# Introduction

Lutz Marten, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda

► To cite this version:

Lutz Marten, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda. Introduction. Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda & Lutz Marten (eds.). Morphosyntactic variation in East African Bantu languages, Language Science Press, pp.1-13, 2024, 10.5281/zenodo.10663784. hal-04363784

HAL Id: hal-04363784

https://hal.science/hal-04363784v1

Submitted on 26 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Chapter 1

## Introduction

Lutz Martenª, Hannah Gibsonᵇ, Rozenn Guéroisᶜ,>d & Gastor Mapundaᵉ

ªSOAS University of London ᵇUniversity of Essex ᶜLLACAN CNRS ᵈUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal ᵉUniversity of Dar es Salaam

### 1 Background

The present volume *Morphosyntactic Variation in East African Bantu Languages* has, as indicated in the title, three interacting foci of interest: Variation in morphosyntax, the study of Bantu languages, and a regional focus on East Africa. Each of these foci deserves a little bit of discussion to illuminate the motivation for this book.

Morphosyntactic variation is a comparatively recent field of study in the wider domain of comparative linguistics. Both phonological and lexical comparative studies have been an established part of the field for a long time, especially in historical linguistics. With respect to Bantu languages, a proto language had been reconstructed by the end of the nineteenth century, based on phonological and lexical reconstruction, although even early studies of Bantu languages reflected an interest in morphology and, to a lesser extent, syntax (e.g. Bleek 1862–1869, Meinhof 1906). However, recent years have seen an impressive growth in research examining morphosyntactic variation in Bantu languages, highlighted, for example, in the volume on comparative Bantu grammar edited by Mchombo 1993). Work in this tradition includes studies which look at specific construction types from a cross-Bantu perspective or in a given language, such as the examinations of double object constructions (Bresnan & Moshi 1990, Rugemalira 1993), locative inversion (Demuth & Mmusi 1997, Morimoto 2000, Khumalo 2010) and object marking (Beaudoin-Lietz et al. 2004, Riedel 2009).

Lutz Marten, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois & Gastor Mapunda. 2024. Introduction. In Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda & Lutz Marten (eds.), *Morphosyntactic variation in East African Bantu languages: Descriptive and comparative approaches*, 1–13. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10663761

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
A particular approach to the study of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu, fol-
lowing Marten et al. (2007), employs a set of surface parameters or variables to
conduct systematic comparative studies often involving a larger group of lan-
guages (e.g. Bax & Diercks 2012, Petzell & Hammarström 2013, Marten & van
der Wal 2014, Zeller & Ngoboka 2015, Mtenje 2016, Shinagawa & Abe 2019, Shi-
nagawa & Marten 2021). A comprehensive list of such parameters is developed
in Guérois et al. (2017) and the approach is also adopted by some of the papers
in the current volume. Two further recent studies in the field of morphosyntac-
tic variation and comparative grammar are the edited volumes by Bostoen et
al. (2022), which presents historical-comparative reconstructions for a number
of Bantu grammatical structures, and Bloom Ström et al. (forthcoming), which
contains chapters on variation from across the Bantu-speaking area.

The approximately 500 Bantu languages spoken across vast areas of Central,
Eastern and Southern Africa provide the wider empirical backdrop to the present
volume. Bantu languages are united by the presence of a number of broad typo-
logical similarities, including, for example, complex noun class systems, agglu-
tinative verbal morphology with a rich array of verbal affixes, and basic SVO
word-order which is subject to pragmatically motivated word-order variation.
However, within this similarity, the languages also exhibit a high degree of fine-
grained micro-variation across all linguistic domains. This micro-variation re-
sults in part from independent diachronic developments such as processes of
grammaticalisation and reanalysis, and in part from language contact both be-
tween Bantu languages and between Bantu languages and neighbouring non-
Bantu languages. The high number of different Bantu languages and lects, the
geographic density of the Bantu-speaking area, and the specific and often multi-
lingual ecologies in which Bantu languages are spoken make the language group
an important area of research for our understanding of developments and pro-
cesses of morphosyntactic variation.

