You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Languages
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

8 November 2024

Reflexive-Reciprocal Syncretism in Eastern Bantu Languages of Tanzania: Distribution and Origins

and
1
Department of Languages and Cultures, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium
2
Langage, Langues et Cultures d’Afrique/Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 75 016 Paris, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Languages2024, 9(11), 347;https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9110347
This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Developments on the Diachrony and Typology of Bantu Languages
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the distribution of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in Eastern Bantu languages spoken in Tanzania. Most Bantu languages encode reflexive and reciprocal constructions by means of two distinct verbal affixes. However, the Tanzanian Eastern Bantu languages under study have developed reflexive-reciprocal syncretism, in which the originally reflexive prefix has developed into a polyfunctional morpheme coding both reflexive and reciprocal constructions, to the detriment of the original reciprocal suffix. In a sample of 79 languages, reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is attested in 27 neighboring languages, thus constituting a clear areal feature. We propose that reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is not a language-internal innovation but was rather adopted from neighboring non-Bantu languages and subsequently spread out to its current distribution. We locate the heart of this contact-induced spread in the Tanzanian Rift Valley, a convergence zone in north-central Tanzania where languages from multiple African language families are spoken and have been in contact for an extensive period.

1. Introduction

This paper presents an overview of the distribution of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in Eastern Bantu languages of Tanzania. We use syncretism to mean resemblance in formal coding of two or more grammatically different functions (). In the case of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism, this means one coding strategy is used in a language to denote both coreferential (reflexive) and symmetric (reciprocal) events. As the example in (1) illustrates, the verbal prefix i- in Nilamba is such a polyfunctional morpheme which can, in some (often decontextualized) sentences, result in ambiguity between a reflexive and a reciprocal reading.
(1)Nilamba ([nim], F31A1) ()
ʊ-Naftalinaʊ-Jumaa-i-yón-ile
aug-Naftalicomaug-Jumasbj.3pl.2-refl/recp-see-pfv
i. ‘Naftali and Juma saw themselves.’ (reflexive interpretation)
ii. ‘Naftali and Juma saw each other.’ (reciprocal interpretation)
Reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is a relatively common phenomenon in the languages of the world, especially in Indo-European languages (; ; ; ; ; ), and has also been described for a number of Bantu languages (see ). () gives a detailed historical–comparative account of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in South-Western Bantu languages spoken in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia and Namibia (see also ). In Eastern Bantu, it has been reported in the Bantu Botatwe group (; ) and as an areal feature in some smaller clusters of Tanzanian languages belonging to three different genealogical subgroups according to Glottolog 5.0 (), namely North-East Savanna Bantu (; ), Nyaturu-Nilamba (), and Mbugwe-Langi (; ; ). In this paper, we show that reflexive-reciprocal syncretism as an areal feature in Tanzania is actually attested in most of () zone F and G languages, i.e., in a major part of Tanzanian Bantu languages.
Most Bantu languages encode reflexive and reciprocal constructions by means of two distinct verbal affixes. The reflexive morpheme is typically an invariable prefix occurring immediately before the verb stem, in the same slot as object index prefixes. It has been reconstructed as a vocalic prefix *(j)í- in Proto-Bantu (; ; ), but shows considerable variation in its morphophonological shape throughout the Bantu language family (). The reciprocal morpheme is a verbal suffix occurring in the derivational slot of the verb’s morphological template, and is reconstructed to Proto-Bantu as *-an (). The two different constructions are illustrated in examples (2) and (3) from Swahili.
Swahili ([swh], G42d)
(2)wa-li-ji-on-a
sbj.3pl.2-pst-refl-see-fv
‘They saw themselves.’
(3)wa-li-on-an-a
sbj.3pl.2-pst-see-recp-fv
‘They saw each other.’
A reflexive construction as in (2) and (4) entails the co-referencing of two participant roles onto the same referential entity (; ; ; ; ; ; ). Prototypical or ‘canonical’ reflexive constructions encode coreference between the A and P arguments (; ), as in (4) in which the A and P arguments of the verb rum ‘bite’ refer to the same entity, embwa ‘dog’.
(4)Luganda ([lug], JE15) ()
Embwayeeruma.
embwae-a-ee-rum-a
9.dogsbj.3sg.9-pst-refl-bite-fv
‘The dog bit itself.’
Reciprocal constructions encode events in which two or more participants are in a symmetrical relation to one another (; ; ; ; ). In a prototypical reciprocal construction, each participant is both an agent and patient of the event. Thus, in the Ciluba reciprocal construction in (5), Mpùku ‘Rat’ and Lubuta ‘Nightjar’ both function as Agent and Patient of the event denoted by the verb kuswa (ku-su-a) ‘love’.
(5)Ciluba ([lua], L31a) ()
M-pùkunèLu-butabì-vwabì-su-angan-a
1-ratand11-nightjarsbj.3pl.8-pstsbj.3pl.8-love-recp-pfv
‘Rat and Nightjar loved each other.’
Reflexive and reciprocal constructions have a set of semantic and morphosyntactic features in common which are not collectively shared with other voice constructions like the passive, antipassive, applicative or causative. As noted by (), “[n]either construction alters semantic valency when compared to their non-refl/recp counterparts, but both introduce an element of coreference to the picture”; both prototypical reflexive and reciprocal constructions involve affected subjects; and, on the morphosyntactic level, prototypical reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Bantu languages have similar monotransitive argument structures.2 These similarities underlie the development of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism.
In most Bantu languages with reflexive-reciprocal syncretism, it is the originally reflexive prefix that develops into a polyfunctional morpheme coding both reflexive and reciprocal constructions, to the detriment of the original reciprocal suffix. This is illustrated for Kimbundu and Fwe in (6) and (7), respectively.
(6)Kimbundu ([kmb], H21a) (; 139 in )
a.li-tal-el-emoka-talelu
refl-see-appl-imploc1812-mirror
‘Look at yourself in the mirror.’
b.a-li-soñgon-aa-li-sol-a
pp2-recp-marry-fvsbj.3pl.2-recp-love-sbjv
‘Those who marry each other should love each other.’
(7)Fwe ([fwe], K402) ()
a.Àtàtìk’ókùrínyàyà kùrínyàyà.
a-tatik-áo-ku-rí-nyay-aku-rí-nyay-a
sbj.3sg.1-start-fvaug-15-refl-scratch-fv15-refl-scratch-fv
‘She starts to scratch herself, scratch herself.’
b.Tùrìshákà.
tu-riH-shak-á
sbj.1pl-recp-love-fv
‘We love each other.’
There are, however, some Bantu languages where the originally reciprocal suffix has become the polyfunctional reflexive-reciprocal marker. One such example is Bunia Swahili spoken in north-eastern Congo, as illustrated in (8).
(8)Bunia Swahili ([swc], G40G) ()
ba-na-zi-pend-an-asana
sbj.3pl.2-prs-hab-love-refl/recp-fvvery
i. ‘They love themselves a lot.’ (reflexive interpretation)
ii. ‘They love each other a lot.’ (reciprocal interpretation)
Other cases of reciprocal-based reflexive-reciprocal markers in Bantu include Ewondo ([ewo], A72) in Cameroon and Tsogo ([tsv], B31) in Gabon (). In all Tanzanian Bantu languages with reflexive-reciprocal syncretism surveyed in this study, it is the originally reflexive prefix which developed into a reflexive-reciprocal marker, as illustrated for Nilamba in (1).
The first aim of this paper is to establish the distribution of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in Tanzanian Bantu languages. A second aim is to provide insights into the historical development of the phenomenon. According to () historical discussion of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in South-Western Bantu, the feature developed as a language-internal innovation in one specific area, most likely the Cokwe-Lucazi language group, and from there gradually spread to neighboring languages. For the Eastern Bantu languages considered in this paper, we propose that reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is not a language-internal innovation but was rather adopted from neighboring non-Bantu languages and subsequently spread out to its current distribution. We locate the heart of this contact-induced spread in the Tanzanian Rift Valley, a convergence zone in north-central Tanzania where languages from multiple African language families are spoken and have been in contact for an extensive period (). This diachronic hypothesis is motivated by two synchronic observations, discussed in more detail in Section 6. First, reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is also attested in South Cushitic and South Nilotic languages that are in close contact with Eastern Bantu languages in the Rift Valley area. Second, the development of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is the most advanced in those Bantu languages spoken in and around the Tanzanian Rift Valley, and less advanced in Bantu languages further away from this area.

