Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity
Bonny Sands*
Department of English, Northern Arizona University
Abstract
African language classification in the latter half of the 20th century has been
dominated by Joseph Greenberg’s work classifying African languages into four
linguistic genetic groupings: Afroasiatic, Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, and
Khoisan. Current research indicates that there are a minimum of 20 unrelated
African language families or isolates. Africa’s linguistic diversity will remain
poorly documented unless significant efforts are made to document some of the
continent’s most endangered, underdescribed languages and language families.
1. Introduction
The African continent is commonly characterized as having four language
families or phyla. This characterization stems largely from the work of
Joseph Greenberg, summarized in a monograph in which four language
groupings (Niger-Kordofanian, Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Nilo-Saharan) are
presented as ‘a complete genetic classification of the languages of Africa’
(Greenberg 1963: 1). This picture of African languages is inadequate
for several reasons. First of all, it ignores the continent’s 27 or so sign
languages, which belong to a minimum of eight unrelated lineages.
Second, it ignores languages which belong to language families spoken
primarily outside of Africa such as Indo-European and Austronesian. This
means that Afrikaans and Malagasy are not considered to be ‘African’
languages, even though the majority of speakers of those languages live in
Africa1. Also, a number of language isolates have been identified which
were not identified by Greenberg. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
a critical examination of Greenberg’s groupings (of spoken languages
unique to the continent) shows that the number of unrelated lineages is
at least 8, or twice the diversity commonly supposed.
African languages represent a rich set of resources for scholars interested
in learning about language universals, processes of language change, and
African prehistory. For instance, typological surveys based on outdated
classifications may significantly undersample African languages. Linguistic
classifications are often correlated with patterns found by archaeologists
and geneticists, but if the classifications used are outdated ones, then the
models of African prehistory that are generated are on shaky ground.
© 2009 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
560 Bonny Sands
Classifications are important because they influence subsequent research
in linguistics and other fields. For instance, a language classified as an
isolate (e.g., Basque, Burushaski, Zuñi) is more likely to be included in a
typological survey, or to be the focus of a research program, than is any
individual language classified as part of a large language family. A number
of African language isolates have recently been identified, and this number
may increase as documentation improves. Since earlier classifications were
often based on only a handful of lexical items, the mistakes made in
classifications can be extreme. What was thought to be a dialect of one
language may turn out to belong to another language family entirely. In
other cases (e.g., Dogon, Songhay, Kunama), what were thought to be
single languages turn out to be clusters of closely related languages.
Perhaps shockingly, fieldwork even in the present day has the likelihood
of uncovering previously unknown languages.
The field of African historical linguistics has undergone a shift in focus
from language classification to the study of processes of language change,
particularly those due to language contact. By better understanding how
similarities between languages have arisen through such mechanisms as
borrowing, areal diffusion and chance, researchers are increasingly questioning the older classifications found in reference works such as the online
database Ethnologue (Gordon 2005). Researchers have also questioned
Greenberg’s methodology (e.g., Fodor 1966; Campbell and Poser 2008).
Greenberg and the generation of scholars immediately following him were
largely interested in long-range comparisons and classifications, but currently,
there has been more focus on reconstructing low-level groupings. This
paper presents results from recent historical-comparative studies and places
them against the backdrop of the commonly accepted picture of African
language families. As will be seen, the linguistic genetic classification of
African languages is far from settled. There are many cases where the
classification of languages and language families is extremely uncertain and
where additional research may yield very interesting results.
2. No classification without documentation
By one count, the African continent is home to some 2058, or 30% of
the world’s languages (Gordon 2005). A survey of the specialist literature
comes up with a smaller figure of 1441 different languages (Maho 2004).
With such a large number of languages, a pragmatic, referential classification
of African languages plays a useful role. Greenberg’s classification of African
languages into four primary groups has played such a role. That is, it
serves as an organizing tool for scholarly meetings, edited volumes, and
introductory-level language surveys. For example, there are regularly held
conferences for Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, and Khoisan languages, but
none for small language families such as Koman, Khoe, Aroid, Ron, or
Kuliak. Most linguists, and indeed, many Africanists, are unlikely to have
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 561
heard of many of these smaller language families, and there are relatively
small numbers of linguists who work on the various African language
families of relatively shallow time depth.
So, we can say that the four-way classification of African languages has
been a success for the majority of Africa’s best-documented languages.
These tend to be the ones with large numbers of educated speakers, and
they are often major regional or national languages. The least-well documented languages tend to be those used by marginalized populations.
Languages used by current or former residents of conflict zones and
hunter-gatherers are among the most underdocumented languages of the
continent. About 300 African languages are used by populations under
5000, and there are even more languages with larger population bases that
are still under serious threat due to language shift. Linguists based at
African universities often have little support for studying languages spoken
by minority, refugee, or migrant populations when there is so much work
to be done on national and regionally dominant languages. Languages
used by very small populations, or by people in remote locations, are
typically not very likely to have a native speaker with university training
in linguistics available to document the language. They are also less likely
to have been the focus of missionary linguistic efforts, which have been
the sole source of linguistic documentation for a large number of African
languages.
Africa’s least-well documented languages are often those which have
the greatest ability to shed light on African linguistic prehistory because
they are typically used by populations that are not part of recent population spreads. These languages tend to be less well-served by the
four-way classification because they have typically been classified based on
superficial documentation. When a language has been briefly documented by someone who does not speak the language or who has little
training in linguistics, there are often errors in transcription and word
segmentation. Often, borrowings and loan-translations from other languages
are unidentified.
The documentation problem is especially serious for languages of
southwestern Ethiopia, Southern Sudan and northeastern Nigeria, Chad,
and Cameroon, and for particular language groups: Chadic, Omotic,
Khoisan, Temein, Gumuz, Kadu, Dogon, and Kordofanian (Batibo 2005;
Blench 2007a; Brenzinger 2007a,b; Connell 2007). To give a partial
illustration of the documentation problem, I have listed the 19 Afroasiatic
languages beginning with the letters ‘A’ or ‘B’ which have fewer than
5000 speakers (Sommer 1992; Gordon 2005). Of this small, but representative sample, more than half are virtually unknown. Only two can be
called well-described, though even they have not been the subject of
any phonetic study, discourse study, or linguistic anthropological study.
Almost a third of the over 300 Afroasiatic languages have fewer than 5000
speakers.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
562 Bonny Sands
• Two have grammars:
• Six have grammatical sketches:
• Five have limited vocabularies:
• Six have no linguistic
documentation:
Burunge, Argobba.
Alagwa, Anfillo, Arbore, Bayso,
Boni, Burji
Aasax, Baldemu, Bambassi, Birgit,
Buwal
Ajanci, Awjilah, Barain, Beele,
Boon, Buso
The urgent need for African language documentation is not widely
recognized. In part, this may be because two recent surveys of African
languages (Heine and Nurse 2000; Childs 2003) lack chapters on endangered languages.
3. Survey of African language classifications by pragmatic groupings
In Sections 3.1 to 3.7, I survey the classification issues that have arisen in
each of several sets of African languages. The discussion is organized along
pragmatic lines, rather than by linguistic genetic groupings. For instance,
linguistic isolates are discussed in a single section even though they are
not related languages.
3.1.
SIGN LANGUAGES
It is perhaps understandable that Greenberg neglected to include sign
languages in his survey of African languages. During the 1960s, there was
very little documentation of African sign languages, and even sign languages
were still not widely regarded as ‘real’ languages. The number of independent sign language lineages appears to be large compared to the number
of spoken language lineages in Africa, but the time depth reflected by the
oral versus spoken lineages is likely quite different. Typological studies
tend not to include sign languages, and the historical linguistic study of
sign languages is in its infancy. Studies do, however, indicate that sign
languages undergo the same types of processes of language change as do
spoken languages (e.g., Rimor et al. 1984) and can be compared using
lexicostatistics (e.g., Woodward 1993, 1996; McKee and Kennedy 1995).
