This critical analysis delves into two pivotal research papers, namely “Colonization, Globalization, and the Future of Languages in the Twenty-first Century” by Mufweme, S. (2002) and “The Effect of Globalization in Africa and the Choice of Language in Publishing” by Bgoya, W. (2001). Both papers share a common theme centered on the impact of globalization, with a specific focus on language transformation. This analysis explores their similarities, differences, and limitations, as well as the significance of their research.
Similarities:
Both research papers are united by a shared theme: the examination of the influence of globalization on language. They converge on the idea that language shifts occur as a consequence of the globalizing forces. Bgoya (2001) and Mufweme (2002) argue that languages are adapting and changing, often due to the ease with which people adopt new languages. They highlight the increasing prominence of the English language in Africa, emphasizing its importance as a global lingua franca and a medium of instruction in schools. Moreover, both papers advocate for the preservation and recognition of African languages, debunking misconceptions that portray these languages as inadequate for scientific discourse or global communication. This shared commitment to defending the value of African languages is a fundamental commonality in both studies.
Differences:
Despite their shared theme, the two papers exhibit notable differences in their approach, focus, and scope. Bgoya’s research (2001) primarily concentrates on languages used in publishing, emphasizing the importance of resisting foreign languages. In contrast, Mufweme’s work (2002) adopts a broader perspective, examining language shifts across various contexts. Bgoya’s approach is retrospective, focusing on the challenges associated with the decline of languages rooted in the colonial era, particularly in publishing. Mufweme, on the other hand, takes a forward-looking approach, concentrating on the future of languages while considering the impacts of colonization and globalization. Bgoya’s conclusions offer solutions and positive attitudes, while Mufweme’s paper raises questions without providing explicit answers.
Moreover, Bgoya’s work includes a discussion of the role of culture, which is absent from Mufweme’s research. Bgoya (2001) argues for the preservation of native languages as a crucial element of cultural heritage. Mufweme (2002), however, does not delve into this aspect. Finally, the research sample size used by Mufweme may be considered insufficient, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.
Limitations:
Both studies have limitations. Bgoya’s research focuses on a specific domain, publishing, making its findings less generalizable to the broader context. Additionally, some of the claims in his research, particularly regarding the opposition to foreign languages, are considered contentious and unsubstantiated. Bgoya’s conclusions, while advocating for the preservation of African languages, overlook the potential advantages of adopting foreign languages in a global context.
Mufweme’s research has limitations in terms of its generalizability. The scope of the research is vast, but the variables selected for analysis may not be entirely suitable for the study’s expansive focus. Furthermore, the research ends with a series of questions rather than providing practical solutions, potentially leaving readers without a clear path forward.
Final Discussion:
The rate at which native languages are being supplanted by global languages is a growing concern in Africa and beyond. The adoption of foreign languages, particularly English, has both advantages and disadvantages, impacting culture, heritage, and communication on a global scale. Bgoya’s and Mufweme’s research offers insights into these dynamics and their consequences.
Language preservation is crucial for maintaining cultural identity and heritage. The relevance of these research papers is evident in their contribution to creating awareness of the significance of native languages and stimulating efforts to preserve them. Balancing the adoption of foreign languages with the preservation of cultural heritage remains a pressing challenge for societies worldwide.
Critical Analysis
2 | P a g e
Contents
Similarities ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Differences ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Final discussion ............................................................................................................................... 7
References ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3 | P a g e
Similarities
There are several similarities in both the papers that are undertaken for the purpose of analysis.
The paper Colonisation, Globalization, and the future of languages in the Twenty-first Century’,
Mufweme ,S. (90ojml/2002) and ‘The effect of Globalization in Africa and the choice of
language in publishing’, Bgoya, W. (2001) both revolve around the same topic that is
Globalization . One of the major objectives of both the papers is to determine the impact of
globalization on languages. To establish those objectives the variables that are taken by
researchers are also same. The major similarity lies in the arguments that languages shift takes
place due to the movement towards globalization. In his paper Bgoya (2001) suggested that the
languages of publishing are getting changed and almost all the forms of communication in Africa
is now taking place in some other languages. The most important emphasis of globalization in
Africa is usage of English language. The same issue is also raised by Mufweme (2002). He also
suggested that with the changing era the languages are also changing. Not only has this but both
the authors also believed that the major reason behind the changes in language is adaptability.
