OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº.1, TD4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026

LINGUISTIC PLURICENTRISM AND EPISTEMIC JUSTICE: SOME PERSPECTIVES

IN LIGHT OF THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC CITIZENSHIP

ISABEL MARGARIDA DUARTE

iduarte@letras.up.pt

Emerita Full Professor of Linguistics at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of

Porto (Portugal). An internationally recognized scholar, she has published extensively in the fields

of Pragmatics, particularly discourse markers and forms of address, Portuguese pluricentrism,

and the teaching and learning of Portuguese as a mother tongue and as a foreign language. Her

scholarly work has appeared in numerous national and international books and peer-reviewed

journals, contributing significantly to contemporary debates on language use, variation, and

education. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7908-5649

VASCO MAGONA

vascosande@yahoo.com.br

Assistant Professor of Bantu Languages (Theoretical Linguistics) at the Faculty of Arts and Social

Sciences, Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo (Mozambique). He earned his PhD in Linguistics

from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto, Portugal, in 2024. His

research is situated at the intersection of decolonial studies, bilingual education, language policy

and pedagogy, and the descriptive analysis of Bantu languages, with particular emphasis on

morphology and phonology. He is also engaged in textbook development and the promotion of

linguistically inclusive educational practices in multilingual African settings.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6107-829

Abstract

In light of the concept of Linguistic Citizenship, this article reflects on some theoretical and

epistemological notions that allow us to problematize the classification of two languages

spoken in six countries of southern Africa, including Mozambique, as pluricentric languages.

The research adopts a qualitative methodological approach, of an ethnographic nature, within

the framework of linguistic ethnography, based on focus group discussions with educated

speakers of two African languages. The results of this study suggest the need to consider

linguistic pluricentrism without losing sight of the disinhibition of subjectivities imposed by

colonialism. But also, as a potential mechanism for reversing the colonial technology of

domination based on exclusion. This involves, on the one hand, looking at their generating

criteria as unfinished ‘products’, susceptible to (re)interpretations. On the other hand, it

involves, in their rereading, considering the context of use, the adverse colonial past to which

African languages were subjected, and the ‘logos’ of ‘peripheralized’ subjects. From this

framework, we argue that Nyanja and Changana, the languages analyzed, suggest pluricentric

scenarios.

Keywords

Pluricentric Languages, Epistemic Justice, Nyanja, Changana, Language Citizenship.

Resumo

À luz do conceito de Cidadania Linguística, este artigo reflete sobre algumas noções teóricas

e epistemológicas que nos permitam problematizar a classificação de duas línguas faladas em

seis países da África Austral, incluindo Moçambique, como línguas pluricêntricas. A pesquisa

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

adota uma abordagem metodológica qualitativa, de cunho etnográfico, na vertente da

etnografia linguística, a partir de discussões em grupos focais com falantes cultos de duas

línguas africanas. Os resultados do presente estudo sugerem a necessidade de repensar o

pluricentrismo linguístico sem perder de vista a desinibição de subjetividades impostas pelo

colonialismo. Mas também, enquanto mecanismo potencial de inversão da tecnologia colonial

de dominação baseada na exclusão. Isso passa, por um lado, por olhar para os seus critérios

geradores enquanto ‘produtos’ inacabados, suscetíveis de (re)interpretações. Por outro,

passa por, na sua releitura, considerar o contexto de uso, o passado colonial adverso a que

as línguas africanas foram sujeitas e o ‘logos’ dos sujeitos ‘periferizados’. A partir deste

enquadramento, defendemos que o Nyanja e Changana, línguas analisadas, sugerem cenários

pluricêntricos.

Palavras-chave

Línguas Pluricêntricas, Justiça Epistémica, Nyanja, Changana, Cidadania linguística.

How to cite this article

Duarte, Isabel Margarida & Magona, Vasco (2026). Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship. Janus.net, e-journal of

international relations. Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and

(Un)Bordering in Contemporary Europe and Asia, VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD4, October 2026, pp. 15-42.

DOI https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0726.1

Article submitted on 27 July 2026 and accepted for publication on 21 August 2026.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

LINGUISTIC PLURICENTRISM AND EPISTEMIC JUSTICE: SOME

PERSPECTIVES IN LIGHT OF THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC

CITIZENSHIP

ISABEL MARGARIDA DUARTE

VASCO MAGONA

Introduction

Linguistic pluricentrism (e.g. Clyne, 1992; Ammon, 2005; Muhr, 2012) has traditionally

been associated with European and Asian languages (Palma, 2017), with very limited

consideration given to languages outside these regions. In the variationist tradition (e.g.

Silva, 2016), only a few African languages (such as Kiswahili, Barber, Hausa and Somali)

have been recognised as pluricentric (Ammon, 2005; Kristiansen, 2014). This gives rise,

amongst other things, to three main problems, namely: (i) the ‘restriction’ of the

principles and/or criteria for classifying pluricentric languages to a group of languages,

namely, but not limited to, former colonial languages (German, Spanish, French, English

and Portuguese); (ii) linguistic subordination and/or silencing (Carrera, 2020); and (iii)

conceptualising pluricentric theory (solely) on the basis of intellectual canons situated in

the Global North.

Seen in this light, linguistic pluricentrism takes the form of a measure

of dominance, serving as an old colonial technology of linguistic valuation (Kerfoot,

2025). This fact highlights the fact that the contemporary classification of languages (as

pluricentric or non-pluricentric) does not adequately account for the role colonialism

played in the pluricentric nature of some languages, and should help us problematise the

contemporary segmentation of languages.

For this reason, there is an urgent need to reverse the colonial technology of domination

based on exclusion, by dismantling the colonial edifice of language (Stroud &

Chimbutane, 2025), which, in the African context - with the exception of Kiswahili –

Acknowledgment - The data used in this research was made possible through the generous support of the

French Institute of South Africa (IFAS), under Convention No. CO-2025-006-RECH. The research was all so

funded by the Fund for Science and Technology, I.P. (FCT) through the project UID/00022/2025

https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00022/2025.

The terms ‘Global North’ versus ‘Global South’ constitute a metaphor that links power, exploitation and

history to the production of knowledge (Stroud & Chimbutane, 2025). As such, in this study they are used

not as geographical concepts, but rather in relation to the empowerment of states, as historical subjects and

key actors on the contemporary international stage (Fonseca, 2016).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

reduces languages to an “absent presence” (Kerfoot, 2025, p. 179) in global knowledge

and resource networks.

The denial of the status of a pluricentric language to most African languages appear to

stem from the mistaken notion that associates these languages with an ‘inability’ to

construct the narratives upon which nation-states are founded, a concept stemming from

old colonial ideologies, yet essential to this type of linguistic classification (cf. Clyne,

1992; Muhr, 2012, 2016; Kalternegger, 2020).

As is well known, exclusion undermines the full exercise of voice and agency among

citizens who, in their daily lives, rely on these languages not only as repositories of

language and (local) memory, but also as a resource for building active linguistic

citizenship, which can influence contemporary language policies and/or ideologies. In

fact, rather than helping African languages to become, alongside the former colonial

languages with which they coexist in the field in which we operate, an essential dimension

of the repair of colonial memory and epistemic (re)construction (Fraser, 1995; Anderson,

2012), linguistic pluricentrism has been used as a technology of postcolonial domination,

with the concomitant differential of sociocultural valuation of speakers and linguistic

communities (Stroud & Chimbutane, 2025; Kerfoot, 2025). Thus, this linguistic taxonomy

precludes the promotion of pluralism – as a characteristic of the knowledge-construction

ecosystem in the Global South (Mignolo, 2009, 2011; Quijano, 2000; Grosfoguel, 2011;

Mbembe, 2016). On the contrary, it highlights the parameters of legibility within the

epistemic field of modernity (Vázquez, 2011), which underpins the universality of

European knowledge (Vázquez, 2011: 27; Kerfoot, 2025, p. 181), without careful

consideration of the factors that may work against this, namely the existence of

alternative models of thought.

It should be noted that languages which do not meet the legibility criteria set out in the

‘exclusionary’ standards established by the intellectual canons of the Global North are

relegated to the margins of modernity (Stroud, 2018). They are therefore subject to

epistemic injustice (Friker, 2003; Anderson, 2012; Stroud & Kerfoot, 2020). This

demonstrates how the coloniality of language (Veronelli, 2015) is deeply rooted in

Western political structures and thought (Kerfoot, 2025).

In light of Linguistic Citizenship (Stroud, 2001; 2018; 2025), a theoretical concept from

the Global South that serves to ‘raise awareness’ (Bowen, 2006), as we shall see in (2.1),

it is imperative to consider linguistic pluricentrism without losing sight of the need to

dismantle subjectivities imposed by colonialism (Bock & Stroud, 2019). Linguistic

Citizenship is also a potential mechanism for reversing the colonial technology of

domination based on exclusion.

