless, contends:
But they are still spoken by a minority within each of the nationalities that make up these countries. The majority of the working people in Africa retain African languages. Therefore, the majority of people are excluded from the centre stage since they do not have mastery of the language of power. They are also excluded from any meaningful participation in modern discoveries. English, French and Portuguese are the languages in which the African people have been educated; for this reason the results of our research into science, technology and of our achievements in the creative arts are stored in those languages. Thus a large portion of this vast knowledge is locked up in the linguistic prison of English, French and Portuguese. Even, the libraries are really English (or indeed French or Portuguese) language fortresses inaccessible to the majority. So, the cultivation of these languages makes for more effective communication only between the elite and the international English-speaking bourgeoisie. (Ibid., 37)
Ngugi Wa Thiong'o's decision to do his creative writings in his native Gikuyu language was predicated on the argument stated above. He also strongly recommends to fellow African writers to do their literature in African languages. The language debate of African literature was actually started by Obiajunwa Wali in 1963 when he argued that ‘the whole uncritical acceptance of English and French as the inevitable medium for educated African writing is misdirected and has no chance of advancing African literature and culture’ (Wali 1963, 13). Ngugi's later amplification of this view popularised the whole debate and his stance was criticised by some other African writers and literary critics, notably the late Chinua Achebe. Achebe (1975) contended that he has no choice but to write in English. He argued that the colonial language is the language that can reach the whole country, like English in Nigeria or Portuguese in Angola. He further argues that European languages can be Africanised to serve African ideas and interests, with the postulation that the price a world language must be prepared to pay is submission to many different kinds of use (Ibid.). Others who have argued against Ngugi's stance include Vakunta (2010) and Moore (2004). This however is not to say that Achebe never wrote in his native language, Igbo. In 1999, for instance, he wrote and delivered the fourth in the series of a pan-Igbo annual lectures, ODENIGBO, in (the Onitsha dialect of) Igbo (Emenyonu 2002, 259).
The point that should however not be lost is that communicating in African languages and all other languages on the fringes will continue to breathe life into them and maintain the distinct identities of the owners of the languages as well as the essence of their beings.
Critical political economy
Critical political economy appreciates the interrelationships between the distribution of material and symbolic resources (Murdock and Golding 1995). Political economy argues that media markets are part of the capitalist economic system with close links to the political system in a country (Fourie 2007, 136). Political economy takes a distinctly Marxist approach to the study of media (communications) (Kline 2009). Inglis (1990, 114) notes that the media industry adheres to the four standard features of the capitalist mode of production:
mass production and the distribution of commodities;
capital-intensive technology;
managerial organisations of highly specialised divisions of labour;
cost-efficiency as the criterion of success (cf. Fourie 2007, 136).
the reduction in independent media sources;
a focus on the largest markets and their tastes;
avoidance of risks;
reduced investment in less profitable media tasks (such as investigative reporting and documentary film-making);
neglect of smaller and poorer sectors of the potential audience.
The literature of critical political economy addresses the close relationship between those who wield political (and economic) power (Chibita 2006, 249–250). It looks at the impact of the economic structure on the diversity and availability of ‘public cultural expression’ (Murdock and Golding 2005, 62–63; Kline 2009). According to McChesney (2000), the global media, for its profit motive, strives to ensure that the global political and economic environment remain conducive to the free movement of cultural commodities to secure the largest audience for cheap homogenous cultural products. This concept of cultural homogenisation ties into modernisation and its reincarnation, globalisation (Knock 1999; Salawu 2007). To facilitate the free flow of trade in the cultural commodities, the less complicated the language equation, the better. A ‘global’ language like English (Crystal 1997) is key to the flourishing of this cultural economy. The onslaught of globalisation on very many languages of the world, including many national languages in Europe, is real. Hourigan (2007, 254) notes that with the increasing dominance of global economic institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the secession of political power to supra-national structures such as the European Union, it is clear that the global political context through which we evaluate language status has changed. The process of minoritisation is now being experienced by other more powerful language groups.
