SWAHILI FORUM 26 (2019): 1-45
SPECIAL ISSUE: Variation in Swahili, ed. by Daisuke Shinagawa & Nico Nassenstein
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI:
CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
This overview paper aims to present general approaches to variation in Swahili, both from a
structural/typological and from a sociolinguistic angle. Recently, building upon earlier
dialectological studies of Swahili, varieties in the periphery have been the focus of scholarly
attention, as well as urban dialects from East Africa and Swahili in the diaspora. This introductory
paper intends to summarize some of the approaches and directions that address the geographical
and sociolinguistic diversity of Swahili, studied from different angles. These include both
traditional approaches (descriptive sketches, dialectological and dialectometrical analyses,
lexicostatistics etc.) and more recent directions in Bantu studies, such as micro-parametric analysis
in the field of microvariation. Moreover, current (socio)linguistic trends are discussed, which
mostly deal with language contact, diversity and change in touristic settings, in relation to new
media, and in regard to youth language practices, or with new approaches to urban fluidity such as
metrolingualism and translanguaging. In this contribution, we aim to give an overview of current
trends in the study of Swahili by analyzing processes of linguistic and scholarly diversification and
variation in the Swahili-speaking world.
1. On the study of contact, change and variation in the Swahili-speaking world
This introductory paper for the present volume intends to offer an overview of the previous
studies on Swahili 1 as a macro-language consisting of diverse varieties, and to give an outline
for current approaches, as well as directions for future investigations. As is generally
understood, the earliest attempts at linguistic descriptions of Swahili grammar were made as
early as in the mid-19th century by missionary linguists, notably Johann Ludwig Krapf (Krapf
& Rebmann 1850, Krapf 1882) and Edward Steere (1870, 1894) 2 , which provided the
grounds for its standardization, implemented in the early 20th century. In the postindependence era, linguistic studies of Swahili have developed in vast areas of established
fields, ranging from sociolinguistics (Polomé & Hill 1980, Mazrui & Mazrui 1995, among
1
The established label Swahili is used throughout the present paper in order to refer to the Bantu language
Kiswahili and its varieties. For specific dialects, both forms (e.g. Kiunguja and Unguja) are used, depending
upon the cited sources and their preference.
2
While Krapf & Rebmann worked on the Kimvita dialect spoken on the Kenyan coast and in the Mombasa area,
Steere focused on Kiunguja (Zanzibar), while Sacleux (1939) described “Kimrima”, later subsumed under
Mtang’ata and Lugha ya Zamani by Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 10-11), spoken around Bagamoyo in today’s
Tanzania. These three are often commonly cited as competing prestigious dialects in the study of Swahili and
the scholarly description of the language.
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
others) to formal linguistics, which includes historical linguistics (Nurse & Spear 1985, Nurse
& Hinnebusch 1993, among others), synchronic analyses (numerous monographs on different
varieties), dialectology (Nurse 1982, Möhlig 1995, Heine & Möhlig 1980 3), detailed studies
on specific grammatical topics (Amidu 1997, 2006, and various others), reference sketches
and grammars of the standard variety (Ashton 1944, Polomé 1967, Schadeberg 1992,
Mpiranya 2015), and so forth. 4
In addition, reflecting its nature as the most wide-spread lingua franca in East Africa and
parts of Central Africa, contact varieties of Swahili have been in the scope of scholarly
attention since at least the late 1970s (see also Shinagawa, this volume), with a focus on
pidginized or creolized varieties as well as on processes of pidginization/creolization in
Swahili (Polomé 1963, 1968, Heine 1973, University of Hawai’i Press 1975, Nurse 1997,
Heine & Kuteva 2007: 166-209) and processes of lexical and structural borrowing. There
have been few methodological or inter-disciplinary platforms for the study of such varieties,
and this is what the present volume aims to provide (as the first output of a larger Swahili
project, based at TUFS, Tokyo, and mainly coordinated between both authors’ universities).
In order to build such a common ground for the integrated study of Swahili varieties, not
limited to those which have emerged from language contact but including those characterized
by different sociolinguistic, historical, or regional backgrounds, we introduce two guiding
methodologies that have recently been developing in the broader context of African
linguistics, namely i) the micro-typological investigation of structural variation, and ii) the
practice-based documentation of sociolinguistic variation, which will be further discussed in
Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
On the other hand, from a geographical point of view, the spread of the language further
westwards to Burundi, Rwanda, and within the DR Congo triggered the emergence of new
varieties due to contact with local Bantu languages, Nilo-Saharan languages and official
languages such as French. Despite academic awareness of these contact varieties, they were
seldom described and had long been outside the scope of intensive investigation. Their
reasoned classification was barely possible due to the scarcity of linguistically reliable
descriptions, except for sporadically published monographs and overview papers (for example
Kaji 1985, Schicho 1980, 1981, 1982, Kapanga 1991, De Rooij 1996, Goyvaerts 2007, Wilt
1988, etc.). This situation, however, has recently changed due to a series of publications of
grammatical overview sketches of these “peripheral” varieties (Ferrari et al. 2014,
3
4
Heine & Möhlig’s descriptive, partially sociolinguistic “Language and Dialect Atlas of Kenya” was a sevenyear project (1973-1980) and aimed at covering the entire linguistic diversity found in Kenya; it was not
restricted to Bantu languages or Swahili alone.
A more detailed list of available sources is found in relevant paragraphs of Section 3.
2
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Nassenstein 2015, Nassenstein & Bose 2016, Nassenstein & Dimmendaal 2020). In the next
section, we first deal with the historical process of the spreading of Swahili that explains the
current distribution of Swahili varieties and provides an overall picture of its geographical
classification, reflecting current findings.
Apart from an expanding focus on remote geographical settings, more recent studies have
also looked at hitherto underrepresented topics in the study of Swahili, such as the nexus of
language in touristic settings along the East African coast (Storch 2018, Mietzner & Storch
2019), language and social media (Hillewaert 2015) and more exhaustive studies of Swahilibased youth language practices diffused in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Goma and Lubumbashi
(Shinagawa 2007, Mulumbwa 2009, Beck 2015, Nassenstein 2016a, Githiora 2019, and many
more). These studies in the fields of Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Anthropology have
profited from a less essentialist and a more critical approach to contact processes in the
Swahili-speaking areas of Africa, such as codeswitching (Myers-Scotton 1993, Blommaert
1992, Goyvaerts & Zembele 1992), metrolingualism, translanguaging, polylanguaging and
others (see also Section 5; see also Kutsukake & Yoneda, this volume).
The present overview, as an introduction to an edited volume on aspects of variation in a
number of Swahili varieties spread between Zanzibar, Uganda, the Congo, Burundi and
Somalia, does not claim to provide an exhaustive classification of varieties, lects or practices.
Instead, it modestly aims at providing a concise (yet not ultimate) overview of scholarly work
in the fields of variation(ist) linguistics and dialectology on Swahili varieties, and attempts to
change the predominant perspective: while the East African Coast has been the center of
scholarly attention in most works, it is particularly the periphery that is the central arena for
contact, change and patterns of variation in the present volume, explored through new
approaches that expand the common methodology. Based on the editors’ research in DR
Congo, Uganda, around Mount Kilimanjaro, and in various urban settings in East Africa, a
redirected focus may also be of potential interest for those already acquainted with the
common and reliable standard works (such as Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993, and others).
Methodologically, two current approaches are of central interest here, combining
microvariation studies and practice-based sociolinguistics (see Sections 4.1-4.2).
2. On the spread and diversification of Swahili
While the waves of diffusion along the coast and from the coast to the interior are well known
due to archeological and historical sources on early contacts and expansions, as well as
historical linguistic data, the spread of Swahili within the Congo basin and towards its current
periphery (northwestern Uganda, northeastern Zambia, etc.) is only poorly documented. A
sketchy overview of the diffusion of the language and current issues of classification and
3
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
diversification are thus needed in order to clarify the state of the art and the great need for
scholarly work in order to fill the remaining gaps.
2.1 From the coast to the interior: Diffusion and classification of coastal dialects
Among the coastal population, a linguistic predecessor of today’s Swahili was widely in use
over a long period of time, “using an early form of Swahili […] tentatively attributed to its
earliest period, that is, around 800” (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993: 22), while the actual spread
of the language along the coastline occurred much later 5 and early communities were
mostly “spread thinly along the coast, from Somalia to at least Kilwa, possibly farther south”
(ibid.). 6 This continuum functioned on the basis of trade along the coast, while each coastal
community was always also connected with inlanders (ibid.); the early networks were
therefore never restricted only to the coast. While there was a common spread of
innovations from urban areas to other urban areas and then to surrounding rural areas, (more
recent) innovations in and shortly before the 19th century were diffused from areas south of
the Lamu archipelago, explained by Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 31) with the increasing
reputation and significance of Mombasa and Zanzibar, and a decreasing importance of
Lamu. In the following, it was especially the “economic power of Zanzibar” that “carried its
dialect Unguja out of its original domain, initially from the town into adjacent parts of
Zanzibar island, later on to neighboring islands and along the adjacent coast, then upcountry
as far as Zaire” (ibid.). The European presences, in colonialism, through missionaries etc.,
and through the construction and consolidation of new urban centers along the coast (Dar es
Salaam, Tanga, etc.), also contributed to the continuous spread of Kiunguja beyond its
initial sphere of diffusion.
Coastal Swahili dialects, a continuum of a “1000-mile-long line of Swahili-speaking
villages and towns […] between southern Somalia and northern Mozambique” (Nurse &
Hinnebusch 1993: 29) were and are commonly grouped and listed as follows (according to
different systems of classification), depending upon methodology, available sources and
varieties included/excluded. While Nurse’s (1982) classification is based on phonological,
lexical and morphological isoglosses, Nurse & Hinnebusch’s (1993) results are based on the
5
The different historical stages are listed by Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 21-23) as NEC, Sabaki, and then
Swahili. While the oldest documents stem from around 1700 (ibid., referring to Miehe 1979, among others),
the earliest assumption for PNEC (Proto-Northeast Coast Bantu) is approximately around 100 A.D., followed
by PSA (Proto-Sabaki) maybe 500 years later, and then shortly after that already by PSW (Proto-Swahili).
6
While a detailed description of the historical movements and developments cannot be given here due to the
limited scope of this article, the focus will be on the early beginnings of a scholarly documentation of Swahili
in the 19th century. This does not imply that knowledge transfer in Swahili society began with the European
missionaries or later, with colonial agents.
4
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Comparative Method and partially on lexicostatistics, while Möhlig’s (1995) work is based on
dialectometrical analysis, and Maho’s (2009) most recent overview is based on Guthrie’s
(1967–71) areal typology of the Bantu languages and his rough classification of Swahili, and
constitutes an updated and adapted version. According to Maho’s “New updated list of the
Bantu languages”, which can be regarded as the most recent and most extensive classification,
Swahili is subclassified into a larger number of dialects and sociolects (G40 group).
Figure 1: Nurse (1982), based on phonological, lexical and morphological isoglosses
Northern Dialects:
Southern Dialects:
Excluded:
Miini (Somalia)
T’ik’uu/Bajuni (Somalia)
Siu/Pate (Northern Kenya)
Amu (Northern Kenya)
Vumba (Southern Kenya/Northern Tanzania)
Mtang’ata (Northern Tanzania)
(non-standard dialects from) Pemba (Tanzania)
Tumbatu, Hadimu, Makunduchi (Zanzibar)
(dialect from) Mafia
Ngwana (Congo)
Comorian (four dialects, Comoros)
Far Southern Dialects (Mgao, Tanzania)
Mwani (Mozambique)
Northern Madagascar
Mombasa dialects (Mvita and subdialects Ngare, Jomvu, Kilifi, Kilindini)
Chifuni and Unguja (Zanzibar Town, etc.) 7
Figure 2: Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 5-18), Comparative Method and lexicostatistics
Northeast Coast Bantu Languages (NEC)
Seuta
Ruvu
Pare
Sabaki
Swahili
Mwiini
Tikuu
Siu, Pate, Amu
7
The Mombasa dialects and Chifundi/Unguja are described by Nurse as “mixed” in terms of Northern vs.
Southern features and are therefore not grouped with either of them. They are phonologically closer to the
Southern Dialects, but in their verbal morphology are closer to the Northern Dialects. All other dialects are
excluded from this list due to the scarcity of data.
5
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Dialects of the Mombasa area
Chifundi
Vumba
Mtang’ata and Lugha ya Zamani
Pemba
Tumbatu
Makunduchi (Kale, Kikae, Hadimu)
Unguja
Mafia
Kilwa
Mgao
Madagascar
The Mozambique coast
Mwani
Elwana
Pokomo
Mijikenda
Comorian
Figure 3: Möhlig (1995), based on dialectometry/synchronic analysis 8
Northern Group:
Miini (Barawa)
Bajuni (T’ik’uu, Tikuu)
Pate and Siu
Amu (including Shela and Matondoni)
Central Group:
Mvita and Jomvu (Ngare)
Southern Group:
Chifundi (Shirazi)
Vumba
Mtang’ata (Mrima)
Pemba
Unguja
Tumbatu
Makunduchi
Mgao
Mwani
Inland Dialects:
Ngwana
East African inland dialects of Standard Swahili
Comorian Languages: Ngazija, Nzwani, Mwali, Maore 9
8
9
The original paper is in German; the different categories were translated by the authors.
