Chapter

WRITING IN GIKUYU: NGUGI WA THIONG’O’S

SEARCH FOR AFRICAN AUTHENTICITY

Kristin I. Helland*
University of Arizona, AZ, US

ABSTRACT
In the wake of African independence and the ongoing debate on the
language question, Ngugi wa Thiong’o has emerged as a leading advocate of
indigenous languages in African literature. In this chapter I examine Ngugi’s
decision to write in Gikuyu and the range of criticisms his advocacy of
mother tongue has engendered. I describe Ngugi’s multilingual network
model of translation, and discuss how it might represent a solution to the
tensions between monolingualism and multilingualism in post-colonial
Africa. I argue that Ngugi’s use of Gikuyu must be seen not as a threat to
national unity, but rather as an authentic expression of African identity
reflecting its cultural and linguistic diversity. Writing in Gikuyu can be seen
as one of several counter-discursive strategies he employs to achieve the goal
of “decolonization of the mind.” These strategies include oral features
associated with traditional storytelling and heteroglossic use of multiple
languages and multiple voices to index social roles and broader political
realities.
Key words: African literature, authenticity, decolonization, indigenous
languages.

* khelland@email.arizona.edu
2 Kristin I. Helland

INTRODUCTION
In the fifty years since most African nations gained independence from their
colonial rulers, these nations have been engaged in a series of struggles for
nationhood. These struggles relate to a search for identity, for authenticity, and for
the political and cultural means to achieve unity. The challenge of overcoming the
colonial legacy of domination and of uniting diverse ethnic groups and languages
has led to much discussion and debate on a range of issues which relate to
nationhood, identity, culture, and authenticity. The language question in these
early years of independence all over Africa has come to symbolize for African
intellectuals the struggle to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism not only
politically but also culturally and psychologically. Language debates in the
continent have centered on the role of ex-colonial languages in government,
education, and literature.
The complexity of the language question, given Africa’s numerous
indigenous languages, is self-evident. While African languages have emerged as
national or official languages in many countries, such as Lingala in the Congo and
Kiswahili in Tanzania and Kenya, the languages of former colonies continue to
play a significant role in government, education, and literature in most countries.
In their book, Tower of Babel, Mazrui & Mazrui (1998, p. 50) discuss the
proposals to make Kiswahili not only the official language of Kenya and Tanzania
but a lingua franca for all of Africa. Meanwhile, efforts to support indigenous
languages as official languages and to promote their instruction in schools and in
literature have often been met with resistance due to the prestige of English and
language ideologies which associate mother tongue with ethnic conflict and
rivalry. Yet, at the same time, concerns have been raised about the increasing role
of ex-colonial languages leading to language loss and cultural alienation.
In the post-colonial period, the question of the appropriate linguistic medium
for African literature has become a central focus in debates about language as
newly independent nations grapple with the issues of national identity, national
culture, and national consciousness. In the case of Anglophone African countries,
several pivotal conferences and debates during the 1960s and 1970s, in the period
right after independence, challenged the dominant role of English and English
literature and raised questions of authenticity and relevance. These include the
Makere Conference of 1962 (at which Obi Wali played a key role) and “The Great
Literature Debate” of 1968-1969 at University of Nairobi which led to the
abolition of the English Department (see Ngugi, 1972, 1986, p. 89-90). Another
key event focusing on the question of language and literature occurred in 1974 at
the conference on “Teaching of African Literature in Kenyan Schools” (Lillis,
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 3

1986). The conference focused on the role of oral literature and emphasized a
Pan-African perspective (Ngugi, 1986, pp. 97-99). At this time, there was among
the participants an expressed recognition of the “inevitability of continued use of
English” but these same participants strongly called for Swahili to be made
compulsory in all schools (p. 99).
At the center of these discussions and debates has been the Kenyan writer,
Ngugi wa Thiong’o, who has come to be regarded as one of the most important
contemporary African writers, an “internationally acclaimed creative writer and
cultural critic” (Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998, p. 114), and a leading advocate for
indigenous languages in African literature. Ngugi is one of many African writers
who have criticized the use of ex-colonial languages as the main vehicle for
African literature; other notable proponents before him were David Diop (1956)
and Obi Wali (1981/1963). His decision in the late 1970s to reject English in
favor of writing fiction in his native language, Gikuyu, after achieving early
success in publishing novels in English under his Christian name, James Ngugi, in
the period just after Kenyan independence (Weep Not, Child, 1964, The River
Between, 1965, and A Grain of Wheat, 1967) marks a major turning point in
dialogues about the search for authenticity and relevance in African literature. His
call for an increased role of indigenous languages in literature and education has
been the subject of much debate and controversy in Kenya and elsewhere in
Africa and has caught the attention of scholars in various fields of language-
related studies from around the world. In Decolonizing the Mind, his “most
famous and extensive engagement with the language question” (Williams, 1999,
p. 116-117), Ngugi begins the book with the following statement: “This book. . .
is my farewell to English as a vehicle for any of my writings. From now on it is
Gikuyu and Kiswahili all the way. However, I hope that through the age old
medium of translation I shall be able to continue dialogue with all” (Ngugi, 1986,
p. xiv). In this book Ngugi explains his decision to write fiction and in drama in
his native Gikuyu; he describes his vision for an authentic African literature and
argues that the role of the writers from “marginalised cultures and languages have
the duty and responsibility of making themselves not only visible in their
languages” but also “to challenge and shake up that view of languages in theory
and practice” (Ngugi, 2009, Par. 18). (See Ngugi, 1986, 2009; Williams, 1999;
Riemenschneider, 1984; and Ogude, 1984, for an account of Ngugi’s evolution as
a writer and the ideological shift leading to his decision to write in Gikuyu)
Though Ngugi wa Thiong’o is not the first to advocate for indigenous
languages as a medium of African literature, he is considered the most outspoken
and radical supporter of this cause. His position on writing literature in indigenous
languages has become a touchstone for debates on not only African literature, but
4 Kristin I. Helland

also language policy and even theories of linguistics (Mazrui, Alamin, 1993,
2006). While many have applauded Ngugi’s use of Gikuyu and his innovative
style, others doubt the viability of his model for a variety of reasons.
In this chapter I will address the following questions: What is the model for
African literature that Ngugi proposes? What are the goals and purposes of this
model? What criteria does his work suggest for an authentic African literature for
both writers and critics? How does his use of language(s) contribute to his goal of
“decolonizing the mind”? What role does his use of multiple languages play in
this model? I consider several criticisms, responses and objections which have
been directed toward his advocacy of indigenous languages and discuss the
reasons for this resistance to Ngugi’s views on African literature. I describe his
model and vision for a national literature for Kenya which relies on translation
and a network of partnerships and some of the obstacles toward achieving this
vision. In addition, I briefly summarize studies which argue that his works in
Gikuyu embody an authentic African style – a style which Mazrui and Mphande
(1995) have called a “griot oral narrative style,” which seen from a post-colonial
perspective, incorporates a range of counter-discursive strategies such as
hybridization, code-switching, rewriting, and the use of oral features from a
multilingual, heteroglossic perspective, as evident in his first novel in Gikuyu,
Caitaani Mutharaba-Ini (Devil on the Cross). Finally, I discuss the conditions
required for Ngugi’s vision to be realized, in particular, the importance of mother
tongue education.