On the one hand, this involves viewing their generative criteria (cf. Clyne, 1992; Muhr,

2012, 2016) as unfinished ‘products’, open to (re)interpretation. On the other hand, there

is a need, in their reinterpretation, to consider the context of use, the adverse colonial

past to which African languages were subjected, and the ‘logos’ of ‘peripheralised’

subjects. In other words, the rationality of speakers of marginalised languages (Stroud

& Chimbutane, 2025), contrary to what we have observed in many studies on this

subject, favours an essentialist conception of language, based on claims of universal

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

relevance (Stroud, 2007). Although these studies are relevant, they appear to fall short

in several respects, including: (i) ignoring the tensions between what is historically and

institutionally imposed and the everyday lives of language speakers, a starting point for

epistemic (re)construction; (ii) suggesting the omission of the potential of acts of

Linguistic Citizenship in terms of offering pathways to reverse the prevailing linguistic

marginalisation and alienation of the most vulnerable populations (Chimbutane, 2018).

There are numerous instances in which speakers of African languages have been labelled

‘pejoratively’ as minority language speakers, due to the divisions that some European

countries created during the colonial period when drawing the current borders between

African nation-states. Henriksen (2026) refers to Mozambique and other neighbouring

countries, including South Africa.

The primary aim of this article is to reflect on theoretical and epistemological concepts

that will enable us to examine the classification of some African languages as pluricentric

languages. Following this introductory note, we shall then explain the methodological

procedures and a theoretical framework (cf. (2)) within which the key points of various

concepts, such as Linguistic Citizenship (cf. (2.1)) and Linguistic Pluricentrism (cf. (2.2)),

so that we may understand the proposal to include other African languages as pluricentric

languages (cf. (3)). As mentioned earlier, this inclusion is essentially based on a

(re)interpretation of the criteria that define pluricentric languages. In fact, we seek to

undertake a (re)reading that leads us to subvert the vestiges of the ‘silent’ legacy of the

colonial past, encapsulated in the criteria proposed by Clyne (1992) and continued by his

followers (e.g., Ammon, 2005; Muhr, 2012; 2016; Kristiansen, 2014; Silva, 2016; 2018).

Finally, we will move on to the Concluding Remarks in (4), a section in which we will

highlight the main conclusions of the text and point towards future research.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopts a qualitative methodological approach (Kalthoff, 2013), of an

ethnographic nature (Jankowski & Wester, 1995 [1991]), within the field of linguistic

ethnography (Shaw, Copland & Snell, 2015). The data analysed were collected in

Mozambique using semi-structured interviews (Ketele & Roegiers, 1993), involving two

focus groups of participants comprising higher education students who are native

speakers of one of the African languages under analysis, namely Nyanja/Chewa and

Changana/Tsonga (hereinafter referred to as Nyanja and Changana)

Each focus group included three (3) participants. Besides being native speakers, the

following criteria were used for their selection: (1) students had to demonstrate strong

linguistic awareness; (2) have knowledge of pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial

linguistic policies and practices; (3) gender and numerical parity, that is, of a total six

participants comprising our sample, half should be female and the other half male; (4)

The designation of the analysed languages varies by geography. For example, in Malawi, political reasons

have led to the Nyanja language being referred to as Chewa. This is not the case in Mozambique, Zambia and

Zimbabwe. Similarly to Nyanja, Changana is called Tsonga in South Africa and Eswatini. However, Tsonga is

the generic term covering all African languages of the Bantu group within the S50 zone, namely Changana,

Ronga and Tshwa (cf. Guthrie, 1967–71; Maho, 2009).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

participants also had to be in one of the last two levels (3

and 4

years) of the Bantu

Language Teaching course at Faculty of Arts of Eduardo Mondlane University. We believed

that at this stage of schooling their sociolinguistic maturity would be high. Therefore,

they would be able to discuss and interpret complex linguistic issues with some expertise.

However, it should worth not true that by opting for a ‘seemingly’ smaller universe of

participants, we essentially intended to minimise social biases associated with interviews

conducted with large focus groups. On the other hand, we aimed to record in detail their

subjectivities and alternative constituency.

The interviews resulted in two and half hours of audio recording, from which, among

other aspects, the following emerge as themes: (1) awareness that some African

languages are the same in several countries; (2) awareness that, among the various

linguistic varieties, there are differences (especially lexical) but they are mutual

intelligible; (3) a militant stance – to claim, raise awareness and try to change the

mentality about the understanding of what is language, dialect and reference variety;

(4) awareness of negative consequences of colonialism in relation to the devaluation of

Bantu languages and their formal teaching; (5) asymmetries between linguistic policies

and practices of different European colonizers; and (6) a claim regarding the issue of the

symmetrical use of languages (ex-colonial and native languages), including their

linguistic varieties. The recorded conversations were then transcribed in full, so that we

could subject them to a more detailed analysis – based on the themes that emerged,

especially those related to the topic under study – a form of content analysis (Bardin,

2013).

Thus, the transcripts analysed are not merely the result of applying the conventional

technique of a traditional focus group interview – based on questions and answers – but

also stem from the participants’ self-reflection – a dimension that sought to capture the

influence of language comprehension on the informants’ reasoning. Consequently,

through this technique, we were able to ‘record’ the subjectivities and alternative

constructions of the interviewees. The data analysed were collected using an approach

we shall term a ‘logos-based interview’, which led us to an emic interpretation. This is a

complementary data collection technique using autoethnography, viewed as “a form of

inquiry, writing, and/or performing that puts questions and ‘issues of being’ into

circulation and dialogue” (Bochner, 2013, p. 54).

During the collection of (primary) data, informants were asked to provide informed

consent authorising the use of the information in scientific studies. Furthermore, the data

was processed in accordance with the ethical procedures in force at Eduardo Mondlane

University and the University of Porto, particularly with regard to the redaction,

cataloguing and anonymisation of the information prior to its release to the public. It is

important to emphasize that, out of the total of six (6) ‘transnational’ languages shared

between Mozambique and neighbouring countries, our choice was Nyanja and Changana

for two reasons: (1) they were the African languages with the highest number of students

in the aforementioned course, in the semester in which one of the co-authors of this

study was teacher in those classes; and (2) they are languages located in equidistant

regions, with Changana spoken in the south and Nyanja in the north of Mozambique, as

we will see in due course.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Linguistic Citizenship

Linguistic citizenship is an ‘awareness-raising concept’ (Bowen, 2006) and a decolonial

concept, which “emerged from the contradictions surrounding educational programmes

and practices in mother-tongue and bilingual education in the 1990s, in the context of

the Global South” (Stroud, 2025, p. 85). However, it has evolved rapidly over the years,

on the one hand to address the need to rethink our understanding of language through

the lens of citizenship and historical democratic participation, whilst at the same time

inviting us to reconsider our understanding of citizenship through language (Stroud,

2018). On the other hand, it aims to “establish a perspective that situates speakers’

linguistic practices and representations within the context of their everyday socio-political

efforts to achieve agency, transformation and participatory citizenship” (Stroud, 2025,

p. 86).

Indeed, Linguistic Citizenship “critically examines the historical, socio-political and

economic constraints on language construction, whilst identifying the linguistic, structural

and institutional conditions necessary for change” (Stroud, 2025, p. 88). Linguistic

Citizenship thus has the potential to provide tools for thinking beyond the problems of

language in education, by considering utopian elements such as ‘love’, ‘hope’ and ‘care’

as an existential dimension of homo sapiens amans (Maturana & Caberon, 2018).

‘Love’ embodies a form of selfless recognition of the ‘Other’ as distinct from

the ‘Self’, even whilst coexisting with the ‘Self’. It presupposes allowing the

‘Other’ to emerge on their own terms. An important aspect of citizenship in

shaping new and better futures involves caring for others and for the world in

which we live. ‘Care’ involves concern for the well-being of the ‘Other’ and the

environment in which we live, values that must not be sacrificed in the name

of our dreams. ‘Hope’ presupposes the dream of a better future,

foreshadowed in the present and guided by an ethic of inclusion, harmony

and sharing (Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, p. 257).

It is in this sense that, when classifying pluricentric languages, we consider the use of

acts of linguistic citizenship to be beneficial. “In the sense that, through the semiotics of

hope, [for example,] a better world is foreshadowed, one that may become a reality in

the future” (Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, pp. 257-8). However, the concept of Linguistic

Citizenship also emerges in this study to help us recognise that speakers themselves can

exercise control over their language, deciding what counts as a language or languages,

what it or they signify, and how linguistic issues may be discursively linked to a variety

of social, political and historical issues (Stroud, 2018; Magona, 2020). From this

perspective, Linguistic Citizenship informs epistemic justice (Friker, 2003; Anderson,

2012; Chakraborty, 2024) by focusing on the potential of languages for the ontological

reshaping of ‘selves’, socialities and concomitant knowledge, offering a way to (re)signify

linguistic attitudes and ideologies, including an awareness of the sense of linguistic

community as a transformative epistemology (Fraser, 1995; Stroud, 2025). In fact,

Linguistic Citizenship goes further than this, recognising the need to deconstruct and

reconstitute social life and its institutions on the basis of a reconfiguration of language

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

(Fraser, 1997; Stroud, 2025). Therefore, in the light of linguistic citizenship, language is

conceived as one of the semiotic means of resistance, through which the most vulnerable

communities claim the exercise of voice and agency. In other words, on this basis,

exclusionary ideologies are rejected.

It seems to us that this perspective is not being adequately considered when classifying

languages as pluricentric or non-pluricentric, a fact which highlights that the parameters

of this linguistic taxonomy are not based on the recognition of cultural, historical, political

and identity-related inequalities, or of the collective values embodied in the concept of

Linguistic Human Rights (Stroud, 2001).