Neither Möhlig’s “inland varieties” nor the “Comorian languages” are discussed in detail in his
dialectometrical overview, apparently due to a lack of data.
6
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Figure 4: Maho (2009: 49), G40 Swahili Group; updated version of Guthrie’s list 10
G401 Mgao (G43F)
G402 Makwe
G403 Mwani
G404 *Sidi (Pakistan), *Habsi
G41-43 Swahili
G41
Tikuu, Tikulu, Bajuni, Gunya
G411 *Socotra Swahili
G412 Mwiini, Miini, Barawa, Mbalazi
G42a Amu, Pate, Siu, *Ozi
G42b Mombasa Swahili, Mvita, Ngare, Jomvu, Changamwe, Kilindini
G42c Mrima, Mtang’ata, *Lugha ya Zamani
G42d Unguja, Kiunguja
G42E Mambrui, Malindi
G42F Fundi, Chifundi
G42G Chwaka
G42H Vumba
G421 *Nosse Be (Madagascar)
G43a Pemba
G43b Tumbatu
G43c Makunduchi, Ka(l)e, “Hadimu”
G43D Mafia, Mbwera
G43E *Kilwa
G43F *?Mgao, Kimgao
G44
Comorian
G44a Ngazija, Shingazidja
G44b Njuani, Hinzua
G44C Mwali
G44D Maore
However, apart from the core areas along the East African coast and throughout large parts of
Tanzania and Kenya, Swahili has (as of today) spread as far as Kisangani (northeastern DR
Congo), Lubumbashi (southeastern DR Congo), northeastern Zambia, northern parts of
Mozambique, and so forth (see Map 1, which gives an estimated maximal extension of the
language).
10
All languages/varieties marked with asterisk are (probably) extinct.
7
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Map 1: The maximal extension of Swahili (based on the authors’ knowledge)
There is a general problem in our understanding of how Swahili is diffused/used in Uganda,
Burundi, and Rwanda. Labeled a “dilemma” (of being implemented in the constitution yet not
practically used in most parts of the country) by Pawliková-Vilhanová (1996), this hints
toward a large discrepancy in parameters of official/governmental language planning and
speakers’ actual knowledge and everyday use. In Uganda, Swahili is still considered the
language of the army, of security guards, policemen etc., stigmatized and often viewed with
negative language attitudes; and is only spoken by a significant part of the population in the
northwestern West Nile region in the border triangle with DR Congo and South Sudan, by
remnant speakers in Acholiland (Lorenz, this volume), and in parts of northeastern Karamoja
region. Apart from being a professional jargon and being restricted to specific, mostly remote,
areas, Swahili is the language of safari tourism to the national parks and the language of
popular musicians used in songs by Jose Chameleone, Sheebah Karungi and others (see also
Ssempuuma 2017). The Swahili described for Kampala (in specific settings) by MyersScotton (1979) and Miner (2002) reveals similar patterns of simplification and loss of
morphology, as for instance found in Nairobi Swahili (Deen 2002, among other publications)
or the Swahili used in West Nile region (Nassenstein 2017a). In multilingual rural
communities in Central/Western Uganda in Bunyoro Kingdom (cf. Duran’s [1975] study for
Kenya), Swahili apparently also plays an important role, especially around refugee
8
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
settlements and mixed communities of ethnic Acholi, Chopi, Banyoro and Baganda (Storch &
Mietzner 2015).
In Rwanda and Burundi, the situation is quite different. In Rwanda, where Swahili has
been the (fourth) official language since 2017, Swahili mostly fulfills a symbolic function.
However, in the western parts around Gisenyi it is used in cross-border trade with
neighboring Goma, DR Congo, predominantly by refugees, policemen, traders and in bus
parks, and so forth, whereas in Kigali, Swahili seems to be mostly restricted to the vibrant
multicultural neighborhood of Nyamirambo, south of the capital. Only a few publications
have dealt with the diffusion of Swahili and its parameters of use in Rwanda (among others,
Karangwa 1995).
In Burundi, however, Swahili is widespread in urban areas, and is mostly used by the
younger population, particularly in the music business and the cross-border trade with
Tanzanians and Congolese. More detailed studies are presented by Der-Houssikian (2009),
Belt (2010), and by Nassenstein (this volume). While Der-Houssikian, based on a limited
corpus, describes Le Swahili de Bujumbura as a variety with stable (deviating) features,
Nassenstein (this volume) considers it a fluid continuum that allows speakers to employ a
broad variety of forms and structures from both Tanzanian and Congolese Swahili dialects.
It becomes evident that Swahili fulfills specific functions in urban contexts, even beyond
the core areas from which it was diffused, the spread being caused by waves of migration,
social change, and geopolitical parameters. Today we can thus witness the spread of Swahili
to Juba (South Sudan) since the country’s independence, to Kinshasa (western DR Congo)
since the overthrow of former dictator Mobutu in 1996 and with the rise of Kabila senior and
Kabila junior as subsequent presidents (until 2019), and to Somalia, where it is also used by
Al-Shabaab militia, whose origins lie either in Somalia or in the northern parts of Kenya. The
following paragraphs will deal separately with Swahili as diffused in different areas of the DR
Congo, and suggest an updated classification grounded in recent descriptive overviews.
2.2 Toward a classification of Swahili varieties at the western periphery
Despite the solid documentation of coastal varieties and their relationships to each other in
terms of shared innovations, isoglosses etc., the state of dialects on the western periphery (DR
Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and parts of Uganda) is characterized by classificatory gaps and
shortcomings. The available dialectological overviews and more fine-grained analyses of
specific dialects have surely contributed to a better understanding of the broad diversity of
morphological and syntactic variation in Swahili, but they have also left numerous questions
9
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
unanswered, and several areas neglected. 11 The overview maps and lists of Swahili varieties
illustrate this quite well, especially with regard to the widespread regiolects in today’s DR
Congo, that have undergone processes of morphosyntactic restructuring which can be seen as
a result of the diffusion of Swahili to the interior of the continent.
In some overviews the varieties diffused in Congo are completely left out (Nurse [1982:
165] explicitly states this), while in others they are subsumed under the label “(Ki)Ngwana”,
which (at least today) functions mainly as an extrinsic label and is no longer used by speakers
themselves when they refer to their varieties. 12 Historically, the term derived from the
designation of its speakers, former slaves who were freed and constituted the main Swahilispeaking population of several former trade posts. They contributed to the spread of Swahili
in different areas. Fabian (1986: 33) states that the label “Kingwana”, mostly applied to the
northern regiolects of Swahili in the Congo, was presumably diffused after 1910 when it first
appeared as “Kingwanya” in the literature, as used by Millman (1917). Goyvaerts (2007: 32)
further notes that “[t]he term Kingwana is never used. It would seem to be a notion that
appears solely in the writings of westerners to refer, wrongly, to either ‘the Swahili of Congo
Zaire’ (Harries 1955: 13) or ‘some sort of pidgin-like bad Swahili’ (Van den Eynde 1944: 6).”
Early sources, such as translations of religious texts and parts of the Bible, often differentiate
between “Ituri Kingwana” and “Lualaba Kingwana”, although the boundaries and differences
between the two varieties are not made very clear in the available sources. While these labels
were based on the areas where they were reportedly spoken, for example along the
Ituri/Aruwimi and Lualaba rivers, respectively, Lualaba Kingwana actually represents today’s
Kivu Swahili (or, according to Goyvaerts [2007], Bukavu Swahili), and Ituri Kingwana stands
for Bunia Swahili further north. Both historical designations are also retained in a current
overview of Swahili in the Glottolog (2019). 13 As indicated by the University of Hawai’i
Press (1975: 677) in their bibliography of “Kingwana and other simplified forms”, the most
exhaustive list of reference works for Congo Swahili 14, Kingwana Swahili was “adopted as a
lingua franca over what Deans (1953) calls half the Congo, in two sets of dialects – Lualaba
in Kivu and the more pidginized Ituri in Oriental Province”. Deans (1953) points out that
11
This may have to do with demography, concepts of territoriality and also with the challenges to apply
dialectological methods to highly multilingual mobile individuals in parts of the Congo, just to name a few.
12
Only in the case of Bunia Swahili, one can at times come across the language name Ituri Kingwana when
speakers refer to the regiolect in Ituri, and then always in clear opposition to other more standardized varieties.
13
See https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/cong1236 [last accessed on 15-07-2019].
14
Another bibliography is provided by de Rooij (2005) as an online publication of the LPCA (Journal of Popular
Culture in Africa), and another more extensive bibliography for Swahili in general is provided by Van
Spaandonck (1965).
10
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
missionaries and linguists engaged in identifying and separating these two dialects in the
1930s and 1940s, acknowledging that Ituri Kingwana actually revealed more pidginized
forms than Lualaba Kingwana. He also summarizes missionaries’ attempts at transforming
these into a “Union Ngwana”, a unified and partly standardized variety especially used for the
translation of the Bible, yet not spoken.
Few more detailed materials from colonial times are accessible and those that are are only
helpful to a limited extent. Colonial descriptions of Congo Swahili varieties were mostly
prescriptive and cannot be used as actual evidence for dialectal divergence, as they were
mostly oriented at coastal varieties such as Kiunguja; among them are Hunter (1959),
Whitehead & Whitehead (1928), and Les Frères Maristes (1952), to name but a few from
different regions. Some others, especially lexical materials (Lenselaer 1983, Spinette 1960)
and a collection of proverbs (Sabiti 1976), were closer to speakers’ actual realization than the
before-mentioned sources. While Hunter (1959) and Whitehead & Whitehead (1928) focus on
eastern/northeastern varieties, Les Frères Maristes (1952) deal with the variety from
Kisangani. Lenselaer (1983) includes various dialects and Spinette’s short wordlist is based
on entries collected in Ituri and Kisangani.
Apart from the (early) distinction between Lualaba Kingwana and Ituri Kingwana,
recurrent in Bible translators’ works and prescriptive grammars from the 1920s onwards, the
variety often described as Copperbelt Swahili, Shaba Swahili, or Lubumbashi Swahili,
pejoratively also known as Potopoto Swahili (University of Hawai’i Press 1975, Fabian 1991),
or later as Katanga Swahili, can be seen as the best studied variety spoken in the southeast of
the country, and offers a different historical background for its emergence (for an overview,
see Fabian 1986). Due to its partly descriptive rather than only prescriptive focus, being closer
to the morphosyntactic properties of Congo Swahili than to ECS, the manual “Éléments de
Kiswahili véhiculaire à l’usage des militaires de la base de Kamina” (compiled by de la
Lindi [1938] for the Ministère de la Défense Nationale,) is worth mentioning; it sketches the
use of this Swahili variety from the southeast for colonial soldiers by listing basic orders,
requests, etc. Fabian (1986), however, offers a more extensive overview of early travelogues,
wordlists and sketches than can be included here.
The confusion about dialectal/regiolectal differences and their localization on the map was
surely also based on the fact that at the time of these overviews (1980s-1990s) the state of
documentation was poor for most varieties, as it was only in the 1980s that Walter Schicho and
Johannes Fabian began working on Shaba Swahili/Katanga Swahili/Lubumbashi Swahili in the
southeast of former Zaire, and that Goyvaerts (1986, 2007), Wilt (1988) and Kaji (1982, 1985,
1992) began their descriptive work on the variety from the Kivu provinces (Kivu Swahili;
labeled Bukavu Swahili by Goyvaerts). Today’s scarcity of more detailed studies, however, can
be partially explained with the political situation and prevalent insecurity in parts of Eastern DR
Congo, and to some extent with the challenges of drawing clear boundaries between the
11
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
varieties or establishing isoglosses. Speakers’ extensive migration, either based on trade or
forced, due to conflict, as well as the rural exodus, have contributed to fluid boundaries between
these varieties and to larger convergence areas. Moreover, in most areas, Swahili is speakers’
second, third, or fourth language, with considerable influence from other languages.