The regional focus of the volume is East Africa. Our conception of East Africa
is inclusive, and the papers in the volume report on research on languages spoken
in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Linguistically speaking, East Africa is a diverse area, in which
languages of four African linguistic families are spoken and which is also home
to the Rift Valley linguistic area (Kießling et al. 2007, Harvey et al. 2023).

There is a long tradition of comparative work on Eastern Bantu languages.
Eastern Bantu was the subject of the lexicostatistical survey of Nurse & Philipp-
son (1980), while Hinnebusch et al. (1981) examined several phonological and
morphological features of languages in this area. Nurse (1985) then addresses
the question of phonological areal features in North-Eastern Bantu, and (Nurse
& Muzale 1999) examined changes in tense and aspect in the same linguistic zone. A comprehensive historical-comparative reconstruction of Proto-Sabaki was developed in Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993). More recently, Nicolle has developed three studies concentrated on Eastern Bantu languages, two of which deal with discourse strategies in narrative texts (Nicolle 2014, 2015), and a third which compares the expression of information structure (Nicolle 2016). In terms of Bantu linguistic classification, however, the area has not been identified with a specific sub-group of the family. Rather, in most lexically-based classifications, East African Bantu languages are grouped together with Southern and Central Bantu languages as part of the larger ‘Osthochland Gruppe’ (Heine et al. 1977) or the ‘Eastern’ group (Grollemund et al. 2015). On the other hand, in terms of non-lexical data, the languages of the East African region in particular have been noted to share high degrees of structural similarity (e.g. Hinnebusch et al. 1981). More recently, Edelsten et al. (2022) identify several morphosyntactic aspects which may serve to distinguish East Bantu languages from non-East Bantu languages. These include a symmetric pattern in ditransitive constructions, negation marking in dependent clauses by a post-verbal negative marker, widespread subject inversion constructions, and the co-occurrence of formal and semantic locative inversion constructions.

## 2 Origins of the book

The book, in part, has its origins in two closely related projects. The first was the Leverhulme Trust funded project ‘Morphosyntactic Variation in Bantu: Typology, contact and change’ (RPG-2014-208), which was led by Professor Lutz Marten and based at SOAS University of London (2014-2018). The project aimed to investigate linguistic similarities in a sample of Bantu languages, with a view to better understanding how the structures of different Bantu languages have been shaped by the interaction of processes of historical innovation, language contact, and universal functions of human language.

One of the key outputs of the project was the development of a list of 142 descriptive level parameters of morphosyntactic variation (Guérois et al. 2017), and the creation of a database which enabled the storage and representation of data related to languages of the sample with respect to these parameters – the Bantu Morphosyntactic Variation (BMV) database (Marten et al. 2018). The project set up partnerships and collaborations with researchers in Africa, Europe and Asia. Additionally, as part of the project, a workshop on approaches to morphosyntactic variation in Bantu was held at the University of Dar es Salaam on 20/21 July 2016, in which some of the work reported in this volume was first discussed.
The second project was a collaboration between researchers at SOAS University of London and the University of Dar es Salaam, and was led by Professor Lutz Marten and Dr Gastor Mapunda. This project was funded by the British Academy and was entitled ‘Parametric approaches to morphosyntactic variation in Eastern Bantu languages’ (2017-18). The goal of the project was to build on aspects of morphosyntactic variation which had previously been described for Bantu languages and on the emerging parametric approach, and to extend this to grammatical variation in Eastern Bantu. The project sought to build on original empirical evidence from some twenty Bantu languages of Eastern Africa, with a view to contributing to a better understanding of the historical, comparative and typological patterns that have shaped the linguistic landscape of East Africa. In specific terms, the project enabled a second workshop which was held at the University of Dar es Salaam 13-15 September 2017, bringing together researchers working on East African Bantu in a practical, interactive session to explore the parametric approach. The exchange also enabled collaborators at the University of Dar es Salaam to visit SOAS.