Whilst we recognise that linguistic human rights are “depoliticised and ahistorical”

(Yeatman, 2001, cited in Stroud, 2025, p. 88), it is nonetheless worth noting that their

“appeals are situated in local space and time and filtered through contingent political,

social and economic structures” (Stroud, ibid.). On the contrary, what is evident

regarding the taxonomy under consideration is that it establishes practices which uphold

the universality of ‘exclusionary’ criteria, inherited from the status quo of linguistics

narratives from the Global North, which are closely associated with colonialism and do

not appear to be in tune with the socio-political structures of the Global South. Within

this framework of ideas, in the present study, we challenge this essentialist

understanding of language, which is based on claims of universal relevance, as previously

discussed. Thus, we draw upon the sensitising, transformative and decolonial nature

(Fraser, 1995; 1997) of the notion of Linguistic Citizenship to ‘critically interrogate the

historical and socio-political constraints’ (Stroud, 2025, p. 88) that shape the

classification of pluricentric languages. At the same time, we call for epistemic justice

(Friker, 2003; Anderson, 2012). This implies that there is a need to establish an

alternative mode of thought based on accounts provided by speakers of so-called

‘subaltern languages’ (Mbembe, 2016), situated within a historical and geopolitical

context distinct from that of the Global North (see, for example, Quijano, 2000; Mignolo,

2009, 2011; Grosfoguel, 2011). In fact, allowing for a contextual, temporal, and apolitical

reinterpretation of the criteria that define the classification of pluricentric languages is,

in our view, a way to ensure the epistemic liberation of minority languages – thereby

healing the ‘scars’ left by the consequences of colonial linguistic ideologies. It also means

paving the way for us to view language as a semiotic means of resistance and of

historically redressing linguistic silencing. Furthermore, it means acknowledging that the

languages of communities in the Global South are one of the semiotic means of producing

autonomous knowledge, which may be valid in other contexts. For this to be feasible,

among other measures, it is necessary to reverse the prevailing marginalization of African

languages in both local and international socio-political spheres, including in linguistic

taxonomies such as the one examined in this research.

Linguistic Pluricentrism

When examined from the perspective of Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Silva, 2016, p. 12),

the concept of pluricentric languages is associated with “Georg V. Stepanov (1957),

Alexandr D. Shvejtser (1963), Heinz Kloss (1967, 1976) and William Stewart (1968)”

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

(Clyne, 1992, p. 1; Ammon, 2005, p. 1536). However, its approach in modern linguistic

theory gained prominence thanks to the seminal ‘Pluricentric Languages’, edited and

published in the 1990s by the German-Australian linguist, academic and intellectual

Michael Clyne (1939–2010).

Clyne’s (1992) contribution would lay the foundations for a discussion of national

varieties from the perspective of interacting centres, in contrast to the earlier model,

which regarded linguistic varieties as ‘deviations from the centre’ (Silva, 2016, p. 12; see

also Kristiansen, 2014; Silva, 2018). According to Ammon (2005, p. 1536), the two terms

used to address this type of categorisation are: (i) the centre of a language (e.g. Great

Britain); and (ii) the standard variety of a language (e.g. British Standard English). Thus,

the definition of a pluricentric language refers to “[…] codified standard varieties of a

language which are said to differ in various states in which the language is used”

(Kristiansen, 2014, p. 9). On the other hand, pluricentricity tends to be “a special case

of lethal variation, characterised by issues of national identity and power” (Silva, 2016,

p. 12). From this perspective, a pluricentric language must be capable of being

institutionalised in the sense that it comprises different varieties, each with its own

standard (cf. (3)). Besides, according to Silva (2018, p. 113), “all languages are, to a

certain extent, pluricentric, insofar as they contain dialectal variation and different local

norms”. It is within this theoretical framework that our aim to reinterpret the criteria that

generate the pluricentricity of a language fits, thereby including African languages – the

subject of our analysis – as pluricentric.

On Nyanja and Changana – languages under consideration

Before we get to the heart of the matter, we should first point out that the languages

spoken in Africa belong to four different language families, namely Afro-Asiatic (covering

those spoken in North Africa), Congo-Kordofanian (those spoken in sub-Saharan Africa),

Nilo-Saharan (spoken south of the Sahara Desert) and Khoisan (spoken in south-western

Africa) (cf. Guthrie, 1967–71; Maho, 2009).

The Nyanja (N31) and Changana (S53) languages, according to Guthrie’s (1967–71)

referential classification, belong to the Niger-Congo subfamily of the Congo-Kordofanian

family. As part of the Bantu language group, they are spoken predominantly in sub-

Saharan Africa’s southern region (Magona & Wilson, 2023).

Nyanja is a ‘transnational’ language spoken in Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia (Ngunga

et al., 2022), where it enjoys, in the first country, the status of ‘national language’ (cf.

Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique, 2004) and, in the other three countries, the

status of ‘lingua franca’ and ‘symbol of national unity’ (Taylor, 2020). It is also believed

that there are Nyanja-speaking communities in other countries, notably Zimbabwe and

South Africa (cf. Reilly, 2016, 2019; Taylor, 2020).

In Zimbabwe, the Nyanja language is the third-most widely spoken, behind only Shona

and Ndebele (Taylor, 2020). The total number of speakers across the five countries is

unknown; however, in Mozambique, 1,568,701 speakers are recorded (INE, 2019). The

language comprises three dialectal variants: Cinyanja, Chichewa, and Cingoni (Ngunga

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

et al., 2022, p. 124). The Nyanja spoken in Lusaka is sometimes referred to as ‘urban

Nyanja’, as opposed to ‘rural Nyanja’, spoken in rural areas and other parts of Zambia

(Taylor, 2020). It should be noted that the standard dialectal variant is Cinyanja of Tete

(in Mozambique), also known as Central Nyanja.

With a standardised and harmonised writing system (Banda, 2008; 2016), this language

is used in the education system in three countries, namely Mozambique, Malawi and

Zambia, where so-called transitional bilingual education programmes with early or late

transition are offered. These teaching models involve using L1/the non-dominant

language as the medium of instruction in the early years of schooling, with L2/the

dominant language introduced progressively throughout the curriculum (cf. Hornberger,

1991). This continues until the pupil has acquired ‘some’ knowledge of Portuguese or

English, the dominant languages in their respective countries. Subsequently, L2

(Portuguese or English, as the case may be) becomes the language of instruction, usually

after the first three years of schooling – the early-exit transitional model – or in the fifth

or sixth years – the late-exit transitional model (Chimbutane, 2009, p. 29).

The educational objectives advocated in this model of bilingual education result in a

degree of monolingualism in L2. As such, its programmes are based on the mistaken

notion that L1 must be removed from the curriculum after a period of use so that L2 can

be effectively learnt (Benson, 2009, p. 63).

Changana is also a ‘transnational’ language, spoken in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Eswatini

and the Transvaal province of South Africa. As with Nyanja, the total number of speakers

across the four countries is unknown; however, in Mozambique, there are 1,926,879

speakers (INE, 2019; Ngunga et al., 2022), making it the third-most widely spoken

‘national language’ in the country (Chimbutane et al., 2023). On the other hand, there

appears to be a consensus that xihlanganu, xidzonga, xin’walungu, xibila and xihlengwe

are the attested dialectal variants (Magona & Wilson, 2023). Of these, xidzonga (also

known as xitsonga) – spoken in the vast region stretching from Mozambique to South

Africa, encompassing the districts of Magude, Bilene and part of Massingir (in

Mozambique) to the Transvaal province (in South Africa) – is taken as the reference

variant. In other words, the standard dialectal variant, for the purposes of linguistic

standardisation, including the production of school textbooks and use in the classroom.

In addition to their use in education, the languages under analysis are also used in the

mass media, notably radio and television. Furthermore, they provide translation and/or

interpreting services (at rallies and other types of campaigns, including during elections).

However, their coverage is localised, extending only to the communities that speak these

languages. Furthermore, these languages are widely used in religious services and in

ancestral invocation practices (e.g., in kupatla

ceremonies – among the Changana

people).

This is a ceremony in which permission is sought from the ancestors to carry out a particular activity, such

as the construction of public infrastructure.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Pluricentric Languages: A classification for liberation or for linguistic

subjugation

Africa is, in itself, a continent of great linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity (cf.

Bamgbose, 1991), home to around 25% of the world's 8,000 languages (Zavale, 2026,

p. 248). In this context, any discussion of the pluricentric nature of the languages spoken

there must consider the historical relationships among the peoples there. In other words,

the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial history of contemporary African nation-states

can reveal a great deal about whether or not African languages are included in the

linguistic taxonomy under consideration. This is further reinforced if we consider that

linguistic pluricentrism is a non-apolitical phenomenon (e.g. Muhr, 2012; Kalternegger,

2020), more readily perceived within models of knowledge production and validation

from the Global North, closely associated with old monolingual ideologies (cf.

Chimbutane, 2026; Zavale, 2026) and colonial governance structures (cf. Stroud, 2025).

This explains, for example, why the underlying idea of ‘inseparability’ between (i) the

status of a language, (ii) codification (e.g. language norms), (iii) the centre of a language,

and (iv) the standard variety of a language (cf. Ammon, 2005).