Comparisons of sign languages using the Comparative Method have been
lacking, but this cannot be construed as evidence that sign languages are
fundamentally different than spoken languages.
As languages used primarily in Africa, African sign languages should be
included in any comprehensive survey of African languages. Since sign
languages are still typically left out of African languages surveys, I will
discuss them first.
There are 27 reported African sign languages (Gordon 2005; Kamei 2006),
but the origins of only ten of these have been reported. Half of these are
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 563
Table 1. African sign languages of uncertain origin (given currently available
documentation) (Gordon 2005; Kamei 2006)
Algerian sign language
Bura sign language (Blench and Warren 2006)
Chadian sign language
Congolesian sign language
Egypt sign language
Ethiopian sign language(s)
Gambian sign language
Kenyan sign language
Libyan sign language
Mbour sign language (Senegal)
Moroccan sign language
Mozambican sign language
Namibian sign language
Sierra Leone sign language
Tunisian sign language
Ugandan sign language
Zimbabwe sign language
reported to be language isolates: Adamorobe Sign Language (Nyst 2007),
Bamako (Malinese) Sign Language (Gordon 2005), Tanzanian Sign Language (Mreta and Muzale 2001), Zambian Sign Language (Serpell and
Mbewe 1990) and Maganar Hannu, or Hausa Sign Language (Schmaling
2000). Seventeen African sign languages whose origins are not currently
documented are listed in Table 1.
Five African sign languages are known to have developed from languages
with origins outside of Africa: Ghanaian, Nigerian, and Guinean sign
languages are related to American sign language (ASL); Madagascar sign
language is related to Norwegian sign language (NSL), and South African
sign language is related to British sign language (BSL). ASL, NSL, and
BSL are not known to be related to each other. Additionally, ASL is one
of nine ‘foreign’ sign languages used in some schools in Africa (Schmaling
2001). Foreign sign languages have been sources of loans to African sign
languages and thus must be considered as contributing to Africa’s linguistic
diversity. In some cases, however, languages such as ASL constitute threats
to the maintenance of local sign languages.
The comparative-historical linguistic study of sign languages is dominated
by well-documented languages such as ASL, but African sign languages
can surely contribute greatly to our understanding of how sign languages
change over time depending on their sociolinguistic settings. Nyst (2007)
has shown that Adamorobe sign language, a language that has been used
in a small Ghanaian village for a relatively long time (~200 years), resembles
‘young’ sign languages recently developed from home sign languages in
some respects. In other respects, it resembles sign languages used by large
groups of deaf users.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
564 Bonny Sands
Table 2. Major Afroasiatic language groups
Cushitic (Tosco 2000; Gragg 2007)
Omotic (Bender 2003b, 2007)
Berber (Kossmann 1999, 2007)
Egyptian (Takács 1999)
Chadic (Newman 2003; Schuh 2003)
Semitic (Rubin 2008)
The linguistic diversity represented by Africa’s sign languages alone is
greater than that which is widely assumed for the continent’s languages as
a whole. Documentation of these languages appears to be urgently needed.
3.2.
AFROASIATIC LANGUAGES
There are a large number of Afroasiatic languages in Africa, including
such well-known languages as Arabic, Hausa, Somali, and Amharic. Two
of the main families of Afroasiatic are represented by Berber languages,
and by Ancient Egyptian (and its descendant, Coptic, which is also no
longer spoken as a mother tongue). Table 2 shows the major, commonlyaccepted subgroups of the Afroasiatic phylum, along with citations of
recent surveys. Recent overviews of Afroasiatic classification can be found
in Gragg (2004), Bender (2003a), Crass (2006), and Hayward (2000).
Smaller Afroasiatic language families that have recently been the subject
of historical-comparative studies include: West-Rift Southern Cushitic
(Kiessling and Mous 2003), Agaw (Central Cushitic) (Appleyard 2006),
Biu-Mandara A (Gravina 2007), and Ron (Blench 2003). Research, particularly in Chadic, has moved away from a focus on classification to a
focus on reconstructing particular linguistic subsystems, such as: noun
modifiers (Wolff 2006), locative phrases (Pawlak 2001), subject clitics
(Tosco 2007), and tense-aspect marking (Jungraithmayr 2006a). The role
of language contact in accounting for linguistic patterning within and
across language families has been shown in a number of recent works, e.g.,
Jungraithmayr (2006b), Azeb and Dimmendaal (2006), and Heine and
Nurse (2008). Because Afroasiatic languages are so numerous, they can
provide many examples showing how present-day areal patterns can reveal
older patterns of linguistic contact.
Given that the subgrouping of well-documented families such as IndoEuropean are, at times, hotly contested, it is not surprising that there are
many different classifications of the six groups listed in Table 2, particularly
since most of these groups lack thorough reconstructions for most of their
major subgroups. What may be surprising is the wide range of classifications
given to some of the lesser-known Afroasiatic languages such as Ongota
and Omotic.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 565
Omotic is the most controversial grouping typically characterized as
Afroasiatic because the grammatical formatives ‘to which Afroasiaticists
have tended to attach the greatest importance are either absent or distinctly
wobbly’ (Hayward 1995: 14). Greenberg (1963) and others considered
Omotic to be a subgroup of Cushitic, but there have been repeated
questions as to whether Omotic can be considered Afroasiatic at all (e.g.,
Theil 2006). One view is that only the most divergent set of Omotic
languages, the Aroid languages (including languages Ari, Hamer, and Dime),
are actually Nilo-Saharan (e.g., Zaborski 2004; Moges 2007). Most
specialists regard Omotic as a separate sub-branch of Afroasiatic, but this
might lead some to underestimate the internal diversity of the 25 or so
Omotic languages, which appears to be greater than that found in Berber
and Semitic.
Ongota is a fascinating Ethiopian language that is on the verge of
extinction. In 2000, it was only spoken by eight people out of an ethnic
group that numbered less than 100 (Savà and Tosco 2000). There were
no linguistic data available on Ongota until the 1980s. The difficulty in
classifying a language on the basis of a very small amount of lexical and
grammatical data led Lionel Bender to call Ongota one of the ‘mystery
languages of Ethiopia’ (Bender 1994). Ongota has been classified as a
separate, major branch of Afroasiatic (Fleming 2006). But, there are other
competing hypotheses. Ongota may be a Nilo-Saharan language, or perhaps
an Omotic language or some kind of creole (cf. Blažek 2007). The most
convincing hypothesis is that Ongota is an East Cushitic language with a
Nilo-Saharan substratum (Savà and Tosco 2003). In other words, it
appears that the Ongota used to speak a Nilo-Saharan language but shifted
to speaking a Cushitic language, while retaining some characteristics of
their earlier linguistic system.
Ma’a (also sometimes referred to as Mbugu) was classed as a Southern
Cushitic language by Greenberg, but it is now best classified as a Bantu
(Niger-Congo) language. Thanks to recent fieldwork (Mous 2003), Ma’a
is now one of the best-documented examples of a mixed language, and
as such, it is of great interest to historical linguists. Ma’a people actually
alternate between two speech varieties, one of which has a marked use of
Southern Cushitic vocabulary, but both of which have Bantu grammar.
The sociolinguistic use of special registers or vocabularies has only been
documented for a handful of African languages, but in most cases, they
are important sources of information about (1) the role of individual choice
in language change, and (2) sociolinguistic contexts of earlier linguistic
contact.