They raised the issue that people adopt languages very easily and this is the reason why these
languages are imposed on them (Greenberg et al 2008). The topics that are being evaluated here
are based on African continent and thus the demographic factors that are considered for the study
are also similar. Due to similar demographic background, some of the results of these two
researches are same. The results that have been brought up in forefront suggest that more and
more people in African continent are adopting English language and there are major reasons
behind this. Bgoya(2001) and Mufweme (2002) both of them suggested that the reason behind
adopting English language is that is used globally and with the help of this one can advance
himself. It is also a medium of interaction in the schools. The people in Africa demand English
language as they think that it is privilege and a synonym to the knowledge. There is one more
similarity in both researches t5hat is supporting the African languages. Bgoya(2001) and
Mufweme (2002) both of them supports the fact that there are several false notion being spread
by a number of people and it is bringing disgrace to the languages that are being used in African
continent (Kastenholdz 2008). The false notion that is prevalent there is that, African languages
are not so developed and these languages are not a good medium to interact. There is one more
4 | P a g e
notion that African languages are not competent enough to handle scientific concepts and
scientific terms. But all these claims and notions have been opposed by Bgoya(2001) and
Mufweme (2002) . Thus the major similarities that can be highlighted in a nutshell are related to
defending the value of African languages, ascertaining the major impacts of globalization on
future languages of African continent and the variables that are been used to perform the
research.
Differences
When these papers are analyzed, it is observed that there are a number of differences in the
findings of the paper. The biggest difference lies in the approach of the research. The approach
that is used in “Colonization, Globalization, and the future of languages in the Twenty-first
Century “by Mufweme ,S. (2002) and “The effect of Globalization in Africa and the choice of
language in publishing” by Bgoya, W. (2001) are totally different . Bgoya (2001) has focused on
languages used in publishing while Mufweme (2002) has focused on all purposes where a
language is used. Thus one research has a very small domain and other research has a wide
domain. The major focus and domain of Bgoya’s research is on the problems related to
denomination of languages that belonged to ex colonial era. He suggested that people shall not
adopt any foreign language. He also discussed the role of English in intellectual lives of the
people in African continent. Bgoya also gave several reasons why foreign languages and English
language is required to be degraded (Kahigi et al. 2008). He has also discussed several topics
related to the migration of technology and globalization with respect to the publishing industry in
Africa. The approach that has been used by Mufweme is a broader approach to discuss all the
issues. He majorly discussed about the endangerment of the languages that has taken places in
past decades. He pointed out several factors that are responsible for language shift. He basically
talked about endangerment only. Mufweme has also discussed the historical background to a
very great extent so as to establish the cause effect relationship. For this he has taken into
consideration different styles of colonization and distinction among the territories. Thus the
approach and perspective of Mufweme’s research is much wider than that of Bgoya’s research.
Another difference in the perspective is that one is retrospective while other is forward looking.
Bgoya’s concluding mark about the research ends with the idea that Globalization can be dealt
5 | P a g e
very effectively by adopting two major attitudes. Thus he ended his paper with positive remarks
and some answers. On the other hand Mufweme has not provided any answers rather it has
raised so many questions (Guldemann et al . 2009). At one place Bgoya has talked about culture
but Mufweme has nowhere discussed about this aspect. Culture is a very important aspect to
discuss this issue and he has not taken it into consideration.
On the basis of above discussion the major differences are being highlighted in the following
table:
Point of difference Bgoya Mufweme
Approach It has used the approach of
establishing the norms and
principles to come to a
conclusion
He has used cause and effect
approach to get the
conclusion.
Focus The major focus of this study
is to find out the impact of
languages on publishing.
The major focus of study is to
find out the overall impact of
languages by considering its
historical aspect as well as
future aspects.
Scope It has only captured one area
that is publishing and
language used in publishing.
It has captured the overall
impact of language shift with
respect to globalization and
colonization.
Issues discussed It discussed the issues related
to ignorance of African
language and defending the
language and taking it to
global platform.
The major issues that have
been discussed here deal with
future of languages.