A pluricentric language is a language that is used in at least two nations where

it has an official status as state language, co-state language, or regional

language with its own (codified) norms that usually contribute to the

national/personal identity, making the nation a norm-setting centre by the

deliberate use of the norms native to this specific nation (Muhr, 2016, p. 16).

From Muhr’s (2016) definition, it can be inferred that “language is not powerful on its

own it is a means to gain and maintain power by the use powerful people make of it”

(Reising & Wodak, 2009 cited in Pinto, 2021, p. 31). In fact, this highlights the fact that

linguistic issues are discursively linked to social and political issues, as mentioned earlier.

Thus, if we take strict adherence to the above definition at face value, then the Nyanja

and Changana languages, for which we propose to suggest the status of pluricentric

languages, cannot be included in this group. Firstly, because they do not meet the ‘state

language’

requirement – on the basis of which, according to the narratives of the Global

North about pluricentric languages, one could (or might) claim the status of a ‘centre of

a language’ (Ammon, 2005, p. 1536), at least across a considerable part of their territory,

namely in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia in the first case, and in Eswatini,

Mozambique and Zimbabwe in the second case.

This is due not only to the legacy of

monolingual colonial ideologies (cf. Lines 4–9, Excerpt 1), but also to the failure to take

into account both the context (the place where the languages are situated) and local

In contemporary Africa, due to the consequences of colonial ideologies regarding language, a strategy of

avoidance prevails. Avoidance is a technique adopted by most African countries and is characterised by

sparing the government the unpleasant political consequences that any pronouncement on language policy

may provoke in sections of the population (Bamgbose, 1991). Therefore, although many African languages

are, from a demographic, social or dialectological point of view, they are still not, from a ‘political’ point of

view, ‘eligible’ for the status of official, regional or lingua franca.

Nyanja is a lingua franca in Malawi and Zambia, where it also has the status of a regional language. In

contrast, Changana is an official language only in South Africa (cf. Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; Reilly, 2016;

2019; Taylor, 2020).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

history (the historical past of contemporary language communities), aspects that emerge

clearly in excerpt (1) below:

Excerpt 1

Acha que o colonialismo contribuiu

negativamente ou positivamente para o

estágio em que se encontram as línguas

africanas na atualidade?

Só que nós não levamos isso em conta,

porque em algum momento nós fomos

colonizados, ou seja, aculturados. Na

verdade, adquirimos aqueles que são os

hábitos e costumes do povo colonizador. O

que desencadeou se calhar na mais

valorização das línguas estrangeiras. Estou

a falar muito mais do português.

O que motiva a isso, eu acho que são as

próprias políticas adotadas pelo país, que

foram deixadas pelo colono. Essas políticas

influenciaram a vida das pessoas. Enquanto

que o colono britânico tinha apresso as

línguas, a língua nyanja, o colono

português proibia o uso dessa língua.

Então, isso causou essa continuidade,

continuidade que, até hoje as pessoas

continuam a ter atitudes negativas em

relação a nossa língua, diferentemente do

Malawi e Zâmbia.

A política linguística colonial, para o nosso

caso, foi uma política negativa. Essa

política foi contínua. Até agora continua,

razão pela qual as nossa línguas ficaram

numa posição menos privilegiadas. (...) o

colono ensinou a validação do português do

que a própria língua local – língua materna

da maioria dos moçambicanos.

Do you think that colonialism

contributed negatively or positively to

the present stage of the African

languages?

We don’t take it into account, because at

some moment we were colonized. I

mean acculturated. In fact, we acquired

the habits and customs of the colonizing

people. That means that the foreign

language was more valued. I am talking

about Portuguese, specifically.

I believe the reason for this lies in the

policies adopted by the country itself,

which were left behind by the colonisers.

These policies have shaped people’s

lives. Whilst the British colonists had

embraced the languages, or Nyanja, the

Portuguese colonists prohibited the use

of that language. This led to a situation

where, even today, people continue to

hold negative attitudes towards our

language, unlike in Malawi and Zambia.

Colonial language policy, in our case,

was a negative policy. This policy was

ongoing. It continues to this day, which

is why our languages have been placed

in a less privileged position. (...) the

coloniser promoted the use of

Portuguese rather than the local

language itself – the mother tongue of

the majority of Mozambicans.

Excerpt (1) not only highlights the asymmetries between colonial politics and linguistic

practices, but also reveals the underlying ‘coloniality of language’ (Veronelli, 2015). In

the context in which we operate, this fact is made visible by the lack of awareness of the

limits imposed by colonialism, which is reflected, for example, in the government’s lack

of commitment to the need for an ontological reconfiguration of colonial ideologies,

policies and language practices, including within education systems (cf. Lines 18–21,

Excerpt 1). Despite this situation, there seems to be a consensus that, in the African

context, national languages “usually contribute to national/personal identity”, given that

they constitute one of the main semiotic means through which peoples identify

themselves (cf. lines 7–15, Excerpt 2). Furthermore, they represent a worldview (e.g.

anthropological, philosophical, cosmogonic, sociological, etc.), as they are the primary

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

repository of the local collective memory, namely African existence and thought. (cf. Line

11, Extract 2; Lines 17–18, Extract 4).

Excerpt 2

Enquanto falantes de uma das variantes de

uma língua africana, vocês sentem-se

legítimos proprietários dessa língua ou

consideram-se apenas parte da

comunidade falante da língua? Por quê?

Eu, em particular, sinto-me proprietário da

língua. Bem, porque a língua como eu disse

faz parte, ou seja, é identidade de um

povo. Então, se eu nasci, por exemplo,

dentro de um determinado sítio, por

exemplo, num determinado sítio, cresci ali,

não é? ((faz pergunta retórica)) A minha

forma de puder ter a identidade, então, a

língua é como um elemento da minha

forma de viver. Então, eu nasci naquele

local, cresci ali, aprendi aquilo e daquela

forma. Então, aquilo pertence a mim.

Identifica-me como alguém que pertence

aquela comunidade. Então, eu sinto-me

legítimo proprietário da língua. É minha

língua.

As speakers of a variant of an African

language, do you consider yourselves as

legitimate owners of that language or do

you consider yourselves as part of the

community of speakers of that

language? Why?

I, myself, feel I am an owner of the

language. Well, as I said previously,

language is part of the identities of

people. So, if I was born, for example,

into some place, for example, grew up

there, you know? ((rhetoric question)).

My way to have my identity, so the

language functions as an element of my

manner of living. So, I was born and

grew up in that place, and I learnt this

and that. Now that belongs to me. I am

identified as someone who belongs to

that community. So, I feel like I am a

legitimate owner of the language. That

is my language, I mean.

In this context, Muhr’s (2016) definition, whilst well-crafted, seems too narrow to be

comprehensive: on the one hand, by ignoring contextual issues – which are essential for

understanding the terrain in which we operate; on the other hand, by failing to consider

the colonial monolingual ideologies practised by some colonisers, notably Portugal (cf.

Lines 17–22, Excerpt 1). The definition also overlooks the arbitrariness involved in the

drawing of the borders of contemporary African nation-states by the European imperialist

powers at the Berlin Conference, which defined the current geography of African

countries. Furthermore, by emphasising the idea associated with codification, it is partly

within the framework of these ideas that the need for an epistemic reconfiguration of the

notion of pluricentric languages is situated. This implies recognising the need to promote,

contextually, an understanding of language by speakers in the Global South (cf. Lines

10–16, Excerpt 1); on the other hand, it suggests the need for a differentiated application

of the criteria generated by pluricentric languages, or indeed, their alignment with the

specificities of different linguistic landscapes. In doing so, however, it is necessary to

overcome the limitations imposed by the narrative that underpins the idea of “epistemic

exclusion and silencing” (Zavale, 2026, p. 248), which suggests, amongst other aspects,

the idea that languages eligible for this linguistic classification must be, albeit to varying

degrees, ‘prototypically pluricentric’ (Silva, 2018).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Although the Nyanja and Changana languages have guiding writing standards (cf. (2.3)),

i.e. standardised and harmonised writing – shared across the different nation-states

where they are spoken (cf. Banda, 2008; 2016; Ngunga et al., 2022), demanding strict

adherence to this aspect without careful consideration of the fact that these languages

belong to an oral tradition – and have only been written down recently – contributes to

the legitimisation of the ‘coloniality of language’, reflected in subjugation, linguistic

silencing and the perpetuation of epistemic injustices (cf. Anderson, 2012; Chakraborty,

2024) to which African languages have been and continue to be subjected since the

colonial period (cf. Lines 18–23, Excerpt 1).

Thus, our informants suggest that it is impossible to establish a strict correlation between

what is conventionally referred to as strict conformity and/or alignment between the

criteria of linguistic pluricentricity and the actual situation of the context in which we

operate. Among the reasons given, linguistic hegemony stands out, reflected in the

excessive valuing of colonial monolingual ideologies (cf. Lines 7–9, 18–23, Excerpt 1). In

this context, it is necessary to challenge the “parameters of legibility of the epistemic

field” (Kerfoot, 2025, p. 227) that underpin the universal relevance of some languages

and the knowledge associated with them. Repudiation constitutes a form of resistance

and/or alternative approach in the epistemic reconstruction (Friker, 2003) of the criteria

for the legibility of a language’s pluricentricity. This reconstruction must, however, not

only transcend the limits imposed on African languages by colonialism (cf. Lines 20–23,

Excerpt 1), but also capture the idea that all languages are, to a certain extent,

pluricentric (Silva, 2018, p. 113).