3.3.
NIGER-CONGO LANGUAGES
Recent surveys of Niger-Congo language classification include: Olson
(2006), Williamson and Olson (2007), Bendor-Samuel (2006), and Blench
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
566 Bonny Sands
Table 3. Major Niger-Congo language groups (Olson 2006, Williamson and
Olson 2007)
A. Kordofanian
B. Mande
C. Atlantic-Congo
1. Ijoid
2. Atlantic
3. Volta-Congo
a. Dogon
b. Kwa
c. Benue-Congo
d. Kru
e. North Volta-Congo
i. Gur
ii. Adamawa-Ubangi
(2006a). Other important overviews are: Williamson and Blench (2000)
and Bendor-Samuel and Hartell (1989). Recent contributions on NigerCongo include Hyman (2007) and Stewart (2002). The generally accepted
major groups of Niger-Congo languages are given in Table 3. Given that
there are between 1000 and 1500 languages classified as Niger-Congo, it
is not surprising that they represent a wealth of data for historical linguistic
study. This group contains many closely related language families, and
several distantly, or questionably related language groupings.
Kordofanian languages are of particular interest to historical linguists as
they appear to represent the earliest branch of Niger-Congo. But, these
languages are very sparsely documented, in part perhaps because few
linguists have been willing to work in southern Sudan. Overviews of
Kordofanian classification include Schadeberg (2006) and Quint (2006).
Schadeberg (2006) considers Kordofanian to contain four subgroups:
Heiban, Talodi, Rashad and Katla, whereas Quint (2006) and Dimmendaal (2008) dispute the inclusion of Katla in Kordofanian. Further
documentation may hopefully help determine whether Katla languages
belong to a subgroup of Niger-Congo languages other than Kordofanian.
Quint (2006) considers the sparsely documented language, Lafofa, to be
one of the four main branches of Kordofanian languages while Schadeberg
considers it to be part of the Talodi branch. Probably the greatest change
in Kordofanian classification has been the exclusion of the nine Kadugli
languages from Kordofanian where it was placed by Greenberg. It is now
generally considered either to be a Nilo-Saharan (Stevenson 1991; Blench
2006a), or an isolate language family (Hall and Hall 2004; Dafalla 2006).
Another hypothesis is that Kadugli languages are Niger-Saharan, i.e., that
they belong to a family comprised of both Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan
languages (Ehret 2000).
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 567
Mande languages are quite distinct from other Niger-Congo families
(Childs 2004), and because of this, their inclusion in the phylum is sometimes questioned (Mukarovsky 1966). Recent comparative-historical work
on Mande includes: Kastenholz (2002), and Vydrine (2004).
Ijoid languages have not been the focus of much recent investigation.
Greenberg (1963) had classed Ijoid as Kwa, but it is now generally
considered a distinct subgroup of Niger-Congo. Recent surveys include:
Lee and Williamson (1990), and Harry (1995).
Atlantic languages are a fairly diverse group of languages that has a very
low rate of lexical cognacy. That is, the percentage of basic words that are
shared by the languages is much lower than that found in Mande, and low
enough to question whether Atlantic languages can even be considered to
be a family since chance resemblances between unrelated languages may
produce pseudo-cognates in a similar proportion of items. Estimates of
cognacy range from 3% (Pozdniakov 2007) to 8% (Childs 2003). It is
possible that Atlantic languages could actually be three distinct early
branches of Niger-Congo (see Childs 2003, pp. 40–41 for a discussion).
Dogon languages are of special interest to historical linguists because
the subgrouping of Dogon in Niger-Congo is in question (Bendor-Samuel
2006). Formerly considered a single language, Dogon is now considered
to be a cluster of languages. One of these varieties, Bangeri-me, may not
be a Dogon language at all, but may be a language isolate (Blench 2005).
The languages currently accepted as Kwa were only one of the subgroups
of languages considered by Greenberg (1963) to be Kwa. Comparativehistorical research in Kwa today is focused on Kwa subgroups rather than
on any attempts to reconstruct Proto-Kwa. Some work has been done on
segmental reconstruction of various Kwa subgroups (e.g., Snider 1990;
Capo 1991, 1992; Stewart 1993); little work has been done on other
linguistic subsystems. Kwa languages are of particular interest to linguists
interested in how the Suriname creole of South America developed (Huttar
et al. 2007).
Benue-Congo is the largest subgroup of Niger-Congo. A sub-branch
of a sub-branch of the Benue-Congo languages is the well-known, large
family known as Bantu. Despite their seemingly minor position within
Niger-Congo, Bantu languages are at the forefront of much historical
linguistic research. They have been used to test classificatory techniques
borrowed from the biological sciences (e.g., Rexová, et al. 2006; Atkinson,
et al. 2008). The expansion of Bantu languages has been the focus of
numerous studies comparing archaeological and linguistic evidence (e.g.,
Eggert 2005; Bostoen 2007). Recent overviews of Bantu classification
include Nurse and Philippson (2003) and Maho (2003). Some recent,
significant contributions to comparative Bantu include: Nurse (2000,
2007), Mouguiama-Daouda (2005), Mouguiama-Daouda and Van der
Veen (2005), Marten, et al. (2007), Masele (2001), and Schadeberg
(2002).
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
568 Bonny Sands
Kru languages are among the most sparsely documented groups of NigerCongo languages. Little has been done on either the internal or the
external relations of the family, even though both are considered tentative
(Marchese 1989).
A few comparative studies have been done recently on Volta-Congo:
Gbéto (2002), Stewart (1995), and Casali (1995).
Gur languages have been the focus of a small number of studies of
language contact, e.g., Kleinewillinghöfer (2000), and Dombrowsky-Hahn
(2004). Recent comparative work on Gur includes Sambiéni (2005), and
Miehe, et al. (2007).
The unity of Adamawa-Ubangi languages has recently been called into
question (Olson 2006; Dimmendaal 2008). It is even questionable whether
Ubangian languages should be considered Niger-Congo at all (Dimmendaal
2008). As with other Niger-Congo groups, recent comparative work has
either been on small subgroups (e.g. Moñino 1995; Elders 2006), or on
language contact patterns (e.g. Zima 1991; Cloarec-Heiss 2002). AdamawaUbangi languages lie in the ‘Macro-Sudan belt’, a region in which many
linguistic patterns are shared across language families (cf. Güldemann 2008),
so comparative studies of these languages are likely to reveal complex
patterns of language interaction and change. Ubangian languages are also
of particular interest because of their role in the development of Sango,
one of the few non-European language-based creoles in the world.
3.4.
NILO-SAHARAN LANGUAGES
Recent surveys of Nilo-Saharan (Dimmendaal 2006; Cyffer 2007) present
competing classifications by Greenberg (1963), Bender (1996) and Ehret
(2001). These classifications differ in their subgrouping, but not in their
overall constituent members which are basically the same apart from the
inclusion of Kadugli languages (which Greenberg classed as Kordofanian).
There seems to be no consensus among scholars between the Nilo-Saharan
classifications. Since Bender’s classification is the one that has been argued
most explicitly (cf. Bender 2000; Blench 2006b), I present it in Table 4.
Few linguists have specialist expertise in three or more of the major
Nilo-Saharan groupings, so it is difficult for anyone to give an overall
critique of the various proposals. However, the Nilo-Saharan classification
of each of Bender’s outlier language groups have been strongly criticized
by specialists: Songhay (Nicolaï 2003), Kuliak (Heine 1976), and Saharan
(e.g., Petrácek 1989). Other specialists seem to take no personal stand on
the classification of the outlier groups, but merely present Greenberg’s
classification as something that is generally accepted (e.g., Cyffer 2000).