2. Language Sample and Data

The seven languages with reflexive-reciprocal syncretism mentioned in (), (), and (), i.e., Sukuma ([suk], F21), Nyamwezi ([nym], F22), Sumbwa ([suw], F23), Nilamba ([nim], F31A), Nyaturu ([rim], F32), Langi ([lag], F33), and Hehe ([heh], G62), constituted the point of departure for mapping the spread of this feature in Tanzanian Bantu languages. The sample used for the present study includes data from languages in adjacent areas, expanding in all directions. A total of 87 Bantu languages were considered, although we were unable to obtain sufficient data for 8 of them, leaving a sample of 79 languages (see Appendix A). The linguistic area covered in the sample includes languages from Guthrie zones D20, E60-70, F10-30, G10-60, JD60, JE20, JE40, M10-30, N10, and P10-20. In addition to Bantu languages, several languages from other families spoken in northern Tanzania were investigated for reflexive-reciprocal syncretism, namely, Iraqw, Gorwaa, Alagwa, and Burunge from the Southern Cushitic branch, a number of varieties from the Datooga and Kalenjin subgroups of the Southern Nilotic languages, the Khoe–Kwadi language Sandawe3, and the isolate Hadza.
Most of the data were retrieved from published works on individual languages, such as grammars and grammar sketches, articles, and other works containing either descriptions of how reflexive and reciprocal constructions are encoded, or containing (only) translated sentences expressing these situation types. Wordlists and dictionaries were also consulted for lexicalized verbs with reflexes of either the Proto-Bantu reflexive prefix *(j)i- or reciprocal suffix *-an (see Section 5). For some languages, we gratefully received unpublished data from researchers working on the respective language. We were also able to obtain new data through elicitation with speakers in Tanzania. The first author conducted onsite elicitation during the first months of 2023 in Dar es Salaam, Kisarawe, Chalinze, Njombe, and Morogoro for data on Kutu, Kwere, Zalamo and Kinga. In 2024, remote elicitation was carried out with a Vidunda speaker via WhatsApp.

3. Distribution of Reflexive-Reciprocal Syncretism in Eastern Bantu

Out of the 79 Bantu languages surveyed in our sample, 27 have a prefix coding both reflexive and reciprocal constructions. Table 1 provides an overview of these 27 languages and lists the form of the reflexive-reciprocal prefix in each language.
Table 1. Bantu languages in Tanzania with a polysemous reflexive-reciprocal prefix.
Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of the languages in Table 1, indicated in blue color. The map reveals that reflexive-reciprocal syncretism is widely distributed across Bantu languages in Tanzania, stretching over a continuous area from the southern shores of Lake Victoria in the north-west all the way to the coast in the east and just north of Lake Nyasa/Malawi in the south. The beige color indicates the five Bantu languages for which we did not find sufficient data. The red areas signify Bantu languages included in the sample that do not have reflexive-reciprocal polysemy. The green areas are Bantu languages not included in the sample, and pink areas indicate languages from other languages families than Bantu.
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Tanzanian Bantu languages with reflexive-reciprocal prefix (map adapted from http://www.muturzikin.com accessed on 5 January 2022).

4. Derivational Productivity of Reciprocal Affixes

The languages under study can be classified according to the productivity of the affixes to derive reciprocal verbs from non-reciprocal verbs. We are specifically concerned here with derivational patterns in which the derived verb denotes the symmetrical occurrence of the situation expressed by the underived verb, as in the Sukuma examples in (9).
(9)Sukuma ([suk], F21) ()
sek-an ‘laugh at each other’sek ‘laugh at/with’
i-tol ‘hit each other/oneself’tol ‘hit’
Both affixes also occur with lexicalized verbs denoting symmetrical (reciprocal) events, where the derived verb has undergone a change in meaning besides the expression of reciprocity with respect to the underived verb, or for which no underived verb is attested, as in (10). These lexicalized verbs have not been taken into account for the classification but are discussed in Section 5.
(10)Kwere ([cwe], G32) ()
i-gon ‘have intercourse’gon ‘sleep, lie down’
fanan ‘resemble’**fan
Table 2 presents the classification of the languages under study. Sagala, Mbunga and Kimbu are not included due to insufficient data.
Table 2. Classification of languages with a syncretic prefix based on the derivational use of both the syncretic prefix and reciprocal suffix.
The first group in Table 2 consists of languages in which both affixes can be used interchangeably, illustrated in examples (11)–(13).
(11)Ngulu ([ngp], G34) (Malin Petzell, p.c.)
a.cha-ke-ung-a
sbj.1pl.prs-refl/recp-like-fv
‘We like ourselves/each other.’
b.cha-ung-an-a
sbj.1pl.prs-like-recp-fv
‘We like each other.’
(12)Kami ([kcu], G36) (Malin Petzell, p.c.)
a.wa-i-tow-a
sbj.3pl.2-refl/recp-hit-fv
‘They hit themselves/each other.’
b. wo-tow-an-a
sbj.3pl.2-hit-recp-fv
‘They hit each other/fight.’
(13)Bena ([bez], G63) ()
a.tu-hu-i-won-a
sbj.1pl-e-refl/recp-see-fv
‘We see ourselves/each other.’
b.tu-i-won-an-a
sbj.1pl-pres-see-recp-fv
‘We see each other.’
In the so-called ‘Standard’ dialect of Hehe, both affixes are described as being used in free variation to form reciprocal verbs, mainly by older generations (; in ), e.g., i-hek and hek-an ‘laugh at each other’. In contrast, free variation is not observed in the Dzungwa variety of Hehe described in (), which we thus classify in another group in Table 2. () is an older description of Hehe in which the reciprocal suffix is given as the only option to derive reciprocal verbs, illustrated in comparison to modern Hehe in (14).
(14)Hehe ([heh], G62) () ()
‘hit each other/fight’tow-áni-tow
‘see each other’won-áni-won
Finally, Sagala could be classified into this group, but more data are needed to confirm this. We only have one example for this language that does illustrate free variation between the syncretic prefix and the reciprocal suffix, namely, i-tow/tow-an ‘fight, hit each other’ from tow ‘hit’ ().
The second group consists of languages in which the reciprocal suffix is predominantly used to form reciprocal verbs, but some reciprocal verbs are attested with the syncretic prefix. Ndamba as described by () is the only language in this group. The reciprocal suffix is described as the dedicated morpheme to derive reciprocal verbs, as in (15a). However, one example of a reciprocal verb with the syncretic prefix is attested in the grammar, shown in (15b).
(15)Ndamba ([ndj], G52) ()
a.ving-an ‘chase each other’ving ‘chase’
b.i-tol ‘marry each other’tol ‘marry someone’ (only used for male referent as agent participant)
In the description of Ndamba by (), the syncretic prefix is given as the dedicated reciprocal morpheme instead of the reciprocal suffix. We thus classify this variety of Ndamba in another group.4
The third group of languages predominantly uses the syncretic prefix to derive reciprocal verbs, but some derived verbs with the reciprocal suffix are attested in the sources. This group includes Sumbwa (F23), Sukuma (F21) and Bende (F12), respectively, illustrated in (16), (17) and (18). In the Sumbwa and Bende sources, some verbs are attested that freely alternate between the syncretic prefix and the reciprocal suffix, as shown in (16c) and (18b), respectively.
(16)Sumbwa ([suw], F23) (, )
a.i-li ‘eat each other’li ‘eat’
i-taahy ‘say farewell to each other’taahy ‘say farewell’
b.som-an ‘bite each other’som ‘bite’
leg-an ‘denounce each other’leg ‘denounce’
pul-an ‘take with force from each other’pul ‘take with force’
c.i-lek/lek-aan ‘leave each other’lek ‘leave’
i-dod/dod-an ‘sew each other’dod ‘sew’
(17)Sukuma ([suk], F21)
a.i-βón ‘see oneself/each other’βón ‘see’ ()
i-tol ‘hit oneself/each other’tol ‘hit’ ()
b.sek-an ‘laugh at each other’sek ‘laugh at’ ()
koob-an ‘look for each other’koob ‘look for’ ()
(18)Bende ([bdp], F12)
a.i-sóól ‘hit each other’sóól ‘hit’ ()
i-lól ‘see each other’lól ‘see’ ()
li-ghájíl ‘hate each other’ghájá ‘dislike’ ()
b.tuk-an/i-tuk ‘abuse each other’tuk ‘abuse’ ()
lógh-án/í-lógh ‘curse each other’lógh ‘curse, bewitch’ ()
The attestation of the reciprocal suffix with reciprocal verbs in the northern Sukuma variety described by (), in (17b), contrasts () study of the Ginantuzu dialect in which no reciprocal verbs with the suffix are attested. Still, () describes the reciprocal verbs in (17b) as “random retentions” of the suffix.
A fourth and final group constitutes languages in which reciprocal verbs are only attested with the syncretic suffix, and no reciprocal verbs with the reciprocal suffix. We predict that, with more data, some languages from this group might actually belong to the third group. The fourth group has the most members, namely, Nyamwezi (F22), Nilamba (F31A), Ihanzu (F31B), Nyaturu (F32), Langi (F33), Mbugwe (F34), Kagulu (G12), Kwere (G32), Zaramo (G33), Luguru (G35), Kutu (G37), Vidunda (G38), Ndamba (G52) (as described by ), Pogolo (G51), Dzungwa Hehe (G62), Pangwa (G64), Kinga (G65), and Gogo (G11). In the consulted descriptions of these 18 languages, the reciprocal suffix is only attested with lexicalized verbs (see Section 5). Some verbs found in the Nyamwezi, Nilamba and Gogo sources have both the syncretic prefix and the reciprocal suffix, illustrated in examples (19)–(21). These verbs are attestations of intermediate stages that verbs can go through from the use of the reciprocal suffix to the syncretic prefix.
(19)Nyamwezi ([nym], F22) ()
i-gun-an ‘help each other’gun ‘help’
(20)Nilamba ([nim], F31A) ()
i-ka/i-ka-an ‘exchange’ka ‘change’
(21)Gogo ([gog], G11) ()
i-tol-an ‘marry each other’tol ‘marry (for men)’
New data collected on Kinga ([zga], G65) by the first author show that only the syncretic prefix is used to derive reciprocal verbs, illustrated in (22). Older descriptions still attest to earlier stages where the reciprocal suffix occurs with reciprocal verbs, e.g., gan-an ‘love each other’ from gan ‘love’ ().
(22)Kinga ([zga], G65) (Chesco Habili, p.c.)
Ojuma noRehema vahenogwa.
O-jumana-o-Rehemava-hu-i-nogw-a
aug-Jumacom-aug-Rehemasbj.3pl.2-prs-refl/recp-love-fv
‘Juma and Rehema love themselves/each other.’
In this section, we have classified the languages of our sample according to the use of the syncretic prefix and reciprocal suffix for the derivation of reciprocal verbs from non-reciprocal verbs. The syncretic prefix is predominant in most of the languages, to the detriment of the reciprocal suffix which either occurs with a small set of reciprocal verbs (group 3) or not at all (group 4). The four groups in the classification represent different stages of a diachronic process in which the syncretic prefix gradually replaces the reciprocal suffix. That is, the functional expansion of one grammatical marker, in this case, reflexes of the reflexive prefix *(j)i-, onto the domain of another, here, reflexes of the reciprocal suffix *-an, does not typically entail the immediate replacement of the older marker. Rather, the two usually co-exist for some time (group 1 languages), before the newer one becomes increasingly conventionalized (group 3 languages) and the older one becomes obsolete, as in group 4 languages (cf. ; ). All languages in the study have at least some traces of the reciprocal suffix, but the derivational productivity of the syncretic prefix vis-à-vis the reciprocal suffix differs considerably between different languages. This language-internal distribution of the two markers could be seen as an indication of different degrees of progression in a grammaticalization process. Those languages in which the reciprocal suffix still commonly occurs are in an early stage, while languages in which the reciprocal suffix is completely replaced by the syncretic prefix represent the final stage of the evolution.