To accept this premise is to pave the way for historical redress for linguistic subjugation

and silencing. But it also, without reservation, enables those situated on the margins of

modernity’s narratives (cf. Quinjano, 2000; Mignolo, 2009) to fully exercise their plural

voices and agency, given that, through this, they are recognised as having control over

their languages (Stroud, 2018; Bock & Stroud, 2018). In fact, they are allowed to become

active agents in the (re)configuration of the ontological and epistemological assumptions

underpinning the linguistic taxonomy under consideration. Consequently, the pluricentric

theory is no longer viewed as an exclusionary taxonomy in which languages are classified

on the basis of, but not limited to, the centre/periphery dichotomy. On the contrary, it

serves, albeit in a symbolic sense, as a platform for sociolinguistic dialogue, challenging,

amongst other things, the prevailing continuity of colonial ideologies, policies and

linguistic practices.

From a theoretical and practical perspective, this means acknowledging that micro-

and/or macro-dialectal variations - namely, xihlanganu, xin’walungu, xibila and

xihlengwe (in the case of Changana) or Chichewa and Cingoni (in the case of Nyanja),

including their standard variants (cf. (2.3)), transcend the limits of artificial colonial

borders – which favoured monolingual ideologies. On the other hand, it means

recognising that these are legitimate diatopic variations. Indeed, they even reflect what

Silva (2018, p. 112) refers to as the ‘political militancy of separation and autonomisation’

(cf. Lines 11–12, Excerpt 3). Thus, rather than drawing an analogy with what happens

with the languages of the Global North, particularly the so-called ‘neo-imperialist

languages’, namely Portuguese, English, Spanish, French and German (Mohanty, 2009,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

p. 8), the dialectal variants referred to above should be seen as legitimate candidates for

the establishment of their own norms and/or centres of a pluricentric language, in the

local sense and context in which we operate, as emerges more explicitly in the following

statement:

Excerpt 3

E se tivessem que escolher uma variante a

ser usada em fóruns internacionais, que

critérios é que vocês considerariam? E

porque desses critérios?

Iria olhar até onde a minha variante dialetal

chega. Até onde a minha variante chega

((secunda)). Do ponto de vista de

distribuição geográfica. E, se calhar,

estabelecer uma comparação com uma

outra variante dialetal.

Para mim, a questão, também, de

influência política de, de, dessa variante.

Temos uma variante que é Cingoni só que

é uma variante que é falada, é falada nesse

caso em dois distritos. Só que lá é onde

existe a influência política que é o que se

chama nkosizama. Enquanto nyanja

padrão é falado em muitos sítios. Então,

deveria-se adotar o nyanja que é falado em

muitos sítios, portanto, em Moçambique,

em Malawi, ahmm… é falado em

Moçambique, em Malawi, tanto em Zâmbia,

queria dizer.

If you had to choose a variant to be used

in international forums, what criteria

would you consider? And why those

criteria?

I was going to see how far my dialectal

variant extends. How far my variant

extends ((repeats)). From the point of

view of geographical distribution. And

perhaps draw a comparison with another

dialectal variant.

For me, the issue is also one of the

political influences of this particular

variant. We have a variant known as

Cingoni, but it is a variant that is spoken

- in this case - in two districts. However,

that is where the political influence lies,

which is what is known as nkosizama.

Whereas standard Nyanja is spoken in

many places. So, one should adopt the

Nyanja that is spoken in many places,

that is, in Mozambique, in Malawi,

ahmm… it is spoken in Mozambique, in

Malawi, and in Zambia, I mean.

Within the framework of linguistic citizenship, empowering these linguistic variants

amounts to promoting alternative models of thought. Furthermore, it entails granting the

right for “speakers of these varieties to establish legitimate forms of schooling, [for

example]” (cf. Kerfoot, 2025, p. 226). Furthermore, it means recognising that the criteria

underpinning pluricentric languages should not be based solely on the landscape and

understanding of the Global North’s models of rationality, which are closely associated

with the invisibilisation of minority languages, notably African ones. On the contrary, one

should consider the local context and time as potential factors for assessing the specific

characteristics of different linguistic landscapes (cf. lines 9–16, Excerpt 3). It must be

acknowledged, however, that “the history of colonial impositions makes this a complex

and sensitive debate” (Kerfoot, 2025, p. 225).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Linguistic pluricentrism as a space for sociolinguistic dialogue

As we have seen, many of the criteria used to determine whether a language is

pluricentric are out of step with the African context and stem from a Eurocentric view of

languages, which are generally divided along nation-state lines - a result of historical

circumstances quite different from those described here. If the speakers of the languages

in question are spread across several countries, this, as mentioned, stems from the

arbitrary division that Europeans imposed on Africa, disregarding the ethnic and historical

realities that existed prior to their arrival. We might even consider that, for the two

languages under study, they occur “in at least two nations that function as ‘interacting

centres’”. However, it can no longer be claimed, in the terms of Clyne, Muhr and

followers’, that “the national varieties function as norm-setting centres.” This is because

the countries are strongly multilingual and, in the case of Mozambique, given the

avoidance strategy announced in due course, none of the native languages is officially

recognised as a “national variety”. However, they are used in both bilingual and

monolingual education, where, in the latter case, they serve as resources for learning

Portuguese, the country’s official language. This is particularly evident in rural areas

where the former colonial language is scarcely taught (cf. Magona, 2024).

On the other hand, if neither language has official status in at least two countries, we

can say that both are regional languages (such as Catalan in France, an example cited

by Pluricentric Languages). Whilst the number of French speakers of Catalan is estimated

at 125,000 (Ferrer, 2022), the Mozambican speakers of Nyanja or Changana undoubtedly

carry greater weight. It is difficult to regard these languages as ‘minority’ languages, not

least because their teaching in bilingual education implies ‘official recognition’ by the

authorities (cf. INDE, 2003; MINEDH, 2020). If they do not have explicit official status

they do have at least official recognition (RM, 2004) and are accompanied, at the very

least, by a strong ethnolinguistic awareness (cf. Lines 5–14, Lines 15–19, Lines 21–24,

Extract 4) among the communities that speak them in the various countries (Lines 28–

29, Extract 4). Undoubtedly, these languages contribute, as mentioned, to a strong sense

of ethnic and individual identity, as evidenced in Extract (4) below:

Excerpt 4

E, qual é a relação que vocês têm com

essas pessoas? do ponto de vista

linguístico, como é que vocês se vêm, se

vêm como sendo falantes de línguas

diferentes, de variedades diferentes ou de

comunidade de uma língua?

Em relação ao nyanja que é falado tanto em

Moçambique, Malawi e Zâmbia, uhmm, vou

dizer que nos sentimos muito amigos, entre

os nyanjas do Malawi e Zâmbia. Até somos

muito mais apagados aos nyanjas do

And what is your relationship with these

people? From a linguistic point of view,

how do you see yourselves – as

speakers of different languages, of

different varieties, or as part of a single

language community?

As for the Nyanja language, which is

spoken in Mozambique, Malawi and

Zambia, well, I’d say that we feel very

close to our Nyanja-speaking neighbours

in Malawi and Zambia. In fact, we’re

In the sense of the absence of a legislative instrument, namely a Decree-Law.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Malawi e trocamos ideias, uhmm, a

informação que partilhamos é a mesma,

tanto o desporto, rádio, a informação que

recebemos, portanto, é a mesma. Para

dizer que nessa comunidade, nos vemos,

queria dizer nos vimos como uma

comunidade nyanja. Partilhamos os

mesmos laços e somos amigos.

Queria acrescentar, que nós éramos uma

comunidade alguém impôs as suas

fronteiras e fomos divididos. Na verdade,

partilhamos a mesma identidade, os

mesmos conceitos sobre o mundo. Então, é

legítimos reivindicarmos.

É sabido que changana, também é falado

na vizinha África do Sul, principalmente e,

alguns grupos também, além da África do

Sul, Swazi[lândia] tem falantes de

changana. Então, eu considero que este

povo aqui é da mesma comunidade.

A África do Sul, ahmm, apesar de ter sido

colonizada pelos ingleses ou britânicos,

eles têm o inglês como língua oficial, mas

cada distrito ou província tem aquilo que é

a sua língua materna. Eles valorizam a

língua materna daquela região.

much closer to the Nyanja people of

Malawi and we exchange ideas; the

information we share is the same,

whether it’s sport, radio or the news we

receive, so it’s all the same. To say that

within that community, we see ourselves

– I mean, we see ourselves as a Nyanja

community. We share the same bonds

and we’re friends.

I would like to add that we used to be a

community, but someone imposed their

boundaries on us and we were divided.

In fact, we share the same identity and

the same views of the world. So, it is

only right that we make our claims.

It is well known that Changana is also

spoken in neighbouring South Africa,

primarily there, and some groups

outside South Africa as well;

Swazi[land] also has speakers of

Changana. So, I consider these people

here to be part of the same community.

South Africa, uhmm, although it was

colonised by the English or the British,

and English is its official language, each

district or province has its own native

language. They value the native

language of that region.

In this Excerpt (4), the informants not only highlight the recognition that some African

nation-states accord to local languages, but also point out that language is an essential

element of a people’s identity. On the other hand, they are aware that, although speakers

of the Nyanja and Changana languages are separated by artificial colonial borders, they

belong to the same ethnolinguistic communities. Thus, the criterion of ‘linguistic distance

(Abstand)’ appears to be present in the languages studied. Whilst we cannot refer to

these as ‘national varieties’, we have confirmed, through the students’ discussions, that

they ‘have enough linguistic (and/or pragmatic) characteristics that distinguish them

from other varieties and can thus serve as a symbol for expressing identity and social

uniqueness’ (cf. lines 6–8, Excerpt 5) The fact that the students list differences between

the language as they speak it and the language as it is spoken on the other side of the

border is illuminating in this regard. Note extract (5) below:

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Excerpt 5

Existem traços comuns, existem palavras

diferentes que vocês podem citar? Ainda

que não sejam palavras muito frequentes

aqui, mas que sejam frequentes lá,

entretanto, que vocês compreendem.

Sim, por exemplo: os sul africanos, nem!...

tem o changana como uma língua, usam a

palavra nitakuxaya que significa bater

((quer dizer, vou bater-te)). Enquanto que

para nós, nem!, usamos muito mais

nitakuba. Mas, há aqui alguma

similaridade.

Em relação ao nyanja, há algumas palavras

que por causa da..., da..., ((organiza o

raciocínio)) da própria dimensão, da...,

dessa expansão que o nyanja tem no

Malawi, Zâmbia, em Moçambique, temos

também.... (...) acabamos por criar

algumas palavras que podem não

entender, mas, ahmm..., o falante que fala

nyanja vai conseguir preencher essa lacuna

que é devido, principalmente, à variação

fonética, fonológica.

Estaria a falar sobre a questão de criação

de novos termos devido ao contacto de

línguas ou, trata-se de empréstimos?

Ya! Posso dizer: há umas palavras, posso

dizer, porque nyanja em Niassa tem

fronteiras com outras comunidades

linguísticas e acaba criando umas palavras

daquela comunidade linguística, quanto o

nyanja de Tete faz fronteira com..., ((I3

^ahmm, sim)) com uma outra língua,

acaba pedindo palavras dessa língua.

Are there any common features? Are

there any different words you can think

of? Even if they aren’t used very often

here, but are common there, as long as

you understand them.

Yes, for example: South Africans,

uhm!... They have ‘changana’ as a

language, and they use the word

‘nitakuxaya’, which means ‘to hit’ (as

in, ‘I’m going to hit you’). Whereas for

us, uhm! We use ‘nitakuba’ much

more. But there is some similarity here.

As for Nyanja, there are some words

which, because of the... the...

((organises his thoughts)) the very

scope of the language, the... this

widespread use of Nyanja in Malawi,

Zambia and Mozambique, we also

have... (...) we have ended up creating

some words that you may not

understand, but, ahmm… a speaker of

Nyanja will be able to fill that gap, which

is mainly due to phonetic and

phonological variation.

Are you referring to the creation of new

terms resulting from language contact,

or are you talking about loanwords?

Ya! I can say: there are some words – I

can say that –because Nyanja in Niassa

borders other linguistic communities and

ends up borrowing words from those

communities, whereas Nyanja in Tete

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

borders... ((ahmm, yes)) another

language, so it ends up borrowing words

from that language.

Although resulting from contact, Excerpt (5) points to the existence of lexical differences.

In fact, these differences are not exclusively the result of linguistic contact, as our

informants suggest (cf. Lines 21–25, Excerpt 5). On the contrary, they extend to the

intralinguistic level. For example, in Xibila, a dialectal variant of Changana, the word

bhuti means ‘boy’, whereas jaha is used in Xihlengwe. Something similar occurs between

ximasi and xiqamelo ‘cushion’, kuhlamula and kuyangula ‘to answer’, xipixi and xingove

‘cat’, kuboha and kutsimba ‘to tie’, mbalu and volo ‘blanket’, kuchima and kutsundza ‘to

dirty’, bewula and chate ‘axe’, n’wingi and mamanyana ‘daughter-in-law’, words used in

the dialectal variants xilhanganu and xidzonga, respectively. It should be noted, however,

that this is not a case of pure synonymy. On the contrary, it reveals significant diatopic

variation within the language.

It seems to us that the criterion of pluricentricity is met by speakers of Nyanja or

Changana, as is clearly evident in Excerpt (6). Rather than a national identity, the

language forms part of an ethnic identity (cf. Lines 14–16, Excerpt 2). This is because its

speakers do not all belong to a single nation, but rather to the same group. There is,

however, a strong awareness that these languages, spoken in this way, form part of the

country’s sociolinguistic reality.

Excerpt 6

Acham legítimo reivindicarmos o estatuto

pluricentrico para as línguas africanas,

nomeadamente nyanja e changana? Por

que?

Achamos legítimo.

Bom, eu acho justo reivindicarmos o

estatuto de línguas pluricêntricas. Por

que, até a língua portuguesa, o inglês,

francês, mais outras línguas partiram...,

digamos de um estudo de seleção. A

mesma forma como o português é usado

ou o inglês, essas línguas expandiram-se.

Então, se essas línguas foram expandidas

para o uso, porque é que as nossas

línguas não podem passar, também, pelos

mesmos mecanismos? para ahmm...,

digamos, com que as pessoas tenham

acesso? Então, reivindicar o uso

pluricêntrico dessas línguas, é legítimo.

Do you think it is justified for us to call for

a pluricentric status for African languages,

particularly Nyanja and Changana? Why?

We think it’s legitimate.

Well, I think it’s fair for us to claim the

status of pluricentric languages. Because

even Portuguese, English, French and

other languages emerged… let’s say, from

a process of selection. In the same way

that Portuguese is used, or English, these

languages have expanded. So, if these

languages have expanded into use, why

can’t our languages also go through the

same processes? So that, uhm, let’s say,

people have access to them? So, claiming

the pluricentric use of these languages is

legitimate.

Yes, it is only right that we make this

claim. Because we have speakers too. So,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Sim, é legítimo nós reivindicarmos.

Porque nós também temos falantes.

Então, se nós prestigiamos uma língua

colonial, porquê é que não podemos

prestigiar o changana, o nyanja ou

qualquer língua ((africana))?

É legítimos reivindicarmos.

if we value a colonial language, why can’t

we value Changana, Nyanja or any other

((African)) language?

It is right for us to make these demands.

In excerpt (6), when our informants compare the unequal treatment of the languages

under study with that of the languages of the Global North – namely Portuguese, English

or French – they challenge the reproduction of “symbolic power” (cf. Bourdieu, 1991),

understood as “the imposition of categories of thought and perception upon dominated

social agents, so that they continue to serve the ruling class(es) and ensure the

maintenance of the prevailing social order” (Chimbutane, 2025b, p. 243). In doing so,

they not only call for epistemic freedom, but at the same time, they resist. This resistance

is reflected, for example, in the desire to see an end to hostility, subjugation, and the

silencing of African languages (Lines 16–18, excerpt 6). This fact highlights care as a

dimension of linguistic citizenship. In the taxonomy under study, this care should enable

the humanisation of relations with others, including their language, granting it equal

value.

We reiterate that this is one of the dimensions of Linguistic Citizenship that the criteria

defining a language’s pluricentricity appear to deliberately ignore. Thus, if we continue

to view Clyne and Muhr’s criteria solely through the lens of the Global North, without

careful consideration of alternative models of thought, we are ‘blindly’ subjecting

ourselves to the continued marginalisation of the languages of the Global South within

this taxonomy, rather than attempting to remove the epistemic barriers that exclude

them from this classification.

It also became clear that, in the case of Nyanja and Changana, we cannot speak of a

national norm; therefore, we cannot assert that “the national norm has to be relevant to

social identity and must be (to some degree) evident to the language community and

lead “to at least some of its own (codified) norms.”

However, we can say that the

national varieties, including the local micro- and macro-varieties of the two languages

spoken in Mozambique, are relevant to the social identity of the speakers, as evidenced

by the data collected from the students. (e.g. Lines 10–16, Excerpt 2).

The final criterion, concerning the codification of the standard, does not hold true in the

manner in which it is formulated in Pluricentric Languages; however, once languages

have been described – namely in dictionaries (e.g. Sitoe, 2014), grammars (e.g. Torrend,

1891; Watkins, 1937; Ngunga & Simbine, 2012), reports on standardisation and linguistic

harmonisation (e.g. NELIMO, 1989; Ngunga & Sitoe, 2000; Ngunga et al., 2022) and,

above all, where there are textbooks for bilingual education (cf. Ouane & Glanz, 2011;

ADPP-Mozambique, 2018), with literacy provision included in them (cf. INDE, 2003), one

Retrieved from https://pluricentriclanguages.org/pluricentricity/what-is-a-pluricentric-language/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

cannot claim that there is no form of codification in books. Indeed, as mentioned earlier,

there are varieties considered standard, on which linguistic standardisation and textbook

production are based.

Thus, even though not all the criteria for pluricentric languages apply to Nyanja and

Changana, in the sense of narratives of the Global North, or only partially, the term

‘pluricentric’ can help us understand the linguistic reality of the populations who speak

these languages. We therefore argue that the criteria in question should consider

historical and linguistic realities that are quite different from those of languages

unhesitatingly considered pluricentric, and be adapted to this specific multilingual reality.