Critical political economy and field theory
The issue of large-scale production and ‘massification’ of audience or consumers as espoused in political economy intersects with Bourdieu's (field theory) large-scale (mass) production in the field of cultural production (Bourdieu 1993, 1996). The field of production is the third of the three ‘structuring structures' (Toynbee 2001, 8) in field theory, the first two being the field of works and the habitus of individual producers. The field of production contains both the field of works and the constellation of producers (Atton and Hamilton 2008). The field, Bourdieu notes, is subject to economic and political constraints. The field is divided into two sub-fields: large-scale (mass) production and small-scale (restricted) production. The former is primarily concerned with the production of commercial cultural products on a mass scale. Its dependence on outside (economic) forces makes it vulnerable to market forces. The latter sub-field is more autonomous, neither concerned with a mass audience, nor with economic status.
African local language media can be located in the sub-field of small-scale production while the colonial language (such as English and French) media, which constitutes the mainstream media in Africa, is located in the sub-field of large-scale (mass) production. Bourdieu (1996) remarks that the field of production is located in the field of power as it is subject to economic and political constraints.
Models of managing local language press
We can identify two basic models of managing local language press. They are what I would call the mainstream model and the subsidiary model. In the mainstream model, we have local language newspapers that exist as sole or main products of a media organisation. Such newspaper organisations that exclusively deal in local language publications include World Information Agents, Ajoro, Marianhill Monastery, Mandla-Matla Publishing etc.
World Information Agents publishes titles such as Alaroye, Akede Agbaye, Alaroye Magasini and Iriri Aye. Ajoro publishes Ajoro, Marianhill Monastery used to publish UmAfrika, while Mandla-Matla Publishing publishes Ilanga.
The subsidiary model consists of local language newspapers that exist as subsidiary products of a foreign (but dominant) language media organisation. For instance, in Nigeria, the defunct Daily Sketch Press Ltd, publisher of English titles such as Daily Sketch, Sunday Sketch and Evening Sketch, also published Gboungboun, a Yoruba newspaper. The Concord Press of Nigeria, publisher of titles such as National Concord, Sunday Concord, Weekend Concord and African Concord, used to publish local language titles such as Isokan (Yoruba), Amana (Hausa) and Udoka (Igbo). African Newspapers of Nigeria plc, publishers of Nigerian Tribune, Saturday Tribune, Sunday Tribune and Sporting Tribune, also used to publish Iroyin Yoruba. The Northern Literature Agency, publisher of New Nigerian, also publishes Gaskiya. The defunct Perskoporasie of South Africa (Perskor), publisher of titles in English and Afrikaans, also used to publish the now-defunct Imvo Zabantsundu, an isiXhosa newspaper. This model seems to be the trend in South Africa now. In 2002, Independent Newspapers Limited, publishers of The Star, Daily News, Pretoria News and Sunday Tribune etc., established Isolezwe, the isiZulu daily newspaper. In November 2010, Avusa Media Group, publishers of Sunday Times, Sowetan, Business Day, Daily Dispatch and the Herald, also introduced the isiZulu version of Sunday Times. UmAfrika is also now in the hands of the Zico Investment–Witness Group partnership. Interestingly, Media24, another major media conglomerate in South Africa, owns 50% of the Witness Group.
The two model types can be differentiated along the following typology:
Focus/Attention/Priority: Local language newspapers in the mainstream model enjoy all the attention of the publishers because they are the only products in the organisation. Such local language newspapers do not need to compete for attention with the foreign but dominant language newspapers because they do not exist in the organisation. Publishers of such local language newspapers realise that the death of the newspapers means the death of the organisation and their business in that regard. This is the situation with newspapers like Alaroye and Akede Agbaye in Nigeria; and UmAfrika (before 2002) and Ilanga in South Africa, for example. In contrast, local language newspapers published as subsidiary newspapers in a foreign language newspaper-dominated organisation do not enjoy similar attention. In most instances, they are treated just as appendages of the organisation. This may be evident physically in the amount of office space given to the editorial unit working on the local language newspaper. In matters of printing, the concerns of such newspapers become secondary. Imvo Zabantsundu suffered this fate under Perskor (Salawu 2013). In any event, they do not enjoy any priority. It is the same situation when it comes to canvassing for advertisements and circulating the newspaper. Advertising executives in such organisations do not regard canvassing for adverts for the local language newspapers as a priority. This is however due to the general language apathy, particularly among the elites who are the advertisers (Salawu 1993, 2004a). The newspapers do not also enjoy any serious attention when it comes to circulation. The circulation desk of the organisation regards (and rightly so) the dominant foreign language newspapers as the mainstay of the organisation. As such, all their plans are made with utmost reference to the foreign language newspapers at the expense of the local language newspapers. This was the fate of UmAfrika when its circulation was being handled by Natal Newspaper Distributor (CCSU 1990, 12). Again, in any event of the fortunes of the organisation plummeting, the local language newspapers will be the first casualties. Gboungboun of Sketch Press, Iroyin Yoruba of ANN plc and Imvo of Perskor are good examples in this regard. In the attempts to restructure in order to emerge from the fiscal challenge, such organisations usually look for what are considered to be drainpipes. Unfortunately, local language newspapers published in such organisations are considered to be drainpipes because they do not yield the amount of revenue that dominant foreign language newspapers do in terms of sales and adverts. They are seen not to be viable, and publication is therefore stopped or suspended in such circumstances. Such were the fates of the defunct Gboungboun in the defunct Sketch Press Limited and the defunct Iroyin Yoruba in African Newspapers Nigeria plc, for example.