5. Lexicalization Patterns of Reciprocal Affixes

Lexicalized reciprocal verbs constitute the most conservative context for the retention of the reciprocal suffix. This is clearly shown by () for Hehe (G62), Sukuma (F21), Nilamba (F31A), and Nyaturu (F32), in which almost all occurrences of the reciprocal suffix are found with lexicalized reciprocal verbs. This is further verified in our language sample, with attestations of lexicalized reciprocal verbs with reciprocal suffix in 17 languages.5 As stated earlier, we define lexicalized reciprocal verbs as verbs carrying derivational morphology, in this case, either the syncretic prefix or the reciprocal suffix, with either a derived stem which differs semantically from the underived verb beyond the addition of reciprocity, or for which no underived stem is synchronically attested in the language. Some examples are presented in (23) for different languages.
(23)Lexicalized reciprocal verbs with the reciprocal suffix
a.Bende ([bdp], F12) ()
sáng-(á)án ‘assemble’sáng ‘find, notice’
taagh-án ‘be separated’taágh ‘abandon, lose’
b.Sukuma ([suk], F21] ()
gaβ-an ‘divide’gaβ ‘share’
lɪɪng-an ‘be comparable’(lɪɪng unattested)
c.Langi ([lag], F33) ()
sind-an ‘race, compete’sind ‘win’
hak-an ‘border on’(hak unattested)
d.Gogo ([gog], G11) ()
gaw-an ‘share’gaw ‘divide’
zoz-an ‘argue, quarrel’zoz ‘cry out’
sut-an ‘differ; miss each other on the way’(sut unattested)
e.Kwere ([cwe], G32) ()
gol-an ‘leave each other’gol ‘divide’
f-an-an ‘resemble’(f and fan unattested)
f.Ndamba ([ndj], G52) ()
pak-an ‘be adjacent to, border’pak ‘smear on’
The occurrence of the syncretic prefix with lexicalized reciprocal verbs is also attested in multiple languages, demonstrating that the replacement of the reciprocal suffix by the syncretic prefix has progressed relatively far in these languages. In our database, we have attestations of lexicalized verbs with the syncretic prefix in 14 languages. We give some examples of these in (24). For underdocumented languages in our sample, such as Kami (G36) or Sagala (G39), we lack data but do not interpret the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. That is, these languages might have lexicalized reciprocal verbs with the syncretic prefix that are simply not documented in the existing sources.
(24)Lexicalized verbs with the syncretic prefix
a.Bende ([bdp], F12) (; )
i-sús/sús-an ‘resemble one another’(sús unattested)
ii-fy-an ‘resemble’(fy or fyan unattested)
i-tand ‘mate (of animals)’tand ‘climb; ride; copulate’
i-kalum-an ‘meet’(kalum or kalum-an unattested)
b.Langi ([lag], F33) ()
ii-ʃ-an ‘meet’ʃ-an ‘find’
c.Mbugwe ([mgz], F34) (; )
é-kúmbater ‘embrace’(kumbater unattested)
é-kátali ‘argue’(kátali unattested)
é-rémér ‘quarrel’(rémér unattested)
d.Sukuma ([suk], F21]) (; )
i-kol ‘resemble’(kol unattested)
e.Nyamwezi ([nym], F22) ()
i-kondel ‘agree (be agreed)’(kondel unattested)
i-fumbat ‘embrace’(fumbat unattested)
i-kol ‘resemble’(kol unattested)
i-kol-an ‘become like’(kol or kolan unattested)
f.Gogo ([gog], G11) ()
i-konghol ’meet, come together’konghol ‘collect things together’
i-taz ‘cooperate, help oneself’taz ‘advice, help, serve’
i-hw-an/i-hw-an-il ‘resemble, look alike’(hwa unattested)
g.Ndamba ([ndj], G52) (; )
i-tol ‘marry each other’tol ‘marry someone’
i-fw-an ‘resemble’(fu or fwan unattested)
i-shosh ‘quarrel’(shosh unattested)
h.Kagulu ([kki], G12) ()
ki-f-an ‘resemble’(f or fan unattested)
i.Kwere ([cwe], G32) ()
i-gon ‘have intercourse’gon ‘sleep, lie down’
i-gal ‘resemble; become equal’gal ‘send, bring, fetch’
i-lek ‘separate’lek ‘leave (behind)’
i-longoz ‘follow (in order)’longoz ‘reform, set right’
i-tinh’anil ‘be gathered, assembled’tinh’anila ‘meet’
j.Luguru ([ruf], G35) ()
i-bak-an ‘border’(bak or bak-an unattested)
k.Kutu ([kdc], G37) ()
i-fan-an ‘resemble’fan-an ‘resemble’
l.Pogolo ([poy], G51) ()
li-f-an ‘resemble’(f or fan unattested)
li-rew ‘quarrel’(rew unattested)
i-gir ‘abuse’(gir unattested)
m.Hehe ([heh], G62) ()
bak-an/i-bak ‘be adjacent, border’(bak unattested)
The languages under study could be placed on a cline measuring the degree to which the innovated syncretic prefix occurs with lexicalized reciprocal verbs compared to the reciprocal suffix, but data scarcity makes it impossible to make an accurate analysis.