Many of the chapters in the current volume have their origins in the workshops that took place as part of this project. However, we were also fortunate enough to have received a number of contributions from those who did not attend the original workshops, which have further strengthened and broadened the empirical coverage and the theoretical and methodological breadth of the volume.

## 3 Chapters in the volume

Against this background, the present volume includes chapters which offer both comparative and descriptive accounts of Bantu languages spoken in East Africa. Several of the languages discussed (e.g. Shinyiha, Runyankore-Rukiga, Kiwoso, Kihehe and Sumbwa) have not been the subject of previous extensive descriptions. The volume thus presents new empirical data, improving the descriptive status of the languages discussed in the volume. In addition, and including other more well-known Bantu languages (e.g. Swahili, Nyakyusa, Ciyao and Sena), the contributions present new or little-treated aspects of their morphosyntax, as well as providing novel data. The results presented in the volume enable close morphosyntactic comparison between languages spoken in the specific geographic area, some of which are in contact with each other.

The volume consists of twelve chapters, in addition to this introduction (Chapter 1). These chapters are grouped into three sections, devoted to the examination
of the nominal domain, the verbal domain, and analyses adopting comparative and historical approaches. A number of the chapters address the question of morphosyntactic variation through an in-depth examination of a single morphosyntactic phenomenon in a small sample of languages. Others embrace a wider perspective with more parameters of variation throughout the northeastern region.

Chapter 2, by Julius Taji, presents a description of the form, function and distribution of demonstratives in Chiyao. The form of the Chiyao demonstrative is shown to be determined by the location of the referent in relation to the speaker or hearer. In terms of distribution, the demonstrative can appear either in pre- or post-nominal position. Ciyao also employs circumdemonstratives in which a demonstrative appears both before and after the nominal. The demonstrative is shown to exhibit a range of grammatical and communicative functions: in addition to expressing the location of an entity in relation to the interlocutors, it can also express emphasis, definiteness and encode anaphoric reference.

Chapter 3, by Allen Asiimwe, examines demonstratives in Runyankore-Rukiga, a language of Uganda. The chapter explores the more common functions of demonstratives observed across Bantu, such as encoding proximity of the referent to the speaker/hearer. However, the study also reports on less frequently examined features such as the nominal and verbal properties of demonstratives and their use to express manner. Pragmatic properties of Runyankore-Rukiga demonstratives, which are divided into exophoric and endophoric demonstratives (the former used for non-anaphoric functions), are also explored. The study draws on data from written literary sources, spontaneous speech and data gathered via elicitation.

Chapter 4, by Amani Lusekelo, discusses the distribution and function of the augment and object markers in Nyakyusa, spoken in Tanzania. Adopting a parametric approach (Guérois et al. 2017), and including both bare nouns and complex noun phrases, the chapter focuses on the (non-)occurrence of the V-augment and CV-particle, the role of demonstratives, and the word-order within the noun phrase. It shows that the main role of the CV-particle is to indicate contrastive focus of the referent, while for the anaphoric demonstrative -la 'that/those', the augment and object marking are related to the indication of definiteness. In addition, it is shown that object marking can be optional or obligatory, depending on the verb.

Chapter 5, by Aurelia Mallya, discusses morphological and syntactic properties of locative expressions in the Tanzanian language Kiwoso. The study provides an account of the locative forms and their properties in relation to nominal and verbal morphology. While the locative class 17 prefix ku- is used to show agreement on all nominal and verbal modifiers in Kiwoso, the nominal locative prefixes ku-,
pa-,
mu- are unproductive in the language. Kiwoso also exhibits two post-final
locative enclitics (=ho and =u) which are used to cross-reference locative objects.
The chapter contributes to the understanding of locatives in Kiwoso as well as
locatives in the Bantu language family in general.