In Nurse & Hinnebusch’s (1993) extensive study, Congo Swahili varieties are only
marginally dealt with, while in other dialectological overviews a considerable degree of
confusion is caused by inadequate cartographic localizations or glossonyms, as in Möhlig
(1995: 44-45), who lists only Ngwana, which he locates around today’s Lubumbashi
(Katanga), while not indicating any Swahili variety for the areas further north (Kivus, Ituri,
etc.). Maho (2009) differentiates between “Shaba Swahili/Katanga Swahili/Lubumbashi
Swahili (G40F)” and “Ngwana/Kingwana/Congo Swahili (G40G)”. While Shaba Swahili is
correctly marked on the map, the latter is placed a bit further north, adjacent to Lake
Tanganyika, which actually does not correspond with the areas where either Kivu Swahili,
Bunia Swahili or Kisangani Swahili is spoken. Another problem generally consists in
assuming an apparent unity or homogeneity across varieties of Congo Swahili. While most
colleagues generally do not distinguish different varieties or regiolects, others make modest
distinctions: Goyvaerts (2007) differentiates, for instance, between the language of his study,
Bukavu Swahili (in the present classification subsumed under Kivu Swahili), and
Lubumbashi Swahili, as the two most dominant or widespread varieties, but leaves out others,
presumably due to a lack of adequate accessible data. In most studies, Kisangani Swahili,
spoken at the northwestern utmost periphery of Congo Swahili, is entirely left out,
presumably due to its emergence as urban contact language in a convergence zone of Swahili
and Lingala, which therefore receives less recognition as a separate dialect, especially due to
the incorporation of some forms that look more like Bunia Swahili and others that look more
like Kivu Swahili, due to the speakers’ steady contact with the different urban centers.
However, its morphosyntactic and lexical features mark it clearly as distinctive variety. From
the 1970s on, however, as predecessors to current studies, a few descriptive papers were
written (Rzewuski 1974, Gilman 1970, 1979, Machozi 1989).
Three of the four varieties, namely Kivu Swahili, Kisangani Swahili and Lubumbashi
Swahili, share a range of morphosyntactic patterns and also reveal somewhat similar phoneme
inventories. The fourth variety, Bunia Swahili/Ituri Kingwana, is, however, both
morphologically different and deviates lexically and phonologically from these other Congo
Swahili varieties. Morphological evidence clearly shows patterns replicated from non-Bantu
languages such as the Central Sudanic Ngiti, Lendu and so forth (see also Nassenstein &
Dimmendaal 2020), affecting (optional) plural marking (Nassenstein 2017b) and other
characteristics. Certain peculiarities in phonology (that are recurrent in all other Congo
Swahili varieties) and also lexical retentions that are not “reintroductions” (Shinagawa, this
volume) based on language contact, reveal, however, that Bunia Swahili seems to be
12
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
somewhat closer to coastal varieties in this regard (see also Deans 1953 for a similar
observation). This makes a reconsideration of the widely accepted entry ports of Swahili into
the Congo basin necessary. Apart from the well-described entry across Lake Tanganyika, as
well as to the north and south of the lake (Goyvaerts 1986, Fabian 1986), and the introduction
of Swahili by Belgian authorities in Shaba/Katanga, many sources (Stigand 1968/1923,
Czekanowski 1924, Southall 1954, among others) point to a potential historical contact of
local (Alur, and other) communities with Swahili speakers northeastwards and eastwards of
Lake Albert, for instance due to existing trade networks. This makes an introduction of
Swahili to Ituri thinkable, beyond the common view of Swahili having been introduced to
Ituri as a result of early scattered slave traders’ posts and of Stanley’s Emin Pasha Relief
Expedition (1886-1889) along the Aruwimi/Ituri river, which included Swahili-speaking
Zanzibari and Manyema troops.
While sufficient linguistic evidence contributes to a more thorough understanding of
variation along the coast (as based on Möhlig 1995, for instance), over the past decades there
have been few data available for the varieties in the interior parts of the country. Hitherto, no
study has analyzed phonological/lexical isoglosses, or, as a potentially more promising
approach, pursued patterns of parametric variation (see Section 4.2); however, more recent
studies of the different Swahili regiolects used in DR Congo have focused on lexicon and
morphosyntax, and to a minor extent also on (the admittedly similar) phonology.
Morphosyntactic variation is described for Kisangani Swahili by Nassenstein (2015), for Kivu
Swahili by Nassenstein & Bose (2016), for Lubumbashi/Katanga Swahili by Ferrari et al.
(2014) 15, and in some overview articles for Bunia Swahili/Ituri Kingwana (Nassenstein 2017b,
Nassenstein & Dimmendaal 2020). The results of these dialectal studies lead to a suggested
fourfold classification of Congo Swahili, or Western Swahili, as also indicated in Map (2):
Figure 5: Western Swahili
Kivu Swahili (historically Lualaba Kingwana; also known as Bukavu/Goma Swahili)
Bunia Swahili/Ituri Kingwana (its historical name, sometimes shortened to Kingwana)
Kisangani Swahili (an urban contact variety from Kisangani and the surrounding areas)
Lubumbashi Swahili/Katanga Swahili (historically Shaba Swahili/Copperbelt Swahili)
15
Numerous studies are available for this variety and far from all of them are mentioned here; early sketches by
Polomé (1969) and Schicho (1980) were followed in more recent years especially by Fabian (1986), Schicho
(1982), Kapanga (1993), De Roij (1996) and Ferrari et al. (2014).
13
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Other, less distinctive contact varieties and contact zones, such as Bujumbura (Nassenstein,
this volume), West Nile (Nassenstein 2017a) and Swahili as used in Rwanda are not included
in the map. It is debatable whether they can be seen as separate dialects/regiolects. 16
Map 2: Congo Swahili dialects and their approximate extension
Equally, sociolects based on these Congo Swahili varieties require a more profound analysis,
as they are widely un(der)studied. There are very few available studies on youth registers
from the Congo. Goyvaerts’ (1988, 1996) papers on the youth and secret language
phenomena Indoubil and Kibalele from Bukavu (South Kivu), an unpublished manuscript by
Kutsch Lojenga (2009) on Kilungunya, a play language or ludling from Bunia (Ituri), a few
papers on the youth language Yabacrâne from Goma (North Kivu) by Nassenstein (2016) and
16
It has to be noted that throughout the Western Swahili sphere, specific communities, especially of Muslim
faith, use more standardized or more coastal-sounding Swahili, which is often classified as “Swahili bora” by
their direct neighbors. This has mostly historical reasons. Some of these areas are towns and cities in Maniema
Province, as well as along the northern shores of Lake Tanganyika (Uvira, Fizi, and southward to Kalemie).
14
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Bose (2018), as well as Mulumbwa's (2009) study on Kindubile youth language from
Lubumbashi (Katanga) are modest steps into this direction. These varieties will be further
dealt with in Section 2.3.
2.3 Emerging registers and simplified varieties
As part of the broad diversification of Swahili (Blommaert 1990), also emerging sociolects,
youth registers/practices and simplified contact dialects need to be taken into consideration.
Apart from the dialects that are listed in the dialectological overview maps, Maho (2009) also
lists the Swahili-based youth language practices Sheng and Engsh, first attested in the Kenyan
capital Nairobi. While Sheng quickly expanded and became a language of wider
communication beyond Nairobi as well, Engsh is English-based and remains more restricted
to the capital (Barasa & Mous 2017). According to Maho’s (re)classification, Sheng receives
the letter-digit combination G40E and Engsh G40D. Apart from the well-studied Sheng, for
which there are several extensive descriptive, sociolinguistic and ethnographic studies (for
instance Rudd 2008, Ferrari 2009, Samper 2002, Wairungu 2014, Githiora 2019; see also
Shinagawa, this volume) and its lesser known equivalent Engsh, other sociolects are also
included by Maho (2009: 96-97), who further lists Asian Swahili/Kibabu (G40A), Cutchi
Swahili (G40B), Kisetla/Settla/Settler Swahili (G40C), and KiKAR/Kikeya (G40H). While
some of these are well-described, others are not treated in studies, and evidence for their use
is actually rare. Moreover, Maho’s list is not exhaustive. In terms of youth language practices
or youth registers based on Swahili, Goyvaerts (1996) provided a short description of
Kibalele, a slang predominantly used by criminals in Bukavu (South Kivu, DR Congo), and
of Indoubil, a youth language also diffused in Bukavu, the largest urban center in the area. In
Goma (North Kivu, DR Congo), the youth language Yabacrâne (sometimes also labeled
Yakicrâne, sometimes not attributed with a specific label at all) is reportedly used by young
gang members, sportsmen and others (Bose 2018).
This random list surely does not cover all emergent linguistic practices that are used by
speakers and is also problematic due to the mixture of (geographically distributed) dialects
undoubtedly separated by isoglosses, with sociolinguistic practices whose communities of
speakers and areas of diffusion can hardly be limited (see also Section 4.2 for a practice-based
approach to variation). Very often these are rather context-based registers that function on the
basis of processes of “enregisterment” of speakers associating the register in question with
specific social images and groups.
15
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
The pidginization and to a lesser extent creolization 17 of Swahili varieties has been at the
center of academic attention, with a range of studies that describe early contact dialects and
their simplified structure and functional use. The following simplified varieties and practices
are recurrent in the literature:
Figure 6: “Swahili pidgins” and simplified practices 18
Contact varieties in the context of white settler communities and colonialism
Up-country Swahili (Le Breton 1936): Kenya
Kisetla/Kisettla (Vitale 1980): Kenya
Kenya Pidgin Swahili (Heine 1973, 1979, 1991, Heine & Kuteva 2007): Kenya
Kishamba (Vitale 1980)/Kitchen Swahili (Wilkes 1931): Kenya/Uganda?
Contact varieties used by Asian migrants
Kihindi (Vitale 1980): Kenya/Zanzibar
Asian Swahili/Kibabu (Maho 2009): Kenya
Cutchi Swahili/Kacchi Swahili/Jungbari Ithnashri Kiswahili (Maho 2009): Zanzibar 19
Creative play languages/twin languages
Kisisi (Gilmore 1979, 2011, 2015): Kenya
Army Swahili
Kivita (Vitale 1980)/KiKAR (Mutonya & Parsons 2004)
Pidginized Swahili in literary works
Hemingway’s pidginized Swahili (Kitunda 2011, Walsh 2010 20)
Simplified Swahili in touristic encounters
Coasti Slang (Nassenstein 2016b): Kenya
“Hakuna Matata Swahili” (Nassenstein 2019, Mietzner & Storch 2019): Kenya
While other varieties that have been analyzed in recent years or that are currently being
studied also reveal processes of pidginization and simplification (for example Bunia
17
See also Dimmendaal (2011) for a more detailed discussion of pidginization and creolization processes in the
broader subdiscipline of Historical Linguistics.
18
Apart from the studies on specific pidginized varieties, there are also two overview articles that look at
pidginization from a historical angle, namely Nurse’s (1996) contribution “Prior pidginization and creolization
in Swahili” and Wald’s (1981) paper on “Swahili pre-pidgin and pidgin in Coastal Kenya”.
19
For more explanations, see also http://www.dewani.ca/af/Forum/jungbarikiswahili.htm and http://www.de
wani.ca/af/Forum/zbarkhuchi.htm. Apart from these sources and some songs that can be found on YouTube,
no linguistic study was available. On the first of the indicated websites, it is described as follows: “This
Jangbari dialect evolved as a result of the situation then, a total blend of Kutchi Khoja ancestry, the influence
of Zanzibar's Waswahili and their Swahili and the vernacular of the school being Gujarati. It originated way
back from the nineteenth century” [last accessed on 15-07-2019]. We are also thankful to Kumiko Miyazaki
for providing us with information on Cutchi Swahili.
20
See https://notesandrecords.blogspot.com/2010/10/bad-swahili-and-pidgin-swahili-in.html [last accessed on
15-07-2019].
16
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Swahili/Ituri Kingwana, Kisangani Swahili, etc.), they are not listed here due to the focus on
contact phenomena and the broader regional context (as one of a range of Eastern Congo
regiolects) in these studies (see Section 2.2).
3. Established approaches to Swahili varieties with a longer tradition
Since Krapf’s early missionary work in the mid-1850s, more than one and a half centuries of
Swahili scholarship have yielded a range of approaches to the study of variation in Swahili,
either focusing on descriptive work, on dialectometrical analyses, lexicostatistics, and more
recently on methodological approaches such as parametric variation and practice-based
sociolinguistics. In the following, we aim to sketch some of the key methodological
approaches to variation in Swahili that are recurrent frameworks in numerous studies.
3.1 Early descriptive studies
Early descriptive grammars were often compiled by missionaries and focused on the more
prestigious coastal varieties, before Swahili was standardized and implemented as major
lingua franca during colonial rule. The main competing varieties that were described in early
grammars were Kiunguja from Zanzibar, as studied by Steere (1870) in his handbook, and
other competing varieties such as Kimrima and Kimvita. Krapf, a missionary from the Church
Missionary Society, translated the Bible into the Kimvita dialect of Mombasa, compiled a
grammatical description with Rebmann (1850) and later published a dictionary (1882). While
Sacleux (1909) was well acquainted with all these sources, he dealt with ten dialects in his
study, among them what is often labeled as Kimrima, a coastal dialect of northern Tanzania (a
term that is rejected by Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 11) as it is a geographical designation);
he favored and promoted Kiunguja, however. Stigand (1915) deals with various dialects and
offers very short overview sketches, some of varieties which are no longer or only marginally
spoken. The rather prescriptive colonial studies of Congo Swahili/Western Swahili varieties
have already been mentioned (Section 2.3) and will not be repeated here; especially due to the
fact that their focus is in most cases not a descriptive linguistic one.