CRITICISMS OF NGUGI’S PROPOSAL

Ngugi’s decision to write in Gikuyu and advocate for indigenous language
literature has elicited a wide range of responses from within Kenya and Africa,
and worldwide. Some have cited problems associated with writing in indigenous
languages including problems with creating or reconciling orthographies of
indigenous languages and adequate terminology. Many have also expressed
doubts about the ability of indigenous languages to express “complex ideas.” A
large number of Anglophone writers see Ngugi’s rejection of English as
impractical given the need for a single lingua franca as a bridge to numerous
African languages; writers such as Chinua Achebe have said that writing in
English is a necessary evil in order to reach a broader audience. On the other side
are those critics such as Kamoche (2010) who support Ngugi’s position but
maintain that he has not gone far enough to defend the Gikuyu language against
Englishisms in his writing (See also Andindilile, 2007). Arguably the strongest
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 5

resistance to Ngugi’s position (and thus the biggest obstacle to implementing his
model) comes from those who see his position on writing African literature in
indigenous languages as contributing to tribalism and ethnic rivalry. Those who
take this position often base their arguments on the need for modernization and
development, what many would view as a monolingual bias associated with
nation-building. Below, I will discuss some of the dominant objections to
Ngugi’s model for African-language literature and address several of these
objections and criticisms one by one.
Orthography. According to Bunyi (2001), one of the arguments against the
“teaching of and in Kenyan indigenous languages is that they are underdeveloped
and that many of these languages have yet to acquire orthographies and that
indigenous languages lack adequate terminology to teach and learn school
subjects in” (p. 348). However, Bunyi argues that when the need arises,
orthographies are created, citing the case of Nigeria where “orthographies for 20
minority languages in which the materials were produced were developed through
the collaboration of linguists and influential native speakers working in Language
Committees” (2001, p. 348). Even when orthographies exist there may be
multiple systems, as in the case of Gikuyu, that would need to be reconciled and
standardized for the purposes of a written literature and for teaching.
In Decolonizing the Mind, Ngugi reveals the difficulties he had with
orthography when he wrote his first novel in Gikuyu, Devil on the Cross, in 1980.
Ngugi points out that these difficulties, which were the result of foreign
missionaries’ incomplete understanding of the vowel system, were made worse by
the fact that, Protestant and Catholic missionaries had two, rival orthography
systems for Gikuyu (Ngugi, 1986, p. 67; for an in-depth discussion on the history
of Gikuyu orthography and dictionaries, see Peterson, 1997, 2000, and Michieka,
2005). He describes the challenging experience of trying to reconcile these
competing orthographies and the problem of indicating length of vowels and tones
and verb tenses in Gikuyu (pp. 74-75), challenges he overcame with help from the
Gikuyu writer Gakaara wa Wanjau and linguist Karega Mutahi (see Pugliese,
1994; Biersteker, 2008). Problems of orthography are just one of several
challenges facing those who write in African languages,1 but as Ngugi has shown

1
In Moving the Center (1993), Ngugi lists orthography among many other challenges and
rewards facing writers in African languages: “Writing in African languages has many
difficulties and problems. Problems of literacy. Problems of publishing. Problems of the lack of
a critical tradition. Problems of orthography. Problems of having very many languages. in the
same country. Problems of hostile governments with a colonised mentality. Abandonment by
some of those who could have brought their genius - demonstrated by their excellent
performance in foreign languages - to develop their own languages. In short, literature in
African languages suffers from a lack of a strong tradition, creative and critical. Writers in
6 Kristin I. Helland

with the success of his literary works in Gikuyu, these are not insurmountable
obstacles.
Incapable of complex expression. A second objection to indigenous
languages as the medium of African literature is the belief of many that
indigenous languages are not capable of complex expression. It will be seen that
this argument had its origins in the colonial policies which stigmatized and
invalidated African languages, oral traditions as backwards and primitive. The
claim about the lack of complexity of African languages continues to be used as
an argument against the adoption of indigenous languages as a medium of African
literature and instruction. Ngugi has proven with the success of his Gikuyu
novels, plays and journal that indigenous languages are indeed capable of
complex ideas. As Ngugi's first novel in Gikuyu, Caitaani Mutharabaini, (Devil
on the Cross) became a test case for the "adequacy of the Gikuyu language to
articulate political, economic, linguistic, religious, and philosophical concepts"
(Gititi, 1995, p. 111). Ngugi not only gave a "central place to the oral tradition as
an efficient conveyor of collective experience," he proved that the “Gikuyu
language was adequate to articulate political, economic, linguistic, religious,
2
philosophical, and scientific concepts" (p. 111). His journal, Mutiiri, was
launched as “an exercise in linguistic vindication intended to demonstrate that
African languages, too, have the capacity for abstract, intellectual and scientific
thought” (Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998, pp. 114-115; see also Ngugi, 2009, for more
about the journal).
In her study of the work of Gikuyu writer Gakaara wa Wanjau, who had a
major influence on Ngugi, Pugliese (1994) points out that prior to the publication
of Ngugi’s first Gikuyu novel in 1982, there had been an active Gikuyu press
which flourished in Kenya in the 1940’s. While there had been no “significant
tradition of novel or fiction writing” prior to this time, Gakaara wa Wanjau,

African languages are having to create several traditions simultaneously; publishing, critical
vocabulary, orthography, and even words. But it has the advantage of being able to establish a
natural give and take relationship to the rich heritage of orature. African writers in African
languages are giving something back, however tiny, to the development of African languages”
(p. 21).
2 For any who doubt the capacity of Gikuyu language to express complex thoughts, Ngugi
announced that a Kenyan student, Gatua wa Mbugua, wrote and successfully defended the what
appears to be the first ever doctoral dissertation in Gikuyu, or any African language, to the
Department of Plant Sciences and Graduate School of the University of Wyoming. Ngugi
explained that this student had come across the Gikuyu journal, Mutiri, which inspired him to
write his own poems and songs in Gikuyu. “Later at Cornell University, he wrote the first ever
Masters dissertation on Crop Science in Gikuyu. And early this year, he successfully defended
his Doctorate in Agricultural Science at Wyoming University. . . For his examiners in both cases
at Cornell and Wyoming, he had to give an English translation of the thesis and dissertation.
now he is committed to producing smaller and simpler Science texts in Gikuyu” (Ngugi, 2009).
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 7

whose books were banned in the 1950s, had written many “novelettes, political
essays, songs and poems and sheer agitational material” (Ngugi, 1986, p. 74).
Pugliese points out that the Gikuyu language has been used “‘to transmit complex
ideas’ from ancient times, as Gikuyu oral literature is rich in riddles and proverbs;
written Gikuyu has also been used to explain complex religious concepts
(translations of the Bible and commentaries) and also to express modem political
ideas in the Gikuyu press which flourished in Kenya in the forties” (p. 186; see
also Biersteker, 2008 on history of Gikuyu literature).
Ngugi cites the pioneering survey of Albert Gerard in 1981 in listing
numerous writers who have written in African languages in the past (1986, p. 23-
24). Though much of it was suppressed or banned in the colonial period, there has
existed written literature in several other African languages, notably in ajami and
bamun which are African scripts created by Africans (see Gerard, 1981, 1990;
Gikandi, 2008; Abodunrin et al, 1994). Barber (1995) points out that Yoruba
written literature dates back to the mid-19th century in Nigeria with the first
Yoruba novel published in 1928 (p. 14). Today Yoruba literature enjoys
significant popularity among a “discriminating reading public” in West Africa
(Barber, 1995, p. 17); for example, Barber and Furniss (2006) highlight the work
of Oladejo Okediji, from the second generation of Yoruba writers of the 1960s
and 1970s, whose detective novels written in an “an original, demotic but highly
artful Yoruba style” (p. 9) have been praised for the author’s mastery of linguistic
registers and idioms of Yoruba oral poetic traditions, contributing to the creation
of a new genre in Yoruba. Barber (1995) states that

