Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment

This is a well-written and interesting research review paper, that is historical in nature and tries to comprehensively reflect on language practices in Ghana during pre-and immediate post-independence media in the country, until 1992. I however suggest the following modifications and revisions: 

The abstract is interesting and provides the focus of the paper and provides some findings of the study. Perhaps the authors could enhance the abstract to reflect of the paper’s methodology- this is when they would be answering the “how” question of research (i.e., how did you arrive at your findings, how did you do your research). Additionally, the author(s) are invited to answer the “so what” question, by expanding the abstract to refer to what the implications of these findings are and what is the study’s significance.

Furthermore, I would like to urge the author(s) to transform the article by perhaps including a methodology section, where they would demonstrate how they explored the literature. It appears to me that the author(s) used literature review as a research methodology. If this is the case, perhaps the methodology section should explain the entire methodological approach: how the studies/literature entries were selected, what search strings were used, which databases were consulted to identify your literature, what was your inclusion and exclusion criteria, what was your ultimate unit of analysis. The current subheadings could be used as themes that underpinned your discussion. Read Snyder (2019) on how to present a study that uses literature review as a methodology (link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304564) and perhaps use semi-systematic/narrative review as your approach?

 

I think the literature explored is rich and detailed and the study makes an interesting contribution to our study of indigenous language media from an African perspective. The conclusion is also well structured, and it summarises the historical analysis performed in this paper. It further ends with a call for further exploration/research on  “…the history of Ghanaian press towards a comprehensive understanding of the issue.” And it suggests thematic areas that can be taken further.  Well done.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: ... authors could enhance the abstract to reflect the paper’s methodology- this is when they would be answering the “how” question of research (i.e., how did you arrive at your findings, how did you do your research). Additionally, the author(s) are invited to answer the “so what” question, by expanding the abstract to refer to what the implications of these findings are and what is the study’s significance.

I thank the reviewer for these insightful comments and recommendations. Two recommendations are made, and I address them as follows:

1. The first is for the methods to be captured in the abstract, which I agree with. I have, therefore, provided the methods used in the study (in red in the abstract, lines 8-9). I used historical research, where secondary sources were used for data.
2. The second recommendation is about including the significance of the study in the abstract. I agree with this one as well. I have addressed this too in the abstract (in red, lines 19-19). I argue that the study has highlighted that language, its choice, use, and consumption, holds far-reaching consequences for the progress of any society, so African societies should be mindful of the ideological implications of language choices not just in the press but also in other societal contexts.

Comment 2: I would like to urge the author(s) to transform the article by perhaps including a methodology section, where they would demonstrate how they explored the literature. It appears to me that the author(s) used a literature review as a research methodology. If this is the case, perhaps the methodology section should explain the entire methodological approach

Thank the reviewer again for these helpful comments and recommendations. Two issues are raised here, and I have addressed them as follows:

1. The first recommends that I provide a methods section. I agree with this suggestion. I have included a methods section on page 4 (in red, lines 175-184). I used historical research and depended on secondary sources of published works on language issues for data. I have explained the methods and indicated the themes generated which serve as the subheadings for the rest of the report.
2. The second comment is about the methods. The reviewer was of the view that I used a systematic literature review as the methodology. I agree with that view because the study had no methodology section, and it appeared the data were from literature. However, as explained above, I used historical research and not a literature review. 
3. I thank the reviewer for the immense contribution, which has greatly improved the paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is revealing. The author needs to look at some part of the argument. It is English language use in Ghanian press since, not just language use, which should be reflected in the topic, objective, conclusion and argument of the paper. All languages have the tendency to be used as a weapon of imperialism and hegemony. From the contextual description given in paper, Ghanian like many colonised African societies allowed colonial languages to dominate language use and ideologies. If they want their native/indigenous languages to have similar influence, they should consciously use them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is above the average.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author needs to look at some part of the argument. It is English language use in Ghanian press since, not just language use, which should be reflected in the topic, objective, conclusion and argument of the paper. All languages have the tendency to be used as a weapon of imperialism and hegemony.

I appreciate the reviewer's view and accept the comment. I understand that the reviewer sees English as the problem and that this should be the focus in all the important sections of the paper. I agree with this perspective. Only that I was intrigued by why Native Ghanaians themselves opted to publish predominantly in English rather than in Ghanaian languages, especially when they were writing for Ghanaians and Africans. I was also intrigued by why the colonialists and various governments published in the indigenous languages, although such newspapers did not do well. These are some of the reasons why I did not pick out and focus on only English in the work.

 

Comment 2: From the contextual description given in paper, Ghanian like many colonised African societies allowed colonial languages to dominate language use and ideologies. If they want their native/indigenous languages to have a similar influence, they should consciously use them.

I thank the reviewer for this important view too, and I agree with the comment. I have highlighted this as an important significance of the study which I have captured in the abstract (in red, lines 15-19 and in the conclusion of the study, pages 618-621).

I thank you for prompting me on other issues such as the need to improve on referencing, and arguments and to proofread and correct minor mistakes. I have gone over the paper and improved on it to address the issues raised (in red).