Chapter 6, by Gastor Mapunda and Fabiola Hassan, presents a comparative analysis of locative expressions in Bena, Ngoni, Makhuwa, and Yao, i.e. four languages spoken around the Ruvuma River which separates Tanzania and Mozambique. The chapter shows that while these languages share similar features in terms of locative morphology, Makhuwa slightly departs from the three other languages in several respects. This study constitutes an exploration of micro-variation among languages which are typologically very similar.

Chapter 7, by Nobuko Yoneda and Judith Nakayiza, focusses on the Ugandan language Ganda and examines how object noun phrases and object markers behave in multiple-object constructions, focussing in particular on the contexts in which asymmetry between these objects may emerge. The chapter makes two crucial contributions. First, Ganda allows three object markers, not only two as previously reported by other studies on this topic. Second, the symmetricity of the language is sometimes mitigated by semantic and phonological factors, suggesting that there can be variation between constructions within a language, and that "(a)symmetry" is probably not a parameter determined by language, but is more fine-grained.

Chapter 8, by Armindo Ngunga and Crisófia Langa da Câmara, presents an ex-
ploration of object marking in four languages of Mozambique. The study adopts
six of the parameters of variation detailed in Marten & Kula (2012) and examines
the properties of these four languages with regard to these features. The study
shows that the four languages exhibit three different patterns with regard to the
obligatoriness of object marking and the co-occurrence of object markers. The
authors also propose an additional parameter of variation which examines the
obligatoriness of the presence of an object marker with certain transitive verbs.
The study is micro-comparative in nature and furthers the descriptive status of
these four languages as well as our understanding of variation in object marking
in Bantu.

Chapter 9, by Kulikoyela Kahigi, describes the verbal extensions in the Tanzanian language Sumbwa and their valence in the context of Bantu comparative data, adopting the parametric approach of Guérois et al. (2017). The study reveals that the verb derivational strategies in Sumbwa closely follow those mapped out by the Proto-Bantu reconstructions, excluding a few innovations among the minor extensions (e.g. -agan-, -agil-). It also shows that the causative and instrumental share extensions, that the associative markers include the post-verbal
-an- and the pre-verbal -i-, that the applicative conveys benefactive, directive, location, and reason meanings, and that there is no systematic fixed order of extensions, except that in all co-occurrences, the passive comes last.

Chapter 10, by Malin Petzell and Peter Edelsten, presents a review of the tense-aspect systems of five Bantu languages of Morogoro region in Tanzania: Kagulu, Luguru, Kami, Ndamba and Pogoro. The study shows that the languages investigated show significant diversity in TAM marking ranging from only two tenses (past and non-past) and limited aspectual distinctions to a system with multiple pasts and futures. The chapter discusses the distribution and meaning of these morphological distinctions, the abundance versus scarcity of specific tense-aspect markers, and the methods of expressing negation, thereby highlighting an unusual diversity in both the distribution and meaning of tense-aspect marking as well as negation across Bantu languages.

Chapter 11, by Daisuke Shinagawa, presents a comparative overview of the tense and aspect systems in Kilimanjaro Bantu languages, including those from which comprehensive information about the tense-aspect system has not been previously made available in the literature. The chapter presents data from eight varieties of Kilimanjaro Bantu, namely Rwa, Siha, Mashami, Kibosho, Uru, Vunjo, Rombo-Mkuu, and Gweno. The data show a general picture of geographical distribution and formal correspondences of shared tense-aspect markers. The chapter also examines systematic correspondences – grammaticalisation chains – and explores the historic processes of change which has given rise to shared tense-aspect markers. The chapter is micro-parametric and comparative in nature and provides possible typological generalisations which might lie behind the variation found in the Kilimanjaro Bantu tense-aspect system.