6. A Historical Explanation of the Distribution of Reflexive-Reciprocal Syncretism in Tanzanian Bantu Languages

6.1. Reflexive-Reciprocal Syncretism and Internal Genealogy

We have shown in Section 3 that refl-recp syncretism is found in different subgroups of Tanzanian Eastern Bantu languages (see also Appendix B). The most consistent groups from Guthrie’s classification in which the feature is attested are F30 and G10. Almost all languages from Guthrie’s zone F have an innovated syncretic prefix, including all the languages in the genealogical group labelled ‘West Tanzania’ by (), i.e., Sukuma (F21), Nyamwezi (F22), Sumbwa (F23), Kimbu (F24), Nilamba (F31A), Ihanzu (F31B), Nyaturu (F32), Langi (F33), and Mbugwe (F34). The only language in Guthrie’s zone F group without the reflexive-reciprocal polysemy is Bungu (F25).6 Bungu’s genealogical affiliation is not with the West Tanzania languages, despite its grouping in Guthrie’s zone F. It is most likely part of the M30 Nyakyusa-Ndali group, but with a lot of more recent contact with Mwika languages M10-20 (). refl-recp syncretism has not been attested in any of the languages from the M group in South-Western Tanzania, which explains its absence in Bungu (F25).
The innovation is consistently found in the Ruvu languages (G10 and G30), with the exception of the Seuta group in which it is present only in Ngulu (G34) but not in Zigua (G31), Shambala (G23) or Bondei (G24). No data were found for Doe (G301).
Based on preliminary data, refl-recp syncretism is found in Mbunga (P15) (see Section 3), though not in the rest of the Rufiji-Ruvuma languages.7 Mbunga is sometimes also included in the Kilombero group with Pogolo (G51) and Ndamba (G52), most likely as a result of sustained language contact with these languages, although it is genealogically closer to the P10-20 languages of the Rufiji-Ruvuma Group (cf. ). The attestation of reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in Ruvu, Kilombero, and Mbunga, but not in the rest of the Rufiji-Ruvuma group indicates that the syncretic prefix is an innovation spread through contact from languages spoken further north. As described by (), the Kilombero group has sustained a lot of influence from both the Ruvu languages to the north and the Rufiji-Ruvuma from the south-west. Mbunga (P15) being the only language from the Rufiji-Ruvuma group with refl-recp syncretism strongly suggests that this was innovated through contact rather than language-internal innovation.
Finally, in Guthrie’s G60 group, Hehe (G62), Bena (G63), Kinga (G65) and Pangwa (G64) all have the polysemous reflexive-reciprocal prefix, while Sango (G61), Wanji (G66), and Kisi (G67) do not. These Southern Tanzania Highland Bantu languages, also including Manda (N11), constitute a fairly close-knit linguistic group, but they have sustained contact with different languages (). Kisi and Manda have been in contact with Nyakyusa (M31), while Bena and Hehe have been in considerable contact with North-East Coastal Bantu languages to the north, especially Gogo (G11). Sango has, according to (), also been heavily influenced by Gogo.
There are several factors that strongly indicate that the refl-recp prefix is an innovation that spread through contact. The most obvious observation is that the refl-recp prefix is distributed throughout an area of consecutively adjacent languages that belong to different genealogical subgroups of Eastern Bantu. In South-Western Bantu, where the same innovated refl-recp prefix is attested, it has been claimed that this innovation is prone to contact-induced spread (cf. ). Additionally, the innovative prefix is not always attested in all languages of genealogical subgroups. For instance, while attested in most languages of the Ruvu group, the syncretic prefix only occurs in Ngulu (G34) in Ruvu’s Seuta subgroup. This indicates that reflexive-reciprocal polysemy most likely did not develop in the most recent common ancestor of the Ruvu group. Instead, we propose the feature was adopted through contact between the genealogically closely-knit languages. We predict that the innovation spread from north to south, namely from West Tanzania and Ruvu, especially F30 and G10, followed by F20 and G30 into the more southern subgroups Southern Tanzania Highlands (G60, N11) and Rufiji-Ruvuma (N10, P10-20). Crucially, in these more southern groups, only the members that have been in sustainable contact with the more northern West Tanzanian and/or Ruvu languages have developed the polysemy. We locate the heart of the innovation of reflexive-reciprocal syncretism in Tanzanian Bantu languages specifically in the Rift Valley and suggest that the innovated refl-recp prefix is a structural borrowing of non-Bantu origin.

6.2. Reflexive-Reciprocal Polysemy in the Tanzanian Rift Valley

The Rift Valley area in central and northern Tanzania is the only place in Africa where languages from all four major African language families, Cushitic, Nilotic, Bantu, and Khoisan are spoken and have been in contact for an extensive period (). The modern languages listed in Table 3 have all been involved in sustainable language contact in the Rift valley according to ().
Table 3. An overview of the Tanzanian Rift Valley languages.
() write that these communities differ vastly both in terms of population size and socio-cultural practices. The Hadza and Sandawe people are traditionally hunter-gatherers; the Nilotic people are cattle nomads, whereas the Bantu and Cushitic communities have been settled agriculturalists, restricted to certain areas of the Rift Valley. The Hadza have sustained a small community of some 500 individuals for a considerable amount of time, whereas, for example, the Iraqw have welcomed immigrants into their community, which has seen them expand substantially to the point of reaching more than half a million speakers. The socio-linguistic landscape of this area has not been stable over time with shifting power dynamics between the groups, and extensive interaction including intermarriage, trade, and conflicts. Except for the more recent introduction of Swahili, there are no indications that there was ever a lingua franca in the area. Instead, there has been a high degree of multilingualism among speakers from the different communities.
() define the historical contact situation in the Rift Valley as “a complex picture of mutual linguistic contacts of varying intensity at several points in time”. It is well-established that the languages in the Rift Valley have strongly influenced each other on virtually all linguistic levels, such as lexicon, phonology, semantics, and morphosyntax (see, e.g., ; ; ; ). () study also shows that among the shared, contact-induced, features in the area, only a small minority are direct transfers of morphemes. Most of the shared features are isomorphisms, which are defined as “convergences in syntactic structures and semantic categories where at least one member of the contact zone innovated structures or categories on the basis of an external model, using internal morphological material” (). The hypothesis proposed in this paper is that the refl-recp prefix in the Tanzanian Bantu languages is exactly this: a Bantu-external category (i.e., reflexive-reciprocal polysemy), being adopted using Bantu-internal morphological material (i.e., reflexes of the Proto-Bantu reflexive prefix *(j)i-). In the following paragraphs, reflexive and reciprocal marking in the non-Bantu languages of the Tanzanian Rift Valley will be discussed. It will be shown that reflexive-reciprocal polysemy is widespread in both the Cushitic and Nilotic languages of the Rift Valley, while absent in Sandawe. For the language isolate Hadza, further data are needed.
In the Southern Cushitic languages, reflexive and reciprocal constructions are encoded by a polyfunctional preverbal marker. Iraqw (25) and Gorwaa have the same morpheme ti (Andrew Harvey p.c.), whereas Alagwa (26) has the pronoun kun(u). In all consulted Southern Cushitic languages, the marker is reflexive with singular subjects whereas it might be ambiguous between reflexive or reciprocal with plural subjects. () as well as () argue that reciprocity is the ‘core’ or ‘basic’ meaning of the morpheme in Alagwa and Iraqw, respectively.
(25)Iraqw ([irk]; Cushitic) ()
a.dirtidoge’
place recpmeet.sbj.2pl.pst
‘Where did you meet?’
b.mostitareree
3sgreflhang.sbj.3sg.m
‘He will hang himself.’
(26)Alagwa ([wbj]; Cushitic) ()
a.kunuariir-im-an
recpsee.hab-impf-sbj.1pl
‘We will see each other.’
b.kunuarar-im
reflsee.hab-impf.sbj.1sg
‘I see myself.’
In Burunge, the reflexive-reciprocal marker is allomorphemic between ndi or ngi, a cognate of ti in Iraqw and Gorwaa (). Nevertheless, even though the same morpheme is used with both reflexive and reciprocal verbs, there is a formal distinction between reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Burunge. Reciprocal constructions require a progressive form of the verb stem, such as ‘ariirim ‘see’ in (27b), in contrast to the simple imperfective verb form used in reflexive constructions, such as ‘arim in (27a) ().
(27)Burunge ([bds]; Cushitic) ()
a.‘inayhingi‘arinay
3plsbj3.reflsee.3sg.ipfv.3pl
‘They see themselves.’
b.‘inayhingi‘ariirinay
3plsbj3.recpsee.prog.3sg.ipfv.3pl
‘They see each other.’
The Nilotic language Datooga also has reflexive-reciprocal polysemy. Bijanjida, the southernmost variety, has the reflexive marker -ge:wi (28a) in the singular and -ge:di (28b) in the plural. The plural form (28b) is ambiguous between a reflexive and reciprocal interpretation. This is also the case in other Datooga dialects, such as Asimjeeg (29), where the plural form is gíjɛːt/gájɛɛːt.
(28)Bijanjida (Datooga, Nilotic) (; no glossing in original source)
a.qána:ljige:wi‘I teach (it) to me.’ (I learn.)
b.génuljige:di‘We see/look at ourselves/each other.’
(29)Asimjeeg (Datooga, Nilotic) ()
a.g-ɛɛː-fúɲgíjɛɛ̀ːt
aff-impers-hiderefl.pro.pl
‘They hide themselves.’
b.g-à-gùr-síːngájɛέːt
aff-3-call-termrecp.pro.pl
‘They call each other.’
Sandawe ([sad]) and Hadza ([hts]) are the only Rift Valley languages listed in Table 3 that do not belong to either Bantu, Cushitic, or Nilotic. We did not find data on Hadza. Sandawe stands out as the only language in the Rift Valley area with a clear distinction between reflexive and reciprocal marking. In Sandawe, reflexive verbs are mostly marked with the postverbal middle marker -ts’í as shown in (30a). The marker extends to different middle voice functions, e.g., expressing agentless events, but not to reciprocity (). Reciprocal verbs in Sandawe are typically marked with the morpheme -ŋki, often preceded by the direct object plural marker -wá/ʔwá (30b). With some reciprocals, the marker is just -ki (30c). For reciprocal events with non-direct object arguments and collectives, the element k- precedes the plural marker -wá/ʔwá, followed by the common reciprocal marker -ŋki, as in (30d).
(30)Sandawe (Khoisan) ()
a.dùbé-ts’í ‘hit oneself with fist’dùbé ‘hit with fist’
b.mèénà-wá-ŋki ‘love each other’mèénà ‘love’
c.‖’àá-ki ‘follow each other’‖’àá ‘follow’
d.tùrìté-kwá-ŋki ‘rest together’tùrìté ‘rest’
Figure 2, below, illustrates the languages with reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in the Tanzanian Rift Valley.
Figure 2. Reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in the Tanzanian Rift Valley and surrounding languages8. (Map adapted from ()).
Reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in Cushitic and Nilotic languages is not restricted geographically to languages around the Rift Valley area. It expands across big parts of Eastern Africa to languages spoken within the country borders of Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. Investigating the distribution of reflexive-reciprocal polysemy across the two language families goes beyond the scope of this study, but it is worth mentioning that it is widespread both geographically and within different genealogical subgroups. In Cushitic, it is found in all modern southern Cushitic languages (i.e., West Rift), but also in East Cushitic languages outside Tanzania, like Afar ([aar]), Oromo, and Somali ([som]) (albeit with etymologically unrelated markers) (). In the Nilotic family, it is found in languages from all three major sub-groups, i.e., Western Nilotic (e.g., Dholuo ([luo]); ()), Eastern Nilotic (e.g., Parakuyo Maasai ([mas]); ()), and all Southern Nilotic languages (i.e., Kalenjin ([kln]) and Datooga; ()). To what extent the polysemy is inherited, innovated, or contact-induced in the Cushitic and Nilotic languages is a question that will not be investigated here. The implication that follows from the prevalence of reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in Bantu and non-Bantu families of the Rift Valley, especially against the background of the complex contact situation in the area, is that it becomes extremely difficult to trace the transfer into a specific Bantu language from any specific group of non-Bantu speakers. What is certain is that the widespread multilingualism in the Tanzanian Rift Valley constitutes a key facilitating factor for the transfer of refl-recp syncretism into languages with a previously clear distinction between the coding of reflexive and reciprocal verbs.