Concluding remarks It ended with some answers
and attitude to deal with
globalization.
It ended with raising a number
of questions with respect to
the future of languages.
6 | P a g e
Point of view It has a negative point of view
for foreign languages.
It talked about all the
dimensions.
Relevance to society Has lesser relevance for
society.
Has higher relevance for
society.
Table 1: Differences in Bgoya’s thoughts and Mufweme’s thoughts
Limitations
When the results of both the studies are taken into consideration, a number of limitations would
be observed. In Bgoya’s research it can be seen that the results that have been arrived, are not
general and very specific. The study was limited to publishing and the language that is being
used for the purpose of publishing. Thus the results that have been provided by Bgoya cannot be
implemented to study the whole scenario and this can’t be generalized. At the same time the
scope of this study is very limited and it is based on the variables that are actually non-reliable
with respect to present scenario. Bgoya has farmed everything in a very proper manner but the
final aspects that he rendered are quite confusing and become unclear to understand the whole
scenario in a proper manner (Hayward and Richard 2008). He has talked about the choices of
languages in publishing and also opposed the usage of English in that. But this opposition is
baseless. The reason behind this fact is that English is most common language and provides a
very great platform to communicate and share ideas and thus ii is important to adopt foreign
languages as well. If foreign languages are discarded then people will stay backward and their
chances of advancement would get hampered. Thus the claims that are being supported by
Bgoya have so many limitations and they also lack understanding in general terms. Moreover
this research proposes that there are answers to globalization and his answers again discard the
use of English language. But the only answer to globalization is to become global and compete
on a global platform. It would only be possible if foreign languages are also adopted by the
people. In similar norm the claims that have been put forward by Mufweme are baseless and less
practical. The approach the he adopted at the end of the research is of raising questions. This is
not the right approach he should have concluded with problem solving approach. An effective
7 | P a g e
research is the one that provides solutions rather than raising questions. The scope of his research
is very vast but the variable that he took doesn’t match with the scope and thus puts all his efforts
into vain (Heine et al . 2009). He tried to discuss the future of languages while keeping in view
the impact of colonization and globalization but he missed connections at so many points. He
discussed the history to make a proper background but his foundation was weak and thus the
results that he presented were also weak. Finally the sample size for collecting the feedback was
not sufficient. The sample size that he opted could be bigger so that the results that he found out
can be generalized. Thus the above discussion suggests that the major limitation that has affected
both the researches is generalization of the research. This is most noticeable limitation that has
reduced the weight age of all the efforts that have been done by both the researchers.
Final discussion
After going through the whole discussion about the similarities and differences of both papers
some factors have been identified .These are the factors that makes the whole topic worth
discussing. While talking about the languages and their shifts, the trends in African Continent are
matter of great concern. The rate with which people in Africa are adopting other languages
(especially foreign languages), there is a danger of extinction on so many native languages. It is
happening not only in Africa but the whole world is victimizing this trend. This fact is engraved
with advantages as well as disadvantages. The advantages of adoption of foreign languages are
that the whole world gets a common platform to interact with each other. Because of this people
are able to share their views and ideas and it is enabling the development of so many regions that
were previously backward (Emenanjo 2011). There is a very long list of advantages associated
with this aspect. At the same time this is also engraved with a number of disadvantages such as
lose of culture and belongingness. Every region has its language that resembles its integrity and
if it becomes endangered then there are several disadvantages of it .Language depicts the
heritage of a region or a country and every country tries to preserve its heritage by preserving the
local language. This is the biggest concern in front of so many countries. There are many
countries including Australia that are striving to preserve its languages with the use of a number
of techniques. These researches are one of those techniques that are used by academicians,
research scholars and government so as to make people aware about the future of their languages
8 | P a g e
and make efforts to preserve it. Thus the need of the hour is to arise and do something so as to
prevent the languages from getting endangered. It is good to move forward by using foreign
languages but at the same time one shall also keep his heritage alive (Grimes and Barbara
2010).Thus the researches done by Mufweme and Bgoya are very beneficial to the societies to
understand the relevance of their languages and make some efforts by analyzing the facts and
figure, to preserve the languages.
Figure 1: Global challenges in language preservation
Source: WWF