Ukuziphendulela kubahlaziyi besiZulu Responding to isiZulu reviewers

Abstract

 Ukubhala ngezilimi zase-Afrikha kuhlala kuyinselelo ikakhulukazi uma ukubhala kwakho kuzokwahlulelwa ngokusebenzisa indlelakubuka yolimi lwamakholoni. Lokhu kungenxa yokuthi izilimi ezihamba phambili emfundweni, njengesiNgisi, zengamela ukufunda nokubhala kwezemfundo, ngakho-ke yizo ezibeka imithetho yokubhala kwezemfundo nokuthi kufanele kwenziwe kanjani. Leli phepha lisekelwe emibonweni yabahlaziyi mayelana nesahluko esithunyelwe ukuze sishicilelwe encwadini. Isahluko sibhalwe ngesiZulu kanti abahlaziyi babuye banikeza imibono yabo nangesiZulu. Ngakho-ke leli phepha liphenya le mibono lisebenzisa i-autoethnography evumela ukuthi 'uqobo' lo mcwaningi lube yingxenye yophenyo. Umcwaningi uphendula le mibono ukuze athole isisekelo sayo. Uhlaziyo lukhombisa ukuthi nakuba abahlaziyi beveze imibono ewusizo ukuze kuthuthukiswe isahluko, okunye ukuphawula kwabo kuveze ukungazi kwabo ngephuzu locwaningo elikhethwe umcwaningi. Isiphetho siwukuthi ukuphawula okusekelwe ekungazini kwabahlaziyi ngendlela yophenyo ekhethiwe yomcwaningi kungenzeka kudikibalise ababhali abangase bangabi nawo amandla okuzichaza kubahlaziyi.

Writing in African languages remains a challenge, mainly when one’s writing will be judged through the lenses of a colonial language. This is because the dominant languages in education, such as English, preside over academic literacy and dictate how academic writing should be carried out. This paper is based on the reviewers’ comments about a chapter submitted for publication in a book. The chapter was written in isiZulu, and the reviewers provided their review. Therefore, this paper interrogates these comments using auto-ethnography, allowing the researcher’s 'self' to be part of the investigation. The researcher responds to these comments in order to establish their basis. The analysis indicates that whilst the reviewers provided valuable comments for the improvement of the chapter, some of their comments revealed their ignorance about the research paradigm chosen by the researcher. The conclusion is that comments based on reviewers’ ignorance of the researcher’s preferred method of investigation are likely to discourage writers who might not have the energy to explain themselves to the reviewers.