Chapter 12, by Lengson Ngwasi and Abel Mreta†, describes the historical development of reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in Kihehe by employing the three stages of the Overlap Model of Grammaticalisation Theory proposed by Heine (1993). The paper discusses an interesting feature of reflexive-reciprocal polysemy encoded by the originally reflexive prefix, a polysemy type reported in the grammar of several Bantu languages, but not in great detail (except for Bostoen forthcoming on South-Western Bantu languages). The present paper is, therefore, an important contribution to the field, in that it provides an account of this polysemy type in a little-described language. It also contributes to our understanding of variation in (East) Bantu languages because this morphosyntactic phenomenon deviates from the common Bantu situation in which reflexivity and reciprocity are encoded by two different verbal morphemes.

Chapter 13, by Lutz Marten, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois and Kyle Jerro, compares written poetic texts of Old Swahili with present-day Standard Swahili
in terms of morphosyntactic features developed in Guérois et al. (2017). Results of this study show significant differences between the two varieties. In particular, it shows that the relation between Old Swahili and Standard Swahili is characterised by a loss of morphosyntactic forms and a loss of variability. The authors argue that these results are likely to reflect the processes of standardisation and regularisation involved in the development of Swahili as a language of wider communication. The findings of the study shed new light on morphosyntactic variation since they show the effect of standardisation and a particular trajectory of morphosyntactic development.

Overall, the chapters brought together in this volume provide a snapshot of the state of the art in the study of morphosyntactic variation in the region, drawing on a range of languages and providing novel empirical data for many of them. The papers give a good impression of the variation encountered, and how different aspects of this play out in different languages. We hope that this contribution will lead to further work on the morphosyntax of East African Bantu languages, where much work remains to be done.

## 4 Editorial considerations

We make two further notes and observations here which are relevant for the volume as a whole. Firstly, we did not adopt a prescriptive approach to language naming and have instead left chapter authors to employ the naming conventions they consider fit for their chapters and which are used in the local context. This means that in some instances languages appear with their prefix – e.g. *Kiswahili* – while in other contexts they may appear without the prefix – e.g. *Swahili*. We acknowledge that there are different arguments for one convention or the other, and we are also aware that the question of names and naming of languages often has context-specific historical and political significance.

Secondly, we took a similar approach to the representation of data, glossing and abbreviations. We asked authors to be internally consistent in terms of how they represent data and the terms and abbreviations they use, in all cases encouraging the adaptation of the Leipzig Glossing Rules. However, in some chapters, authors have needed to use additional abbreviations, and have, thus, followed different styles that are widespread in their local contexts.

## 5 Next steps

It is our hope that the present volume serves as a reference point for those interested in Bantu languages in particular, as well as those interested in variation
in morphosyntax and the East African region more broadly. It combines a num-
ber of different methodological approaches and insights, but also furthers the
descriptive status of a number of the languages examined and mentioned herein,
thereby serving as a reference point for future work.

We hope that other scholars might be inspired by the work contained herein,
as well as being exposed to data and findings which makes them reassess or
revisit current work and emerging ideas, and so that the volume contributes to
the further academic investigation and public awareness of African languages.

6 Acknowledgements

As editors, we would like to extend our thanks to all the authors whose work con-
tributes to the volume, as well as the attendees of the two workshops where this
project started. We are also grateful to the British Academy and the Leverhulme
Trust who generously funded the two workshops, as well both the project ‘Mor-
phosyntactic variation in Bantu: typology, contact and change’ and ‘Parametric
approaches to morphosyntactic variation in Eastern Bantu languages’.

We are grateful to all of the reviewers for their detailed comments and in-
put they made on earlier versions of the chapters. Their comments served to
strengthen and improve the clarity of the work. We are also grateful to the edi-
tors of the *Contemporary African Linguistics* series for their initial and ongoing
support of this project. We are also immensely grateful to the team at Language
Science Press and here Sebastian Nordhoff must receive a special mention for be-
ing an unwavering source of support, enthusiasm and advice during the process
of putting the book together.