7. Conclusions

This paper has investigated and mapped the distribution of an innovative feature of refl-recp syncretism in Tanzanian Bantu languages. Our study has found that 27 languages in a sample of 79 have a polysemous verbal prefix coding both reflexivity and reciprocity. The languages concerned belong to different phylogenetic subgroups and are all spoken in an area of continuous language contact. A typology of these languages according to the derivational productivity of the syncretic prefix and reciprocal suffix reveals four different groups, reflecting different stages of a diachronic process in which the syncretic prefix gradually replaces the reciprocal suffix. We have shown that reflexive-reciprocal polysemy is a widespread category in the Cushitic and Nilotic languages spoken in the Tanzanian Rift Valley. Against the background of structural borrowings between Bantu, Cushitic, and Nilotic languages being commonplace in the Rift Valley as a result of substantial language contact and multilingualism (cf. ), we propose that the refl-recp prefix was introduced into Bantu by multilingual speakers in the area. The region’s deep-time sociolinguistic history is complex and not well understood, as indicated by ():
“Interaction between the various communities occurred for various reasons: for trade; because of intermarriage; by acceptance of individuals extradited from their community; due to recurrent immigration of individuals and their families sometimes linked to a shift in mode of economy; and by long-standing long-distance trade partnerships between families. There have probably always been various patterns of bilingualism and language shift of smaller and larger groups.”
This complicates a thorough sociolinguistic historical explanation of the contact-induced hypothesis proposed here, which we therefore leave for future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z.; methodology, A.Z.; investigation, A.Z.; writing—original draft, A.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The elicitation was conducted as part of a master’s thesis project at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Ethics Committee approval is not required for studies involving elicitation of natural language data with native speakers.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are particularly grateful to our language consultants for Kutu, Kwere, Vidunda, and Zalamo: Peter Mkwan’hembo, Romy Mtenda, Shukuru Porry, Micheal Rashidi, Amos Selemani, and John Daniel Zangira. Likewise, we would like to express our gratitude to Helen Eaton, Chesco Habili, Andrew Harvey, Augustino Kagwema, David Odden, and Malin Petzell for generously sharing unpublished data on their languages of expertise. We would also like to thank Lengson Ngwasi, Maarten Mous and Koen Bostoen for providing helpful comments on previous versions of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

1, 2, 3...noun class 1, 2, 3...
1pl, 2pl, 3pl1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural
1sg, 2sg, 3sg1st, 2nd, 3rd person singular
affaffirmative
applapplicative
augaugment
comcomitative
eepenthetic morpheme
futfuture
fvfinal vowel
habhabitual
impimperative
impersimpersonal
impfimperfective
loclocative
mmasculine
pfvperfective
plplural
pppronominal prefix
propronoun
progprogressive
prspresent
pstpast
recpreciprocal
reflreflexive
sbjsubject marker
sbjvsubjunctive
sgsingular
termterminal applicative

Appendix A. Language Overview

Overview of all 87 Bantu languages considered for this study, their reflexive and reciprocal affixes, yes/no-value feature for reflexive-reciprocal syncretism, and data sources.
Guthrie CodeISOLanguagerefl Markerrecp Markerrefl-recp PrefixReference
D20
D28hooHoloholoi--anNO ()
E60
E621ArwkRwakú--anNO ()
E621BjmcMachamekú--anNO ()
E622AoldMochikú--anNO ()
E622CvunWunjokú--anNO ()
E623rofRombokú--anNO ()
E64hkaKahekú--anNO ()
E65gweGwenokú--anNO ()
E70
E71digDigodzi--anNO ()
E74adavDawidakú--anNO ()
E74btgaSagallaku--anNO ()
F10
F11tnyTongwe----
F12bdpBende*li-, e-li-, e-, -anYES (; )
F20
F21sukSukumai-i-YES ()
F22nymNyamwezii-i-, -anYES (); ()
F23suwSumbwai-i-, -an, -aan,YES ()
F24kivKimbui-i-YESAugustino Kagwema, p.c.
F25wunBungui-, ji--anNO ()
F30
F31AnimNilambai-i-YES ()
F31BisnIhanzuki-ki-YES ()
F32rimLimi / Nyaturui-i-YES ()
F33lagLangii-i-YES ()
F34mgzMbugweé-é-YES ()
G10
G11gogGogoi-i-YES ()
G12kkiKaguluki-ki-YES ()
G20
G221mhdMbugukú--anNO()
G22asaAsukú--anNO ()
G23ksbShambalaki--anNO (); ()
G24bouBondeie--anNO (); ()
G30
G301doeDoe----
G31ziwZigulakwe--anNO (); ()
G32cweKwerei-i-YESown data (2023)
G33zajZaramoi-, ki-i-, ki-YESown data (2023)
G34ngpNgului-i-, -anYESMalin Petzell, p.c.
G35 rufLugurui-, e-i-, e-,YES (); Malin Petzell, p.c.
G36kcuKamii-i-, -anYES ()
G37kdcKutui-i-YESown data (2023)
G38vidVidunda----
G39sbmSagala*i-,i-, -anYES ()
G40
G42swhSwahiliji--anNO ()
G50
G51poyPogololi-li-YES ()
G52ndjNdambai-i-, -anYES ()
G60
G61 sbpSangoyi--anNO ()
G62 hehHehei-i-YES ()
G63 bezBenai-i-, -ánYES ()
G64 pbrPangwai-i-, -anYES () Helen Eaton, p.c.
G65 zgaKingai-, e-, jV-i-, -anYESChesco Habili, p.c.
G66wbiWanjii--anNO ()
G67 kizKisii--anNO ()
JD60
JD61kinKinyarwandaíi--anNO ()
JD62runKirundiíi--anNO ()
JD64sujSubi----
JD65hanHangaza----
JD66haqHai--anNO ()
JD67vinKivinzai--anNO ()
JE20
JE21nowNyamboe--angan, -anNO ()
JE22 hay Hayaee-, ye--an, -anganNO (); ()
JE23zinZinza--anNO (); ()
JE24kedKerebe--anNO ()
JE25jitJitai--anNO ()
JE251kyaKwaya--anNO ()
JE252regKara----
JE40
JE402 ikzIkizui--anNO (); ()
JE405cwaKabwai--anNO ()
JE41 ragLogoolii--an,NO ()
JE43kujKuriai--an, -ainNO ()
JE44 zak Zanakii--anNO ()
JE45 ntk Ikomai--anNO ()
M10
M11 piw Pimbweli--anNO ()
M12rnwRungwa----
M13fipFipai--anNO ()
M20
M21wbhWanda----
M23nihNyihayi--anNO ()
M24mgqMalilayi--anNO (); Helen Eaton, p.c
M25sbkSafwaji--anNO ()
M30
M31nyyNyakyusai--anNO ()
N10
N101dneNdendeuleki--anNO ()
N11mgsMandayi-, ji-, ki--anNO ()
N12ngoNgoniji--anNO ()
N13mgvMatengoji--anNO (); ()
N14mpaMpoto--anNO ()
P10
P11/12ndgNdengereko--anNO ()
P13mgwMatuumbii--anNO (; )
P14nnqNgindo *ki--anNO (); David Odden, p.c.
P15mgyMbunga *i-i-YESDavid Odden, p.c.
P20
P21yaoYaoi--anNO (); ()
P22mweMwerai-, li--an, -igan, eganNO ()
* Limited data.

