article · Reading & Writing
Background: Border districts in southern Malawi experience recurrent cross-border displacement from Mozambique because of floods, cyclones and political instability. In Nsanje district, Mozambican immigrant learners enter schools with multilingual repertoires shaped by Sena and Portuguese, while Malawi’s 2014 language-in-education policy mandates a monolingual (English) medium of instruction from Standard 1. Objectives: The study examined how literacy for immigrant learners in Nsanje could be re-conceptualised to address the linguistic exclusion created by the monolingual language policy. It focused on a specific borderland context to explore the broader implications for multilingual literacy education in African settings affected by mobility. Method: The study employed a qualitative conceptual design. It analysed literature on literacy, language policy, multilingualism, border studies, and inclusive education. A theoretical synthesis was undertaken to examine the relationship between linguistic realities, literacy practices, and language-in-education policy. Results: The analysis indicated that monolingual policy assumptions undermine learners’ multilingual meaning-making practices, thereby limiting access to reading and writing. A braided river metaphor was developed to conceptualise literacy as fluid and mobile. Furthermore, a borderland multilingualism framework was proposed to explain how learners can draw on linguistic resources across languages. Conclusion: Literacy inclusion in borderland contexts requires pedagogical and policy approaches grounded in multilingualism, as literacy practices that embrace learners’ full linguistic repertoires provide greater access to learning. Contribution: The study contributes a metaphor and a theoretical perspective for understanding borderland literacies. It also advances multilingualism as a policy-relevant strategy for inclusive literacy education in African contexts characterised by displacement and linguistic diversity.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.4102/rw.v17i1.637
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.