Deep skepticism exists for the Nilo-Saharan affinity of two of the
satellite-core groups, For ( Jakobi 1993), and Central Sudanic (Boyeldieu
2006). Even one of Bender’s core groups, Gumuz, has been questioned
(Mikkola 1999), and recently, even by Bender himself (Bender 2005a). It
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 569
Table 4. Major Nilo-Saharan language groups (after Bender 1996, 2000)
Outliers
Songhay
Kuliak
Saharan
Satellite-core group
Maba
For
Central Sudanic
Berta
Kunama
Core group
East Sudanic
Koman
Gumuz
Kadugli
seems quite possible that the Nilo-Saharan affiliation of some of the other
groups is unchallenged, not because the classifications have met with
positive approval, but because a careful re-evaluation of the evidence has
been neglected.
The core of Nilo-Saharan appears to be the East Sudanic group, which
includes the following families: Nubian, Nera, Jebel, Nyimang, Temein,
Tama, Daju, Surmic, and Nilotic. The internal relationships between
these language families must be better understood before any external
relationships can be evaluated. The least well accepted members of NiloSaharan are Songhay and Kuliak. Numerous competing classifications of
Songhay and Kuliak have been proposed (cf. Childs 2003: 45–46). The
growing consensus is that Nilo-Saharan represents a minimum of four
distinct lineages. For the present, Nilo-Saharan is best considered as a
referential grouping, and not a language phylum or family.
Recent comparative work on Nilo-Saharan has included reconstructions of relatively low-level groups: Boyeldieu (2000), Bender (2005b),
and Heusing (2004); and studies highlighting the role of language contact:
Dimmendaal (2007), Storch (2005, 2007), and Moges (2006). Some
scholars recently brought up the old suggestion that Nilo-Saharan and
Niger-Congo languages also form a family (Bender 2000; Blench 2007b).
Like Boyd (1996), I question the utility of such a super-phylum classification in shedding light on processes of language change given the shaky
ground on which Nilo-Saharan itself stands.
3.5.
KHOISAN LANGUAGES
Greenberg’s Khoisan is not accepted as a genetic grouping by most
Khoisanists working in historical linguistics now (cf. Güldemann and Vossen
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
570 Bonny Sands
Table 5. Major Khoisan language groups (after Güldemann and Stoneking
2008)
Hadza (language isolate)
Sandawe (single language)
Khoe (Central Khoisan)
Ju (Northern Khoisan)
Tuu (Southern Khoisan)
+
+
(possibly related to Khoe-Kwadi)
Kwadi (single language)
‡Hoan (single language)
2000; Sands and Güldemann 2008), and in the past (e.g., Westphal 1962;
Traill 1986). Rather, it is considered to be a pragmatic grouping of four
or five unrelated language families, as shown in Table 5. However, specialists
in long-distance relationships (e.g., Ruhlen 1994; Ehret 2003; Starostin
2003) continue to propose reconstructions involving the three major
Southern African Khoisan language groups: Khoe, Ju, and Tuu.
Reconstructions of Khoisan (or, Khoesan) language families are heavily
dependent on the documentation of the individual dialects of these
endangered languages. For example, the ⫽Hoan language was undocumented and unclassified, presumed because of its name to be a dialect of
!Xóõ, a Tuu language, but recent documentation provides evidence to
link it to the Ju languages (Honken 2008). Dialect variation is key in
helping untangle complex patterns of language contact, such as have been
recently detailed (e.g., Güldemann 2004, 2006; Honken 2006). Recent
documentation has led to reconstructions that would not have been
possible even a decade ago (e.g., Elderkin 2004; Sands 2008).
3.6.
AFRICAN LANGUAGE ISOLATES (SPOKEN LANGUAGES)
The number of African language isolates has been underestimated in the
past. Greenberg (1963) mentions no isolates as contributing to African
linguistic diversity. Table 6 lists 10 languages that currently have no widely
agreed upon classification. The languages listed in Table 6 have at least a
small amount of published data.
There are likely to be other African language isolates for which no
published data exist. In some cases, all we have are reports that people
once spoke a distinct language, but we know next to nothing about that
language. Some languages, like Bung (Connell 1998), may be extinct
before they are ever described in enough detail to classify them. Other
languages, such as Ongota (Savà and Tosco 2003) and Koegu (Hieda
1991) have now been convincingly classified as Cushitic and Surmic,
respectively, on the basis of recent fieldwork. These languages, both spoken
by small populations of hunter-gatherers in southwestern Ethiopia, were
difficult to classify because they have been heavily influenced by neighboring languages.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 571
Table 6. Some possible African language isolates
Name
Citation
Possibly related to
Hadza
Shabo
Jalaa
Laal
Bangi me
Mpre †(?)
Dompo
Kujarge
Sandawe
Meroitic†
(Sands 1998)
(Bender 2000)
(Blench 2006b)
(Blench 2006b)
(Blench 2005)
(Cardinall 1931)
(Blench 2007c)
(Blench 2006b)
(Blench 2006b)
(Rowan 2006; Rilly 2007)
Chadic
Khoe-Kwadi
Nilo-Saharan or Afroasiatic
3.7
OTHER AFRICAN LANGUAGES
Africa has much to offer of interest for historical linguists that might be
missed if the focus is primarily on language classification, such as: urban
youth vernaculars, non-European lexifier creoles, and mixed languages.
The languages of certain groups tend to be left out of discussions of
African languages, even when languages are unique to Africa or have been
used in Africa for centuries. Malagasy, an Austronesian language spoken
in Madagascar, is an African language even though the other languages in
the phylum are not. Malagasy has been used in Madagascar for some 2000
years and has had at least two periods of contact with mainland Bantu
languages (Berchem 1989) that have resulted in shared lexical items in at
least some Malagasy dialects (Kent 1968; Dahl 1988). Afrikaans developed
from Dutch, an Indo-European language, into a distinct language and
is now learned as a first or second language by millions of Africans.
Afrikaans has influenced the vocabulary of numerous southern African
languages.
South Indian languages have been used in East and South Africa for
generations by tens of thousands of people. These include Tamil, a Dravidian
language spoken in South Africa, and Indo-Iranian (Indo-European)
languages such as Gujarati, Kachchi, Urdu, and Bhojpuri-Hindi (e.g.,
Mesthrie 2002; Gordon 2005).
Other Indo-European languages used in Africa include former colonial
languages such as French, English, Portuguese, and German. There are also
Indo-European based creoles, e.g. Angolar Creole Portuguese (Sãotomense);
Kabuverdianu, Nigerian Pidgin English. These languages are learned as first
languages by significant numbers of Africans and should be considered as
part of Africa’s linguistic diversity.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
572 Bonny Sands
4. Discussion
The picture of African linguistic diversity presented by Greenberg (1963)
has had a major impact on African linguistics for more than half a century.
Support for Greenberg’s classification of Afroasiatic (e.g., Newman 1995)
and Niger-Congo families has been greater than that for his Nilo-Saharan
and Khoisan families. Since many more linguists study Afroasiatic and NigerCongo languages than Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan languages, positive critiques
may have outweighed the negative ones. But, also, some of the long-range
comparative work in the generation immediately following Greenberg
seemingly supported his results. This, however, was because these works were
characterized by some of the same questionable methodological practices.
For instance, earlier comparisons tended to give lists of similar-looking lexical
items, without demonstrating regular sound correspondences. Or, where sound
correspondences seemed to be regular, semantic correspondences were iffy.