Resources (Sharing) – Men, Materials, Machine and Marketing: The advantage in having local language newspapers published with dominant foreign language newspapers is in the sharing of resources. Thus, for local language newspapers published as subsidiary products, the advantage of sharing resources with the other newspapers exists. For instance, organisations having such products will only have a central administrative section, commercial (circulation and advertising) section and printing section. It is the same personnel that work in these sections who will be serving all the products (either main or subsidiary) in the organisation. This is economical for the organisation. Materials and machines (for instance, printing) can also be jointly used for the various products. Similarly, the same circulation trucks or vans can be used for the circulation of the newspapers. Local language newspapers published as mainstream products do not have these advantages. They are published in smaller organisations and with smaller resources. However, for local language newspapers published as subsidiary products, while resource sharing may be an advantage, they do not usually benefit the most from these opportunities as they are regarded as mere appendages of the organisation.
The case of political economy: factors responsible for the success of local language newspapers in Africa
Other than the model of management in which a local language newspaper finds itself, three factors stand out to determine the success of such newspapers. These are the size of the population of the speakers of the language (of the newspaper), power equation and resource allocation, as well as the ability of the newspapers to pander to the taste of youths and growing urban elites in terms of language use and contents. We shall look at these three points in turn.
(1) . Size of the population of the speakers of the language and cultural assertiveness
Writing about the success of Zulu language newspapers in South Africa, Ndlovu (2011, 278) asserts that ‘the pride which the amaZulu have in their language and the sheer size of the Zulu-speaking market are phenomena that have led to … an increase in privately-owned Zulu media platforms.’ The 2011 census in the country indicates isiZulu is the mother tongue of 22.7% of South Africa's population, followed by isiXhosa (16.0%), Afrikaans (13.5%), English (9.6%), Sepedi (9.1%), Setswana (8.0%), Sesotho (7.6%), Xitsonga (4.5%), SiSwati (2.5%), Tshivenda (2.4%) and IsiNdebele (2.1%) (Statistics South Africa 2012). Apart from this, Zulu is the most widely spoken language after English … about 50% of the country understands it (Praise for New Zulu Paper 2011, 1, cited in Ndlovu 2011, 279). In Kwa-Zulu Natal province, 80% of the population is Zulu speaking. Some 21.5% of residents of Gaunteng province speak Zulu as their mother tongue. In Mpumalanga, Zulu is the second most common language (26.4%) after Swati (30.8%).
But it is not just the size of a language that matters; the cultural assertiveness of its speakers also goes a long way in determining it as a language in the public domain. Ndlovu (Ibid.) moves this thesis further:
Zulu media outlets, in political and cultural terms, are currently relatively dominant because of the historical pride of the amaZulu (Zulu people) towards Zulu (the language). … In cultural-economic terms, Zulu media outlets are rising because of the comparatively larger numbers of Zulu-speaking people in the South African linguistic market. (Ndlovu 2011, 1)
Salawu (2012) also reiterates this point as contributing to the success of media that operates in such widely spoken languages. Salawu notes that print media exists in Hausa and Yoruba, two of the major languages in Nigeria (and some of them do well in the market) because of their relatively large populations compared with the minority languages in the country. This point would explain the success of Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo (Hausa) and Alaroye publications (Yoruba), for example. There is also the contention that the print media landscape in Igbo (the third largest language in Nigeria) is not that exciting simply because the speakers of the language do not have as much cultural assertiveness as those of Hausa and Yoruba (see the interview granted by Professor Samuel Uzochukwu to The Guardian newspaper of 27 August 2004, pp. 32–33; Salawu 2006a; see also Nnabuihe and Ikwubuzo 2006, 54).