Appendix B. Subgroups of Eastern Bantu Languages with refl-recp Prefix (Subgroups According to )

LanguageEastern Bantu Subgroup
Bende ([bdp], F12)Northeast Savanna Bantu > Unclassified > Bende-Tongwe
Sukuma ([suk], F21)Sukuma-Nyamwezi > Nyamwezic
Nyamwezi ([nym], F22)Sukuma-Nyamwezi > Nyamwezic
Sumbwa ([suw], F23)Sukuma-Nyamwezi
Kimbu ([kiv], F24)Sukuma-Nyamwezi > Nyamwezic
Nilamba ([nim], F31A)Nyaturu-Nilamba
Ihanzu ([isn], F31B)Nyaturu-Nilamba
Nyaturu ([rim], F32)Nyaturu-Nilamba
Langi ([lag], F33)Mbugwe-Langi
Mbugwe ([mgz], F34)Mbugwe-Langi
Gogo ([gog], G11)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu
Kagulu ([kki], G12)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu
Kwere ([cwe], G32)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > East-Ruvu-Luguru
Zaramo ([zaj], G33)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > East-Ruvu-Luguru
Ngulu ([ngp], G34)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > Seuta
Luguru ([ruf], G35)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > East-Ruvu-Luguru
Kami ([kcu], G36)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > East-Ruvu-Luguru
Kutu ([kdc], G37)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > East-Ruvu-Luguru
Vidunda ([vid], G38)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > West Ruvu
Sagala ([sbm], G39)Northeast Coastal Bantu > Ruvu > West Ruvu
Pogolo ([poy], G51)Kilombero
Ndamba ([ndj], G52)Kilombero
Hehe ([heh], G62)Northeast Savanna Bantu > Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu > Bena-Hehe
Bena ([bez], G63)Northeast Savanna Bantu > Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu > Bena-Hehe
Pangwa ([pbr], G64)Northeast Savanna Bantu > Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu > Kisi-Pangwa
Kinga ([zga], G65)Northeast Savanna Bantu > Southern Tanzania Highlands Bantu > Kinga-Magoma
Mbunga ([mgy], P15)Rufiji-Ruvuma > Rufigic > Matengic > Ndendeule-Ngindo

Notes

1
All examples from Bantu languages in this paper are specified with an ISO-639 and a Guthrie code. The latter is a referential classification of the Bantu languages (; ; ).
2
Many Bantu languages have multiple, syntactically different, reciprocal constructions (). We are specifically referring to prototypical, i.e., monovalent, reciprocal construction here.
3
Sandawe’s genetic affiliation is debated and the language is sometimes considered an isolate (see, e.g., or ).
4
It is not clear to us in what sense the Ndamba varieties differ from each other between the two sources. Both refer to Ndamba from the same location, i.e., Malinyi (; ). We treat these as two different doculects () of Ndamba.
5
The ten languages for which we did not find lexicalized reciprocal verbs with reciprocal suffix in the consulted sources are Sumbwa (F23), Kimbu (F24), Kagulu (G12), Zaramo (G33), Kami (G36), Sagala (G39), Pogolo (G51), Bena (G63), Pangwa (G64) and Mbunga (P15).
6
There are currently no data available for Tongwe ([tny], F11). However, being geographically and linguistically very close to Bende ([bdp], F12) (cf. ), it is plausible that Tongwe has refl-recp syncretism.
7
Data for Ngindo ([nnq], P14) are also very limited but indicate that there is no reflexive-reciprocal polysemy.
8
The Maasai varieties are outside the immediate contact zone of the Rift Valley and have therefore not been included here. Even so, reflexive-reciprocal polysemy is found in at least some Maasai varieties, such as Parakuyo Maasai (cf. ).

References

  1. Abe, Yuko. 2006a. A Bende Vocabulary. Bantu Vocabulary Series 13; Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abe, Yuko. 2006b. A Descriptive Study of Bende Phonology and Morphology (Bantu F. 12, Tanzania). Doctoral dissertation, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abe, Yuko. 2020. Bende. In The Oxford Handbook of African Languages. Edited by Rainer Vossen and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: University Press, pp. 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Asheli, Nicholous. 2013. A Grammatical Sketch of Shinyiha. Grammar Series 3; Dar es Salaam: Languages of Tanzania [LOT] Project, University of Dar es Salaam. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ashton. 1947. Swahili Grammar (Including Intonation), 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green & Co. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aunio, Lotta, Holly Robinson, Tim Roth, Oliver Stegen, and John B. Walker. 2019. The Mara languages JE40. In The Bantu Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series; London: Routledge, pp. 501–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bahrt, Nicklas N. 2021. Voice Syncretism. Research on Comparative Grammar 1. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bastin, Yvonne. 2003. The Interlacustrine Zone (Zone J). In The Bantu Languages. Edited by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. London: Routledge, pp. 501–28. [Google Scholar]
  9. Batibo, Herman. 1985. Le Kesukuma, Langue Bantu de Tanzanie: Phonologie—Morphologie. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Cahier 17. [Google Scholar]
  10. Beletskiy, Stanislav, and Mark Paul Diyammi. 2019. A phonological and morphological sketch of Isanzu lect (Bantu, Tanzania). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 12: 4–19. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernander, Rasmus. 2017. Grammar and Grammaticalization in Manda: An Analysis of the Wider TAM Domain in a Tanzanian Bantu Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenborg, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  12. Blench, Roger M. 2013. Why is Africa so linguistically undiverse? Exploring subtrates and isolates. Journal of the Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory 18: 43–78. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bollaert, Flore. 2017. The Synchronic Phonology and Nominal Morphology of Sagala (Bantu G39, Tanzania): A Preliminary Study. Master’s dissertation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bostoen, Koen. 2024. Reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in South-Western Bantu: Distribution, typology and origins. In Current Approaches to Morphosyntactic Variation in Bantu. Edited by Eva-Marie Bloom-Ström, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois and Lutz Marten. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 340–66. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bostoen, Koen, Sebastian Dom, and Guillaume Segerer. 2015. The antipassive in Bantu. Linguistics 53: 731–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Botne, Robert. 2019. Chimpoto N14. In The Bantu Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series; London: Routledge, pp. 692–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Byarushengo, Ernest Rugwa, Alessandro Duranti, and Larry M. Hyman. 1977. Haya Grammatical Structure. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]
  18. Charwi, Mary Zacharia. 2017. Morphosyntactic and Semantic Aspects of Verb Extension Systems in Bantu Languages: A Case Study of Kuria (E43) in Tanzania. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cordell, Oliver T. 1941. Gogo Grammar. Mpwapwa: Self Published. [Google Scholar]
  20. Crane, Thera Marie. 2011. Beyond Time: Temporal and Extra-Temporal Functions of Tense and Aspect Marking in Totela, a Bantu Language of Zambia. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cysouw, Michael, and Jeff Good. 2013. Languoid, doculect and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation & Conservation 7: 331–59. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dammann, Ernst. 1954. Reziprok und Assoziativ in Bantusprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 29: 163–74. [Google Scholar]
  23. da Silva Maia, António. 1951. Guia prático para a aprendizagem das linguas portuguesa e omumbuim (Lingua Indigena de Gabela—Angola Quanza Sul.—Angola): Dialecto do Kimbundo. Cucujães (Angola): Escola Tipográfica das Missões. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2017. Areal contact in Nilo-Saharan. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Edited by Raymond Hickey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 446–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dom, Sebastian, Guillaume Segerer, and Koen Bostoen. 2015. Antipassive/associative polysemy in Cilubà (Bantu, L31a): A plurality of relations analysis. Studies in Language 39: 354–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Downing, Laura. 1990. Problems in Jita Tonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dunham, Margaret. 2005. Eléments de Description du Langi: Langue Bantu F 33 de Tanzanie: Phonologie, Grammaire, Lexique. Leuven: Peeters. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dunham, Margaret. 2007. Le Langi et la vallée du Rift Tanzanien: Contacts et convergences. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de Paris 102: 399–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eaton, Helen. 2015. Malila Narrative Discourse. SIL Language and Culture Documentation and Description 27. Dallas: SIL International. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eaton, Helen. 2019. Vwanji G66. In The Bantu Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series; London: Routledge, pp. 615–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Edelsten, Peter, and Chiku Lijongwa. 2010. A Grammatical Sketch of Chindamba: A Bantu Language (G52) of Tanzania. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe. [Google Scholar]
  32. Everaert, Martin. 2012. The criteria for reflexivization. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Edited by Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina and Greville G. Corbett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 190–206. [Google Scholar]
  33. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland. [Google Scholar]
  34. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Traci S. Curl. 2000. Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gluckman, John D. 2019. Reflexivity and reciprocity in competition in Logoori. Paper presented at the 42nd GLOW Conference, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, May 7–11; Available online: https://www.jgluckman.com/uploads/9/4/6/4/9464781/glow2019-handout.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  36. Gray, Hazel. 2018. Kisi phonology and morphophonology. SIL Language and Culture Documentation and Description 38: 62. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gray, Hazel. 2020. Bungu phonology and morphophonology. SIL Electronic Working Papers 131: 92. [Google Scholar]
  38. Griscom, Richard T. 2019. Topics in Asimjeeg Datooga Verbal Morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gromova, Nelly, and Anna Yu Urmanchieva. 2005. Tanzaniyskiye Skazki-Bilingvy [Tanzanian Bilingual Tales]. Afrikanskaja Skazka [The African Folktale] 3: 215–354. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gunnink, Hilde. 2022. A Grammar of Few. African Language Grammars and Dictionaries 6. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Guthrie, Malcolm. 1971. Comparative Bantu: An Introduction to the Comparative Linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages (4 Volumes). Farnborough: Gregg International. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hammarström, Harald. 2019. An inventory of Bantu languages. In The Bantu Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series; London: Routledge, pp. 17–78. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath, and Sebastian Bank. 2024. Glottolog 5.0. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: http://glottolog.org (accessed on 25 October 2024).
  44. Harjula, Lotta. 2004. The Ha Language of Tanzania: Grammar, Texts and Vocabulary. East African Languages and Dialects 13. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. [Google Scholar]
  45. Harries, Lyndon. 1950. A Grammar of Mwera: A Bantu Language of the Eastern Zone, Spoken in the South-Eastern Area of Tanganyika Territory. Bantu Grammatical Archives 1. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Haspelmath, Martin. 2023. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Reflexive Constructions in the World’s Languages. Edited by Katarzyna Janic, Nicoletta Puddu and Martin Haspelmath. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 19–62. [Google Scholar]
  47. Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 49. Edited by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Heine, Bernd, and Hiroyuki Miyashita. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 192. Edited by Ekkehard König and Volker Gast. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 169–223. [Google Scholar]
  49. Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  50. Jonsson, Erland. 1954. kinyang’wezi Grammatik. Tabora: Svenska Pingstmissionen. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaajan, Marianne. 2012. The Verbal System of Sangu, a Bantu Language from South-West Tanzania. Master’s dissertation, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kahigi, Kulikoyela. 2008. Derivation in Sisumbwa. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3: 53–81. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kahigi, Kulikoyela. 2024. Verb extensions and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu: The case of Sumbwa. In Morphosyntactic Variation in East African Bantu Languages: Descriptive and Comparative Approaches. Edited by Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda and Lutz Marten. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 229–75. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kamba-Muzenga, Jean-Georges. 1987. Phonologie historique du Holoholo. Annales Aequatoria 8: 317–48. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kanijo, Ponsiano Sawaka. 2019. Aspectual Classes of Verbs in Nyamwezi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  56. Karani, Michael. 2018. Syntactic Categories and the Verb Argument Complex in Parakuyo Maasai. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Stellebosch, South Africa. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Typological Studies in Language 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kenstowicz, Michael J., and Charles Wayne Kisseberth. 1990. Chizigula tonology: The word and beyond. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Edited by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 163–94. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kießling, Roland. 1994. Eine Grammatik des Burunge. Cologne: Research and Progress Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kießling, Roland, Maarten Mous, and Derek Nurse. 2008. The Tanzanian Rift Valley area. In A Linguistic Geography of Africa. Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ko, So Young. 2014. The Vinza Language of Tanzania (Bantu, JD67). Master’s dissertation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kulikov, Leonid. 2011. Voice typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Edited by Jae Jung Song. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 368–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Legère, Karsten. 2003. Trilingual Ngh’wele-Swahili-English and Swahili-Ngh’wele-English Wordlist. unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lodhi, Abdulaziz Y. 2002. Verbal extensions in Bantu (the case of Swahili and Nyamwezi). Africa & Asia 2: 4–26. [Google Scholar]
  66. Maho, Jouni Filip. 2009. NUGL Online: The Online Version of the New Updated Guthrie List, a Referential Classification of the Bantu Languages. Available online: https://brill.com/fileasset/downloads_products/35125_Bantu-New-updated-Guthrie-List.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2015).