Grammatical items were often compared singly, or in pairs, rather than as
parts of entire paradigms. In order to make roots across languages seem more
comparable, morpheme boundaries were often posited with very slight evidence.
Recent comparisons have tended to be based on more accurate and
thorough linguistic descriptions. They have generally focused on closely
related groups of languages or on particular linguistic subsystems. Often,
the sociolinguistic and ecological conditions of the languages being compared
are better known than they were in Greenberg’s time. There has also been
an increased awareness of the role of language contact and convergence
and chance in creating similar structures across languages. Grammatical
morphemes that may once have been seen as strong proof of relatedness
may now be seen as likely borrowings.
5. Conclusion
While Greenberg’s (1963) classification of African languages has been
successful as a referential classification, it has not been entirely successful
as a linguistic genetic classification. Khoisan is no longer accepted as a
genetic grouping by specialists, and there are serious doubts about several
of the major subgroups of Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo. A number of
sign languages and spoken language isolates must be regarded as independent linguistic genetic lineages. The linguistic genetic diversity of Africa is
at least five times greater than commonly presumed.
6. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the people at Document Delivery at Northern
Arizona University for their tireless assistance. Thanks also to Sheena Shah
of Georgetown University, Joe Eska, and the two anonymous reviewers
for their comments.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 573
7. Short Biography
Dr. Bonny Sands is a linguist who combines fieldwork and laboratory
phonetics research, with typological and historical-comparative linguistic
studies. Her special focus is on Africa’s click languages. She has authored
or co-authored papers on African language classification that have
appeared in: The New Encyclopedia of Africa, Language History and Linguistic
Description, and Language, Identity, and Conceptualization among the Khoisan.
Her book Eastern and Southern African Khoisan: Evaluating Claims of Distant
Linguistic Relationships argues that the Khoisan languages do not meet the
criteria for a language family. Sands has taught at the University of
Michigan, and currently holds an adjunct position in the Department of
English at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona. She has
conducted fieldwork in Eastern and Southern Africa on a dozen different
languages, on various projects funded by the National Science Foundation.
She is currently funded by the US National Science Foundation to investigate
the phonetics of !Xung and ⫽Hoan languages in Namibia and Botswana.
She holds a BA in Linguistics from Yale University and a PhD in Linguistics
from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Notes
* Correspondence: Dr. Bonny Sands, PO Box 6032, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA. E-mail:
[email protected].
Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution
2·5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
1
Africa is taken to mean the African continent and surrounding islands. This usage is commonly found in atlases and in introductory texts, e.g., Martin and O’Meara (1995).
Works Cited
Appleyard, D. L. 2006. A comparative dictionary of the Agaw languages. (Cushitic Language
Studies 24). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Atkinson, Q. D., A. Meade, C. Venditti, S. J. Greenhill, and M. Pagel. 2008. Languages evolve
in punctuational bursts. Science 319.588.
Azeb, A., and G. J. Dimmendaal. 2006. Converbs in an African perspective. Catching language:
the standing challenge of grammar writing. ed. by F. K. Ameka, A. Dench, and N. Evans,
393–440. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Batibo, H. M. 2005. Language decline and death in Africa: causes, consequences and
challenges. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bender, M. L. 1994. The mystery languages of Ethiopia. New trends in Ethiopian studies:
Ethiopia 94, papers of the 12th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Michigan
State University, 5–10 September 1994. Vol. 1: Humanities and human resources. ed. by H.
G. Marcus, and G. Hudson, 1153–74. Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press.
—— 1996. The Nilo-Saharan languages: a comparative essay. (Lincom handbooks in linguistics 6).
München, Germany: LINCOM Europa.
—— 2000. Nilo-Saharan. African languages: an introduction. ed. by B. Heine, and D. Nurse,
43–73. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
—— 2003a. Afrasian overview. Selected comparative-historical Afrasian linguistic studies, in
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
574 Bonny Sands
memory of Igor M. Diakonoff. ed. by M. L. Bender, G. Takács, and D. L. Appleyard, 1–6.
München, Germany: LINCOM Europa.
—— 2003b. Omotic lexicon and phonology. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Printing/Duplicating.
—— 2005a. Gumuz language. Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, vol. 2 D-Ha. ed. by S. Uhlig, 914–6.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
—— 2005b. The east Sudanic languages: lexicon and phonology. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Printing/Duplicating.
—— 2007. Topics in Omotic morphology. Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 1. ed. by A.
S. Kaye, 729–51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Bendor-Samuel, J. 2006. Niger-Congo languages. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd
edn. ed. by E. K. Brown, and A. Anderson, 631–5. Boston: Elsevier.
Bendor-Samuel, J., and R. L. Hartell. (eds) 1989. The Niger-Congo languages: a classification
and description of Africa’s largest language family. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Berchem, J. 1989. Sprachbeziehungen im Bereich des Kulturwortschatzes zwischen den
Bantusprachen und dem Malagasy. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 10–11.9–169.
Blažek, V. 2007. Nilo-Saharan stratum of Ongota. Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan linguistics
colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001. ed. by M. Reh, and D. L. Payne,
1–10. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Blench, R. 2003. Why reconstructing comparative Ron is so problematic. Topics in Chadic
linguistics: papers from the 1st Biennial International Colloquium on the Chadic Language
Family (Leipzig, July 5–8, 2001). ed. by E. Wolff, 21–42. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
—— 2005. Bangi Me, a language of unknown affiliation in Northern Mali. Available online:
http://www.rogerblench.info/Linguistics%20papers%20opening%20page.htm
—— 2006a. The Kadu languages and their affiliation: between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo
and Afro-Asiatic. Insights into Nilo-Saharan language, history and vulture: proceedings of the
9th Nilo-Saharan linguistic colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of
Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004. ed. by A.-A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley, and A. Storch, 101–27.
Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
—— 2006b. Archaeology, language and the African past. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
—— 2007a. Endangered languages in West Africa. Language diversity endangered. ed. by M.
Brenzinger, 140–62. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
—— 2007b. Further evidence for a Niger-Saharan macrophylum. Proceedings of the 8th
Nilo-Saharan linguistics colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001. ed. by
M. Reh, and D. L. Payne, 11–24. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
—— 2007c. The Dompo language of Central Ghana and its affinities. Available online: http://
homepage.ntlworld.com/roger_blench/Language%20data/
Blench, R., and A. Warren. 2006. An unreported African Sign Language for the Deaf among
the Bura in Northeast Nigeria. Unpublished conference handout.
Bostoen, K. 2007. Pots, words and the Bantu problem: on lexical reconstruction and early
African history. Journal of African history 48.2.173–99.
Boyd, R. 1996. Congo-Saharan revisited. Afrikanische sprachen zwischen gestern und morgen.
ed. by Uwe Seibert, 15–48. (Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 8, Sondernummer). Köln,
Germany: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
Boyeldieu, P. 2000. Identité tonale et filiation des langues sara-bongo-baguirmiennes (Afrique
centrale). (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika, Beiheft 10). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
——. 2006. Reflexes of a labiovelar series in Central Sudanic. Insights into Nilo-Saharan
language, history and culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan linguistic colloquium,
Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004. ed.
by A.-A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley, and A. Storch, 129–51. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Brenzinger, M. 2007a. Language endangerment in northern Africa. Language diversity endangered, ed. by M. Brenzinger, 123–39. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
—— 2007b. Language endangerment in southern and eastern Africa. Language diversity
endangered, ed. by M. Brenzinger, 179–204. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Campbell, L., and W. J. Poser. 2008. Language classification: history and method. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 575
Capo, H. B. C. 1991. A comparative phonology of Gbe. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
——1992. The bilabial fricatives in Ewe: innovation or retention? Journal of African Languages
and Linguistics 13.41–58.