Today a Yoruba literary criticism has taken shape [as a major academic field
in Nigeria]. Yoruba language and literature are taught as full degree courses
in seven university departments, several of them operating entirely in Yoruba
medium, and producing research papers and post-graduate degrees, including
PhDs, in Yoruba. Barber observes that Yoruba writing reflects a “multiplicity
of registers.” (p. 14)

Despite the large body of indigenous literature in Africa, the work of African-
langauge writers has been ignored until recently by critics who have focused most
of their attention on works in English (Barber, 1995; Zabus, 1991). Nevertheless
works by postcolonial critics, such as Ashcroft et al. The Empire Writes Back,
(2002) have contributed significantly to an understanding of the complexity of
works such as Ngugi’s through concepts such as ‘abrogation,’ ‘appropriation,’
‘contestation, and ‘counter-discursive strategies,’ a term used by Tiffin (1995) to
describe ways post-colonial writers subvert dominant discourses in their writing.
8 Kristin I. Helland

Impractical. A third claim made about the use of indigenous languages as the
medium of African literature is that writing and publishing in the mother tongue is
impractical, untenable or unrealistic given the high number of indigenous
languages in Africa. Those who make this claim generally argue that English -- in
the case of Kenya -- makes more sense as a language of wider communication
because the audience(s) of African-language literature will inevitably be limited
(and they also cite the high cost of publishing). In his criticism of Ngugi’s
“logocentric approach” to African literature, Vakunta, for example, cites the case
of his native Cameroon with its 200 languages, “Africa has so many languages,
how would people from the other linguistic communities be able to read the
books? Only the few speakers of the language in which the literary works are
written would have access to the message” (Vakunta, 2010).
These critics generally argue that English is capable enough of expressing
African values through the use of indigenized or Africanized English and
translation of oral features such as proverbs, songs, word play. However, Ngugi
and others have responded by pointing out that actually only a small percentage of
Kenyans can speak and read English. While statistics vary, the number of English
speakers in Kenya may be as low as a quarter of the population, according to
Nabea (2009), despite the fact that “English remains the advantaged official
language and the medium of instruction in the education system, unlike Kiswahili,
the co-official language (Ogechi & Ogechi 2002)” (Nabea, 2009, p. 122). Given
these low estimates, and that a large percentage of Kenyans are probably only
semi-literate in English, the argument that African literature should be in English
on the basis of practicality is debatable and begs the question “Who is or should
be the main audience of African literature?” .
In response to those who advocate for the use of Kiswahili, a language of
wider communication and a lingua franca in East Africa and other parts of Africa,
as a more appropriate language for a national literature, Ngugi argues that writing
literature in either English or Kiswahili would lead to the suppression of
indigenous languages (cited in Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998, p. 50). According to the
authors, Ngugi is “an ardent advocate of Kiswahili as a world language” but he
believes that “Africa’s linguistic counter-penetration would be enhanced if
African languages separately could demonstrate self-sufficiency and self-reliance
as media of intellectual, scholarly and technological discourse” (p. 50). As far as
the argument that it is impractical to publish in many different indigenous
languages, each of which have more restricted audiences, Ngugi responds that a
network model of translation addresses this issue of accessibility, which will be
discussed more below (Ngugi, 1986, 2009). Another argument that was made
following the 1962 at the historic Makere Conference, titled “A Conference of
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 9

African Writers of English Expression,” which automatically excluded African

Languages when raising the question, ‘What is African literature?’ is that it is
inevitable that African literature should be written in English. Ngugi notes the
paradox that the conference on African literature excluded writers who wrote in
African languages, and, quoting Chinua Achebe, that while writing in English
provoked an acceptance of fatalistic logic, “the possibility of using mother-
tongues provokes . . . phrases like ‘a dreadful betrayal’ and ‘a guilty feeling’ but
that of foreign languages produces a categorical warm embrace” (1986, p. 7). He
points out the absurdity that conferences on African literature have excluded
literature written in African languages and challenges the idea that European
languages should automatically be the medium of literary expression. Therefore,
despite sharing several strategies typical of post-colonial writers (see Ashcroft et
al, 2002; Zabus, 2007), for the most part Ngugi wa Thiong’o distances himself
from writers such as Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Sembene Ousmane, and
Leopold Senghor who have justified writing in European languages on various
grounds. Ngugi is highly critical of those who express gratitude to European
languages, and he disagrees with writers such as Achebe and Soyinka who argue
that hybridized English is an African language. Ngugi equates Achebe’s gratitude
to English with Senghor’s unapologic embrace of standard French which he
characterizes as “subservience” to French (Ngugi, 1986, pp. 18-19).
Despite these differences, an analysis of Ngugi’s translated works
demonstrates that Ngugi employs many of the same strategies of contestation and
mediation found in the works of “Afro-European” writers. The issue of
indigenized English can be characterized as a search for a way to balance
authenticity with accessibility.
Tribalism. Finally, among the most forceful arguments against indigenous
language use in African literature stems from the notion that promoting
indigenous languages contributes to ethnic rivalry and perpetuation of tribalism,
3
which can be called a kind of reverse monolingualism argument. Ngugi wa
Thiong’o has often been accused of tribalism and inciting ethnic rivalry or
promoting Gikuyu hegemony because of his decision to write in Gikuyu
(Biersteker, 2008, p. 322). This accusation originated with his collaboration with
the Kamiriithu community theatre in 1977, which resulted in the play Ngaahika

3 Debates on linguistic hegemony in literature extend to language policy (Phillipson, 1992, 1996) and
studies in sociolinguistics which show that language choice at the individual level is influenced
by beliefs about language and tribalism. Holborow (1992) and Mair (2003) are among those
critics who view the assertion of indigenous language “rights” as potentially replacing one
hegemonic language with another. For further discussion of the issue of language rights and
language policy in general, see Ruiz (1984) and in Kenya, see Bokamba & Tlou (1977), Ogechi
(2003) and Bunyi( 2001, 2005), and Brocke-Utne (2005).
10 Kristin I. Helland