Talking about political economy, it is the largeness of the Zulu-speaking market that media corporations latch on to for profit. Citing Comaroff and Comaroff (2009) and Wasserman (2009), Ndlovu (2011, 269) refers to this as ‘commercialisation of identity and language’. He notes that private media corporations in South Africa have, in the past 20 years, selectively promoted those languages that belong to those language groups that have certain inherent historical demographic characteristics which are easily utilisable for profit. The media corporations (either local or international) have systematically opted to strongly support those indigenous language groups that individually and comparatively offer larger audiences and/or higher growing income levels (Ibid., 270). In specific terms, he asserts:
Media corporations targeting Zulu media consumers … support Zulu because of the bigger numbers of Zulu speakers/media consumers, compared to other individual black ethnic groups. The Zulu group is also supported because of the size of its youth audiences, its growing middle class and the urbanization taking place in KZN [KwaZulu-Natal]. (Ibid., 270)
The point that the size of the population speaking the language is not, on its own, enough for its economic viability is further reiterated by Ndlovu when he writes:
In addition, generally speaking media corporations support those language groups that … also have a long-standing history of (and still strongly commercially viable) publishing and media consumption specifically in their own languages. As such, and with carefully calculated commercial risk, they have strategically set up new ‘traditional’ (radio and newspapers) and new ‘digital’ (online) media platforms among those groups that, despite globalisation and the persistent hegemony of English, still take strong historical, futuristic, political and cultural pride in their languages. (Ibid., 270, emphasis added)
The issue of cultural pride (I prefer ‘assertiveness') may perhaps partly explain why Xhosa is no longer doing so well in newspaper publishing as Zulu is. (Imvo Zabantsundu, the isiXhosa newspaper that existed between 1884 and 1997, was quite remarkable. Since its collapse, there has been no serious attempt to restart it and no other mainstream isiXhosa newspaper has been established since then.) Salawu (2013) may perhaps been hinting at this when he says that until after the collapse of apartheid, the difference among the various Xhosa-speaking peoples was well pronounced. The Xhosa nation was not united as it was divided into Rarabe Xhosa (later known as Ciskei) and Gcaleka Xhosa (known as Transkei). Ciskei and Transkei were among the homelands created by the apartheid government across South Africa. Even within these two divisions, there are sub-divisions. These divisions also speak different dialects of the same language, and each claims superiority and higher purity over the other. Igbo in Nigeria also suffers this as it is still embroiled in the conflict of finding a generally acceptable standard orthography (Emenyonu 2002). But by far the greatest problem militating against the flourishing of African languages is not that of the politics of evolving a standard form, but of the attitude of most native speakers to their languages. This attitude is perhaps what is going well for Zulu as Ndlovu (2011, 280) remarks that of the nine provinces that make up South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal (the home of the Zulu) is arguably by far the most culturally, historically and politically conscious.
Perhaps because of this Zulu cultural assertiveness, there has been a tendency for Zulu to be taken as representing all Nguni languages. Ndlovu (2011, 280) seemingly makes an allusion to this when he says Zulu belongs to the broader Nguni language group that incorporates Xhosa, Ndebele and Swati. The people who speak these Nguni variations mostly understand Zulu. While trying to find an answer to why there are no mainstream newspapers in isiXhosa, for instance, and why media corporations have not been interested in investing in it (as the second largest South African native language), the conjecture of Salawu (2013) is that the investors probably do not see any need for an isiXhosa language newspaper, assuming that since both are Nguni languages, the isiZulu newspapers are enough to cater for all such languages and peoples.