Cardinall, A. W. 1931. A survival. Gold Coast Review 5.1.193–97.
Casali, R. F. 1995. On the reduction of vowel systems in Volta-Congo. African Languages and
Cultures 8.2.109–21.
Childs, G. T. 2003. An introduction to African languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——. 2004. The Atlantic and Mande groups of Niger-Congo: A study in contrasts, a study in
interaction. Journal of West African Languages 30.2.29–40.
Cloarec-Heiss, F. 2002. Les modeles de dérivation en banda: regard diachronique. Journal of
African Languages and Linguistics 23.161–85.
Connell, B. 1998. Moribund languages of the Nigeria-Cameroon borderland. Endangered
languages in Africa. ed. by M. Brenzinger, 207–25. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
——. 2007. Endangered languages in Central Africa. Language diversity endangered. ed. by M.
Brenzinger, 163–78. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crass, J. 2006. Afroasiatic languages. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. ed. by
E. K. Brown, and A. Anderson, 106–9. Boston: Elsevier.
Cyffer, N. 2000. Linguistic properties of the Saharan languages. Areal and genetic factors in
language classification and description: Africa south of the Sahara. ed. by P. Zima, 30–59.
München, Germany: LINCOM Europa.
——. 2007. Nilo-Saharan. New encyclopedia of Africa, Vol. 3. ed. by J. Middleton and J. C.
Miller, 233–7. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Dafalla, R. Y. 2006. A phonological comparison in the Katcha-Kadugli language group of the
Nuba mountains. Insights into Nilo-Saharan language, history and culture: Proceedings of the
9th Nilo-Saharan linguistic colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of
Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004. ed. by A.-A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley, and A. Storch, 153–72.
Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Dahl, O. C. 1988. Bantu substratum in Malagasy. Études Océan Indien 9.91–132.
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2006. Nilo-Saharan languages. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd
edn. ed. by E. K. Brown, and A. Anderson, 638–42. Boston: Elsevier.
——. 2007. Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi el Milk diaspora. Cultural change
in the prehistory of arid Africa: proceedings of the SFB conference, Königswinter 1–3
October 2003 (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 18). ed. by W. J. G. Möhlig, 37–67. Köln,
Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2008. Language ecology and genetic diversity on the African continent.
New Directions in Historical Linguistics, Lyon, May 12–14, 2008. Available online: http://
www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/index.asp?Action=Edit&Langue=FR&Page=NDHL
Dombrowsky-Hahn, K. 2004. Koinéisierung oder Sprachwechsel? – Das Kar in Banfora
(Burkina Faso). Afrika und Übersee 87.152–92.
Eggert, M. K. H. 2005. The Bantu problem and African archaeology. African archaeology: a
critical introduction. ed. by A. B. Stahl, 301–26. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ehret, C. 2000. Is Krongo after all a Niger-Congo language? ‘Mehr als nur Worte . . .’
Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland. ed. by R. Vossen, A.
Mietzner, and A. Meissner, 225–37. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Ehret, C. 2001. A historical-comparative reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. ed. by R. Vossen.
Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
——. 2003. Towards reconstructing Proto-South Khoisan (PSAK). Mother Tongue (Newsletter
of the association for the study of language in prehistory) 8.65–81.
Elderkin, E. D. 2004. The starred tones of Central Khoisan. Afrika und Übersee 87.3–77.
Elders, S. 2006. Issues in comparative Kebi-Benue (Adamawa). Africana Linguistica 12.37–88.
Fleming, H. C. 2006. Ongota: a decisive language in African prehistory. (Aethiopistische
Forschungen 64). Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Fodor, I. 1966. The problems in the classification of the African languages (Methodological
and theoretical conclusions concerning the classification system of Joseph H. Greenberg).
Budapest, Hungary: Center for Afro-Asian Research of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
576 Bonny Sands
Gbéto, F. 2002. Les consonnes voisées ‘implosives’ et leurs rôles dans la tonogenese et la
nasalité des consonnes dans quelques languages volta-congo. Gbegbó/Gbe studies/Études
Gbe 1.7–31.
Gordon, R. G. Jr. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: languages of the world, 5th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL
International. Available online: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
Gragg, G. 2004. Bushes, trees, and networks in Afroasiatic. Papers from the 40th Annual
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: The panels, 53–72. Chicago, IL:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Gragg, G. 2007. What kind of speech community is represented by the ‘Cushitic’ node?
Introduction to the lexical evidence. ‘From beyond the Mediterranean’ Akten des 7. internationalen Semitohamitistenkongresses (VII. ISHaK), Berlin 13. bis 15. September 2004
(Semitica et Semitohamitica Berloinensia, 5). ed. by R. M. Voigt, 211–35. Aachen,
Germany: Shaker Verlag.
Gravina, R. 2007. Classification and reconstruction in Chadic Biu-Mandara A. Topics in
Chadic linguistics III: historical studies; papers from the 3rd biennial international colloquium
on the Chadic languages (Villejuif, November 24–25, 2005) (Chadic Languages Vol.4). ed.
by H. Tourneux, 37–91. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. The languages of Africa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Güldemann, T. 2004. ‘Reconstruction’ through ‘de-construction’: the marking of person,
gender, and number in the Khoe family and Kwadi. Diachronica 21.2.251–306.
——. 2006. Structural isoglosses between Khoekhoe and Tuu: the Cape as a linguistic area.
Linguistic areas: convergence in historical and typological perspective, ed. by Y. Matras, A.
McMahon, and N. Vincent, 99–134. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
——. 2008. The Macro-Sudan belt: towards identifying a linguistic area in northern SubSaharan Africa. A linguistic geography of Africa, ed. by B. Heine, and D. Nurse, 151–85,
315–8. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Güldemann, T., and M. Stoneking. 2008. A historical appraisal of clicks: a linguistic and genetic
population perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 37.93–109.
Güldemann, T., and R. Vossen. 2000. Khoisan. African languages: an introduction. ed. by B.
Heine, and D. Nurse, 99–122. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, E., and M. Hall. 2004. Kadugli-Krongo. Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese
Languages 9.57–68.
Harry, O. G. 1995. Pronouns in language classification: a case study of East Ijo. Issues in African
languages and linguistics: Essays in honour of Kay Williamson, ed. by E. ′N. Emenanjo, and
O.-M. Ndimele, 152–61. (Special Issue of The Nigerian Language Studies). Aba, Nigeria:
National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
Hayward, R. J. 1995. The challenge of Omotic: an inaugural lecture delivered on 17 February
1994. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
——. 2000. Afroasiatic. African languages: an introduction, ed. by B. Heine, and D. Nurse,
74–98. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B. 1976. The Kuliak languages of eastern Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: East African
Publishing House.
Heine, B., and D. Nurse. (eds) 2000. African languages: an introduction. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
—— (eds.) (2008). A linguistic geography of Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heusing, G. 2004. Die südlichen Lwoo-Sprachen: Beschreibung, Vergleich und Rekonstruction.
(Nilo-Saharan, 19). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Hieda, O. 1991. Koegu vocabulary, with reference to Kara. African study monographs (suppl.
issue) 14.1–70.
Honken, H. 2006. Fused loans in Khoesan. Pula 20.1.75–85.
——.2008. Eastern ‡Hoã as a Northern Khoisan language. Essays in honour of Anthony Traill,
ed. by K. Keuthmann, G. Sommer, and R. Vossen, XX–XX. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger
Köppe. In Press.