Ndeenda (I Will Marry When I Want) and which together with the publication of
his controversial book, Petals of Blood, in the same year led to his imprisonment
and exile. Bjorkman (1989) reports, “After he began writing in Kikuyu, the
authorities had accused Ngugi of seeking to promote his own culture at the
expense of other indigenous cultures, thus subverting national unity” (p. 8). He
wrote his second play, Maitu Njagira (Mother, Sing for Me), a multilingual
musical drama in 1981, in part as a reaction to these accusations.
Use of the term “tribalism.” The issue of tribalism and its relationship to
language and literature is a deeply complex topic with roots in the colonial period.
The controversy and sensitivity over the term tribalism is widespread all over
Africa, as evident in studies such as Lentz (1995) and Atieno-Odhiambo (2002).
In her review of four decades of research on tribalism and ethnicity in Africa,
Lentz (1995) examined the “genesis and development of ethnic communities and
discourses in colonial and post-colonial Africa” (p. 304). She points out that since
the 1980s studies have been carried out by historians on the “colonial ‘invention
of tradition’ (Ranger, 1983) and ‘creation of tribalism’ (Vail, 1989)” (p. 304).
These views of tribalism, according to Lentz, were influenced by Marxists and
dependency theorists, who began in the 1970s to “analyze African history in terms
of international and local class relations [and] provided an important impetus to
the final historicization of tribes” (p. 316). This research together with historical
and linguistic studies which show how closely connected the language issue is to
the history of tribalism provides valuable insights into the cause of much of the
current ethnic conflicts and rivalries in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa and
“demonstrate[s] the necessity of subjecting conventional anthropological
terminology to historical critical scrutiny” (pp. 316-317).
Historical connection between tribalism and language in Kenya. Research
which views tribalism from a critical perspective is important not only as a way to
challenge assumptions about language choice in literature, in education, and other
domains of African life but also to challenge the notion of “tribalism” itself,
which assumes that so-called tribes or ethnic groups are monolithic entities which
share the same attributes and interests – typically primitive, backwards, and
undeveloped. According to scholars such as Peterson (1997, 1999, 2000), these
attributes were projected onto indigenous peoples of Africa by colonizers through
language and education policies and political practices for the express purpose of
domination (through assimilation in the case of the French and through indirect
rule in the case of the British). The result of these practices was the stigmatization
and marginalization of African languages.
Origin of stigmatization of indigenous languages in colonial period. The
stigmatization of indigenous languages is the result of a complex set of factors
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 11

which led to inconsistent language policies and educational practices during the
colonial period.4 British colonial policies (and attitudes towards those policies)
varied not only among different African colonies (e.g., Kenya vs. Nigeria) but
also among and within different groups such as the Gikuyu in Kenya. These
policies also changed over time. According to Nabea (2009), during the early
years of British rule “the mother tongue, Kiswahili and English were used with
ease at various levels of education; [however] the colonial administration grew
apprehensive over the teaching of English to Africans shortly before the 1920s”
seeing it as potentially subversive (p. 123). By the 1940s with the period of self-
rule imminent, this view had changed. In Kenya, for example, the teaching of
English was given precedence over both Kiswahili and local languages (Nabea,
2009; Bunyi, 1999) a step which was designed on one hand to forestall the growth
and spread of Kiswahili in support of the freedom struggle and on the other hand,
to establish an English-speaking elite in Kenya in the post-colonial period. Thus,
Nabea (2009) argues, the support for English during the post Second World War
period “was another step in solidifying English hegemony in Kenya.” (p. 124).
The underlying ideologies behind the language policies and practices of the
colonial and post-colonial period in Kenya are revealed in Peterson’s (1997, 2000)
studies of early Gikuyu orthography, dictionaries and grammars from 1903 and
1914. These important scholarly contributions on colonial language policies and
practices document how early efforts on the part of Christian missionaries to
transcribe indigenous languages into written orthographies, dictionaries and
grammars had a dual purpose. On one hand, the teaching of literacy in the mother
tongue had as its goal the teaching of the Bible for the purpose of conversion; but
as Peterson shows, literacy instruction in Gikuyu also was intended to subdue
Africans and turn them into an obedient, docile workforce. Peterson reveals that
the alliances forged between missionaries and “invented tribal chiefs” clearly
demonstrate how the use of indigenous languages led to the valorization not only
of colonial languages but the values and culture that were associated with the
colonial language (1997, 1999, 2000). At the same time the lessons in the mother
tongue were designed to denigrate, stigmatize and marginalize both indigenous
languages and cultural practices. This stigmatization led to the belief that
indigenous languages are incapable of expressing certain types of concepts, a
belief which has persisted to this day.
The other mechanism by which this stigmatization took place was to punish
students for using their mother tongue in schools where English was the medium

4
See Michieka (2005) for a discussion on the inconsistency of the British language and education
policies and how missionaries’ goals varied from official government goals and views.
12 Kristin I. Helland

of instruction. Ngugi points out that this practice began in 1952, the year that
marked the beginning of the Mau Mau Rebellion, when the British colonial
government took over the nationalist (independent) schools. Nabea’s (2009) study
of language policy from the colonial period to the present in Kenya describes in
detail the various interests involved, e.g., missionaries, settlers, colonial
government, each of whom had different stakes and different motivations for
either teaching or withholding the teaching of English, Swahili, and native
languages.
Nabea points out that “many European settlers regarded the teaching of the
English language to ‘natives’ as potentially a subversive force. Social distance
between master and subject had to be maintained partly through linguistic
distance” (2009, p. 124). As in other African colonies, educated Kenyans were
made to view their own languages and cultures as backward and underdeveloped
while the English language and culture were seen as superior (see Phillipson,
1996). Thus, it can be seen that paradoxically, both teaching the mother tongue
and punishing students for using it became the two main mechanisms by which
the colonization of the mind was achieved.
The stigmatization of indigenous language and cultures was widespread all
over colonial Africa and continued after Independence. Much has been written
about the differences between the French assimilation policy and the British
indirect rule and their impact on language policies and African literature.
Michelman (1995), for example, argues that “French colonial policies had far
more serious consequences for African literatures than did those of Great Britain”
(p. 216) and that Anglophone African writers have been much more successful at
conveying the culture and ethos of the native languages than the Francophone
African writers have been.5 Despite these differences, Ngugi claims that too much
has been made of the supposed differences in policies in the sense that the result
of both colonial policies was the same: that indigenous languages were
stigmatized. The devaluation of indigenous languages by both the French and
English was the result of punishment and humiliation at school. Not surprisingly,
the issue of language stigmatization has been a common theme found in literary
works of African writers from both former French and British colonies.
Many African authors have written about the psychological effects of being
forced to speak the colonizer’s language, both in Anglophone and Francaphone

5
Michelman (1995), for example, cites the work of Chantal Zabus who “has demonstrated in
her important study, The African Palimpsest, [that] francophone authors who have attempted to
‘indigenize’ their texts are not only far fewer in number, but generally neglect a technique she
terms ‘relexification,’ which uses European vocabulary, ‘but indigenous structures and rhythms’
(the formulation is Loreto Todd's, qtd. in Zabus 101)” (p. 223).
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 13

African countries. Bernard Binlin Dadie’s novel, Climbie (1956), describes how
the French were particularly harsh when it came to punishing students for using
their native language. Children were forced to report on each other by giving the
“symbol” to another student, a strategy of “divide and conquer” characteristic of
6
colonial rule which pitted Africans against each other even at a young age. The
British engaged in similar strategies, as evident in Ngugi’s much quoted firsthand
experience of the Monitor (another name for the “the symbol”) which could be
taken right out of Dadie’s novel.

Thus one of the most humiliating experiences was to be caught speaking

Gikuyu in the vicinity of the school. The culprit was given corporal
punishment – three to five strokes of the cane on bare buttocks – or was
made to carry a metal plate around the neck with inscriptions such as I AM
STUPID or I AM A DONKEY. Sometimes the culprits were fined money
that they could hardly afford” (Ngugi, 1986, p. 11) .