7 Dedication

We would like to dedicate this volume to the late Dr Abel Mreta. Dr Mreta was
a central member of the Department of Foreign Language and Linguistics at the
University of Dar es Salaam, at one time the Head of the Department, and a
staunch supporter of linguistic research on East African languages. He gener-
ously shared his knowledge and experience and he was involved in the training
of a large proportion of the linguists working in Tanzania today.

Dr Mreta was born in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. He completed his BA Ed-
ucation and MA Linguistics at the University of Dar es Salaam, and then his PhD
at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. Dr Mreta was employed as a tutorial as-
sistant at the University of Dar es Salaam in May 1987. His areas of interest were
morphology, historical and comparative linguistics, sign language, and language
documentation. In his career, he rose to the rank of Senior Lecturer in May 2008. He worked as a visiting lecturer at Leiden University (the Netherlands), Gothenburg University (Sweden) and Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (South Korea). Dr Mreta taught and mentored most of the linguists currently working in Tanzania and beyond, including many of the contributors to this volume.

In September 2017, Dr Mreta participated in the workshop that discussed the parametric approach to the study of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu languages jointly organised by the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics (University of Dar es Salaam) and SOAS University of London, and it was at this workshop where Dr Mreta, together with other scholars, started working on their chapter contributions. Dr Mreta was a central contributor and supporter of the overall collaborative project and this book project. This contribution is in part reflected in the co-authored chapter by Dr Mreta and Lengson Ngwasi (Chapter 11). Dr Mreta passed on while the manuscripts were still in the review process. He will be remembered fondly by all who knew him and his legacy will live on through his work.

## References

Bax, Anna & Michael Diercks. 2012. Information structure constraints on object marking in Manyika. *Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Sciences* 30(2). 185–202.

Beaudoin-Lietz, Christa, Derek Nurse & Sarah Rose. 2004. Pronominal object marking in Bantu. In Akinbiyi Akinlabi & Oluseye Adesola (eds.), *Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of African Linguistics, New Brunswick 2003*, 175–188. Cologne: Köppe.

Bleek, Wilhelm H. I. 1862–1869. *A comparative grammar of South African languages*. London: Trübner.

Bostoen, Koen. Forthcoming. Reflexive-reciprocal polysemy in South-Western Bantu: Distribution, typology and origins. In Eva-Marie Bloom Ström, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois & Lutz Marten (eds.), *Current approaches to morphosyntactic variation in Bantu*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bostoen, Koen, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, Rozenn Guérois & Sara Pacchiarotti (eds.). 2022. *On reconstructing Proto Bantu grammar* (Niger-Congo Comparative Studies 4). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7560553.

Bresnan, Joan & Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. *Linguistic Inquiry* 21(2). 147–185.
Demuth, Katherine & Sheila Mmusi. 1997. Presentational focus and thematic structure in comparative Bantu. *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 18(1). 1–19. DOI: 10.1515/jall.1997.18.1.1.

Edelsten, Peter, Hannah Gibson, Rozenn Guérois, Gastor Mapunda, Lutz Marten & Julius Taji. 2022. Morphosyntactic variation in Bantu: Focus on East Africa. *Journal of the Language Association of East Africa* 1(1). 1–24.

Grollemund, Rebecca, Simon Branford, Koen Bostoen, Andrew Meade, Chris Venditti & Mark Pagel. 2015. Bantu expansion shows that habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 112(43). 13296–13301.

Guérois, Rozenn, Hannah Gibson & Lutz Marten. 2017. *Parameters of Bantu morphosyntactic variation: Draft master list*. Report produced as part of Leverhulme project "Morphosyntactic Variation in Bantu: Typology, contact and change". DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3958997.

Harvey, Andrew, Hannah Gibson & Richard Griscom. 2023. Preverbal clitic clusters in the Tanzanian Rift Valley revisited. *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics*. 175–239. DOI: 10.1515/jall-2023-2010.

Heine, Bernd. 1993. *Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heine, Bernd, Hans Hoff & Rainer Vossen. 1977. Neuere Ergebnisse zur Territorialgeschichte des Bantu. In Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig, Franz Rottland & Bernd Heine (eds.), *Zur Sprachgeschichte und Ethnohistorie in Afrika*, 57–72. Berlin: Reimer.

Hinnebusch, Thomas J., Derek Nurse & Martin Mould. 1981. *Studies in the classification of Eastern Bantu languages*. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Khumalo, Langa. 2010. Passive, locative inversion in Ndebele and the unaccusative hypothesis. *South African Journal of African Languages* 30(1). 22–34.

Kießling, Roland, Maarten Mous & Derek Nurse. 2007. The Tanzanian Rift Valley area. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), *A linguistic geography of Africa*, 186–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486272.007.

Marten, Lutz, Peter Edelsten, Hannah Gibson & Rozenn Guérois. 2018. *Bantu Morphosyntactic Variation (BMV) database*. London: SOAS University of London.

Marten, Lutz & Nancy Kula. 2012. Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. *Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies* 30(2). 237–253.

Marten, Lutz, Nancy Kula & Nhlanhla Thwala. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. *Transactions of the Philological Society* 105. 253–338.
Marten, Lutz & Jenneke van der Wal. 2014. A typology of Bantu subject inversion. *Linguistic Variation* 14(2). 318–368.

Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.). 1993. *Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar*. Stanford: CSLI.

Meinhof, Carl. 1906. *Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der bantusprachen*. Berlin: Reimer.

Morimoto, Yukiko. 2000. *Discourse configurationality in Bantu Morphosyntax*. Stanford: Stanford University.

Mtenje, Atikonda. 2016. *A comparative analysis of the phonology and morphosyntax of Cisukwa, Cindali and Cilambya*. University of Cape Town. (Doctoral dissertation).

Nicolle, Steve. 2014. Discourse functions of demonstratives in eastern Bantu narrative texts. *Studies in African Linguistics* 43(2). 125–144.

Nicolle, Steve. 2015. *Comparative study of eastern Bantu narrative texts* (SIL Electronic Working Papers 2015-003).

Nicolle, Steve. 2016. Variation in the expression of information structure in eastern Bantu languages. In Sara Pacchiarotti Doris L. Payne & Mokaya Bosire (eds.), *Diversity in African languages*, 377–395. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Nurse, Derek. 1985. Dentality, areal features, and phonological change in north-eastern Bantu. *Studies in African Linguistics* 16(3). 243–279.

Nurse, Derek & Thomas J. Hinnebusch. 1993. *Swahili and Sabaki: A linguistic history*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nurse, Derek & Henry R. T. Muzale. 1999. Tense and aspect in great lakes languages. In Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman (eds.), *Bantu historical linguistics: Theoretical and empirical perspectives*, 517–544. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language & Information.

Nurse, Derek & Gérard Philippson. 1980. The Bantu languages of East Africa: A lexicostatistical survey. In Edgar C. Polomé & C. P. Hill (eds.), *Language in Tanzania*, 26–67. London: Oxford University Press for the International African Institute.

Petzell, Malin & Harald Hammarström. 2013. Grammatical and lexical comparison of the greater ruvu Bantu languages. *Nordic Journal of African Studies* 22. 129–157.

Riedel, Kristina. 2009. *The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective*. Leiden: LOT Publications.

Rugemalira, Josephat M. 1993. Bantu multiple “object” constructions. *Linguistic Analysis* 23. 226–252.
Shinagawa, Daisuke & Yuko Abe (eds.). 2019. *Descriptive materials of morphosyn-tactic microvariation in Bantu*. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages, Cult-ures of Asia & Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Shinagawa, Daisuke & Lutz Marten. 2021. Micro-typological covariation of nega-tion and focus marking in Bantu languages. 言語研究 *Gengo Kenkyu* 160. 215–248.

Zeller, Jochen & Jean Paul Ngoboka. 2015. On parametric variation in Bantu, with particular reference to Kinyarwanda. *Transactions of the Philological Society* 113(2). 206–231.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>