Among the most cited descriptions of Kiunguja are Polomé (1967) and Ashton (1944);
despite their non-canonical structure they still range among the overview studies that are
considered as state of the art (to some extent). Schadeberg’s (1992) short sketch, Mohamed’s
(2001) pedagogical grammar and Mpiranya’s (2015) learner’s grammar also range among the
works represented on the bookshelves of most Africanists, partly didactic, partly descriptive,
yet all dealing with Kiunguja. Bakari (1985) presents an overview study of Kenyan Swahili
dialects, with a focus on morphological variation, and Racine-Issa (2002) offers a detailed
description of the Kikae dialect from Zanzibar. More recent descriptive studies deal with
urban dialects, such as a short sketch of Nairobi Swahili in Deen’s (2005) work on acquisition,
17
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
and sketches of Bukavu Swahili (Wilt 1988, already mentioned in Section 2.2) and
Lubumbashi Swahili (Ferrari et al. 2014), just to mention a few. While the genre of
descriptive grammars for specific dialects has not become obsolete, it has, with the growing
body of scholarly literature, given way to other methodological approaches and analyses, as
will be sketched in the following.
3.2 Dialectology/Dialectrometry
The scholarly interest in dialectal differences in Swahili, especially along the East African
coast, has led to a range of studies with a dialectometrical focus since the 1980s (among them,
predominantly Möhlig & Winter 1980, Möhlig 1983, Möhlig 1984/85, Möhlig 1986, and
Möhlig 1995 explicitly for Swahili dialects); in this approach, phonological isoglosses, lexical
items and also morphological forms can be compared and their relationship can be analyzed.
Möhlig (1986: 56), in a study of Sabaki languages from the coast, including major Swahili
dialects (among them Tikuu, Siyu, Pate, Amu, Mvita, Chirasi, Vumba, Pemba, Makunduchi
and Mwani – dialect names as listed by the author), explains the levels of dialectometrical
analysis as threefold, consisting of a purely linguistic lexical dialectometry, a lexical
dialectometry of geographical qualification, and phonological dialectometry.
Methodologically, in dialectometrical studies both the number of differentiating features
between varieties is important but also the weighting of these isoglosses and the frequency
with which certain features occur (see also Dimmendaal [2011: 164-167] for a concise
overview). In general, a list of lexical items numbering between 100 and 633 is chosen,
adapted to African languages in terms of the core and more specific cultural vocabulary that
are included. The ratings start from 30 (absolute identity), with 20 (partial phonological
divergence) for shared roots but for instance phonological and morphological divergence,
while 0 is the value rating when the root is a different one (ibid.: 165). After several more
steps, the calculation eventually reveals the difference between dialects based on the observed
isoglosses (see, for instance, Figure 7 for some northern Swahili dialects, taken from Möhlig
1995) and can also be presented diagrammatically, with the connecting lines between dialects
being of different strengths; bold lines show dialects that are closer to each other. Möhlig
(1995: 58) lists the lexical dialectometrical relations between the Northern Swahili dialects as
follows, with Amu as the first (formerly influential) dialect and showing its relationship with
the surrounding dialects (see below).
Figure 7: Lexical dialectometrical analysis of Northern Swahili dialects (Möhlig 1995: 58)
Amu
90
94
97
91
92
Tikuu
91
89
81
85
Siu
96
86
86
Pate
87
88
Mvita
98
Jomvu
18
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Full’s (2006) dialectometrical analysis of Comorian languages has contributed to more
recent dialectological insights into Swahili (and neighboring languages). Due to the relatively
high amount of data and a lack of diachronic information, dialectometry is less often applied
today. However, more recent papers have rediscovered an interest in dialectology, yet with a
different direction. Githinji & Njoroge’s (2017) analysis of speakers’ perceptions (for the
framework, see Preston 1999) makes a contribution to the field of perceptual dialectology and
how speakers’ attitudes toward varieties and their ideologies concerning their own
language(s) affect their localization of other speakers.
3.3 Lexicostatistics 21
In their influential study, Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993) argue that “phonological criteria do not
always provide a conclusive analysis of the classification and development of a set of closely
related languages”; apart from the Comparative Method, alternative solutions can be obtained
through lexicostatistics, according to the latter. Based on this method, one is able to “attempt
to assemble a total picture in the different linguistic changes that have taken place in the
evolution of the Sabaki languages” (ibid.: 24). Swadesh (1952, etc.) initially developed the
method, first targeting languages with a long written history in order to determine when and
which languages split off from other related languages, and how many retentions in basic
vocabulary could be attested over time. The general assumption in this approach is that
changes in the vocabulary occur in languages at approximately the same pace. For the
Swadesh wordlist of 100/200 entries, a rate of retention of around 86% over the course of
1000 years is assumed. With a specific algorithm, Swadesh then calculated the time span of
vocabulary loss (see Dimmendaal 2011: 71-74).
Heine (1973), Nurse & Phillipson (1980), Hinnebusch (1981, with a lexicostatistical and
phonological focus), Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993, with different approaches combined),
Hinnebusch (1999) and Nurse (1999, with reference to different Bantu subgroups in East
Africa) have then extensively applied statistical methods to Sabaki/Swahili and the
classification of East African Bantu languages. In their often-cited framework, Nurse &
21
Our focus here lies on lexicostatistical methods; we will not deal with the broader (and to some extent
encompassing) “comparative method” in a separate subsection. The comparative method looks back on a
longer tradition and encompasses a wide range of methods and principles, having emerged in the study of
Indo-European languages, and involving “the establishment of lexical and grammatical cognates, the
reconstruction of their historical development, techniques for the subclassification of related languages, and
the use of language-internal evidence, more specifically the application of so-called ‘internal reconstruction’”
(Dimmendaal 2011: 1). This chapter does not intend to introduce general notions of historical-comparative
linguistics, based on the intention of working out genetic relationships between languages and reconstructing
earlier stages, but rather focuses on lexicostatistics as one of the major strands in the study of Swahili.
19
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Hinnebusch (1993) differentiate, based on their results, between ND1 (the Northern Dialects
Mwiini, Tikuu, Siu, Pate, Amu, (Malindi), the Mombasa dialects and potentially also
Chifundi), ND2 (Mwiini, Tikuu, Siu, Pate, Amu), ND3 (Tikuu, Siu, Pate, Amu) and SD (the
Southern Dialects Vumba, Mtang’ata, Pemba, Tumbatu, Makunduchi, [Unguja], Mafia,
[Kilwa?] and [Mgao?]). 22 Hinnebusch (1996: 78) summarizes thus:
[W]hile the ND set stands out lexicostatistically, the SD set does not.
Lexicostatistically Swahili consists of a core cluster of ND dialects with the others
chained incrementally to the core in a typical continuum. Thus, it is only ND that
is positively subgrouped while SD is not, although parts of SD do subgroup, e.g.,
Pemba, Tumbatu, Makunduchi, and Unguja.
The following overview is adapted from Hinnebusch (1996: 76-77) and summarizes Nurse &
Hinnebusch’s (1993) internal Sabaki averages in order to see how “Sabaki” Swahili actually
is (Figure 8); and also how cohesive some of the Swahili dialects are with regard to others
(Figure 9).
Figure 8: Sabaki internal averages (Hinnebusch 1996: 76)
Comorian
Mijikenda
Pokomo
Swahili
81%
73%
73%
74%
Figure 9: Swahili internal averages
ND (Am, Pa, Si, Ti)
ND + Mombasa area
SD (Ung, Pe, Vu, etc.)
Zanzibar and Pemba dialects
22
89%
82%
72%
72%
Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993) come to the conclusion that ND1 has good support, especially phonologically and
morphologically, which lets them establish a Proto-ND1, positing a ND1 area around the Lamu archipelago in
the 9th century, and also assuming early contact with Dahalo (p. 507). For ND2, they list a range of
phonological innovations that occurred after the split from ancestral Mvita and define it as a solid grouping (p.
508). ND2 further reveals some innovations that are also shared by Comorian. For the ND3 group, they state
that phonological and morphological innovations are clear and more significant than the lexicostatistical data,
which cannot be doubted, but may also result from lexical convergence. They further observe that there is a
contradiction in SD, with no clear lexicostatistical unity or lexical evidence but certain conservative
phonological features and some recurrent tense-aspect innovations that are common across SD and that hint
toward a Proto-SD (p. 512).
20
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
This shows that the “Swahili dialect continuum is as cohesive lexically as the Pokomo
dialect chain or as the Mijikenda cluster of dialects, but not as cohesive as Comorian”, and
also that Northern Dialects are more cohesive than Southern Dialects. This is due to the
different histories of specific dialects; some of the Swahili internal averages (ND) further
reveal similar rates to Sabaki groupings such as Comorian in Figure 8 (for a more detailed
overview, see also Hinnebusch [1999: 204], providing a “Sabaki lexicostatistical table”).
Nurse (1999: 5) further summarizes for NEC (North-East-Coast) that the findings mark it
as a solid grouping, while, “[g]iven this geographical and linguistic spread, and the two
millenia since the protolanguage, there is considerable divergence, especially at its edges”. He
further discusses the methodological challenge of whether to include closely-related
languages along the Mozambican coast, for example Mwani (see Schadeberg 1995, among
others). Another issue raised by Nurse (1999: 7) is the fact that the proto-period was probably
very brief and did not allow for numerous lexical/non-lexical innovations (see also Nurse &
Hinnebusch 1993: 288-289), while the following 2000-year period led to a high degree of
divergence.
4. Predominant approaches to variation in this volume
Apart from general descriptions of peripheral varieties and salient patterns of variation in
contact situations, two major strands are represented in this volume, namely the approach to
the diversity of Swahili varieties and contact settings through the study of microvariation, and
a more interdisciplinary sociolinguistic approach to variation that understands language as
social practice, performed in communities of practice, alongside other social practices (Eckert
2000).
4.1 Microvariation
One of the two guiding methodologies of this work is the so-called microvariation studies,
which may be defined as linguistic investigations into structural variation among languages
closely related in terms of genetics and/or geographical distribution by means of typologically
micro-level parameters. 23 It primarily aims to describe such structural diversity and to clarify
23
As suggested here, the term “microvariation” may implicate two different facets of the framework (thus it can
be understood in two different ways). One is about the scope of investigation, i.e., sample languages are
restricted to those genetically and geographically closely related, and the other is about the granularity of
parameters, i.e. they are more detailed, fine-grained, and specific to the structural features of languages
investigated than those used in general macro-typology. Not only in the context of descriptive/typological
study but also in formalistic/theoretical study (cf. Barbiers 2009, Brandner 2012 etc.), the general usage of the
21
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
typological principles that explain the intra-genetic or areal typological diversity that may not
be covered by large-scale sampling typology (see Daniel 2011). Based on data obtained
through consistent and fine-grained parameters designated to capture structural microvariation
found in target languages, this framework also helps us approach issues regarding: i) extremes
of structural complexity exhibited by the target languages, ii) possible ranges of structural
diversity observed in genetically related languages, and iii) diverging and converging
mechanisms of language change due to both inter- and intra-genetic language contact. 24
While pilot attempts at microvariation study were made in regional varieties of European
languages such as Dutch (Barbiers et al. 2005) and Italo-Romance languages (Benincà &
Poletto 2007), the first application of this framework to Bantu languages was made by Marten
et al. (2007). 25 In order to capture the morphosyntactic micro-typological variation in a
systematic way, they set up 19 parameters regarding verbal morphology (object marking
strategies etc.) and syntactic features in specific constructions (double object, relative,
locative inversion, conjoint/disjoint, etc.), and provide future perspectives on the study of
Bantu microvariation. Following this seminal paper, current studies have further developed a
more fine-grained parameter set consisting of 142 micro-parameters covering a broad range of
morphosyntactic components (Guérois et al. 2017, then also adapted by Shinagawa & Abe
2019 in a recent study of a range of East African Bantu languages). As summarized in Section
5, several papers in this volume adopt this framework for the analysis of different varieties.
4.2 Practice-based sociolinguistics
The second method is based on current approaches in sociolinguistics and focuses on
performance, style and practice in the interactions of Swahili speakers. Beyond established
and more traditional approaches to the social context of language use, for example by
shedding light on social variables and social networks and studying Swahili “sociolects” as
demarcated varieties (such as Kisetla, Sheng, or Yabacrâne), a redefined approach targets
speakers’ linguistic and extralinguistic practices as part of a broader performance within a
community of practice (CoP) (a term initially introduced by Lave & Wenger 1991). A
term tends to point at the former concept, especially when it is mentioned in relation to intra-genetic typology
or areal typology. However, it should be stressed that our intention of adopting the framework of
microvariation study is significantly motivated by the latter concept as well.
24
One of the main aims of a leading project in Bantu microvariation study, “Morphological variation in Bantu:
Typology, contact and change” (PI. Lutz Marten, hosted at SOAS, 2014-2018) was exactly this point.
25
It is important to note that there have been pioneering works of cross-Bantu linguistic survey carried out, for
example, by Bantuist linguists based in Tervuren (e.g. Bastin 1983), which may be characterized as “itembased” research (in that most of the parameters are set up to check the presence or absence of a specific
element, etc.).
22
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
different understanding of sociolinguistic practices includes the analysis of linguistic
stylization and means acknowledging individuals’ fluid language use beyond stable “codes”,
which becomes more obviously significant when looking at some of the above-listed youth
language practices in the Swahili-speaking areas (Section 2.3). These should be understood as
registers, or as “styles” of speaking and performing Swahili, rather than considering them as
countable or classified varieties (which, as a critique of Maho’s 2009 updated list, suggests that
we should not incorporate these as “‘new’ languages in the Bantu area”; (Maho 2009: 96-97).
A turn toward a more practice-oriented sociolinguistics, which in the field of
sociolinguistics is no longer a novelty, although it is certainly not the most applied method in
the field of Swahili, can be related to Eckert’s (2012) ‘three waves of variation study’.
While the ‘first wave’, according to Eckert, constituted a classic approach to
sociolinguistic variation, through the analysis of social parameters such as age, gender, social
class etc., the ‘second wave’ focused on an ethnographic approach, through the “attribution of
social agency” to the varieties of language among certain groups as expressive means of a
“local or class identity” (ibid.: 91). The third wave, finally, focuses on stylistic issues rather
than on static concepts of social parameters or categories (like age, gender, etc.) as the major
triggers for variation (first wave), or on the static concept of networks of speakers and group
affiliation (second wave). The third wave thus focuses on the “reflection of social identities
and categories to the linguistic practice” (ibid.: 94), where speakers position themselves in
certain spaces of society through means of stylistic linguistic practices.
This also implies a focus on the fluid nature of language, performances, speakers’ social
lives and practices, whereby the idea of discrete “language systems” seems to be outdated,
particularly in terms of sociolinguistic contexts. In terms of the linguistic practices of East
African youths (for an overview and a first seminal paper, see Kießling & Mous 2004), this
has been methodologically implemented for instance by scholars who study poetic texts in
their context (Samper 2002, Ferrari 2004, 2006, Vierke 2015) and who analyze poetic aspects
of Sheng in their contextual practices, as well as in an early study by Abdulaziz & Osinde
(1997), who collected anecdotes. Literary texts, subsuming reading, writing and narrated
stories within youths’ social practices, also have to be included; see for instance Maillu
(1989), Shinagawa (2006), and others. Other studies focus on practice through participant
observation, as suggested by Beyer (2015) and as carried out by Wairungu (2014). More
holistic approaches to speakers’ practices are also promoted by Beck (2015: 55-57) in her
study of Sheng; she emphasizes that all kinds of text need to be included and considers
language as a “fluid knowledge sediment with particular routines attached to it that is
incrementally operationalized, invoked and put to use in a particular situation”. In more
general sociolinguistic scholarly work, numerous examples for this turn could be cited;
instead, we will turn to look at the contexts that are dealt with in the present volume, offering
a broader perspective on specific practices.
23
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Some of the papers in this issue treat Swahili as fluid linguistic practice, for instance as
part of a heteroglossic repertoire of Ugandan speakers and their multilingual practices; as a
highly contextual practice that depends upon the situational context of speech and its
pragmatic aspects, as in the case of Burundian speakers and the variability of their Swahili; in
terms of fluid (trans)languaging among multilingual Tanzanian speakers; and as a very
common and everyday register variation among speakers of Kivu Swahili in the Congo. This
frames the understanding of language varieties as “ways of speaking”, rooted deeply in
Hymes’ (1974) work on the ethnography of communication and also found in linguistic
anthropology and (interactional) sociolinguistics alike, where apart from the study of the
grammatical foundations, the study of linguistic styles becomes essential, researched by
means of ethnographic methods. Processes of “enregisterment” (Agha 2003) and the indexical
value of language (Silverstein 1993) also need to be included in the analysis here, when
focusing on the shift from fixed social variables and demarcated sociolects toward fluid
practice, stylization, its motivations and social meaning.
5. About this volume
The papers contributed to this issue vary in terms of the varieties they deal with as well as
frameworks on which they are based. Regarding varieties, we can categorize them into four,
namely i) Coastal varieties, including various forms of Zanzibar Swahili and the rarely
described north coast variety Chimiini, ii) Sheng as an urban contact variety, iii) “Old Swahili”
as a diachronic variety (or a succession of varieties), and iv) Inland or “upcountry” varieties
strongly affected by language contact, including Swahili in the southern rural areas of
Tanzania, as well as Congolese Swahili, Swahili in Northern Uganda and in the Burundian
capital Bujumbura. In the following, we provide a brief overview of each paper.
Miyazaki and Takemura show dialectal microvariation in Zanzibar Swahili, ranging from
lexical to morphosyntactic aspects, with empirical data collected through their fieldwork.
Based on this data, they cast doubt on the generally recognized dialectal classification, which
basically relies on geographical proximity, and thus propose a combined approach consisting
of traditional description and micro-typological analysis to capture a more precise picture of
typological features of Zanzibar varieties and their classification.
Primarily comparing the two Zanzibar varieties, Kimakunduchi and Kiunguja, Furumoto
proposes a novel understanding of the historical development of the aspectual prefix -me-,
found in both varieties but with different (yet related) functions. One of the striking proposals
he makes is that the marker -me- found in a number of Swahili dialects has developed from
perfect to perfective, reflecting a cross-linguistically widespread path of change. Support for
this analysis of the historical development can also be seen in data from another southern
dialect, Kitumbatu, in which the cognate prefix -ma- is found.
24
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
In their overview paper, Mumin and Dimmendaal provide a sketch of Chimiini, originally
spoken in southern Somalia (Brava), and nowadays mostly diffused in adjacent Kenya and the
diaspora. In their concise study, the authors summarize the most salient phonological and
morphological properties of the language as well as patterns of variation among speakers,
based on an extensive data corpus. Apart from morphophonological features, they discuss
how the language also served as a marker of stigmatization and exclusion in Somalia, and
how the community was marginalized. Emblematic features that indexically refer to social
categories such as clans and lineages are also included in the analysis.
There are two papers dealing with the urban contact variety Sheng, which is said to have
emerged in Nairobi as early as the 1970s and is currently spreading across generational and
geographical boundaries. In his paper titled “Syntactic distribution of relativizers and the
development of -enye RC in Sheng”, Shinagawa attempts to clarify the unique distribution
pattern of relative clause constructions in Sheng. He further investigates the use of -enye
‘having’ as a relativizer, one of the common features shared with other inland varieties but not
with the “standard” variety, and proposes a distributional scale of -enye which explains how
this element may have developed across the varieties from a structural point of view.
Investigating diverse varieties, ranging from diachronic ones (“Old Swahili”) to
contemporary ones including Sheng, Gibson, Mapunda, Marten, Shah and Taji explore the
morphosyntactic microvariation of object marking from a micro-typological approach. Based
on an overview of object marking with reference to the cross-Bantu database of
morphosyntactic microvariation (Marten et al. 2018), they focus on non-canonical structures
(as distinct from those with a single pre-stem object maker), namely emphatic object doubling
in Old Swahili, double object marking in Sheng, and the verb-final enclitic -ni as (part of) 2nd
person plural marking, etc., and discuss their historical and typological relationships.
Regarding the inland varieties and the process of expansion and contact with indigenous
(mostly Bantu) languages, we have five papers in this issue. Kaji investigates how Swahili
expanded far into eastern Congo, especially considering the structural properties of languages
involved in the process. His main point of discussion is that the linguistic influences between
Swahili and indigenous languages are not unidirectional from the former to the latter but that
the process of linguistic transfer should be regarded as bidirectional and that the structural
(including lexical taxonomic) influence of indigenous languages on Swahili is by no means
dismissible. He explains this point by showing linguistic parallels between one of the
Congolese Swahili varieties spoken by the Tembo people, living on the western shore of Lake
Kivu, and their native language, Tembo (Bantu JD531).
Kutsukake and Yoneda also investigate the interrelationship between Swahili and
indigenous languages spoken in rural parts of southern Tanzania, focusing on current
situations of multilingual dynamism. Not only do they mention the process of localization of
25
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Swahili (“ethnic-languagized Swahili” in their terms), they also describe “Swahilization”
processes of indigenous languages based on their field recordings of natural conversation,
consisting of different linguistic resources. Referring also to speakers’ self-awareness about
the language they think they are using in a specific conversation, which can sometimes be
mismatched with the main linguistic resource adopted in the same conversation, they propose
that what happens in the speakers’ minds can be better described as “translanguaging” (cf.
García & Wei 2014) rather than as simple (and conscious) code-switching; they argue that
such a dynamic linguistic practice is actually rather positive for indigenous languages, as they
are not considered to be completely distinct in rapidly changing multilingual settings in Africa.
In his contribution, Nassenstein sheds light on the variety of Swahili spoken in the urban
setting of Bujumbura, the Burundian capital. Based on a brief sociohistorical overview of its
emergence linked to German colonial times (when Germany ruled over what was formerly
known as Ruanda-Urundi) and on a description of the most prominent divergent
characteristics of this variety, he focuses on its variability. Depending upon the conversational
setting and the interlocutors, a speaker adapts his agreement patterns and also specific
realizations of some TA markers and the copula either to a more Tanzanian-sounding or a
more Congolese-sounding Swahili. This structural adaptability is, according to Nassenstein,
based on a broad knowledge of different varieties of Swahili (in the Burundian corridor
between the two other countries) and on matters of prestige and status (for example, knowing
that the widespread habitual/imperfective aspectual marking -ak in pre-final position is
reminiscent of Congo Swahili etc.). As a contribution to the study of urban contact varieties
of Swahili in East Africa, the paper also includes the notion of “metrolingualism” (Pennycook
& Otsuji 2015), with Bujumbura serving as an urban multilingual “playground” as a primary
sociolinguistic prerequisite for language change and variation in Swahili.
Lorenz analyzes the sociolinguistics of Swahili and its use in multilingual speakers’
repertoires in Gulu, the urban center of Northern Uganda (Acholiland), introducing the
subject by offering a brief historical overview of Swahili as used in Uganda. Based on
partially quantitative analysis and sociolinguistic interviews, he analyzes the use of Swahili in
Ugandans’ everyday language and compares the domains, context and frequency of Swahili
with speakers’ L1 language, Acholi, as well as English, Luganda and others. Treated as part
of the (often neglected) “periphery” of the Swahili-speaking world, the analysis of the
language ecology of Gulu intends to answer the question of speakers’ (and non-speakers’)
attitudes toward Swahili and the efficiency of further implementation and promotion of
Swahili on a political level, seen from the angle of peripheral actors.
Bose describes and compares Kivu Swahili from a perspective of different “ways of
speaking”, focusing on ethnicity and in-group cohesion. While Kivu Swahili is often
described as an amalgamation of the city dialects spoken in Goma (North Kivu) and Bukavu
(South Kivu, see also Goyvaerts 2007), the author stresses the variability of Kivu Swahili
26
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
when used by speakers from different ethnic backgrounds. Specific ethnicized realizations can
be employed by speakers as community-building strategies but can equally be leveled or
omitted (for example in case one’s specific variety of Swahili is regarded negatively or
ridiculed), or can used mimetically in order to mock or ostracize people. The social functions
of different realizations of Kivu Swahili question the apparent homogeneity claimed in
numerous dialectal studies and show the broad variability of language, and especially the
adaptability of speakers.
Pasch and Kumbatulu focus on lexical borrowings from Swahili recurrent in the Ubangian
language Pazande, highlighting language contact scenarios between Bantu and non-Bantu
languages in a convergence area of the northeastern Bantu borderlands. While several of the
loanwords discussed are easy to trace, others have entered the language via the widespread
vehicular languages Bangala and Lingala. The long-term presence of Swahili speakers from
the time of the Arab-Zanzibari penetration into the Congo basin onwards shows how complex
contact scenarios are, and that chains of lexical and grammatical borrowings function across
other languages. Especially in an area such as the eastern CAR, the Uele Provinces of DR
Congo and South Sudan, where Arabic was for a long time much more widespread than
Swahili, the paper sheds new light on the role of Swahili in trade and migratory waves of
individual speakers.
In her afterword, Miehe summarizes different perspectives on Swahili based on dominant
directions in Swahili research during the 20th century and also presents an outlook on
potential further directions in the study of the language and its varieties.
6. What we can gain from a new look at variation in Swahili: Outlook on further
studies
Despite its good state of documentation compared to other African languages and despite the
fact that Swahili is the Sub-Saharan language with the highest number of speakers, a new
special issue on linguistic variation is far from redundant. Apart from specific neglected areas
and contact settings, the dominant methodological approaches sketched in this introductory
paper still need to be rethought more radically.
What is repeatedly addressed in the papers contributed to this volume is that there are more
diverse phenomena in currently spoken Swahili varieties than those reported in previous
studies and that the diversification processes are vigorous and ongoing in many parts of the
current – and still expanding – Swahili-speaking world. Contact phenomena between Swahili
and other indigenous and/or socially prestigious European languages are regarded as
bidirectional interactions and this dynamism brings constant fluidity to the grammatical
27
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
system of existent varieties, resulting in structural diversification, which provides a challenge
for the future study of micro-parametric typology.
From a sociolinguistic viewpoint, language contact situations, which may even lead to the
emergence of novel varieties, are usually motivated and driven by social factors such as
migration, urbanization, border crossing, computer-mediated communication, etc. – often in
relation to fluid “translanguaging” practices and based on communities of practice determined
and (self-)defined by extralinguistic parameters as well. In these contexts, “style” plays a
major role, in a theoretical turn that is often described as “third-wave sociolinguistics” (based
on Eckert 2012), and no longer limited to Labov’s (1966) more static view of fixed social
variables that induce a specific language behavior, nor to Milroy & Milroy’s (1985)
understanding of variation as mainly dependent upon speakers’ social networks (see also
Section 4.2). At times, especially in the context of youth language practices, these community
transformations may then give birth to new “stylects” (cf. Hurst 2008, 2009), as a stylization
of language going hand-in-hand with other community-constituting factors; a sort of
(socio)linguistic change that deviates from models of straightforward language shift/change.
The practice-based approach of sociolinguistics has been adopted in order to provide a better
understanding of such dynamic multilingual settings, and the field of study within this
framework will continue to expand as long as multilingual situations in the Swahili-speaking
world continue to change so vibrantly.
Another field of further exploration is the description and documentation of less known or
endangered varieties. As suggested in several papers in this volume, there remain a number of
(possible) varieties whose socio/linguistic details are still unclear. Such languages include
some small (and possibly historical) coastal dialects spoken in Zanzibar, as well as in islands
further south, such as Comoros and Madagascar; varieties of “localized” Swahili that are still
growing; and the ever developing urban varieties. These under-documented varieties should
also be included in scholars’ future research agenda under the framework pursued by several
authors represented in this volume. Apart from well-known dialects and the predictable
outputs of contact settings, the “northern Bantu borderland” (Tucker & Bryan 1958/2017 is in
particular need of recentering in further contact studies, where Bantu languages are in
constant contact with non-Bantu languages and therefore reveal interesting and often
understudied contact features (see also Kumbatulu & Pasch, this volume). This includes
Swahili in contact with the Eastern Nilotic languages Kakwa/Bari, Maa (Drolc 1999), with
the Central Sudanic languages Lendu, Ngiti, Lugbara and others, with Western Nilotic
speakers of Acholi, Alur and Dholuo, and with those who communicate in (Juba) Arabic or
Kinubi (Luffin 2014). Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993: 26) also mention early contact between
Swahili/Sabaki varieties and non-Bantu languages, such as for instance between Elwana and
Dahalo, Mwiini and Somali (see also the sketch of Chimwiini in this volume), as well as
innovations in Comorian which can be explained due to contact with an old form of Malagasy.
28
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
While existing and well-known studies have focused on broader linguistic areas
(Sprachbünde) across language phyla, such as for instance Heine & Kuteva (2005), a Swahilicentered focus on the northern Bantu borderlands could specifically focus on replication
patterns found in (restructured) Swahili in Ituri (DR Congo) or West Nile (Uganda).
Multilingual speakers’ broad repertoires often include both Bantu and non-Bantu languages,
leading to idiolectal or dialectal realizations that no longer correspond with a narrower
understanding of Bantu structure (see, for instance, Bunia Swahili/Ituri Kingwana and its
lectal variation, Nassenstein & Dimmendaal 2020). 26
Language and mobility, especially in an era of tremendous waves of migration within or
adjacent to Swahili-speaking areas (from DR Congo and Burundi to Uganda and Rwanda,
from South Sudan to Uganda, from Burundi to Tanzania, etc.), surely ranges among the most
pressing topics in sociolinguistics. These complex settings are characterized by prevailing and
often long-lasting violent conflicts that have a major impact on language ecology and
speakers’ concrete language repertoires. Ruptures within and across communities, large
numbers of IDP and regroupings of speakers in refugee camps or far from their original
places of origin constantly impact on the Swahili(s) spoken by these mobile individuals. The
ongoing conflict has for instance contributed to the spread of Kivu Swahili in Eastern DR
Congo as far as Kisangani and into Ituri. Also, ethnic tensions as they occurred in Kenya in
2007 (and to a lesser extent also in subsequent years) leave their footprint in people’s speech
behavior and their awareness with regard to “ethnic registers” of Swahili and Sheng (see, for
instance, Kioko 2015 on this matter; see also Bose this volume) and need to be taken into
consideration when linguistic variation is addressed.
Language and tourism, also located in the broader field of mobility, yet in contrast as a
growing economic resource in East Africa, has moved into the focus of linguists’ attention
more recently, and is still expanding as a topic in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology
(for a more general study, see for instance Phipps 2007). A recent volume by Mietzner &
Storch (2019) focuses on the Kenyan coast and on tourist-host interactions in philanthropic
26
While some of the structural deviations represent common processes of linguistic change evolving over time
(as has occurred for instance in Kivu Swahili and Katanga Swahili, based on specific contact settings and also
social factors, cf. Labov 2001), others reflect speakers’ free variations that are idiolectal and dependent upon
the social and pragmatic context of a specific utterance or communicative action. In Kisangani, for instance,
speakers can employ as much of a broad linguistic repertoire with divergent realizations of Swahili
(Nassenstein 2015) as they can in Bujumbura, where both Congolese and Tanzanian dialects are widespread
(Nassenstein, this volume). In Bunia Swahili/Ituri Kingwana, speakers can choose out of three lects, whereby
an acrolectal, mesolectal, or basilectal realization represents a single speaker’s choice and potentially marks
his/her identity. Thomason (1999) and Lüpke & Storch (2013) address speakers’ choices in processes of
language change.
29
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
tourism (Mietzner 2019); in this context simplified Swahili at the beach is also analyzed
(Nassenstein 2019), sometimes with specific reference to strategies of concealment, taboos
and sex tourism (Nassenstein 2016b). Young beach vendors often use a contact language
labeled as “Coasti Slang”, which combines lexical items from tourist languages such as
German, French and Italian with a Swahili matrix and certain morphosyntactic features from
local Mijikenda languages. This and other emerging practices deserve a more thorough and
in-depth analysis as well, as they yield insights into processes of rapid socioeconomically
triggered change that also affects language.
There is a growing body of literature, mostly compiled by anthropologists and/or social
geographers, on the dynamicity and translocality of cultural concepts, mobile economies and
sociocultural transfer from the East African coast across the Indian Ocean to places such as
Oman, Dubai, Mauritius, the Comoros etc. (see, among others, Declich 2018, Verne 2012).
These studies, which usually focus on migrant and diasporic communities, also include
linguistic aspects, of course. However, specific linguistic studies on translocal Swahili and
linguistic transfer are not yet available. However, in linguistic analyses of the mobility and
sociolinguistic dynamicity of Swahili speakers, varieties and contact phenomena, they have to
be taken into consideration – and can serve as inspiring ethnographic studies that may also
have an impact on newly emerging linguistic ethnographies of Swahili-speaking communities.
The increasing importance of virtual or mobile communication in social media is also
reflected by scholars’ recent studies (Shen 2017), and can be expected to yield still more
results in the future. The use of Swahili in media such as movies or computer games is also a
rather new and aspiring field of research (Thomas 2017, among others).
Exciting new strands of research will hopefully also allow a closer look at variation in
Swahili in remote and unusual settings, where few and often marginalized speakers make use
of the language, such as for instance among heritage speakers on the island of Nosse Be
(Madagascar), the use of Swahili by South Sudanese hip hop musicians and cross-border
traders between Kampala and Juba, among Congolese soldiers in the capital Kinshasa (at its
westernmost point of diffusion), or in its divergent realizations among groups of Rwandan,
Burundian and Congolese immigrants in Brussels 27 , or among Kenyans, Ugandans and
Tanzanians in London-based diasporic communities (Hadjivayanis 2015).
27
In analogy with Meeuwis (1997), who has conducted a study on Lingala among Congolese and BelgoCongolese speakers in Brussels.
30
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to numerous friends and colleagues for their valuable comments, effortful
reviews, their shared ideas and research output, which have all greatly contributed to the present
volume. We warmly thank Angelika Mietzner, Vincent de Rooij, Eva-Marie Bloom Ström,
Yuko Abe, Xavier Luffin, Michael Meeuwis, Malin Petzell, Rasmus Bernander, Koen Bostoen,
Sebastian Dom, Peter Githinji, Chege Githiora, Lotta Aunio, John G. Kiango, Holger Tröbs,
Axel Fleisch, Brent Henderson, Shuichiro Nakao, Bernd Heine, Connie Kutsch Lojenga,
Maarten Mous, Maren Rüsch, Anne Storch, Georges Mulumbwa and Maya Abe for their help
with the reviewing process and their overall support. The volume is based on the joint research
project “An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to the Diversity and Dynamics of Swahili Varieties”
(ILCAA, TUFS; 2018-2021). 28 We are grateful for the generous funding and for our colleagues’
participation in joint activities and regular meetings. Parts of the contributions and of the
introduction were presented at an organized conference panel at the University of Cape Town
(Sintu7) in 2018, as well as discussed during several research stays (between 2017 and 2019) at
SOAS/London, TUFS/Tokyo, and at Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz. We are moreover
indebted to all authors for their contributions and to all editors of Swahili Forum for their help
and work. We are indebted to Mary Chambers for carefully checking our English, and to
Frederik Weck and Joshua Hirschauer for formatting all papers. All common disclaimers apply
in terms of shortcomings and errors.
References
Abdulaziz, Mohammed & Osinde, Ken. 1997. Sheng and Engsh: Development of a mixed
code among the urban youth in Kenya. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 125: 43-63.
Agha, Asif 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication 23: 231-273.
Amidu, Assibi A. 1997. Classes in Kiswahili. A Study of their Forms and Implications.
Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Amidu, Assibi A. 2006. Pronouns and Pronominalizations in Kiswahili Grammar. Cologne:
Rüdiger Köppe.
28
See http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/en/projects/jrp/jrp240 [last accessed on 15-07-2019].
31
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Ashton, Ethel O. 1944. Swahili Grammar (Including Intonation). London: Longmans, Green
& Co.
Bakari, Mohamed. 1985. The Morphophonology of the Kenyan Swahili Dialects. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer.
Barasa, Sandra Nekesa & Maarten Mous. 2017. Engsh, a Kenyan middle class youth language
parallel to Sheng. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 32(1): 48-74.
Bastin, Yvonne. 1983. Essai de classification de quatre-vingts langues bantoues par la
statistique grammaticale. Africana Linguistica IX: 9-108.
Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans, Devos, Magda, Vogelaer, Gunther de & Margreet van der Ham
2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND), Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Barbiers, Sjef. 2009. Locus and limits of syntactic microvariation. Lingua 119: 1607-1623.
Belt, Lianne. 2010. How linguistic features and social arrangements can interrelate: The
position of Swahili and its speakers in Bujumbura. Researching Africa, ed. by Mirjam
de Bruijn & Daniela Merolla. Leiden: African Studies Centre. pp. 76-88.
Benincà, Paola & Cecilia Poletto 2007. The ASIS enterprise: a view on the construction of a
syntactic atlas for the Northern Italian dialects. Nordlyd 34(1), ed. by Øystein A.
Vangsnes, Kristine Bentzen & Peter Svenonius. pp. 35-52.
Beck, Rose Marie. 2015. Sheng: an urban variety of Swahili in Kenya. Youth Languages in
Africa and Beyond, ed. by Nico Nassenstein & Andrea Hollington. Berlin: de Gruyter
Mouton. pp. 51-79.
Beyer, Klaus. 2015. Youth language practices in Africa: achievements and challenges. Youth
Languages in Africa and Beyond, ed. by Nico Nassenstein & Andrea Hollington.
Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 23-49.
Blommaert, Jan. 1990. Standardization and diversification in Kiswahili. Kiswahili 57: 22-32.
Blommaert, Jan. 1992. Codeswitching and the exclusivity of social identities: Some data from
Campus Kiswahili. Codeswitching, ed. by Carol M. Eastman. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. pp. 57-70.
Bose, Paulin Baraka. 2018. More than youth language: The multiple meanings of Yabacrâne
(DR Congo). The Mouth 3: 199-205.