Alternatively, new criteria could be devised to extend the designation to concrete

realities, such as the African context. But undoubtedly, the pluricentricity of Nyanja and

Changana, even if it does not strictly adhere to Clyne and Muhr’s criteria, is a concept

that helps us reflect on languages as spaces for sociolinguistic dialogue.

To consider linguistic pluricentrism in the light of Linguistic Citizenship is to recognise the

need to dismantle the linguistic injustices ‘imposed’ on African languages and

communities since the colonial period. As noted, Linguistic Citizenship refers to “cases in

which speakers exercise agency and participation through the use of language(s),

registers or other multimodal means in circumstances that may be adjacent to, within or

outside institutionalised democratic structures for democratic purposes” (Lim et al.,

2018, cited in Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, p. 253).

Based on ‘love’, ‘hope’ and ‘care’ – the biological foundations of the ‘loving human being’

(homo sapiens amans) as described by Humberto Mutarana – from which language likely

first emerged in a context of harmonious, attentive and hope-filled collaboration

(Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, p. 258), the concept of Linguistic Citizenship has shown us

that it carries a significant theoretical distinction that enables us to understand and

explain contemporary linguistic policies and practices. Thus, in the taxonomy under

consideration, ‘love’ can be translated as “a fight for a fairer and more open world” (Muhr,

2025). That is, “in the creation of spaces for the acceptance, recognition and audibility

of the ‘Other’, who is often marginalised and disrespected” (Chimbutane & Stroud, ibid.).

In turn, the idea that “we should do everything we can to preserve our democracies to

enable our research and contribute to the self-determination of people and the self-

definition of underprivileged groups” (Muhr, 2025) helps to fuel the ‘hope’ of marginalised

communities regarding the transformative power of the concept of Linguistic Citizenship.

Through this, we can build “a better future based on the present. A future that may not

have been possible to achieve in the past, but is attainable given the circumstances and

aspirations of the present” (Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, p. 258). Finally, ‘caring’ means

reversing the neglect and marginalisation of languages and their dialectal variants. It is

in a context such as this that we speak of

When there is variation in language, people are also able to differentiate

themselves and develop an identity that may not correspond to the one

demanded by political leaders. Linguistic variation is also a social variation

that can only be controlled through extra effort. If it cannot be fully

controlled, authoritarian systems will do whatever is necessary to extinguish

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

the social and personal self-determination associated with linguistic variation

(Muhr, 2025).

Muhr’s quote above, if applied to Portuguese-speaking African countries, clearly warrants

more reflection. During the colonial era, when Portugal was under a dictatorial regime,

that totalitarian regime had no interest whatsoever in embracing multilingualism, and

national languages were severely suppressed and devalued. That means “colonial

language policy operated on the basis of exclusion” (Chimbutane & Stroud, 2025, p. 264)

rather than seeking to promote African multilingualism. As Muhr points out, this measure,

to a certain extent, allowed control over the multiple identities of the various peoples

inhabiting the colonies. Obviously, the Portuguese dictatorship failed to control these

identities, which remained alive. With the independence of African countries, native

languages gradually gained greater recognition and importance. Now, if researching

pluricentric languages is a ‘war’, in the interests of linguistic justice and to protect the

less privileged languages and their varieties, perhaps we should start by looking at the

criteria we use to the criteria we use to classify a language as pluricentric, from a new,

decolonial and transformative perspective.

Conclusion

We have attempted to examine the classification of two African languages, spoken in six

countries in southern Africa, as pluricentric. This would require some revision of Clyne

and Muhr’s criteria, in light of theories originating in the Global South, where these

criteria cannot be applied in the same way as in the Global North because the

sociolinguistic and historical contexts are very different. This situation stems, to a large

extent, from the colonial policies of certain European countries. To fail to take these

policies and their consequences for languages – in our case, African languages – into

account amounts to maintaining an attitude of subordination towards the native

languages of the speakers. Thus, after listening to a group of speakers at the university

in Maputo, we considered that their perceptions indicate that these languages are

strongly identity-defining for their speakers. On the other hand, they share a strong

sense of community with speakers from other countries where they are spoken. They

can also identify differences depending on where the language is spoken. And they are

also able to problematize issues such as the standard variety of these languages and

other varieties, pointing out, for example, lexical and phonetic-phonological differences.

As we have also seen, these are described languages and possess standardisation tools,

such as dictionaries and textbooks. Considering all these characteristics, we argue that

the Nyanja and Changana languages are, in their own way, pluricentric. We, too, are

“concerned with the variability of languages and the variation within a language that

spreads across the borders of several countries. Whether this fact is recognised or not is

not in the hands of the researchers […].” (Muhr, 2025). Our conclusions about speakers’

opinions serve as a starting point for our argument that the criteria used to determine

the pluricentricity of languages need to be rethought.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

We are aware that further steps could strengthen our argument. We would like to

continue the research by investigating, first, how speakers of Nyanja and Changana from

countries outside Mozambique view their language and their communities. It is important

to know if they are aware that the language is spoken in other countries. It would also

be worthwhile to draw a more consistent picture of differences between varieties of the

languages, depending on the country where they are spoken. Here are our ideas for

future research.

References

ADPP-Moçambique (2018). Guia de sugestões metodológicas: Xichangana e Xirhonga,

classe. ADPP.

Ammon, U. (2005). Pluricentric and divided languages. In U. Ammon (Ed.).

Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. De

Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1536–1542.

Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social

Epistemology, 26(2): 163–173.

Bamgbose, A. (1991). Language and the nation: The language question in Sub-Saharan

Africa. Edinburgh University Press.

Banda, F. (2008). «Orthography design and harmonization in development in Southern

Africa». Open Space, 2(3): 39–48.

Banda, F. (2016). Language policy and orthographic harmonization across linguistic,

ethnic and national boundaries in Southern Africa. Language Policy, 15: 257–275.

Bardin, L. (2013). Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70.

Benson, C. J. (2009). Designing effective schooling in multilingual contexts: Going

beyond bilingual models. In: T. Skutnabb-Kangas; R. Phillipson; A. K. Mohanty & M.

Panda (Eds.). Social justice through multilingual education. Multilingual Matters, pp. 37–

63.

Bochner, A. (2013). Introduction: Putting meanings into action. Autoethnography’s

Existential Calling. In Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (eds.), Handbook of

Autoethnograpy. Routledge, pp. 50-56.

Bock, Z. & C. Stroud (2019). Project proposal for Mellon supra-institutional project on

decolonial turn (unsettling paradigms) – 2018. Multilingual Margins, 6 (1): 89–93.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.

Bowen, G. A. (2006) Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 5(3): 12–23. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1177/160940690600500304.

Carrera, A. (2020). Pluricentrism and unity: Visions and managements of dialectal

variation in the process of codification and standardisation of Occitan. In R., Muhr, J. A.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

M., Castelles & J., Rueter (eds.), European pluricentric languages in contact and conflict.

Peter Lang, pp. 111–132.

Chimbutane, F. (2009). The purpose and value of bilingual education: A critical, linguistic

ethnographic study of two rural primary schools in Mozambique. PhD thesis, The

University of Birmingham.

Chimbutane, F. (2018). Micro language planning and agency in the context of bilingual

education provision in Mozambique. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.) Agency in

language policy and planning. Routledge, pp. 77–99.

Chimbutane. F. (2025a). Línguas, educação e cidadania em Moçambique nos períodos

colonial e pós-colonial. In Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.) Ensino Bilingue em

Moçambique: Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística. Ethale Publishing, pp.

47-84.

Chimbutane. F. (2025b). Caminhos educacionais para a cidadania multilíngue: O caso de

Moçambique. In Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.) Ensino Bilingue em Moçambique:

Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística. Ethale Publishing, pp. 239-252.

Chimbutane, F. (2026). «Preface». In Christian Ollivier & Silvia Melo-Pfeifer (eds),

Encyclopédie de l’éducation plurilingue / Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education. Peter

Lang. pp. 25-29.

Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (2025). Ensino Bilingue, Cidadania linguística e

transformação social. Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.) Ensino Bilingue em

Moçambique: Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística. Maputo: Publishing,

pp. 253-124.

Chakraborty, A. (2024). Ngugi wa Thiong’o: Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Resistance.

Routledge.

Clyne, M. (1992). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Mouton

de Gruyter.

Ferrer, A. B. (2022). Le catalan en Catalogne Nord et dans les Pays Catalans. Presses

universitaires de Perpignan. DOI: 10.4000/books.pupvd.40060

Fonseca, L. R. B. (2016). O Sul Global e o desenvolvimento do conceito da

responsabilidade de proteger: CIBAS e o caso líbio. Master’s dissertation. Universidade

Federal da Paraíba (unplub).

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflection on the ‘postsocialist’ condition.

Routledge.

Fricker, M. (2003). Epistemic injustice and a role for virtue in the politics of knowing.

Metaphilosophy, 34(1): 151–173.

Grosfoguel, R. (2011). Decolonizing post-colonial studies and paradigms of political-

economy: Transmodernity, decolonial thinking, and global coloniality. Journal of

Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1): s/p.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Pinto, A. G. (2021). A construção da identidade da mulher num acórdão sobre violência

doméstica. Revista Linguística special number: 27-48.

