On another level, though Zimbabwe is generally imagined as divided into Ndebele and Shona identities, Shona enjoys supremacy as a result of socio-political power and cultural domination (see Hachipola, 1998 Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). In Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s ( 2009, 2013) terms, Zimbabwe is pluri-linguistic society which is typified by a bimodal ethnicity of the Ndebele and Shona. Disregarding the dominance of English, language use patterns and cultural representations in the public domain reflect the dominance of Shona and Ndebele at the expense of the minority languages (Ndhlovu, 2007). With specific reference to Zimbabwe, there is a hierarchical organisation of language use in public spaces. This is shown by what Suarez ( 2002) calls daily forms of linguistic hegemony which comprise among others language use in the media, institutions and social relationships that associate linguistic minorities with inferiority, low self-respect and belittlement. However, language use patterns and cultural representations in these domains demonstrate the supremacy of English, Shona and Ndebele and the marginalisation and exclusion of ethnolinguistic minorities (see Mpofu & Mutasa, 2014 Ndhlovu, 2007). These groups contest for representation in the public spaces such as the media, education and politics. Zimbabwe is characteristically a multilingual and multicultural nation which comprises several ethnolinguistic groups which include the Ndebele, Tonga of Mudzi, Nambya, Tswana, Shangani, Sotho, Dombe, Xhosa, Venda, Tonga, Tshwawo, Kalanga, Chibarwe, Sena, Doma, Chikunda, Chewa and Shona (Ndhlovu, 2006).
However, researching ethnicity has been portrayed as contentious and retrogressive to national integration (Makoni, Dube, & Mashiri, 2006). This is so because a language is a vital component of ethnic identity, and the existence of an ethnic group is always connected to a particular language.
This means that languages are not entirely linguistic constructs or simply means of communication rather, they are in actual fact political objects. Therefore, the presence of a common language is instrumental to the formation of social networks and connections. Linguistic identity is largely a political matter and languages are flags of allegiance (Rajagopalan, 2001). This study is a significant contribution to the growing body of scholarship on the nexus between language politics and social media in Zimbabwe. The findings of the study show that ethnolinguistic online communities provide the disenfranchised linguistic minorities with space and agency for protesting against marginalisation and language shift, in the process promoting the use of their languages. The study is grounded in the concepts such as hegemony, hidden transcripts and alternative media. This is a netnographic study of 10 purposively selected Facebook groups of linguistic minorities in Zimbabwe. This study critically analyses the motivations and purpose of ethnolinguistic online communities on Facebook. Against this background, the disenfranchised linguistic minorities have taken advantage of the liberative potential of social media and are regrouping in the virtual space in the process forming vibrant ethnolinguistic online communities. However, the subject of ethnicity is sensitive and is to some extent associated with undertones of regionalism and division. This resulted in disenfranchisement and disillusionment of linguistic minorities. Since 1980, when the country attained its independence from colonial rule, the government has struggled to fit all linguistic and cultural representations in the public domain. Zimbabwe is a multicultural nation with multiple ethnolinguistic groups.