Brandner, Ellen. 2012. Syntactic microvariation. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(2):
113-130.
32
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Czekanowski, Jan. 1924. Forschungen im Nil-Kongo Zwischengebiet, Recherches dans le
territoire intermédiaire entre Nil et Congo, 2 Vols. Leipzig: Klinkhardt & Biermann.
Daniel, Michael. 2011. Linguistic typology and the study of language. The Oxford Handbook
of Linguistic Typology, ed. by Jae Jung Song. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
43-68.
Deans, William A. 1953. Congo-Swahili, a lingua franca of Central Africa. Bible Translator
4(2): 77-82.
Declich, Francesca (ed.). 2018. Translocal Connections across the Indian Ocean: Swahili
Speaking Networks on the Move. Leiden: Brill.
Deen, Kamil Ud. 2002. The Acquisition of Nairobi Swahili: The Morphosyntax of
Inflectional Prefixes and Subjects. PhD thesis, UCLA.
Deen, Kamil Ud. 2005. The Acquisition of Swahili. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De la Lindi, Henry. 1938. Éléments de Kiswahili véhiculaire à l’usage des militaires de la
base de Kamina. Brussels: Ministère de la Défense Nationale, État Major de la Force
Aérienne.
Der-Houssikian, Haig 2009. Innovations on the fringes of the Swahili-speaking world:
Observations from Bujumbura. The Languages of Urban Africa, ed. by Fiona
McLaughlin. London/New York: Continuum. pp. 178-190.
De Rooij, Vincent A. 1996. Cohesion through Contrast: Discourse Structure in Shaba
Swahili/French Conversations. Amsterdam: Ifott.
De Rooij, Vincent A. 2005. Popular Swahili Texts in Books and Articles: An Annotated
Bibliography. http://www.lpca.socsci.uva.nl/elsewhere.html (last accessed on 18-062018).
Dimmendaal, Gerrit, J. 2011. Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African
Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Drolc, Ursula. 1999. Swahili Among the Maasai: On the Interlanguage Swahili by Maa
Speakers. Munich: LINCOM.
Duran, James J. 1975. The Role of Swahili in a Multilingual Rural Community in Kenya.
PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
33
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the
study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87-100.
Fabian, Johannes. 1991. Potopot: Problems of documenting the history of spoken Swahili in
Shaba. Swahili Studies, ed. by Jan Blommaert. Gent: Academia Press. pp. 17-44.
Fabian, Johannes. 1986. Language and Colonial Power. The Appropriation of Swahili in the
Former Belgian Congo 1880–1938. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of
California Press.
Ferrari, Aurélia. 2004. Le sheng: Expansion et vernacularisation d'une variété urbaine hybride
à nairobi. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of African Linguistics, ed. by
Akinbiyi Akinlabi & Oluseye Adesola. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. pp. 479-495.
Ferrari, Aurélia, 2006. Vecteurs de la propagation du lexique Sheng et invention perpétuelle
de mots. Le Franç̠ais en Afrique 21: 227-237.
Ferrari, Aurélia. 2009. Emergence de langues urbaines en Afrique: Le cas du Sheng, langue
mixte parlée à Nairobi. Louvain: Peeters.
Ferrari, Aurélia, Marcel Kalunga & Georges Mulumbwa. 2014. Le Swahili de Lubumbashi.
Grammaire, textes, lexique. Paris: Karthala.
Full, Wolfram. 2006. Dialektologie des Komorischen. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
García, Ofelia & Li Wei 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education,
New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gilman, Charles. 1970. Indicateurs de la variation stylistique dans le swahili de Kisangani.
Revue Congolaise des Sciences Humaines: 58-62.
Gilman, Charles. 1979. Convergence in Lingala and Zairian Swahili. Anthropological
Linguistics 21(2): 99-109.
Gilmore, Hugh. 2011. Taught to the tune of the hickory stick: Swahili simplified.
http://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/blog/2011/04/21/taught-to-the-tune-of-a-hickorystick-swahili-simplified (last accessed on 15-07-2019).
Gilmore, Perry. 1979. A children’s pidgin: The case of a spontaneous Swahili Pidgin for two.
Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 64: 1-38.
Gilmore, Perry. 2015. Kisisi (Our Language): The Story of Colin and Sadiki. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
34
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Githinji, Peter & Martin Njoroge. 2017. Folklinguistic perceptions and attitudes towards
Kenyan varieties of Swahili. Swahili Forum 24: 62-84.
Githiora, Chege. 2019. Sheng: Rise of a Kenyan Swahili Vernacular. Suffolk: James Currey.
Goyvaerts, Didier. 1986. Language and History in Central Africa. Antwerp Papers in
Linguistics 44: 1-283.
Goyvaerts, Didier. 1988. Indoubil: A Swahili hybrid in Bukavu. Language and Society 17:
231-242.
Goyvaerts, Didier. 1996. Kibalele: Form and function of a secret language in Bukavu (Zaire).
Journal of Pragmatics 25(1): 123-143.
Goyvaerts, Didier. 2007. Bukavu Swahili: Tense, Aspect and Blurry History. Journal of Asian
and African Studies 74: 5-33.
Goyvaerts, Didier & Tembue Zembele. 1992. Codeswitching in Bukavu. Codeswitching, ed.
by Carol M. Eastman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 71-82.
Guérois, Rozenn, Hannah Gibson & Lutz Marten. 2017. Parameters of Bantu
morphosyntactic variation: Draft master list. Alpha version, last amended 28 Dec.
2017. Leverhulme Project ‘Morphosyntactic Variation in Bantu: Typology, contact
and change’. SOAS, University of London.
Guthrie, Malcolm. 1967-1971. Comparative Bantu: An Introduction to the Comparative
Linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages. Farnborough: Gregg Press.
Hadjivayanis, Ida. 2015. Integration and identity of Swahili speakers in Britain. Journal of
East African Studies 9(2): 231-246.
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath. 2019. Glottolog 4.1. Jena: Max
Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://glottolog.org (accessed on
27-03-2020).
Harries, Lyndon. 1955. Swahili in the Belgian Congo. TNR 39: 12-15.
Heine, Bernd. 1973. Pidgin-Sprachen im Bantu-Bereich. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Heine, Bernd. 1979. Some linguistic characteristics of African-based pidgins. Readings in
Creole Studies, ed. by Ian F. Hancock. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp.
89-98.
Heine, Bernd. 1991. On the development of Kenya Pidgin Swahili. Kontakt und
Simplifikation: Beiträge zum 6. Essener Kolloquium über “Kontakt und Simplifikation”
35
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
vom 18.-19.11.1989 an der Universität Essen, ed. by Norbert Boretzky, Werner
Enninger & Thomas Stolz. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer. pp.
29-54.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva (eds.). 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig. 1980. Geographical and Historical Introduction,
Language and Society, Selected Bibliography (Language and Dialect Atlas of Kenya,
Vol. 1). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Hillewaert, Sarah. 2015. Writing with an accent: Orthographic practice, emblems, and traces
on Facebook. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 25(2): 195-214.
Hinnebusch, Thomas J. 1981. Northeast Coastal Bantu. Studies in the Classification of
Eastern Bantu Languages, ed. by Thomas J. Hinnebusch, Derek Nurse & Martin
Mould. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. pp. 21-125.
Hinnebusch, Thomas J. 1996. What kind of language is Swahili? AAP 47: 73-95.
Hinnebusch, Thomas J. 1999. Contact and lexicostatistics in Comparative Bantu studies.
Bantu Historical Linguistics, ed. by Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman. CSLI:
Leland Stanford Junior University. pp. 173-203.
Hunter, William F. 1959. A Manual of Congo Swahili Grammar. Goma: La Mission Baptiste
du Kivu.
Hurst, Ellen. 2008. Style, Structure and Function in Cape Town Tsotsitaal. PhD thesis,
University of Cape Town.
Hurst, Ellen. 2009. Tsotsitaal, global culture and local style: identity and recontextualisation
in twenty-first century South African townships. Social Dynamics 35(2): 244-257.
Hymes, Dell H. 1974. Ways of speaking. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by
Richard Bauman & Joel Sherzer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 433452.
Kaji, Shigeki. 1982. Enquête préliminaire sur la phrase Swahili du Zaїre. Multilingualism in
Swahili-speaking Area, ed. by Y. Wazaki. Toyama: University of Toyama. pp. 75-120.
36
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Kaji, Shigeki. 1985. Deux mille phrases de Swahili tel qu'il se parle au Zaïre. Tokyo: The
Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies.
Kapanga, Mwamba Tshishiku. 1991. Language Variation and Change: A Case Study of
Shaba Swahili. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kapanga, André Mwamba. 1993. Shaba Swahili and the processes of linguistic contact.
Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization, ed. by
Francis Byrne & John A. Holm. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 441458.
Karangwa, Jean de Dieu. 1995. Le Kiswahili dans l’Afrique des Grands Lacs. Contribution
Sociolinguistique. PhD thesis, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales
Paris.
Kießling, Roland & Maarten Mous 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological
Linguistics 46(3): 303-341.
Kioko, Eric M. 2015. Regional varieties and ‘ethnic’ registers of Sheng. Youth Language
Practices in Africa and Beyond, ed. by Nico Nassenstein & Andrea Hollington. Berlin:
de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 119-147.
Kitunda, Jeremiah M. 2011. Love Is a Dunghill... And I'm the Cock ... Myths and Legends of
the Swahili. Nairobi: Heinemann Educational.
Krapf, Johann Ludwig & Johannes Rebmann. 1850. Outline of the Elements of the Kisuaheli
Language with Special Reference to the Kinika Dialect. Fues: Tübingen.
Krapf, Johann Ludwig & Johannes Rebmann. 1882. Dictionary of the Suahili Language, with
Introduction Containing an Outline of a Suahili Grammar. London: Träuber.
Reprinted, revised, and rearranged: Farnborough, 1965.
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 2009. Kilungunya. A newly discovered and endangered secret
Bantu language spoken in D.R. Congo. Paper presented at WOCAL6, University of
Cologne, August 2009.
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Social Factors, Vol. 2 (Language in
Society). Oxford: Blackwell.
37
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Breton, F. H. 1936. Up-country Swahili Exercises: For the Settler, Miner, Merchant and
their Wives, and for All who Deal with Up-country Natives without Interpreters.
Richmond: R.W. Simpson.
Lenselaer, Alphonse. 1983. Dictionnaire Swahili-Français. Paris: Éditions Karthala.
Les Frères Maristes. 1952. Swahili. Swahili-Français, Français-Swahili. Grammaire,
exercices, conversations, lectures, vocabulaires. Stanleyville: Editions des Frères
Maristes.
Luffin, Xavier. 2014. The influence of Swahili on Kinubi. Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages 29(2): 299-318.
Lüpke, Friederike & Anne Storch. 2013. Repertoires and Choices in African Languages.
Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Machozi, Tshopo. 1989. Le parler kiswahili de Kisangani: Variations morphologiques et
lexicales. Annales Aequatoria 10: 141-152.
Maho, Jouni Filip. 2009 NUGL online: The online version of the New Updated Guthrie List,
a referential classification of the Bantu languages. https://brill.com/fileasset/
downloads_products/35125_Bantu-New-updated-Guthrie-List.pdf (last accessed on
24-02-2019).
Maillu, David. 1989. Without Kiinua Mgongo. Nairobi: Maillu Publishing House.
Marten, Lutz, Nancy C. Kula & Thwala Nhlanhla. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic
variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 253-358.
Marten, Lutz, Peter Edelsten, Hannah Gibson & Rozenn Guérois. 2018. Bantu Morphological
Database. Online database hosted at SOAS, University of London.
http://bantu.soas.ac.uk (last accessed on 27-08-2019).
Mazrui, Ali AlʼAmin & Alamin M. Mazrui. 1995. Swahili State and Society: The Political
Economy of an African Language. Nairobi: East African Publishers.
Meeuwis, Michael. 1997. Constructing Sociolinguistic Consensus: A Linguistic Ethnography
of the Zairian Community in Antwerp, Belgium. PhD thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen.
Miehe, Gudrun. 1979. Die Sprache der älteren Swahili-Dichtung: Phonologie u Morphologie.
(Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde Vol. 18). Berlin: Reimer.
38
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Mietzner, Angelika. 2019. Cameras as barriers of understanding: Reflections on a philantropic
journey to Kenya. Language and Tourism in Postcolonial Settings, ed. by Angelika
Mietzner & Anne Storch. Bristol: Channel View Publications. pp. 66-80.
Mietzner, Angelika & Anne Storch. 2019. Linguistic entanglements, emblematic codes and
representation in tourism: Introduction. Language and Tourism in Postcolonial
Settings, ed. by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Bristol: Channel View
Publications. pp. 1-17.
Millman, William. 1917. Petit vocabulaire de français-anglais-swahili. Congo: Soc. des
Missions Bibliques.
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker
innovation. Linguistics 21: 339-384.
Miner, Edward A. 2002. Discursive constructions of KiSwahili speakers in Ugandan popular
media. Political Independence with Linguistic Servitude: The Politics about
Languages in the Developing World, ed. by Samuel Gyasi Obeng & Beverly Hartford.
New York: Nova Science Publishers. pp. 53-73.
Mohamed, Mohamed Abdulla. 2001. Modern Swahili Grammar. Nairobi: East African
Educational Publishers.
Möhlig, Wilhelm J. G. 1983. Dialektometrie in Afrika: Methoden zur Messung synchroner
sprachlicher Nähe. Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur in Afrika. Vorträge gehalten auf
dem III. Afrikanistentag, Köln 14./15. Oktober 1982, ed. by Rainer Voßen & Ulrike
Claudi. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. pp. 209-242.
Möhlig, Wilhelm J. G. 1984-1985. The Swahili dialects of Kenya in relation to Mijikenda and
to the Bantu idioms of the Tana Valley. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6: 253-308.
Möhlig, Wilhelm J. G. 1986. Introduction à la dialectométrie synchronique. La méthode
dialectométrique appliqué aux langues africaines, ed. by Gladys Guarisma & Wilhelm
J. G. Möhlig. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. pp. 15-26.
Möhlig, Wilhelm J. G. 1995. Swahili Dialekte. Swahili Handbuch, ed. by Wilhelm J. G.
Möhlig & Gudrun Miehe. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. pp. 41-62.
Möhlig, Wilhelm J. G. & Jürgen Christoph Winter. 1980. Language and dialect atlas of
Kilimanjaro. Recent German Research on Africa: Language and Culture/Rapport sur
la recherche Africanistique allemande: Langue et culture, Part 1/1ère partie, ed. by
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, and the Institute for Scientific Cooperation,
Tübingen. pp. 62-69.
39
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Mpiranya, Fidèle. 2015. Swahili Grammar and Workbook. London/New York: Routledge.
Mulumbwa, G. 2009. Étude sociolinguistique du Kindubile, argot Swahili des enfants de la
rue de Lubumbashi. PhD thesis, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Université Libre de
Bruxelles.
Mutonya, Mungai & Tim H. Parsons. 2004. KiKAR: A Swahili variety in Kenya’s colonial
army. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 25: 111-125.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1979. The context is the message: morphological, syntactic and
semantic reduction and deletion in Nairobi and Kampala varieties of Swahili.
Readings in Creole Studies, ed. by Ian F. Hancock, Edgar Charles Polomé, Morris F.
Goodman & Bernd Heine. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. pp. 111-127.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Social Motivations for Codeswitching. Evidence from Africa.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2015. Kisangani Swahili. Choices and Variation in a Multilingual Urban
Space. Munich: LINCOM.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2016a. The new urban youth language Yabacrâne in Goma (DR Congo).
Sociolinguistic Studies 10(1-2): 233-258.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2016b. Mombasa’s Swahili-based ‘Coasti Slang’ in a super-diverse space:
Languages in contact on the beach. African Study Monographs 37(3): 117-143.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2017a. Kiswahili in West Nile (Uganda): Notes on its function and
realization. Paper presented at Baraza Conference, SOAS/London, 14 October 2017.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2017b. Pluractional marking in Bunia Swahili (Ituri Kingwana). STUF
(Language Typology and Universals) 70(1): 195-213.
Nassenstein, Nico. 2019. The Hakuna Matata Swahili. Linguistic souvenirs from the Kenyan
coast. Language and Tourism in Postcolonial Settings, ed. by Angelika Mietzner &
Anne Storch. Bristol: Channel View Publications. pp. 130-156.
Nassenstein, Nico & Paulin Baraka Bose. 2016. Kivu Swahili Texts and Grammar Notes.
Munich: LINCOM.
Nassenstein, Nico & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. 2020. Bunia Swahili and emblematic language
use. Journal of Language Contact 12 (2019): 823-855.
Nassenstein, Nico & Andrea Hollington (eds.) 2015. Youth Language Practices in Africa and
Beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
40
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Nurse, Derek. 1982. A tentative classification of the primary dialects of Swahili. Sprache und
Geschichte in Afrika 4: 165-205.
Nurse, Derek. 1997. Prior pidginization and creolization in Swahili? Contact languages: A
Wider Perspective, ed. by Sarah G. Thomason. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. pp. 271-294.
Nurse, Derek. 1999. Toward a historical classification of East African Bantu languages. Bantu
Historical Linguistics, ed. by Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman. CSLI: Leland
Stanford Junior University. pp. 1-35.
Nurse, Derek & Thomas J. Hinnebusch. 1993. Swahili and Sabaki: A Linguistic History.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Nurse, Derek & Gérard Philippson. 1980. The Bantu Languages of East Africa: A
Lexicostatistical Survey. Language in Tanzania, ed. by Edgar C. Polomé &
Christopher P. Hill. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 26-67.
Nurse, Derek & Thomas Spear, 1985. The Swahili: Reconstructing the History and Language
of an African Society, 800-1500. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pawliková-Vilhanová, Viera. 1996. Swahili and the dilemma of Ugandan language policy.
Asian and African Studies 5(2): 158-170.
Pennycook, Alastair & Emi Otsuji. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. New York:
Routledge.
Phipps, Alison. 2007. Learning the Arts of Linguistic Survival: Languaging, Tourism, Life,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Polomé, Edgar C. 1963. Cultural languages and contact vernaculars in the Republic of the
Congo. Texas Studies in Literature and Language 4(4): 499-511.
Polomé, Edgar C. 1967. Swahili Language Handbook. Washington: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Polomé, Edgar C. 1968. Swahili Pidgins. Typescript, the University of Texas/Austin.
Polomé, Edgar C. & P. C. Hill (eds.). 1980. Language in Tanzania. London: Oxford
University Press.
Preston, Dennis R. 1999. A language attitude approach to the perception of regional variety.
Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol. 1, ed. by Dennis R. Preston.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 359-373.
41
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Racine-Issa, Odile. 2002. Description du Kikae. Parler Swahili du sud de Zanzibar. Suivi de
cinq contes. Leuven: Peeters.
Rudd, Philipp W. 2008. Sheng: The Mixed Language of Nairobi. PhD thesis, Ball State
University, Muncie.
Rzewuski, Eugeniusz. 1974. Asili ya Bangwana – Origine des Bangwana. Enregistrements de
la tradition orale relative à l’histoire de la communauté musulmane de Kisangani.
Africana Bulletin 21: 117-146.
Sabiti, Taabu, 1976. Proverbes et dictons en Swahili et en Kingwana. Lubumbashi: Editions
Saint-Paul – Afrique.
Sacleux, Charles. 1909. Grammaire des dialectes swahilis. Paris: Procure des R. P. du Saint
Esprit.
Sacleux, Charles. 1939. Dictionnaire swahili-francais. Paris: Paris Institut d'Ethnologie.
Samper, David. 2002. Talking Sheng: The Role of a Hybrid Language in the Construction of
Identity and Youth Culture in Nairobi, Kenya. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Schadeberg, Thilo. 1992. A Sketch of Swahili Morphology. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Schadeberg, Thilo. 1995. Swahili und die Sprachen von Mosambik. ABP (Afrika-AsienBrasilien-Portugal) 1: 30-39.
Schicho, Walter. 1980. Kiswahili von Lubumbashi. Mit Texten von Mbayabo Ndala. Beiträge
zur Afrikanistik 10. Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und
Ägyptologie der Universität Wien.
Schicho, Walter (ed.). 1981. Le groupe Mufwankolo (en collaboration avec Mbayabo Ndala).
Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 20. Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik
und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien.
Schicho, Walter. 1982. Syntax des Swahili von Lubumbashi. Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 16.
Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der
Universität Wien.
Shen, Yuning. 2017. Building a twitter corpus for Swahili. Paper presented at the Swahili
Colloquium 2017, Universität Bayreuth.
Shinagawa, Daisuke. 2006. Particularities of Sheng in written texts. SITES 4(1): 119-137.
42
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Shinagawa, Daisuke. 2007. Notes on the morphosyntactic bias of verbal constituents in Sheng
texts. HERSETEC: Journal of Hermeneutic Study and Education of Textual
Configuration 1(1): 153-171.
Shinagawa, Daisuke & Yuko Abe (eds.). 2019. Descriptive Materials of Morphosyntactic
Microvariation in Bantu. Tokyo: ILCAA.
Silverstein 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. Reflexive Language,
ed. by John A. Lucy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 33-58.
Southall, Aidan W. 1954. Belgian and British administration in Alurland. Zaïre 1954: 467486.
Spinette, J. 1960. Vocabulaire Kingwana-Français (Kiswahili). Environ 1.300 mots et
expressions rassemblés en Ituri et à Stanleyville. Bruxelles: Direction de l’Agriculture,
des Forêts et de l’Élevage et de la Colonisation.
Ssempuuma, Jude. 2017. Language crossings in transnational music cultures: Bottom-up
promotion of Kiswahili through music industry in Uganda. Contested Communities:
Communication, Narration, and Immigration, ed. by Susanne Mühleisen. Leiden: Brill.
pp. 261-276.
Steere, Edward. 1870. Swahili Tales as Told by Natives of Zanzibar. London: Bell & Daldy.
Steere, Edward. 1894/1870. A Handbook of the Swahili Language as Spoken at Zanzibar.
Revised by A.C. Madan. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Stigand, Chauncey Hugh. 1915. A Grammar of Dialectic Changes in the Kiswahili Language,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stigand, Chauncey Hugh. 1968/1923. Equatoria. The Lado Enclave. London: Frank Cass & Co.
Storch, Anne. 2018. Linguistic landscapes of tourism – A case study from Zanzibar.
Linguistics across Africa, ed. by Klaus Beyer, Gertrud Boden, Bernhard Köhler &
Ulrike Zoch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. pp. n.a.
Storch, Anne & Angelika Mietzner. 2015. A multilingual standard. On super-diverse
repertoires in rural Uganda. Paper presented at The Sociolinguistics of Globalization:
(De)centring and (De)standardization, University of Hong Kong, June 2015.
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society 96: 452-463.
43
NICO NASSENSTEIN & DAISUKE SHINAGAWA
Thomas, Jamie A. 2017. Using Zombies to teach collaborative scholarship and born-digital
publishing. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 43(5):
21-26.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 1999. Speakers’ choices in language change. Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences 29(2): 19-43.
Tucker, Archibald Norman & Margaret A. Bryan. 1958/2017. Linguistic Survey of the
Northern Bantu Borderland. Vol. 4, Languages of the Eastern Section, Great Lakes to
Indian Ocean. London: Routledge.
University of Hawai’i Press. 1975. Swahili: Kingwana and other simplified forms. Oceanic
Linguistics Special Publications 14, A Bibliography of Pidgin and Creole Languages.
pp. 676-690.
Van den Eynde, Félix. 1944. Grammaire Swahili, suivie d'un Vocabulaire (2nd edition).
Bruxelles: Editorial Office/H. Wauthoz-Legrand.
Van Spaandonck, Marcel. 1965. Practical and Systematical Swahili Bibliography; Linguistics,
1850-1963. Leiden: Brill.
Verne, Julia. 2012. Living Translocality: Space, Culture and Economy in Contemporary
Swahili Trade. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Vierke, Clarissa. 2015. Some remarks on poetic aspects of Sheng. Youth Language Practices
in Africa and Beyond, ed. by Nico Nassenstein & Andrea Hollington. Berlin: de
Gruyter Mouton. pp. 227-256.
Vitale, Anthony J. 1980. KiSetla: Linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of a Pidgin Swahili in
Kenya. Anthropological Linguistics 22: 47-65.
Wairungu, Michael. 2014. “A Language of Many Hats”: The Rise of Sheng and Other
Linguistic Styles among Urban Youth in Kenya. PhD thesis, University of Virginia.
Wald, Benji. 1981. Swahili pre-pidgin, pidgin, and depidginization in Coastal Kenya: A
systematic discontinuity in non-first varieties of Swahili. Historicity and Variation in
Creole Studies, ed. by Arnold Highfield & Albert Valdman. Ann Arbor: Karoma. pp.
7-26.
Walsh, Martin. 2010. Bad Swahili and Pidgin Swahili in Hemingway, posted on East African
Notes & Records. https://notesandrecords.blogspot.com/2010/10/bad-swahili-andpidgin-swahili-in.html (last accessed on 27-08-2019).
44
ON VARIATION IN SWAHILI: CURRENT APPROACHES, TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS
Whitehead, John & L. F. Whitehead. 1928. Manuel de Kingwana. Le dialecte occidental de
Swahili. Lualaba: La Mission de et à Wayika.
Wilkes, H. P. 1931. The Gospel of Mark in Shamba or Kitchen Swahili. London: BFBS
London.
Wilt, Timothy Lloyd. 1988. Bukavu Swahili: A Sociolinguistic Study of Language Change.
PhD thesis, Michigan State University.
45