Guthrie, M. (1967/71). Comparative Bantu: An introduction to the comparative linguistics

and prehistory of the Bantu languages. Gregg International.

Henriksen, S. M. (2026). Mozambican languages in the public sphere: An opportunity to

be seized. Doris Löhr, Comfort Beyang Oben Ojongnkpot, Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju, Bert

van Pinxteren, Ayodele Yusuff (eds.), Local Languages, Global Futures - Language,

Learning, and Sustainability in Africa. AVM Edition. pp. 99-122. DOI

10.23780/9783960916604

Hornberger, N. H. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typology

and redirecting policy. In O, García (Ed.). Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honour of

Joshua A. Fishman (Vol. I). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 215–234.

INE (2019). IV recenseamento geral da população e habitação 2017: Relatório final.

Instituto Nacional de Estatística.

INDE/MINED (2003). Plano curricular do ensino básico. INDE/MINED.

Jankowski, N. W. & Wester, F. (1995[1991]) The qualitative tradition in social science

inquiry: Contributions to mass communication research. In Jensen, K. B. & Jankowski,

N. W. (eds.), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research.

Routledge, pp. 44–74.

Kaltenegger, S. (2020). Modelling Chinese as a pluricentric language. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1: 1–12.

Kalthoff, H. (2013) Field notes: Ethnographic writing reconsidered. Scandinavian Journal

of Social Theory, 14(3): 271–238.

Ketele, J.-M & X. Roegiers. (1993). Metodologia de recolha de dados: Fundamentos dos

métodos de observação, de questionário, de entrevistas e de estudo de documentos.

Instituto Piaget.

Kerfoot, C. (2025). Comentário – Tornando as ausências presentes: Política linguística a

partir da base. In Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.) Ensino Bilingue em Moçambique:

Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística. Ethale Publishing, pp. 221 – 238.

Kristiansen, G. (2014). Introduction pluricentricity, language-internal variation and

cognitive linguistics. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.). Pluricentricity: Language variation and

sociocognitive dimensions. De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–16.

Magona, V. (2020) Produção do livro escolar em línguas africanas: O caso da ADPP-

Moçambique. Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery, 7(1):

48–68.

Magona, V. (2024). Manuais didáticos em Moçambique: Entre modelos e procedimentos

de produção. Linguarum Arena - Revista de Didática da Universidade do Porto, 15: 91–

117.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Magona, V.; F. Wilson (2023). Concatenação de afixos em Bantu: Algumas leituras a

partir da fonologia lexical. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto, 18:

99–127.

Maho, J. F. (2009). NUGL Online: The online version of the new update Guthrie’s list a

referencial classification of the Bantu language (4 June 2009) Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C698C04A6EAEBC5F6A50FC

ED424565B0?Doi=10.1.1.603.6490&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Maturana, H. & Caberon, E. (2018). Value and competencies in the school of the future.

In Taylor, H. & Hogenbirk, P. (eds.), Information and communication technologies in

education. Spring, pp. 239-247.

Mbembe, A. J. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts & Humanities in

Higher Education, 15(1): 29–45.

Mignolo, W. (2009) «Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and de-colonial

freedom». Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7/8): 159–181.

Mignolo, W. (2011). Epistemic disobedience and decolonial option: A manifesto.

Transmodernity, 1(2): 44–66.

MINEDH. (2020). Estratégia de expansão do ensino bilingue: 2020 – 2029. MINEDH.

Mohanty, A. K. (2009). Multilingual education: A bridge too far? In T. Skutnabb-Kangas;

R. Phillipson; A. K. Mohanty & M. Panda (Eds.). Social justice through multilingual

education. Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–18.

Muhr, R. (2012). Linguistic dominance and non-dominance in pluricentric languages. A

typology. In Rudolf Muhr et. al. (ed.) (2012): pp. 415-434.

Muhr, R. (2016). The state of the art of research on pluricentric languages: Where we

were and where we are now. In:Rudolf Muhr, Kelen Ernesta Fonyuy, Zeinab Ibrahim,

Corey Miller (eds.) Pluricentric Languages and non-dominant Varieties worldwide. Volume

1: Pluricentric Languages across continents – Features and usage. Peter Lang Verlag. pp.

9-32.

Muhr, R. (2025). «15 Years Research on Pluricentric Languages - Preserving Democracy

and Fighting Authoritarianism for enabling research on pluricentricity». Retrieved from

https://www.uc.pt/celga-iltec/pcl2025/programme/conference-programme/keynote-3/

NELIMO (1989). Relatório do 1.º seminário sobre a padronização da ortografia das

línguas moçambicanas. INDE/NELIMO/UEM.

Ngunga, A. & Simbine, C. M. (2012). Gramática descritiva da língua changana. CIEDIMA.

Ngunga, A.; Manuel, C.; Langa, D.; Machungo, I. & da Câmara, C. L. (2022).

Padronização da ortografia das línguas moçambicanas: Relatório do 4.º seminário.

Centro de Estudos Africanos/UEM.

Ouane, A. & Glanz, C. (2011) Optimizing learning, education and publishing in Africa:

The language factor. UNESCO, Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Palma, E. (2017). De boca em boca: A importância de uma abordagem pluricêntrica no

ensino do PLE. Anais do simpósio SIPLE 2017. [30 e 31 de outubro de 2017].

Quijano, A. (2010) Colonialidade do poder e classificação social. In Santos, B. de S. &

Meneses, M. P. (orgs.), Epistemologias do Sul. Cortez, pp. 84–130.

Repblica de Mocambique (RM) (2004). Constituico da Repblica. Imprensa Nacional de

Mocambique.

Reylly, C. (2016). Language use and language attitudes in Malawian universities. PhD

Thesis, University of Glasgow.

Reylly, C. (2019). Language in Malawian universities: An investigation into language use

and language attitude amongst students and staff. PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow.

Shaw, S., Copland, F. & Snell, J. (2015). An introduction to linguistic ethnography:

Interdisciplinary explorations. In J. Snell, S. Shaw & F. Copland (eds.), Linguistic

ethnography. Palgrave, pp. 1–13.

Silva, A. S da. (2016). The cognitive approach to pluricentric languages and the

pluricentricity of Portuguese: What’s really new? In Muhr, R. (ed.). Pluricentric languages

and non-dominant varieties worldwide. Part II: The pluricentricity of Portuguese and

Spanish. New concepts and descriptions. Peter Lang, pp. 13-34.

Silva, A. S da. (2018). O português no mundo e a sua estandardização: entre a realidade

de uma língua pluricêntrica e o desejo de uma língua internacional. Centro de Estudos

Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho.

Sitoe, B. (2014). Dicionário Changana-Português (2nd ed). Texto Editores.

Sitoe, B. & Ngunga, A. (2000). Relatório do 2.º seminário de padronização da ortografia

de línguas moçambicanas. NELIMO.

Stroud, C & Kerfoot, C. (2020). Decolonizing higher education: Multilingualism, linguistic

citizenship and epistemic justice. In Z. Bock & C. Stroud (Eds.). Language and literacies

in higher education: Reclaiming voice from the South. Bloomsbury, pp. 1–34.

Stroud, C. (2001). African mother tongue programmes and the politics of language:

Linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 22(4): 339–355.

Stroud, C. (2007). «Bilingualism, colonialism and postcolonialism». In Heller, M. (ed.),

Bilingualism: A social approach. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 25-49.

Stroud, C. (2018). Linguistic citizenship. In Lim, L., Stroud, C. & Wee, L. (eds.), The

multilingual citizen: Towards a politics of language for agency and change.: Multilingual

Matters, pp. 17–39.

Stroud, C. (2025). Cidadania linguística. In Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.) Ensino

Bilingue em Moçambique: Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística. Ethale

Publishing, pp. 19-46.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 4

Thematic Dossier – From Colonial Rule to Nationhood:

Amílcar Cabral and the Birth of Lusophone Africa

October 2026, pp. 15-42

Linguistic Pluricentrism and Epistemic Justice:

Some Perspectives in Light of the Concept of Linguistic Citizenship

Isabel Margarida Duarte, Vasco Magona

Stroud, C. & Chimbutane, F. (2025). Introdução. In Chimbutane, F. & Stroud, C. (Orgs.)

Ensino Bilingue em Moçambique: Um espaço para o exercício da cidadania linguística.

Ethale Publishing, pp. 253-124.

Taylor, A. (2020). A short language profile for Chichewa and the need for datasets.

Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343282582_A_short_language_profile_for_C

hichewa_and_the_need_for_datasets

Torrend, S. J. (1891). A Comparative Grammar of the South African Bantu Language.

Cambridge Press.

Vázquez, R. (2011). Translation and erasure: Thoughts on modernity’s epistemic

violence. Journal of Historical Sociology, 24(1): 27-44.

Veronelli, G. A. (2015). The coloniality of language: Race, expressivity, power, and the

dark side of modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies,

13: 108-134.

Watkins, A. (1937). A Grammar of Chichewa Language. Cambridge Press.

Zavale, N.C. (2026). Decolonial perspectives in plurilingual education. In Christian

Ollivier & Silvia Melo-Pfeifer (eds), Encyclopédie de l’éducation plurilingue /

Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education. Peter Lang.pp. 247-249.