  67. Marlo, Michael R. 2013. Verb tone in Bantu languages: Micro-typological patterns and research methods’. Africana Linguistica 19: 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meeussen, Achille Emille. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3: 79–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Meinhof, Carl. 1906. Linguistische Studien in Ostafrika’. Mittheilungen Des Seminars Für Orientalische Sprachen 9: 278–333. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mkude, Daniel Joseph. 1974. A Study of Kiluguru Syntax with Special Reference to the Transformational History of Sentences with Permuted Subject and Object. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, London, UK. [Google Scholar]
  71. Morrison, Michelle Elizabeth. 2011. A Reference Grammar of Bena. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mous, Maarten. 2001. The middle in Cushitic languages. Paper presented at the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 27: Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, Berkeley, CA, USA, February 16–18; pp. 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mous, Maarten. 2004. A Grammatical Sketch of Mbugwe: Bantu F34, Tanzania. Grammatische Analysen Afrikanischer Sprachen 23. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mous, Maarten. 2013. Mixed Ma’a/Mbugu structure dataset. In Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Edited by Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: http://apics-online.info/contributions/62 (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  75. Mous, Maarten. 2016. Alagwa—A South Cushitic Language of Tanzania: Grammar, Texts and Lexicon. Cushitic and Omotic Studies 7. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  76. Mous, Maarten, and Martha Qorro. 2000. Middle voice in Iraqw. In Lugha za Tanzania/Languages of Tanzania: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Clement Maganga. Edited by Kulikoyela Kahigi, Yared Kihore and Maarten Mous. Leiden: Research School for Asian, African and Amerindian Studies, pp. 157–76. [Google Scholar]
  77. Mreta, Abel Yamwaka. 1998. An Analysis of Tense and Aspect in Chasu: Their Form and Meaning in the Affirmative Constructions. Beiträge Zur Afrikanistik 10. Berlin: Lit Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  78. Msamba, E. 2013. Object Marking in Kihehe. Doctoral dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. [Google Scholar]
  79. Nassenstein, Nico, and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. 2020. Bunia Swahili and emblematic language use. Journal of Language Contact 12: 823–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007a. Overview of the research: Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Reciprocal Constructions. Typological Studies in Language 71. Edited by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vol. 1, pp. 3–114. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007b. Polysemy of reciprocal markers. In Reciprocal Constructions. Typological Studies in Language 71. Edited by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vol. 1, pp. 231–333. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ngonyani, Deogratias. 1998. Properties of applied objects in Kiswahili and Kindendeule’. Studies in African Linguistics 27: 68–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ngonyani, Deogratias. 2003. A Grammar of Chingoni. Languages of the World/Materials 425. Munich: Lincom. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ngwasi, Lengson. 2021. The Multiple Functions of the Reflexive Prefix in Hehe, Sukuma, Nilamba, and Nyaturu. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  85. Nicolle, Steve. 2013. A Grammar of Digo: A Bantu Language of Kenya and Tanzania. SIL International Publications in Linguistics 149. Dallas: SIL International. [Google Scholar]
  86. Novotná, J. 2005. A Grammar of Ndamba. Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  87. Nurse, Derek. 1981. Chaga/Taita. In Studies in the Classification of Eastern Bantu Languages. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 3. Edited by Thomas Hinnebusch, Derek Nurse and Martin Mould. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, pp. 127–80. [Google Scholar]
  88. Nurse, Derek. 1988. The diachronic background to the language communities of Southwestern Tanzania. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 9: 15–115. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nurse, Derek. 1999. Towards a historical classification of East African Bantu languages. In Bantu Historical Linguistics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. CSLI Lecture Notes 99. Edited by Jean-Marie Hombert and Larry Hyman. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  90. Nurse, Derek. 2000. Diachronic morphosyntactic change in Western Tanzania. In ‘Mehr Als Nur Worte...’: Afrikanistische Beiträge Zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland. Edited by Rainer Vossen, Angelika Mietzner and Antje Meissner. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 517–34. [Google Scholar]
  91. Nurse, Derek. 2008. Bantu Tense and Aspect Systems—Appendix 1. Available online: https://www.mun.ca/faculty/dnurse/Tabantu/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  92. Nurse, Derek, and Gérard Philippson. 1975. ‘The Tanzania Language Survey’. CNRS: Reflex. Available online: https://reflex.cnrs.fr/Africa/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  93. Odden, David. 1996. The Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi. The Phonology of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  94. Odden, David. 1998. Verbal tone melodies in Kikerewe’. In Language History and Linguistic Description in Africa. Trends in African Linguistics 2. Edited by Ian Maddieson and Thomas J. Hinnebusch. Trenton: Africa World Press, pp. 177–84. [Google Scholar]
  95. Odden, David. 2000. The phrasal tonology of Zinza. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 21: 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Odden, David. 2003. Rufiji-Ruvuma (N10, P10-20). In The Bantu Languages. Routledge Language Family Series 4; Edited by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. London: Routledge, pp. 529–44. [Google Scholar]
  97. Odom, Shannon Ronit. 2016a. The Grammar Basics of Kwaya. Dallas: SIL International. [Google Scholar]
  98. Odom, Shannon Ronit. 2016b. The Grammar Basics of Zinza. Dallas: SIL International. [Google Scholar]
  99. Onyango, Janet, and Henry Nandelenga. 2023. A comparative analysis of Dholuo and Lubukusu anaphors: Government and binding theory. Paper presented at the LAEA Conference, Makerere University, Makerere, Uganda, August 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  100. Persohn, Bastian. 2017. The Verb in Nyakyusa: A Focus on Tense, Aspect and Modality. Contemporary African Linguistics 2. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Petzell, Malin. 2008. The Kagulu Language of Tanzania: Grammar, Texts and Vocabulary. East African Languages and Dialects 19. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  102. Petzell, Malin, and Lotta Aunio. 2019. Kami G36. In The Bantu Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series; London: Routledge, pp. 563–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Philippson, Gérard, and Marie-Laure Montlahuc. 2003. Kilimanjaro Bantu (E60 and E74). In The Bantu Languages. Edited by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series 4; London: Routledge, pp. 475–500. [Google Scholar]
  104. Polak, Louise. 1983. Le réfléchi en Bantou. Africana Linguistica 1983: 271–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Bantu Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  106. Rottland, Franz. 1982. Die Südnilotischen Sprachen. Kölner Beiträge Zur Afrikanistik 7. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  107. Rugemalira, Josephat Muhozi. 1993. Runyambo Verb Extension and Constraints on Predicate Structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  108. Rugemalira, Josephat Muhozi. 2019. SARUFI YA KIGOGO. Dar es Salaam: Chuo Kikuu cha Dar es Salaam. [Google Scholar]
  109. Schadeberg, Thilo. 2003a. Derivation. In The Bantu Languages. Edited by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippso. Routledge Language Family Series 4; London: Routledge, pp. 71–89. [Google Scholar]
  110. Schadeberg, Thilo. 2003b. Historical Linguistics. In The Bantu Languages. Edited by Derek Nurse and Gérard Philippson. Routledge Language Family Series 4; London: Routledge, pp. 143–63. [Google Scholar]
  111. Steeman, Sander. 2011. A Grammar of Sandawe: A Khoisan Language of Tanzania. Doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  112. Steere, Edward. 1882. Collections for a Handbook of the Nyamwezi Language as Spoken in Unyanyembe. London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. [Google Scholar]
  113. Stegen, Oliver. 2002. Derivational Processes in Rangi. Studies in African Linguistics 31: 129–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Stegen, Oliver. 2003. First steps in reconstructing Rangi language history. Paper presented at the 33rd Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 25–27. [Google Scholar]
  115. Stegen, Oliver. 2011. In Quest of a Vernacular Writing Style for the Rangi of Tanzania: Assumptions, Processes, Challenges. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. [Google Scholar]
  116. Stirnimann, Hans. 1983. Praktische Grammatik der Pangwa-Sprache (SW-Tansania) = Indaki cha luchovo lwa vaPangwa. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. [Google Scholar]
  117. Ström, Eva-Marie. 2013. The Ndengeleko Language of Tanzania. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  118. Struck, Bernhard. 1911. Die Fipasprache (Deutsch-Ostafrika). Anthropos 6: 951–93. [Google Scholar]
  119. Velten, Carl. 1899. Die Sprache der Wahehe. LINCOM Gramatica 41. Munich: LINCOM Europa. [Google Scholar]
  120. Voorhoeve, Jan. 1967. A Grammar of Safwa: Preliminary Draft Based on Previous Research by J. van Sambeek, Checked by C.K. Mwachusa. Leiden: African Studies Centre (ASC). [Google Scholar]
  121. Walker, John B. 2013. Comparative Tense and Aspect in the Mara Bantu Languages: Towards a Linguistic History. Master’s dissertation, Trinity Western University, Langley Twp, BC, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  122. Weiss, Jonathan. 2020. A Description of Pimbwe (Bantu, Tanzania): Phonology, Grammar, and Discourse. Master’s dissertation, Trinity Western University, Langley Twp, BC, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  123. Wilhelmsen, Vera. 2018. A Linguistic Description of Mbugwe with Focus on Tone and Verbal Morphology. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 20. Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  124. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, and Hirosi Nakagawa. 2019. Linguistic features and typologies in languages commonly referred to as ‘Khoisan’. In The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Edited by Ekkehard H. Wolff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 382–416. [Google Scholar]
  125. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Erika Just, and Saudah Namyalo. 2023. Reflexive constructions in Luganda. In Reflexive Constructions in the World’s Languages. Edited by Katarzyna Janic, Nicoletta Puddu and Martin Haspelmath. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 185–206. [Google Scholar]
  126. Wolff, R. 1905. Grammatik der Kinga-Sprache (Deutsch-Ostafrika, Nyassagebiet) Nebst Texten und Worterverzeichnis. Archiv für das Studium der deutschen Kolonialsprachen 3. Berlin: Kommissionsverlag von G. Reimer. [Google Scholar]
  127. Woodward, Herbert Willoughby. 1882. Collections for a Handbook of the Boondéi Language. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. [Google Scholar]
  128. Yoneda, Nobuko. 2000. A Descriptive Study of Matengo, a Bantu Language of Tanzania, with Focus on the Verbal Structure. Doctoral dissertation, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan. [Google Scholar]
  129. Zimmer, Franz. 1947. Kimatengo Grammatik Und Wörterbuch, Unpublished manuscript.
  130. Zorc, R. David Paul, and Louise Nibagwire. 2007. Kinyarwanda and Kirundi Comparative Grammar. Hyattsville: Dunwoody Press. [Google Scholar]
  131. Zúñiga, Fernando, and Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Segmenting Speech: The Role of Resyllabification in Spanish Phonology
Previous
Tundra Nenets: A Heritage Language in Its Own Land? Linguistic Identity and Language Loss
Next