It is this vast population of speakers and ‘associated’ speakers of the Zulu language that the media corporations have been exploiting to sustain old and launch new traditional media platforms. It is for this reason that the Zico Investment–Witness Group–Media24 consortium bought into the struggling UmAfrika in 2002. International media conglomerates are also taking a cue from the local media operators. In 2002, the Irish-owned Independent News and Media Group launched the highly successful Isolezwe, the only local language daily newspaper in South Africa and the only truly daily newspaper in KZN (AMPS 2010A, in ADS24 2011). The newspaper has become a household name among its readers, while its popularity is attested to by the fact that it sells on average over 100,000 copies per day.1 The Avusa Media Group was so impressed by the success of Isolezwe that in November 2010, it launched the isiZulu version of its flagship and highly successful newspaper, Sunday Times. Meanwhile, the Media24 group is also said to be interested in buying the 109-year-old Ilanga from Mandla-Matla, an investment arm of the Inkatha Freedom Party. Already the newspaper's subscription, circulation, advertising and marketing aspects are being handled by the conglomerate (Ndlovu 2011, 284).
(2) . Power equation and resource allocation
Writing about the political economy of indigenous language media in Nigeria, Oso (2006) notes:
The point here cannot be treated in isolation from the issue of the size of a language's population. There is a contention that the people of a major ethnic group always have better access to power and economic resources in the polity (Nnoli 1980). The literature of political economy tells us there is a link between power and resource allocation (Murdock and Golding 1995). Ndlovu (2011, 270) makes it clear that media corporations are not only interested in the size of the audience who speak a certain language, but also in the audience's comparative higher/growing income levels. He specifically mentions that ‘the Zulu group is also supported because of the … growing middle class and the urbanisation taking place in KZN. While Afrikaans consumers are exploited in terms of their buying power, the Zulu audience is seen as “aspirational”’ (Ibid., 270).
(3) . Repackaging of contents and format
The increasing success of Ilanga (and its two extensions, Ilanga le Theku and Ilanga LangeSonto) is not due to the intervention of any media corporations. As already stated in this paper, Media24 was only indicating interest in buying the newspaper even though it is already involved in the advertisement, marketing and circulation of it. The newspaper is still in the hands of the investment arm of the Inkatha Freedom Party, that is, Mandla-Matla. Ilanga titles are said to be commanding the highest readership in KwaZulu-Natal (AMPS 2010A, in ADS24 2011). Its rising success is due to the repackaging of its content and format ‘to reflect the new content and format interests of Zulu newspaper consumers’ (Ndlovu 2011, 273). On 12 November 2009, the 109-year-old newspaper changed from a broadsheet to a tabloid format. This tabloidisation (see Franklin et al. 2005; Wasserman 2006, 2010) of Ilanga appeals to the taste of Zulu urban youths and the middle class who are the targets of merchandising capitalism. Thus, Ilanga is able to sell the crucial audience to corporate advertisers (see Croteau and Hoynes 2000). Ndlovu (2011, 284) remarks that the tabloidisation of Ilanga and the launch of le Theku and LangeSonto speak not only to a change in Zulu audiences’ ‘tastes’, but also to a corporate mentality that is more interested in making money than it is in politics. In this quest for money, it is not only politics that has been made a casualty; language purity has also been jettisoned or guillotined. The Zulu language in the newspaper is adulterated with English and postmodern slang that has crept into the language. This is the language form that appeals to the target readerships and is understood by them. Regrettably, this seems to be the reality with African languages in this postmodern age. Ndlovu (2011) similarly remarks:
Zulu media are ‘caught up’ in this inconsistent and contradictory relationship that urban and middle-class Zulu speakers have with Zulu and with English as a language. While Zulu is central to their collective ethno-linguistic identity, English is central to their individual social mobility. The futuristic popular appeal of Zulu media seems to be based not only on the hybridization of Zulu with English, but also on the increasing accommodation of other linguistic varieties such as tsotsitaal (urban township street lingo) and other urban vernaculars. (Ndlovu 2011, 273)
This situation is similar to what is found with most Yoruba newspapers of today, particularly the Alaroye titles. It is said to be the most successful newspaper publishing venture in Yoruba today (Salawu 2004b). This fact cannot be divorced from their tabloidisation and hybridisation of Yoruba. Interestingly, this is what appeals to the urban youths who have the ability both to purchase and to read the newspapers. Salawu (2004b) notes:
The emergence of Alaroye newspaper in 1996 marked a milestone in the affairs of Yoruba and, indeed, mother-tongue newspapers in Nigeria. Within a short time, this newspaper became popular because of its arresting cover design and styles of headline-casting and story presentation. (Salawu 2004b, 662)
Alaroye titles code-mix in their writings by using English words written in Yoruba orthography. One of the examples cited in Salawu (Ibid., 668) is from a story ‘Yee Siifu fee se mi lese, agbalagba omoota’. The excerpt from the story is the following:
Nnkan to je ki n hapi nip e ta a ba maa se mareeji wa, awon aafa la ma ape, a o ni lo si soosi. Ati pe mo tun biliifu pe …
The headline itself contains an English word ‘Chief’ written as ‘Siifu’. The excerpt has four English words: hapi (happy), mareeji (marriage), soosi (church), biliifu (believe). The point is that these newspapers have to resort to this hybridisation of language to appeal to a mass audience and thereby engage in large-scale production. This is in line with Bourdieu's classification of the field of cultural production. What happens here is the sacrifice of cultural rejuvenation on the altar of profit.