In an interview Ngugi did in 1980, he describes the impact of stigmatization

of indigenous languages in schools when children are forced to study in English
and are forbidden from speaking their own language:

What happens to the mentality of a child when you humiliate him or her in
relationship to a particular language? Obviously he comes to associate that
language with inferiority or with humiliation and punishment, so he must
somehow develop antagonistic attitudes to that language which is the basis of
his humiliation. By extension he becomes uncomfortable about the people
who created that language and the culture that was carried by it, and by
implication he comes to develop positive attitudes to the foreign language for
which he is praised and told that he is intelligent once he speaks it well. He
also comes to respect and have a positive attitude to the culture carried by
that foreign language. . . What does this mean in practical terms? It means
that he comes to feel uncomfortable about the peasant masses or working
masses who are using that language. (Sander and Lindfors, 2006, Interview
with Martini et al., pp. 118-119)

Current views on tribalism and language. In describing the impact of colonial

attitudes toward the mother tongue in Kenya more recently, Nabea (2009, p. 126)

6 The origin of this humiliating and divisive practice used as a device to keep children from speaking
their home dialect or language is revealed in another book by Dadie, One Way: Bernard Dadie
Observes America (1994) in the preface written by Claude Bouygues in which he describes his
own experience of the “alienating power and repressive force” of the same symbol during his
youth in Occitan part of France. He too was forced to wear the “famous ‘symbol” for speaking
his dialect, “the language of local games and lullabies” instead of standard French.
14 Kristin I. Helland

points out that students have continued to be punished for using their native
language after independence, as research by Orcutt-Gachiri (2009) also shows. In
her doctoral dissertation on multilingualism and language ideology in modern-day
Kenya, Orcutt-Gachiri (2009) reveals that the discourse on tribalism continues to
have a strong impact on indigenous languages among the Gikuyu. The
stigmatization of the mother tongue is a recurrent theme up until today, according
to Orcutt-Gachiri (2009), whose firsthand report of children being made to dig
trenches for speaking their mother tongue bears witness of the continuing practice
of punishment for speaking mother tongue at school. She also cites the experience
of the well-known Kenyan humorist Wahome Mutahi’s who as a youth in Kenya
in the 1960s had to carry a block of wood inscribed “I am a fool” around his neck
for speaking “one of those native languages” (p. 299, citing Mutahi, 1996, p. 6).
Drawing on Myers-Scotton’s (1976) concept of strategies of neutrality,
Orcutt-Gachiri concludes that the fear of tribalism can lead to suppression of
mother tongue whereby many Gikuyu speakers in Kenya prefer to use the more
neutral national languages, Kiswahili or English, to avoid accusations of ethnic
favoritism. The sensitivity around issues of language and tribalism is evident in
the objections many Africans have to the term tribe or tribalism as well as the
word ethnicity and to the idea of supporting the use of indigenous languages in a
more public sphere. Orcutt-Gachiri (2009) points out that “mother tongue is a
very politically sensitive issue in Kenya. In addition it is not a topic many are
willing to outright champion, beyond important scholars like Ngugi wa Thiong’o”
(p. 123).
Orcutt-Gachiri points out that lack of support for multilingualism can pose
barriers for African writers such as Ngugi, due to beliefs that indigenous
languages can be instruments of ethnic favoritism (p. 57, 80, 122). Citing
Woolard (1998:3), she reports that the language ideology of those who associate
mother tongues with tribalism have politicized mother tongue to such an extent
that “those who speak mother tongue in multilingual contexts are . . .seen as
highly political beings out for their own piece of the cake” (p. 122). She points
out that

writers who have written in a local language have faced persecution, not
only by the government, as in wa Thiong'o's case, but also by their
audiences: “the decision of the Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong'o to
write in his mother tongue, Gikuyu, led many even within his nation to
see him—wrongly, in my view—as a sort of Gikuyu imperialist (and that
is no trivial issue in the context of interethnic relations in Kenya).’
(Orcutt-Gachiri, p. 80, citing Appiah 1992:4)
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 15

In her study Orcutt-Gachiri (2009) found that “due to the politicization of mother
tongue languages, . . . speaking mother tongue has become equated with being
tribalist” which has been associated with being backwards and “antithetical to
nation-building and as secretive and divisive when used in linguistically
heterogeneous environments” (p. 262). Orcutt-Gachiri (2009) conjectures that in
Kenya today the reason that

those who speak mother tongue are often seen as selfish, corrupt, greedy
people may be due to the fact that the sluggish economy left the country
vulnerable to political manipulations for personal economic gain and
increased the status of education, which is seen as the way to development
and the only hope most children have of escaping poverty. In Kenyan
language ideologies, English and Kiswahili are seen as fundamental to the
latter two processes. To use mother tongue in a situation in which
development is in play is to be seen as saying you want it all for your ethnic
group and do not have the appropriate nationalist sentiment that use of
Kiswahili would index, and that you therefore cannot be trusted to share with
other ethnic groups. (p. 122)

The effects of these language ideologies and discourses on tribalism are

evident in Kenya today: mother tongue use is suppressed in both public and
private spheres; there exists little government support for mother tongue
education, and many parents are reluctant to pass on the mother tongue to their
children preferring to encourage their children to focus more attention on learning
English. According to Orcutt-Gachiri’s (2009) study, this situation has led to a
widespread phenomenon in which speech communities which have been triglossic
(speaking mother tongue, Kiswahili, and English) are becoming diglossic
(Kiswahili and English).
Ngugi’s response to tribalist discourse. From the foregoing discussion it can
be seen that the objection to Ngugi’s decision to write in Gikuyu on the basis that
it will threaten national unity reflects a cultural and ideological narrative around
tribalism, ethnicity and language which has its origins during the colonial period
and continues to affect Kenyan society today. The main discourse on language in
Kenya today assumes the need to appear ethnically neutral through the use of
Kiswahili which is not associated with any particular ethnic community and is
thus seen as the best vehicle for “expressing unity between Kenyans” (Orcutt-
Gachiri, 2009, p. 91-92). Ngugi sees in this discourse the old fears of tribalism
and insists that the real enemy is not other ethnic groups but the legacy of
imperialism which has led to cultural alienation and stigmatization of indigenous
languages and cultures.
16 Kristin I. Helland

Ngugi has been keenly aware of tribalism as an invention of colonialism and

a strategy of divide and conquer, and he has been outspoken in condemning the
discourse of tribalism at all levels. (See for example, Ngugi, 1972, “Towards a
National Culture” and “Kenya: The Two Rifts”; Ngugi, 1986, pp. 1-2; and Ngugi,
2011, a recent talk at UCLA in which he addresses the issue of tribalism.) His
decision to write in Gikuyu is a direct result of his concern with the stigmatization
of indigenous language and cultural practices which have associated tribal
languages and practices with primitivism and backwardness. Ngugi points out that
rather than focusing on inter-ethnic conflicts, Africans should see these conflicts
as between imperial powers and the colonized. Ngugi argues that indigenous
languages are the best vehicles for an authentic African literature, and he proposes
a translation model that promotes ethnic solidarity and a national culture and
respects cultural diversity and multilingualism.
Critics miss the point when they characterize his decision to write in Gikuyu
as a “‘tribalistic’ action” and view his decision as an effort to give prestige to
Gikuyu over other indigenous languages. As Biersteker (2008) points out,

critics of Ngugı’s decision to write in Gikuyu have not indicated that they are
aware of his study of Fanon and Freire nor have they acknowledged his
understanding of the history of writing in Gikuyu. His critics often have
dismissed Ngugi’s decision to write in Gikuyu as an “ethnic” or “tribalistic”
action that contradicts his socialist commitments. Yet those who have read
Fanon and Freire or Ngugi’s own descriptions of his struggles to write in
Gikuyu and to establish dialogues with workers and peasants find his
decisions on issues of language consistent with his progressive commitments.
(p. 322)

Resistance to his proposal on the basis of tribalistic accusations overlooks the

potential of his model to provide a viable alternative to the dominance of English
in Kenya and Africa, one in which indigenous languages can coexist side by side
with other languages without being marginalized or stigmatized.

MULTILINGUAL NETWORK MODEL

In a recent keynote speech Ngugi gave at a conference in Tanzania, he
describes his proposed model of African literature which he calls a “network”
system of translation. He contrasts this model with the current hierarchical system
in which literature in English is considered the most prestigious. He argues for a
third way which offers an alternative to the monolingualism model of a unitary
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 17

language policy and a model which leads to a hierarchy of languages (such as a

triglossic model). He argues that

the choice open to the world should not be between mono-lingualism and
hierarchy of languages; but between those two models and a network system
among languages. Language relationships within and between nations should
not be in terms of hierarchy but rather in terms of network, with transitions
[sic]7 enabling the transmission of knowledge and ideas between languages.
(Ngugi, 2009, para. 27)

Ngugi’s ‘multilingual network model’ suggests a solution to the problems of

language loss and ethnic rivalry that have resulted from the emphasis on English
and the language hierarchy that began under colonization and continues out of
fears of tribalism and other factors. Through his network model Ngugi intends to
subvert the discourse of monolingualism by providing access to his novels and
children’s books to non-Gikuyu speakers through translation. I would also argue
that his use of multiple languages in his novels and plays reflects a counter-
discursive strategy that is intended to support a model of multilingualism. In other
words, Ngugi’s network model using both translation and multiple languages, as
evident in his novels in Gikuyu, Devil on the Cross, Matigari, and Mũrogi wa
Kagogo (Wizard of the Crow), and his multilingual play Maitu Njagira (Mother,
Sing for Me), has potential to promote ethnic solidarity through communication
across languages.
Ngugi’s vision of a truly national literature: the role of translation. Ngugi
describes the critical role of translation in his vision of a “truly national literature”
in Decolonizing the Mind (1986, p. 85). He points out that at the time of the
publication of Decolonizing the Mind, his first novel, Devil on the Cross, had
been translated into English, Swedish, Norwegian and German with possibilities
of Russian and Japanese editions. However, what he considered of more
importance was “the translation of the novel into Kiswahili under the title Shetani
Msalabani, a direct communication between Gikuyu and in Swahili languages.”

Indeed I see this kind of communication between African languages as

forming the real foundation of a genuinely African novel. A novel originally
written in Ibo could find itself translated into Yoruba and vice versa. A novel
written Dholuo or Maasai could find itself translated into two or three or
more Kenyan languages or into African languages outside Kenya. There
would thus be a real dialogue between the literatures, languages and cultures
of the different nationalities within any one country. (Ngugi, 1986, p. 84-85)

7
As a reader, I strongly believe Ngugi meant to say “translation” here.
18 Kristin I. Helland

Ngugi envisions the role of translation between African languages as

“forming the foundation of a truly national literature and culture” and a “truly
African sensibility in the written arts” which would both enhance the art of
translation and lead to “more rigorous and committed study of African languages”
(Ngugi, 1986, p. 84-85).
Network model further defined. Ngugi maintains that the viability of African
literature written in indigenous languages depends on a set of conditions which
involve not only the writer and the translator but an entire network system of
partners. Ngugi describes the five partners that are necessary in order for literature
in indigenous languages to have an impact as follows: the writer needs a publisher
who is willing to publish works in indigenous languages and booksellers willing
to sell the books. It also requires a government which is supportive of national
language policies on multilingualism, without which the writer will have
difficulty finding willing readers to read books, magazines, journals written in
indigenous languages. The success of this model also depends on award givers
and conference organizers (2009). In an earlier version of his description of this
network model in Decolonizing the Mind, Ngugi emphasizes the need for both a
progressive state and a writer who is a “pathfinder.”

The future of the African novel is then dependent on a willing writer, (ready
to invest time and talent, in African languages); a willing translator (ready to
invest time and talent in the art of translating from one African language into
another); a willing publisher (ready to invest time and money) or a
progressive state which would overhaul the current neo-colonial linguistic
policies and tackle the national question in a democratic manner; and finally,
and most important, a willing and widening readership. But of all these other
factors, it is only the writer who is best placed to break through the vicious
circle and create fiction in African languages. The writer of fiction can be
and must be the, pathfinder. (Ngugi, 1986, p. 85)

According to Mazrui & Mphande (1995), the conditions necessary for Ngugi’s
vision of a multilingual national culture which promotes ethnic solidarity would
require the liberation of the whole continent in order for literature in indigenous
languages to flourish.
Ngugi began to formulate his vision of the role of literature in contributing
toward this national culture in his essay, “Towards a National Culture,” in
Homecoming in 1972 prior to his decision to write in Gikuyu and culminated with
his decision to write in Gikuyu, with his book Decolonizing the Mind being a kind
of manifesto for African writers. Mazrui and Mphande (1995) and others (e.g.,
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 19

Williams, 1999; Ogude, 1999) have described how Ngugi’s ideological shift was
influenced by the work of Frantz Fanon and Paulo Freire and particularly his
theatre experience which led to his imprisonment and decision to write in Gikuyu.
They point out how Ngugi came to the realization, like Fanon, that the writer must
be both an artist and a political activist at the same time and describe Ngugi’s
decision to reject English and advocate for the African literature in indigenous
languages in the context of a search for a national culture. Mazrui and Mphande
describe the literary style that Ngugi has developed in his later novels written in
Gikuyu, Devil on the Cross and Matagari, as one which is informed by the
powers of orality and which reflect the interests of the "masses." Emphasizing the
influence of Fanon (1968), they point out that these later novels written in Gikuyu
constitute “a literature of combat that is both national and anti-imperialist in
character” and which has come to represent his vision for a national literature and
a national culture:

Devil on the Cross and Matigari are a radical attempt to depart from this
tradition and chart out a new course towards a national literature,
specifically, and a national culture in general. But the growth, maturation and
consolidation of a national culture ultimately depend on the presence of
politico-economic conditions necessary to support and sustain that new
culture. Attempts at creating a national culture must go hand in-hand with
efforts to create a new political environment altogether. (Mazrui & Mphande,
1995, p. 181)

This suggests that simply writing in one’s mother tongue is not enough to
constitute a truly authentic African literature: “the literature must carry the content
of our people’s anti-imperialist struggles” (1986, p. 29). He adds that “a writer
who tries to communicate the message of unity and hope in the languages of the
people becomes a subversive character” (1986, p. 30).
Ngugi’s narrative style. In addition to promoting the use of mother tongue as
the vehicle of a truly authentic African literature, Ngugi wa Thiong’o has
developed an innovative narrative style that that many consider to be an authentic
representation of Gikuyu culture, history, people, and language. Mazrui and
Mphande (1995) have described Ngugi’s style as a “griot oral narrative style” (pp.
176-178) which could be said to combine the role of the traditional storyteller
with that of organic intellectual.8 Mazrui and Mphande describe this style as

8
See also Gititi (1995) on Ngugi’s role as the “gicaandi,” the term for Kenyan storyteller which
shares much in common with “griot” of West Africa and “imbongi” of South Africa. See also
Pugliese, 1994, “The Organic Vernacular Intellectual in Kenya: Gakaara wa Wanjau” , for insights
into the influence of Gakaara wa Wanjau on Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s evolution as a writer.
20 Kristin I. Helland

follows: “In a typical griot tradition, Ngugi employs oral tradition in the form of
fable, fantasy, exaggeration, and song to bring issues for public debate, with
himself acting as moderator: in other words, not only praising but also criticizing”
(p 178).
Ngugi‘s language choices, narrative style, use of counter-discursive
strategies, and multilingual model together represent a viable model for a truly
authentic African literature which is also a literature of combat (Fanon, 1968).
Ngugi subverts the discourse of tribalism and colonialism by asserting indigenous
languages (in an act of abrogation) and taking a multilingual approach in order to
promote ethnic solidarity by promoting a model of translation and multilingualism
in his creative works.
While translation provides a bridge between two languages, translation alone
does not assure accessibility to African-language literature such as Ngugi’s works
in Gikuyu, even when a gloss is provided for untranslated words. As Gerard
(1990) points out, a contextual approach is required to comprehend Ngugi’s work:

It is difficult to understand even such a major, internationally reputed writer

as Ngugi wa Thiong’o in a proper perspective unless one has acquired a
fairly sound familiarity with the distinctive qualities of Kikuyu culture: the
historical experience of the Kikuyu people, their oral art, their traditional
beliefs and customs and the way these have evolved in the modern urban
environment of the new state.. . . This contextual approach implies a
modicum of anthropological and historical information, which a disquieting
number of ‘scholars,’ including Africans, seem to lack. (p. 163)

In addition to a knowledge of anthropological and historical context,

understanding Ngugi’s later novels written in Gikuyu is best accomplished using a
post-colonial theoretical framework which views his assertion of the use of
Gikuyu as an abrogation of English. Ngugi’s novels can also be analyzed from a
multilingual, (dialogic) heteroglossic perspective to highlight his appropriation of
English and other languages through hybridization, code-switching, and the use of
oral features as counter-discursive strategies intended to abrogate the hegemony
of English and cultural narratives derived from the colonial experience. (See
Ashcroft et al., 2002; Tiffin, 1995; Kasanga & Kalume, 1996; Fachinger, 1993;
Thomas, 2000; Njogu, 1997.) The reader or critic who is familiar with
postcolonial theory and counter-discursive strategies can thus appreciate the ways
in which Ngugi uses language to mediate and contextualize the dominant
(colonial) discourse. Additional analytical tools and frameworks which can
provide added insights into Ngugi’s work include those which draw on research
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 21

on language ideology (Bourdieu, 1977; Woolard, 1985, 1998) and sociolinguistic

research on code-switching and indexicality (Myers-Scotton, 1993).
The role of literature is central to support for multilingualism. If
multilingualism is to be championed, indigenous languages need a literature to
serve as a referent which is written, performed and adapted to meet the needs of
modern day circumstances, to keep language alive in an era of globalization. (See
Silentman, 1995, regarding the role of literature in Native American language
preservation and maintenance.)
Importance of education in mother tongue. Finally, a key condition for
sustaining the new national culture as described by Ngugi wa Thiong’o is
education in the mother tongue. It is clear that if multilingualism is to thrive,
mother tongue education must be supported and in Kenya this means extending
mother tongue instruction past the three years that are currently required and
including mother tongue knowledge on school examinations, which is not
currently the case (Bunyi, 2001; Orcutt-Gachiri, 2009). One of the reasons that
many parents express resistance to indigenous language instruction is because the
exams do not include knowledge of mother tongue (Orcutt-Gachiri, 2009).
As discussed above, it is also likely that an important underlying reason for
for resistance to indigenous language instruction is that the use of a multiplicity of
local languages is seen as undermining national unity. In the case of Kenya, “the
idea that mother tongues divide whereas Kiswahili unites is powerful even in the
educational sphere” (Orcutt-Gachiri, 2009, p.180). As Bunyi (2005) and Brock-
Ute (2005) point out, schools need to become multilingual places, where children
are encouraged to bring their linguistic repertoire to the classroom and have that
be respected in the educational institutions rather than devalued. Ngugi’s network
model of a truly authentic African literature in which translation plays a key role
shows much promise toward achieving the goals of a multilingual African
literature and society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Heidi Orcutt-Gachiri who first sparked my interest
in the topic of multilingualism in Africa and at whose suggestion I submitted the
proposal for this book chapter. I am particularly indebted to Drs. Jean-Paul
Tadoum and Iréne d'Almeida for their insights into African languages and
literature. Additionally, I am grateful to Drs. Linda Waugh, Richard Ruiz, and
Chantelle Warner for their editorial feedback at various stages of this process.
22 Kristin I. Helland

REFERENCES
Abodunrin, F. Kiernan, B., Kroller, E., Burnett, P., Langran, P & Durix, C.
(1994). New Literatures in English [Section on Africa by Femi Abodunrin].
Years Work Eng Studies, 75(1): 692-766.
Andindilile, Michael. (2007). Reimagining African communities: Achebe, Ngugi,
Gordimer, Farah and the Anglophone African novel. (Doctoral dissertation).
ETD Collection for Fordham University. Paper AAI3271263.
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3271263
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H.. (2002). The Empire writes back. London:
Routledge.
Atieno-Odhiambo, Elisha Stephen. (2002). Hegemonic enterprises and
instrumentalities of survival: Ethnicity and democracy in Kenya. African
Studies, 61(2): 223-249.
Barber, Karin. (1995). African-language literature and postcolonial criticism.
Research in African Literatures, 26(4): 3-30.
Barber, Karin and Furniss, Graham. (2006). African-language writing. Research
in African Literatures: Special Issue on Writing in African Languages, 37(3):
1-14.
Biersteker, Ann. (2008). Gikuyu literature: development from early Christian
writings to Ngũgĩ ’s later novels. In Abiola Irele and Simon Gikandi (Eds.),
The Cambridge History of African and Caribbean Literature, Vol. 1 (pp. 306-
328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bjorkman, Ingrid. (1989). Mother, Sing for Me: Peoples Theatre in Kenya.
London: Zed Books.
Bokamba, Eyamba G. & Tlou, Josiah S. (1977). Language policies of African
states. In Paul F. A. Kotey & Haig Der-Houssikain (Eds.), Language and
Linguistic Problems in Africa (pp. 35-53). Columbia, South Carolina:
Hornbeam Press Inc.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science
Information/ Information sur les sciences sociales, 16(6): 645-668.
Brock-Utne, Birgit (2005). Language-in-education policies and practices in
African with a special focus on Tanzania and South Africa—insights from
research in progress. In Angel M. Y. Lin and Peter W. Martin (Eds.),
Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice
(pp. 173-193). New York: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Bunyi, Grace. (1999). Rethinking the place of African indigenous languages in
African education. Int. J. of Educational Development 19: 337–350.
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 23

Bunyi, Grace. (2001). Language and educational inequality in primary classrooms

in Kenya. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of Authority:
Education and Linguistic Difference, (pp. 77-100). Westport, Connecticut:
Ablex Publishing.
Bunyi, Grace. (2005). Language classroom practices in Kenya. In Angel M. Y.
Lin and Peter W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-
Education Policy and Practice (pp. 131-152). New York: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Diop, David. (1956). Contributions to the debate on national poetry. Présence
Africaine, 6.
Fachinger, Petra. (1993). Counter-discursive strategies in first-world migrant
writing. Unpublished dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Fanon, Franz. (1968). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Albert S. Gérard, (1981). African Language Literatures: An Introduction to the
Literary History of Sub-Saharan Africa. London: Longman.
Gerard, Albert (1990). Contexts of African literature. Amsterdam: Editions
Rodopi.
Gikandi, Simon. (2008). African literature and the colonial factor. The
Cambridge History of African and Caribbean Literature, Vol. 1. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Gititi, Gitahi. (1995). Recuperating a disappearing art form: Resonances of
Gicaandi in Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Devil on the Cross. In Cantalupo, Charles
(Ed.), The world of Ngugi wa Thiongo. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.
Holborow, Marnie. (1992). Review of Linguistic Imperialism. ELT Journal
47(4): 358-360.
Kamoche, Ken. (2010, November 9). Ngugi and language. [Review of Wizard of
the Crow]. Global Beat: Special to G21. Retrieved from:
http://generator21.net/g21archive/gb21.html
Kasanga, Luanga A. & Kalume, Mambo (1996). The use of indigenized forms of
English in Ngugi’s Devil on the Cross: A Linguistic and Sociolinguistic
Analysis. African Languages and Cultures, 9(1), pp. 43-69.
Lentz, Carola. (1995). ‘Tribalism’ and ethnicity in Africa: A review of four
decades of Anglophone research. (Trans. Pamela Selwyn). Cah. Sci. hum., 31
(2): 303-328.
Lillis, Kevin M. (1986). Africanizing the school literature curriculum in Kenya: A
case‐‐study in curriculum dependency. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(1):
63-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027860180106
24 Kristin I. Helland

Mair, Christian. (2003). Linguistics, literature and the postcolonial Englishes: An

Introduction. In C. Mair (Ed.), The politics of English as a world language.
Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
Mazrui, Alamin. (1993). Language and the quest of liberation in Africa: The
legacy of Franz Fanon. Third World Quarterly, 14(2): 351-363.
Mazrui, Alamin. (2006). Ngugi and the question of language in African writing: A
critical appraisal. Address delivered at the launching of Ngugi wa Thiongo’s
Murogi wa Kagogo (Mbuku ya Gatatu), Nairobi, May 25, 2006.
Mazrui, Ali A. & Mazrui, Alamin M. (1998). Tower of Babel: Language and
governance in the African experience. Oxford, England: James Currey and
Nairobi, Kenya: East African Educational Publishers.
Mazrui, Alamin. & Mphande, Lupenga. (1995). Orality and the language of
combat: Ngugi and the legacy of Fanon. In Charles Cantalupo (Ed.), The
world of Ngugi wa Thiong’o (pp. 159-183). Trenton, New Jersey: Africa
World Press.
Michelman, Fredric. (1995). French and British colonial language policies: A
Comparative view of their impact on African literature. Research in African
Literatures, 26(4): 216-225.
Michieka, Martha Moraa. (2005). English in Kenya: A sociolinguistic profile.
World Englishes, 24(2): 173-186.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1976). Strategies of neutrality: Language choice in
uncertain situations. Language, 52(4): 919-941.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from
Africa. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon (Oxford University Press).
Nabea, Wendo K. (2009). Language policy in Kenya: Negotiation with
hegemony. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 3(1): 121-138.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (1972). On the abolition of the English Department. In
Homecoming: Essays on African and Caribbean Literature, Culture and
Politics (pp. 145–150). London: Heinemann.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (1982). Devil on the Cross. London and Ibadan: Heinemann.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in
African literature. London: James Currey; Nairobi: Heinemann Kenya;
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (1993). Moving the center: The struggle for cultural
freedoms. London: James Curry Ltd.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (2009). Resistance to linguistic feudalism and Darwinism:
Conditions for creating a reading culture in Africa. Pambazuka News, Issue
450. Retrieved from: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/59136
 Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi Wa Thiong’o’s Search for African Authenticity 25

Njogu, Kiman. (1997). On the polyphonic nature of the gĩcaandĩ genre. African
Languages and Cultures, 10(1):47-62.
Ogechi, Nathan Oyori. (2003). On language rights in Kenya. Nordic Journal of
African Studies, 12(3): 277-295).
Ogechi, Nathan Oyori. (2012). Language situation in Kenya: Introduction. In: N.
O. Ogechi (ed.) Harmonization and Standardization of Orthographies of
Kenyan Languages. Cape Town: CASAS.
Ogude, James. (1999). Ngugi’s novels and African history: Narrating the nation.
London: Pluto.
Orcutt-Gachiri, Heidi. (2009). Kenyan language ideologies, language
endangerment, and Gikuyu (Kikuyu): How discourses of nationalism,
education, and development have placed a large, indigenous language at risk.
Unpublished dissertation, University of Arizona.
Peterson, Derek. (1997). Colonizing language? Missionaries and Gikuyu
dictionaries, 1904 and 1914. History in Africa, 24:257-272.
Peterson, Derek. (1999). Translating the word: Dialogism and debate in two
Gikuyu dictionaries. The Journal of Religious History, 23(1): 31-50.
Peterson, Derek. (2000). Writing Gikuyu: Christian literacy and ethnic debate in
northern Central Kenya, 1908-1952. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Minnesota
Phillipson, Robert. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, Robert. (1996). Linguistic imperialism: African perspectives. ELT
Journal 50(2): 160-167. Retrieved from:
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/2/160.full.pdf
Pugliese, Cristiana. (1994). The organic vernacular intellectual in Kenya: Gakaara
wa Wanjau. Research in African Literatures, 25(4): 177-187.
Riemenschneider, Dieter (1984). Ngugi wa Thiong'o and the question of language
and literature in Kenya. World Literature Written in English, 24(1): 78-87.
Ruiz, Richard (1984). Orientations to language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2),
15–34.
Sander, Reinhard & Lindfors, Bernth (Eds.). (2006). Ngugi wa Thiong’o speaks:
Interviews with the Kenyan writer. Oxford: James Currey.
Silentman, Irene. (1995). Revaluing indigenous language resources through
language planning. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(1): 179-182
Thomas, E. A. (2000). Counter-discursive strategies in the novels of Ngugi wa
Thiong’o and Ayi Kwei Armah. Unpublished dissertation, Mahatma Gandhi
University, India.
26 Kristin I. Helland

Tiffin, Helen. (1995). Post-colonial literatures and counter-discourse. In Bill

Ashcroft et al., The post-colonial studies reader (pp. 95-98). London:
Routledge.
Vakunta, Peter. Aporia: Ngugi’s fatalistic logic of the unassailable position of
indigenous languages in African literature. [Web blog post on Vakunta’s
Straddling the Mungo blog] Retrieved from: http://vakunta.blogspot.com/
Wali, Obiajunwa. (1981). The dead end of African literature? Kunapipi, 3(1):
110-16. (Reprinted from Transition, 10, September 1963)
Williams, Patrick. (1999). Ngugi wa Thiong’o. Manchester, England: Manchester
University Press.
Woolard, Kathryn. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an
integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12,
738–748.
Woolard, Kathryn. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry.
In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies:
Practice and theory (pp.3–47). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zabus, Chantal. (2007). The African palimpsest: Indigenization of language in the
West African europhone novel. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.