Huttar, G. L., J. Essegbey, and F. K. Ameka. 2007. Gbe and other West African sources of
Suriname creole semantic structures: implications for creole genesis. Journal of Pidgin and
Creole Languages 22.1.57–72.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 577
Hyman, L. M. 2007. Niger-Congo verb extensions: overview and discussion. Selected proceedings
of the 37th annual conference on African linguistics, ed. by D. L. Payne, and J. Peña, 149–63.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available online: http://www.lingref.com/
cpp/acal/37/index.html
Jakobi, A. 1993. A fur grammar: phonology, morphophonology, and morphology. (Nilo-Saharan, 5).
Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske.
Jungraithmayr, H. 2006a. The verb in Chadic – state of the art. Sprachbund in the West African
Sahel, ed. by B. Caron, and P. Zima, 167–83. (Collection Afrique et langage, 11). (SELAF,
432). Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
——. 2006b. Pronominal gender distinction in Southwestern Afroasiatic/Hamito-Semitic
(Chadic). Loquentes linguis: Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti,
ed. by P. G. Borbone, A. Mengozzi, and M. Tosco, 363–70. Wiesbaden, Germany:
Harrassowitz.
Kamei, N. 2006. The birth of Langue des Signes Franco-Africaine: Creole ASL in West and
Central French-speaking Africa, paper presented at Languages and Education in Africa
(LEA), University of Oslo, June 19–22, 2006. Available online: http://www.pfi.uio.no/
konferanse/LEA2006/assets/docs/kamei_paper.pdf
Kastenholz, R. 2002. Auxiliaries, garmmaticalization, and word order in Mande. Journal of
African Languages and Linguistics 24.1.31–53.
Kent, R. K. 1968. Madagascar and Africa: II. The Sakalava, Maroserana, Dady and Tromba
before 1700. Journal of African History 9.517–46.
Kiessling, R., and M. Mous. 2003. The lexical reconstruction of West-Rift Southern Cushitic.
(Kuschitische Sprachstudien/Cushitic Language Studies 21). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Kleinewillinghöfer, U. 2000. The noun classification of Cala (Bogon) – A case of contactinduced change. Nominal classification in African languages, ed. by A. Meißner, and A.
Storch, 37–68. (Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter, 12). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Kossmann, M. 1999. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère. (Grammatische Analysen
afrikanischer Sprachen 12). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Kossmann, M. 2007. Berber morphology. Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 1. ed. by A.
S. Kaye, 429–46. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Lee, J. D., and K. Williamson. 1990. A lexicostatistic classification of Ijo dialects. Research in
African Languages and Linguistics 1.1.1–10.
Maho, J. 2003. A classification of the Bantu languages: an update of Guthrie’s referential system.
The Bantu languages, ed. by D. Nurse, and G. Philippson, 639–51. London: Routledge.
Maho, J. 2004. How many languages are there in Africa, really? Globalisation and African
languages: risks and benefits, ed. by K. Bromber, and B. Smieja, 279–96. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Marchese, L. 1989. Kru. The Niger-Congo languages. ed. by John Bendor-Samuel, 119–39.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Marten, L, N. C. Kula, and N. Thwala. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in
Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105.3.253–338.
Martin, P. M., and P. O’Meara. 1995. Africa, 3rd edn. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Masele, B. F. Y. P. 2001. The linguistic history of Sisuumbwa, Kisukuma and Kinyamweezi in
Bantu zone F. PhD Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Canada.
McKee, D., and G. Kennedy. 1995. Lexical comparisons of signs from American, Australian,
British, and New Zealand sign languages. The Signs of language revisited: an anthology to
honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward klima. ed. by K. Emmorey, and H. L. Lane, 49–76.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mesthrie, R. 2002. Language change, survival, decline: Indian languages in South Africa.
Language in South Africa. ed. by R. Mesthrie, 161–76. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Miehe, G., U. Kleinewillinghöfer, M. von Roncador, and K. Winkelmann. 2007. Overview on
noun classes in Gur. Noun class systems in Gur languages, vol. 1 Southwestern Gur languages
(without Gurunsi). ed. by G. Miehe, and K. Winkelmann, 7–22. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger
Köppe.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
578 Bonny Sands
Mikkola, P. 1999. Nilo-Saharan revisited. Nordic Journal of African studies 8.2.108–38.
Moges Y. 2006. Convergence of Baale: a Southwest Surmic language to the Southeast Surmic
group, lexical evidence. Annual Publication in African Linguistics 3.49–66.
—— 2007. The vowel system of Kara from a historical-comparative perspective. ‘From beyond
the Mediterranean’ Akten des 7. internationalen Semitohamitistenkongresses (VII. ISHaK),
Berlin 13. bis 15. September 2004 (Semitica et Semitohamitica Berloinensia 5). ed. by R.
M. Voigt, 245–51. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Moñino, Y. 1995. Le Proto-Gbaya: essai de linguistique comparative historique sur vingt-et-une
langues d’Afrique centrale. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
Mouguiama-Daouda, P. 2005. Contribution de la linguistique à l’histoire des peuples du
Gabon: La méthode comparative et son application au bantu. Paris: CNRS.
Mouguiama-Daouda, P., and L. J. Van der Veen. 2005. B10-B30: conglomérat phylogénétique
ou produit d’une hybridation? Studies in African comparative linguistics with special focus
on Bantu and Mande: essays in honour of Y. Bastin & C. Grégoire. ed. by K. Bostoen, and
J. Maniacky, 91–121. Tervuren, Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa.
Mous, M. 2003. The making of a mixed language: the case of Ma’a/Mbugu. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Mreta, A. Y., and H. R. T. Muzale. 2001. Nafasi ya Kiswahili katika lugha ya alama ya Tanzania.
Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 68.67–79.
Mukarovsky, H. G. 1966. Zur stellung der mandesprachen. Anthropos 61.679–88.
Newman, P. 1993. Chadic languages. International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 1. ed. by
W. Frawley, 305–7. New York: Oxford University Press.
——. 1995. On being right: Greenberg’s African linguistic classification and the methodological
principles which underlie it. Bloomington, IN: Institute for the Study of Nigerian Languages
and Cultures, African Studies Program, Indiana University.
Nicolaï, R. 2003. La force des choses, ou, L’épreuve ‘nilo-saharienne’: questions sur les reconstructions archéologiques et l’évolution des langues. (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika,
Beiheft 13). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Nurse, D., and G. Philippson. 2003. Towards a historical classification of the Bantu languages.
The Bantu languages. ed. by D. Nurse, and G. Philippson, 164–81. London: Routledge.
Nurse, D. 2000. Inheritance, contact, and change in two East African languages. (Language
Contact in Africa 4). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
——. 2007. The emergence of tense in early Bantu. Selected proceedings of the 37th annual
conference on African linguistics. ed. by D. L. Payne, and J. Peña, 164–79. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/37/
index.html
Nyst, V. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe sign language (Ghana). PhD thesis, Leiden
University, Leiden, the Netherlands. (LOT Dissertation Series, 151). Leiden: CNWS. Note:
downloaded 22 August, 2008: http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/issues/Nyst/index.html
Olson, K. S. 2006. On Niger-Congo classification. The bill question: Contributions to the study
of linguistics and languages in honor of Bill J. Darden on the occasion of his sixty-sixth
birthday. ed. by H. I. Aronson et al., 153–90. Bloomington, IN Slavica.
Pawlak, N. 2001. Diachronic typology of locative phrases in Chadic. Historical language contact
in Africa. ed. by D. Nurse, 355–85. (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika, Special volume 16/17).
Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Petrácek, K. 1989. Saharisch und Hamitosemitisch. XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 16.
bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg. Ausgewählte Vorträge. ed. by E. Schular, 543–60.
(Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplement VII). Stuttgart,
Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Pozdniakov, K. 2007. Études atlantiques comparatives: questions de méthodologie. Tradition et
rupture dans les grammaires comparées de différentes familles de langues. (Mémoires de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris, n.s. 15). 93–119. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.
Quint, N. 2006. Do you speak Kordofanian? 7th International Sudan Studies Conference ‘Fifty
years after independence: Sudan’s quest for peace, stability and identity’, April 6th–8th, 2006,
University of Bergen. Downloaded 26 August, 2008 http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/
17/17/45/PDF/Quint-Bergen-2006.pdf
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Africa’s Linguistic Diversity 579
Rexová, K., Y. Bastin, and D. Frynta. 2006. Cladistic analysis of Bantu languages: a new tree
based on combined lexical and grammatical data. Naturwissenschaften 93.4.189–94.
Rilly, C. 2007. The earliest traces of Meroitic. Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan linguistics
colloquium, university of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001. ed. by M. Reh, and D. L. Payne,
207–14. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Rimor, M., J. Kegl, H. Lane, and T. Schermer. 1984. Natural phonetic processes underlie
historical change and register variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies
43.97–119.
Rowan, K. 2006. Meroitic – an Afroasiatic language? SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics
14.169–206.
Rubin, A. D. 2008. The subgrouping of the Semitic languages. Language and Linguistics
Compass 2.1.79–102.
Ruhlen, M. 1994. On the origin of languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sambiéni, C. 2005. Le proto-oti-volta-oriental, essai d’application de la méthode historique
comparative. (Gur Monographs, 6). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Sands, B. 1998. Eastern and southern African Khoisan: evaluating claims of distant linguistic
relationships. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 14). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
Sands, B. 2008. Northern Khoesan reconstruction and subgrouping. Khoisan languages and
linguistics: the Riezlern symposium 2003. ed. by M. Brenzinger, and C. König, XX–XXX.
(Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 17). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe. In Press.
Sands, B., and T. Güldemann. 2008. What click languages can and can’t tell us about language
origins. The cradle of language, vol. 2: African perspectives. ed. by R. Botha, and C. Knight,
XX–XXX. Oxford: Oxford University Press. In Press.
Savà, G., and M. Tosco. 2000. A sketch of Ongota, a dying language of Southwest Ethiopia.
Studies in African Linguistics 29.1.59–136.
—— 2003. The classification of Ongota. Selected comparative-historical Afrasian linguistic
studies (In memory of Igor M. Diakonoff). ed. by M. Lionel Bender, G. Takács, and D. L.
Appleyard, 307–16. München, Germany: LINCOM Europa.
Schadeberg, T. C. 2002. Progress in Bantu lexical reconstruction. Journal of African Languages
and Linguistics 23.2.183–95.
—— 2006. Kordofanian languages. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. ed. by
E. K. Brown, and A. Anderson, 233–34. Boston: Elsevier.
Schmaling, C. 2000. Maganar hannu: language of the hands. A descriptive analysis of Hausa
sign language. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Verlag.
—— 2001. ASL in northern Nigeria: Will Hausa sign language survive? Signed languages:
discoveries from international research, ed. by V. L. Dively et al., 180–93. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Schuh, R. G. 2003. Chadic overview. Selected comparative-historical Afrasian linguistic studies,
in memory of Igor M. Diakonoff, ed. by M. L. Bender, G. Takács, and D. L. Appleyard, 55–60.
München, Germany: LINCOM Europa.
Serpell, R., and M. Mbewe. 1990. Dialectal flexibility in sign language in Africa. Sign
Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Proceedings of the International Conference,
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, II, May 18–21, 1988 at Gallaudet University.
ed. by C. Lucas, 275–287. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
Snider, K. L. 1990. The consonants of Proto-Guang. Journal of West African Languages
20.2.3–26.
Sommer, G. 1992. A survey on language death in Africa. Language death: factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, ed. by M. Brenzinger, 301–417. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Starostin, G. S. 2003. A lexicostatistical approach towards reconstructing Proto-Khoisan. Mother
tongue (Newsletter of the association for the study of language in prehistory) 8.1–45.
Stevenson, R. C. 1991. Relationship of Kadugli-Krongo to Nilo-Saharan: morphology and
lexis. Proceedings of the fourth Nilo-Saharan conference, Bayreuth, Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989.
ed. by M. L. Bender, 347–69. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske.
Stewart, J. M. 1993. The second Tano consonant shift and its likeness to Grimm’s Law. Journal
of West African languages 23.3–39.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
580 Bonny Sands
——. 1995. Implosives, homorganic nasals and nasalized vowels in Volta-Congo. Issues in
African languages and linguistics: essays in honour of Kay Williamson, ed. by E. ‘N. Emenanjo,
and O.-M. Ndimele, 162–70. (Special Issue of The Nigerian Language Studies). Aba,
Nigeria: National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
——. 2002. The potential of Proto-Potou-Akanic-Bantu as a pilot Proto-Niger-Congo, and
the reconstructions updated. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23.197–224.
Storch, A. 2005. The noun morphology of Western Nilotic (Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Analyses
21). Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe.
——. 2007. Grammatical change and emblematic features in Western Nilotic. Selected proceedings of the 37th annual conference on African linguistics, ed. by D. L. Payne, and J.
Peña, 1–15. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available online: http://
www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/37/index.html
Takács, G. 1999. Etymological dictionary of Egyptian, vol. 1: A phonological introduction.
Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
Theil, R. 2006. Is omotic Afroasiatic? Proceedings from the David Dwyer retirement symposium, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 21 October 2006. Available online: http://
www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING2110/v07/THEIL Is Omotic Afroasiatic.pdf
Tosco, M. 2000. Cushitic overview. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 33.2.87–121.
——. 2007. Feature-geometry and diachrony: the development of the subject clitics in Cushitic
and Romance. Diachronica 24.1.119–53.
Traill, A. 1986. Do the Khoi have a place in the San? New data on Khoisan linguistic
relationships. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 7. 407–30.
Vydrine, V. 2004. Areal and genetic features in West Mande and South Mande phonology: In
what sense did Mande languages evolve? Journal of West African Languages 30.113–25.
Westphal, E. O. J. 1962. A re-classification of Southern African non-Bantu languages. Journal
of African languages 1.1–8.
Williamson, K., and K. S. Olson. 2007. Niger-Congo. New encyclopedia of Africa, Vol. 3. ed.
by J. Middleton, and J. C. Miller, 231–3. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Williamson, K., and R. Blench. 2000. Niger-Congo. African languages: an introduction, ed.
by B. Heine, and D. Nurse, 11–42. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, H. E. 2006. Suffix petrification and prosodies in Central Chadic (Lamang-Hdi). Topics
in Chadic linguistics II: Papers from the 2nd biennial international colloquium on the Chadic
languages (Prague, October 11–12, 2003). ed. by Dymitr Ibriszimow, 141–54. Köln, Germany:
Rüdiger Köppe.
Woodward, J. 1993. Lexical evidence for the existence of South Asian and East Asian sign
language families. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4.91–106.
——. 1996. Modern Standard Thai Sign language, influence from ASL, and its relationship to
original sign language varieties in Thailand. Sign Language Studies 92. 227–52.
Zaborski, A. 2004. West Cushitic – a genetic reality. Lingua Posnaniensis 46.173–86.
Zima, P. 1991. New comparative data from the periphery of African language families. Asian
and African studies 26.183–90.
© 2009 The Author
Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2 (2009): 559–580, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00124.x
Journal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd