DOCSLIB.ORG

Media, Education and the Count of Namibian Languages Pedro Lusakalalu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Media, Education and the Count of Namibian Languages Pedro Lusakalalu Journal of Namibian Studies, 2 (2007): 85–101 ISSN: 1863-5954 Media, education and the count of Namibian languages Pedro Lusakalalu Abstract This paper shows that the number of languages in Namibia, as it happens with the linguistic diversity of many countries, is a range (10 to 31) whereby the margin of error (±21) is greater than the minimum count (10). The paper uses the framework of a typological categorisation of languages presented in a previous paper which suggested that the morphological behaviour of language names, or glossonyms, as well as the way these can be grouped, were to a large extent responsible for this pattern. The paper also shows that, in the case of Namibia, the minimum count relates to the use of glossonyms in the media, while the maximum count relates to their use in the education system. The title of the book by Maho suggests that Namibia houses a disproportionate number of languages in relation to its small population.1 Yet, by any standards, the number of Namibian languages is quite manageable. This does not mean that there is a fixed number. The framework proposed in Lusakalalu (2001) for the analysis of linguistic diversity shows that a fixed number is only possible where all the languages belong to the second category of a three-category classification, which is summarised in section 1 below.2 The number of languages of a given country tends to be a range, e.g. 10 to 30 languages for Namibia.3 Manageability can then only refer to the relative certainty with which the minimum and the maximum figures in the range are understood. In a country like Angola, as argued in Lusakalalu (2004), the minimum, the maximum, or any other point within the range, cannot be accounted for with any measure of certainty.4 This paper, on the other hand, attempts to demonstrate that the linguistic diversity of Namibia can be accounted for using the dichotomy media/education, with media relating to a large extent to the minimum figure and education to the maximum. Any point within the range can also be accounted for perfectly clearly according to the theory of glossonymic units and the three-category classification presented in Lusakalalu (2001). 1 Jouni F. Maho, Few people, many tongues. The languages of Namibia, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998. 2 Pedro Lusakalalu, “Languages and glossonymic units: contribution to the assessment of the linguistic diversity of Angola and Namibia”, Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 66, 2001: 47-65. 3 Maho, People : 22. 4 Lusakalalu, Pedro, Línguas e unidades glossonímicas, Luanda, Editorial Nzila, 2004. Copyright © 2007 Otjivanda Presse.Essen Eckl & Hartmann GbR 1. The three-category classification According to the framework presented in Lusakalalu (2001), there are three categories of languages related to the ‘behaviour’ of their glossonyms (also called glotonyms) or language names. The term ‘glossonym’ is better than the term ‘language name’ because of the hierarchy language group – language – language variety – language subvariety. A language group consists of several languages; a language is a set of language varieties, and a language variety can consist of subvarieties. In linguistic studies there are no clear-cut criteria for telling a language group from a language, a language from a language variety, and a language variety from a language subvariety. Even dialectological studies have not been very helpful in telling a language from a language variety.5 Yet the task of classifying and subclassifying languages has been undertaken. For example, Maho proposes a way of updating the classification of Bantu languages presented in Guthrie’s volumes, the latest of which is Guthrie (1971).6 In the updates, it is still not clear at which level the languages stand in relation to the groups of languages and to the language varieties and subvarieties, when each level can be designated by a glossonym. The example used for category 1 in Lusakalalu (2001), Kikongo (H10 in Guthrie’s classification), is sometimes referred to as the Kongo group. This means that, if it is a language group, rather than a language, then glossonyms like Kizombo, Kisolongo and Kimbembe are languages, rather than language varieties. Similarly, when Snyman et al. and indeed Maho talk about the Sotho languages, they mean that Setswana, Sesotho and Sepedi constitute a group.7 In Lusakalalu (2001) the examples used were Kikongo for category 1, Umbundu for category 2 and Oshiwambo for category 3. Umbundu is an Angolan language, Kikongo a Kikongo Kizombo Kisolongo Kimbebe Kintoso Kinkusu Kiyombe etc. Diagram 1: Category 1 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages” 5 William Nelson Francis, Dialectology: an Introduction, London, Longman, 1983. 6 Maho, Jouni F., “A referential classification of the Bantu languages: Keeping uthrie’s system updated”, 2006. http://goto.glocalnet.net/maho/downloads/NUGL2.pdf (accessed July 2007); Guthrie, Malcolm, Comparative Bantu: an Introduction to the Comparative linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages, London, Gregg International, 1971. 7 Jan W. Snyman et al., “The current position of Setswana in the Republic of South Africa”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED; Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 135-167; Maho, People : 50. 86 cross-border language spoken in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo- Brazzaville, while Oshiwambo is an Angolan-Namibian cross-border language. The technique was that a glossonym that stands alone at a certain level in diagrams like Diagram 1 and Diagram 2 below can be considered as designating a language. A category 1 or a category 3 language has at least two levels of glossonyms: Oshiwambo Oshindonga Otshikwambi Oshikwanyama Oshimbaanhu etc. Diagram 2: Category 3 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages”. See also Diagram 5 In both cases, it is always possible to claim that one of the glossonyms at the lower level (e.g. Oshindonga) is also a language, rather than a variety of the language designated by the glossonym standing alone at the upper level (i.e. Oshiwambo). The most important difference between category 1 and category 3 is that the glossonym standing alone at the upper level (i.e. Oshiwambo) seems to have been ‘forced’ fairly recently as the hyperglossonym (the cover language name) of the glossonyms at the lower level, which appear to be more authentic. For this reason, it is concluded in Lusakalalu (2001) that the number of languages of any country with category 3 languages cannot be a fixed number. This is why there is always a wide margin of error in the counting of languages. A wide margin of error is one that is greater than the minimum count. For example, if Namibia has 10 to 30 languages, then the margin of error is ±20, where 20 is greater than 10, the minimum count. On the other hand, a category 2 language like Umbundu leaves no doubt as to where the language stands, because the morphological structure of the language does not favour a situation where the varieties at the lower level are designated by glossonyms. The varieties of Umbundu, as Diagram 3 indicates, carry the glossonym Umbundu and the name of the Umbundu-speaking area (designated by a toponym) where its speakers are concentrated. Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu Umbundu wo wo Wambu wo Sambu wo Mbalundu wo Kakonda wo Viye (toponym) Diagram 3: Category 2 language in Lusakalalu, “Languages” 87 2. Namibian languages This section assigns the languages of Namibia to the categories of the classification proposed in Lusakalalu (2001), summarised in the previous section. 2.1 Setswana Setswana is a category 1 language, because the glossonyms designating its variants at the lower level (in Diagram 4) hardly ever lay claim to the status of language. Setswana Setlhaping Setlharo Sekgalagadi Setawana Sekgatla Serolong etc. Diagram 4: Setswana as a Category 1 language The various varieties of Setswana are mainly spoken in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. The Namibian varieties of Setswana are Setlhaping, Setlharo, Setawana and Sekgala(k)gadi.8 Trewby suggests that Setlhaping and Setlharo are not always seen as two varieties, but as one, referred to as Setlharotlhaping.9 This does not challenge the category 1 status of Setswana, unlike the case of Sekgala(k)gadi, which is usually listed as another language with its own varieties.10 The Sekgala(k)gadi variety of Namibia would be referred to as Sengologa, since the subgroup of the Bakgala(k)gadi that speaks it is referred to as the Bangologa.11 Sengologa will of course be a subvariety if the idea persists that Sekgala(k)gadi is a variety of Setswana rather than a language in its own right. And this idea will remain as long as Sekgala(k)gadi as a language or a variety of language is unwritten, the Bakgala(k)gadi children in Namibia are taught within the Setswana curriculum in lower primary schools in the Omaheke region, and Sekgala(k)gadi is under the influence of Setlharotlhaping. 8 Maho, People . 9 Richard Trewby, “The status of Setswana in education in Namibia”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional Workshop on Cross-Border Languages, NIED, Okahandja, Namibia, September 23-27, 1996, Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan, 1998: 82-98, (88). 10 Annah Molosiwa, N. Ratsoma and Joe Tsonope, “A comprehensive report on the use of Setswana at all levels of Botswana’s education system”, in: Karsten Legère, (ed.), Cross-Border Languages. Reports and Studies. Regional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contributions to the Study of African Languages from the Nordic Countries Arvi Hurskainen
    Contributions to the study of African languages from the Nordic countries Arvi Hurskainen 1 Introduction This chapter gives an outline of the study of African languages in various Nordic countries. The description is limited to the work of individual researchers as far as it was financed by these countries. Therefore, the work of each researcher is included only as far as the above criterion is fulfilled. Research of African languages has often been carried out as part of study on general linguistics, or other such research area that has made it possible to study also African languages. Only the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, has a professorship dedicated to the study of African languages. In Norway and Denmark, African languages have been studied mostly in departments of general linguistics. In Finland, the professorship at the University of Helsinki is defined as African studies, that is, the wide research field makes it possible to study also such subjects that normally would be studied in other departments - anthropology and history, for example. 2 Early initiatives The motivation for studying African languages emerged initially as part of missionary activities. There was a need to be able to communicate using local languages. Missionaries had to learn the languages, and this was made possible by producing grammars and dictionaries. The pioneers had seldom formal linguistic training. Yet they produced valuable resources for many languages, which up today have remained standard language resources of those languages. The work of missionaries also included the creation of orthographies and production of teaching materials for schools. Finally, their contribution extends to such achievements as the translation of Bible or its parts to local languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Voicing on the Fringe: Towards an Analysis of ‘Quirkyʼ Phonology in Ju and Beyond
    Voicing on the fringe: towards an analysis of ‘quirkyʼ phonology in Ju and beyond Lee J. Pratchett Abstract The binary voice contrast is a productive feature of the sound systems of Khoisan languages but is especially pervasive in Ju (Kx’a) and Taa (Tuu) in which it yields phonologically contrastive segments with phonetically complex gestures like click clusters. This paper investigates further the stability of these ‘quirky’ segments in the Ju language complex in light of new data from under-documented varieties spoken in Botswana that demonstrate an almost systematic devoicing of such segments, pointing to a sound change in progress in varieties that one might least expect. After outlining a multi-causal explanation of this phenomenon, the investigation shifts to a diachronic enquiry. In the spirit of Anthony Traill (2001), using the most recent knowledge on Khoisan languages, this paper seeks to unveil more on language history in the Kalahari Basin Area from these typologically and areally unique sounds. Keywords: Khoisan, historical linguistics, phonology, Ju, typology (AFRICaNa LINGUISTICa 24 (2018 100 Introduction A phonological voice distinction is common to more than two thirds of the world’s languages: whilst largely ubiquitous in African languages, a voice contrast is almost completely absent in the languages of Australia (Maddison 2013). The particularly pervasive voice dimension in Khoisan1 languages is especially interesting for two reasons. Firstly, the feature is productive even with articulatory complex combinations of clicks and other ejective consonants, gestures that, from a typological perspective, are incompatible with the realisation of voicing. Secondly, these phonological contrasts are robustly found in only two unrelated languages, Taa (Tuu) and Ju (Kx’a) (for a classification see Güldemann 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Expressions of Language Ideologies and Attitudes in Four Namibian Communities
    SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 19 (2018): 133-153 133 Similarities and differences between varieties of speech: Expressions of language ideologies and attitudes in four Namibian communities Helene Steigertahl [email protected] Abstract In attempts to determine what a so-called “language” and what a so-called “dialect” is, the linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibility has frequently been stressed for the latter (e.g. Webb & Kembo-Sure 2000; Heine & Nurse 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Wolff 2000, 2016; Lewis et al. 2016). In general, this terminological dilemma cannot be solved as no clear-cut description exists. Therefore, the terms variety or speech form have been used. Still, further illumination on these concepts is needed as they occupy an important position in linguistic studies, especially with regards to language attitudes and behaviour. In the following, the “language” / “dialect” distinction shall be assessed in the Namibian sociolinguistic context. In this discussion, theoretical approaches will be combined with expressions of language attitudes and ideologies, focusing on mutual intelligibility. These expressions are taken from 77 semi-structured sociolinguistic interviews conducted in four Namibian communities in early 2015. Keywords: Namibia, dialect, language, attitudes, ideologies 1. Introduction So far, several attempts to define “language” and “dialect” have been put forward. However, definitions of what a “language” and what a “dialect” is frequently overlap and the terms “languages” and “dialects” have been applied and used interchangeably for the same variety, depending mainly on policy makers in so-called nation states. This tends to imply a certain regional, linguistic or ethnic superiority of one group or region over another (Alexander 1989: 8, 79; Heine & Nurse 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Webb & Kembo- Sure 2000: 29; Wolff 2016: 290 and following.).
    [Show full text]
  • Josephine Ntelamo Sitwala Master of Arts
    LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE IN THE MALOZI COMMUNITY OF CAPRIVI Josephine Ntelamo Sitwala Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the subject SOCIOLINGUISTICS at the University of South Africa Supervisor: Prof L.A. Barnes February 2010 ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. vi Abstract ............................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction: Statement of the problem ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Aim of the study .......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 The research questions ................................................................................................ 2 1.4 The hypothesis of the study ......................................................................................... 2 1.5 Significance of the study ............................................................................................. 3 1.6 Motivation for the study .............................................................................................. 3 1.7 The Malozi and their language .................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • Language Policy for Schools in Namibia
    English The Language Policy for Schools in Namibia Discussion Document January 2003 THE LANGUAGE POLICY FOR SCHOOLS IN NAMIBIA Discussion Document January 2003 Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture (MBESC) Recommendation to the Discussion Document • The discussion document should be widely discussed before approval. • The discussion document and the final Language Policy for Schools in Namibia should be made available in all local languages and distributed to regional education offices, schools, teacher resource centres, parents, communities and all other stakeholders in education. © MBESC, 2003 Cover design by Bryony Simmonds First published 2003 Produced by the Upgrading African Languages Project (AfriLa), Namibia, supported by gtz and implemented by NIED P.O. Box 8016 WINDHOEK Namibia 1. Background 1.1 After Independence in March 1990, the then Ministry of Education, Youth, Culture and Sport began reviewing the language policy for schools. In order to develop a national policy, discussions were held in all regions of the country and a draft policy was developed. After lengthy discussions the agreed policy was issued in the document Education and Culture in Na- mibia: The Way Forward to 1996 in 1991. 1.2 The following criteria were taken into consideration when the policy was being developed and are still valid today: • The expectation that a language policy should facilitate the realisation of the substantive goals of education. • The equality of all national languages regardless of the number of speak- ers or the level of development of a particular language. • The cost of implementing the policy. • The fact that language is a means of transmitting culture and cultural identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: the Language Factor
    Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor A Review and Analysis of Theory and Practice in Mother-Tongue and Bilingual Education in sub-Saharan Africa Edited by Adama Ouane and Christine Glanz 3 Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor A Review and Analysis of Theory and Practice in Mother-Tongue and Bilingual Education in sub-Saharan Africa Edited by Adama Ouane and Christine Glanz words on a journey learn from the past Published jointly by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL), Feldbrunnenstrasse 58, 20148 Hamburg, Germany and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) / African Development Bank, P.O. Box 323, 1002, Tunis Belvédère, Tunisia © June 2011 UIL/ADEA All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material from this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorised without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided that the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material from this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission from the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Head of Publication, UIL, Feldbrunnenstrasse 58, D-20148 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]) or ADEA / African Development Bank, P.O. Box 323, 1002, Tunis Belvédère, Tunisia (e-mail: [email protected]). ISBN 978-92-820-1170-6 The choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of UNESCO or ADEA and represent no commitment on the part of the Organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • 43167115.Pdf
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Unisa Institutional Repository AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NAMIBIAN LANGUAGE-IN-EDUCATION POLICY IN THE UPPER PRIMARY PHASE IN OSHANA REGION by JUSTUS KASHINDI AUSIKU submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF ARTS WITH SPECIALISATION in the subject SOCIOLINGUISTICS at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF M R MADIBA CO-SUPERVISOR: PROF L A BARNES FEBRUARY 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DECLARATION viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix ABSTRACT x ABBREVIATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS xii KEY TERMS xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The LiEP for Namibian Schools – An overview 4 1.2.1 Background to the policy 4 1.2.2 Aims of the policy 4 1.2.3 Provisions 5 1.2.4 Policy implementation 6 1.2.5 Policy evaluation 7 1.3 The Research Problem 7 1.3.1 Research questions 8 1.4 The Specific Objectives of the Study 8 1.5 Significance of the Study 9 1.6 Limitations of the Study 10 1.7 Organisation of the Study 10 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Language Policy Evaluation Theories 12 2.2.1 The term ‘language policy evaluation’ 12 2.2.2 The necessity for language policy evaluation 13 2.2.3 What is to be evaluated? 13 2.2.4 The types of language policy evaluation 15 2.2.5 When should evaluation be done? 16 2.2.6 Who does language policy evaluation? 17 2.3 Language Education Theories 17 2.3.1 Bilingual education 18 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.3.1.1 Subtractive bilingual model 20 2.3.1.2
    [Show full text]
  • Uses and Functions of English in Namibia's Multiethnic Settings
    Uses and functions of English in Namibia’s multiethnic settings GERALD STELL∗ ABSTRACT: In a context where new English varieties from the Outer Circle have been receiving increasing attention, I propose to outline a descriptive approach to their uses and functions on the basis of their patterns of co-occurrence with local languages across intra and inter-ethnic boundaries. The case study I offer is Namibia, a multiethnic and multilingual African country where English has been the sole official language since 1990 without having had much local history prior to that date. The general question that I pose is to what extent and how English is used in informal interactions in Namibia. Considering Namibia’s ethnolinguistic diversity as well as the locally widespread practice of code-switching, the questions I more specifically ask are: What are the patterns of code-switching with which English finds itself associated both within and across Namibia’s inter-ethnic boundaries, and how can they be characterized in terms of social function? On the basis of a corpus of intra- and inter-ethnic interactions involving a range of Namibian ethnicities, I show evidence of a continuum of linguistic usage ranging from different patterns of code-switching involving English and local languages to more or less monolingual English varieties. I finally place that evidence within the perspective of new Englishes theory, emphasizing the possible relevance of code-switching patterns to the emergence of indigenized English varieties in general, and of an indigenized Namibian variety in particular. INTRODUCTION According to Kachru (1992), the emergence of New English Varieties (NEVs), that is, these English varieties associated with the Outer Circle, is best described in terms of a process simultaneously involving ‘indigenization’ (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a Namibian Afrikaans? Recent Trends in Grammatical Variation in Afrikaans Varieties Within and Across Namibia's Borders
    Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS, Vol. 39, 2009, 85-105 doi: 10.5842/39-0-76 Is there a Namibian Afrikaans? Recent trends in grammatical variation in Afrikaans varieties within and across Namibia's borders Gerald Stell F. W. O. /V. U. B., Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction There has been a tradition of treating geographical factors and social structures as distinct variables in research on language variation within single speech communities, and as a result their mode of interaction has not yet been theorized (Britain 2002). At which point geography, in its human and physical dimensions, precedes or follows social structures in the configuration of language variation seems to depend on two potentially related factors, i.e. the strength or weakness of social network ties, as well as the propensity of a given society to maintain ethnic divides. Of interest here is how far a recent political border can geographically disrupt formerly homogeneous patterns of language variation within a single, yet ethnically divided speech community, and, conversely, how far a range of social factors co-defined by ethnicity can ensure the maintenance of linguistic homogeneity irrespective of new political configurations of space. Variation in Afrikaans has rarely been characterized in terms of the political border separating Namibia (formerly South West Africa or S.W.A.) and South Africa ever since Independence in 1990. Instead, the varieties spoken in S.W.A./Namibia have pretty much been regarded as a constellation of relocated South African varieties. It seems fair to assume that, up until Independence, these varieties had little sociolinguistic scope for diverging from their South African counterparts and that a state of continuum prevailed on account of greater freedom of movement across the border as well as similar degrees of exposure to prescriptive Standard Afrikaans through education.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Analysis of Namibia's English-Only Language Policy
    A Critical Analysis of Namibia’s English-Only Language Policy Jenna Frydman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1. Introduction When Namibia gained its political independence in 1990, it inherited a society characterized by segregation, vast urban and rural poverty, a highly skewed distribution of wealth, unequal access to land and natural resources, and dramatic inequalities in the quality of education and health services rendered to its various ethnic groups. The country was thus left at independence with a huge skills deficit and a slew of social imbalances to be resolved. In 2004, the Namibian government launched a national development strategy called Vision 2030 to address and resolve the country’s issues by the year 2030. The driving force behind the Vision was to be capacity building, aimed at operating a high quality education and training system, achieving full employment in the economy, and transforming Namibia into a knowledge-based society. Vision 2030 was further expected to reduce inequalities and create “a pervasive atmosphere of tolerance in matters relating to culture, religious practices, political preference, ethnic affiliation and differences in social background.” While this national development strategy is seemingly all-encompassing in the areas it set out to address and the issues it planned to resolve, it lacks entirely any mention of language or language policy. This absence in the plan is critical because language is not simply an area to be addressed or an issue to be resolved, but rather an issue that affects every other targeted area outlined in the plan. Namibia’s current language policy will, as will be argued in this paper, significantly impede progress in each of the areas that Vision 2030 has targeted.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookreviews.Pdf
    Nnr¡Iir Inttrnnl nf Afvì¡nn ftt¡¡lioc Nordic Journal ofAfrican Studies 7(2): 95-99 (1998) of rejection can be embarrassing, and sometimes are nasty. I was just discussing my paper with one man on the phone (here in Hong Kong) who BOOK REVIEWS said that sometimes manuscript reviewers make certain conìments which, in effect, question how the author got his...degree. /--l. Another funny thing that I discovered during my recent trip to Ghana is this: some academics are rather ANDERSSON AND more interested in excuses. They make very little effort or none at all to Lens-GuxNAR Tonn JaNsoN. publish but are quick to say that...those who are outside (for now) publish L¡,NcuacES IN BorswANA: L¡.NculcB Ecor,ocy rN quite a lot because it is...easier?.... .... I had to tell one such person that it is SournBnN Arnrc.l. not all African academics outside who have published quite a lot and it thus Gaborone: Longman Botswana. ISBN 99912-73-99-9, 1997. cannot be that easy.,.. It was at that point that I noticed this lame excuse. So 204 pp. incl. maps and tables. in pursuing that project about reasons why Africans on the continent get rejected one should be careful not to encourage such lame excuses. One JotrNr F. MnHo. Few PBopLE, MANy ToNcuBs: THn should encourage them to know that with hard work they can successfully LANGUAGES OF NAMIBIA. compete with anyone anywhere in the world...." Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan. ISBN 0 99916-0-086-8, 1998 222 pp. incl. maps and tables.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Linearization: Prosodic Displacement in Khoekhoegowab and Beyond
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses March 2020 Optimal Linearization: Prosodic displacement in Khoekhoegowab and Beyond Leland Kusmer University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the African Languages and Societies Commons, Language Description and Documentation Commons, Phonetics and Phonology Commons, and the Syntax Commons Recommended Citation Kusmer, Leland, "Optimal Linearization: Prosodic displacement in Khoekhoegowab and Beyond" (2020). Doctoral Dissertations. 1841. https://doi.org/10.7275/d1w2-fp34 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/1841 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPTIMAL LINEARIZATION: PROSODIC DISPLACEMENT IN KHOEKHOEGOWAB AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented by LELAND PAUL KUSMER Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2020 Department of Linguistics © Copyright by Leland Paul Kusmer 2020 All Rights Reserved OPTIMAL LINEARIZATION: PROSODIC DISPLACEMENT IN KHOEKHOEGOWAB AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented by LELAND PAUL KUSMER Approved as to style and content by: Kyle Johnson, Co-chair Kristine Yu, Co-chair Ellen Woolford, Member Meghan Armstrong-Abrami, Member Joe Pater, Department Chair Department of Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have had the best advisors I could possibly have hoped for on this project. Kyle John- son started me thinking about prosody and linearization in my very first semester of grad school, and has worked with me every step of the way since.
    [Show full text]