Unfortunately, this is the reality for African media and cultural production in the flux of globalisation. The postmodern culture of globalisation has made African languages and all other languages on the fringe vulnerable to the ‘bastardisation’ of their original configuration. They seem helpless in protecting themselves from being untainted by the pastiches of the languages of power. For the sake of pragmatism, African languages have succumbed to their plunder by the global languages. The consolation here would be that languages are supposed to be dynamic. Therefore, the inflections from English, for instance, are an indication of growth in African languages. Ndlovu (2011) makes a rather euphemistic remark about this:
Though Zulu media are set to live long, Zulu itself as a language might be in for some linguistic transformation. The youth that most of the KZN media target, seem to show an orientation towards an impure form of Zulu, hence further reshaping Zuluness into popular culture. (Ndlovu 2011, 287)
Interestingly, UmAfrika is still holding out against the perversion of its ideals as a religious publication which, of course, would also mean its adherence to the pure form of Zulu, untainted by ‘worldliness'. The paper, established by Marianhill Monastery, a Catholic mission, started as a mission press. Even though UmAfrika, now in the hands of the Zico Investment group is under secular corporate management, it is yet to go the way of the popular culture. Ndlovu (Ibid.) remarks rather sarcastically:
the paper's continued association with a religious institution and its search for a serious and mature audience has limited its appeal in a depoliticizing South Africa, where the celebration of materialism and consumerism is becoming the norm. (277)
This adherence to the ideals may perhaps explain why UmAfrika is the least successful of all local language newspapers in KZN. Time will however tell how long the newspaper can continue to rebuff the claws of capitalist demagoguery.
Conclusion
The success of a local language newspaper is not dependent on a particular management model under which it falls. There are cases of newspapers being managed by local and international media corporations that are doing well. Isolezwe is a very good example of such a newspaper. We do not yet have data about the performance of the isiZulu version of Sunday Times being published by the Avusa Media Group. However, as has been seen with the demise of earlier local language newspapers managed under the subsidiary model, once recession sets in for the media corporation, the local language newspapers become the first casualties. Imvo Zabantsundu under Perksor (Salawu 2013), Gbohungbohun under Sketch Press Limited and Iroyin Yoruba under African Newspapers of Nigeria plc suffered this fate.
Meanwhile, Alaroye and Ilanga have proved that mainstream model newspapers can survive without the protection of a media corporation or conglomerate. This success may have been achieved with what some critics would regard as ‘junk’ or ‘yellow’ journalism; and which in professional parlance is called tabloidisation. This may also be coupled with ‘modernisation’ (hybridisation) of the local language as a style in the newspapers. What is however certain is that the readers get what they want from the newspapers, and that accounts for the latter's success. The amount of corporate advertisements they receive as some kind of support is also what can be investigated.
On the other hand, we have the case of UmAfrika, which, despite being now under a media corporation, is not yet doing as well as other isiZulu newspapers in KwaZulu-Natal. The reason Ndlovu (2011) gives is that it is not yet ‘repackaged/refocused’. The simple explanation is that the newspaper is not yet pandering to the taste of the market which is made up of urban youths and the middle class. The fact of the matter is that the success of local language press in sub-Saharan Africa can only be explained by political economy which hinges on the size of a language's population, the power equation and resource allocation, as well as the ability of a newspaper to pander to the tastes of the market composed largely of urban youths and the middle class. Meanwhile, the survival of African languages depends on promoting the publishing of newspapers and literary works (Prah 2007).