Content uploaded by Hambaba Jimaima
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hambaba Jimaima on Jun 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
A Contrastive Study of Bemba and Mambwe at Phonological Level
*Chibwe Ronald Lumwanga, John Lubinda & Hambaba Jimaima
chibwelronald@yahoo.com; lubindajohn1@gmail.com; h.jimaima@unza.zm
University of Zambia
Abstract
Framed as a contrastive study of Standard Bemba and Rural Mambwe, the paper
sought to find out how Standard Bemba and Rural Mambwe differ in terms of their
phonology. The investigation was motivated by the proximity of Bemba and
Mambwe speaking communities in Mbala District of Northern Province. By adopting
methods that were exploratory and descriptive in nature, the paper seeks to
demonstrate the workings of the two phonological systems of Bemba and Mambwe
to gain insights into the differences and similarities of the two languages. It is,
therefore, concluded from the preliminary findings of the study that the phonological
differences between the languages under study relate to aspects of mutual
unintelligibility, disputable linguistic convergence despite the fact that the two
languages are spoken in the same geographical space, and more theoretically, the
paper uncovers differences arising from processes of semi-vocalisation, coalescence
and vowel harmony.
Key terms: Standard Bemba, Rural Mambwe, mutual intelligibility, linguistic
convergence, semivocalisation, coalescence, vowel harmony
Introduction
Situated within the lexical phonology framework, which broadly conflates the
theoretical operations of phonology and morphology in one single theoretical
enterprise, the paper seeks to demonstrate the phonological differences and
similarities between Standard Bemba and Rural Mambwe. It is instructive to remark
that the paper has been motivated by two interrelated factors: the proximity of Bemba
and Mambwe speaking communities and the assumed mutual intelligibility occurring
between the two languages. On the basis of the foregone assumptions, it was
important to establish (1) whether there is mutual intelligibility between speakers of
these languages and (2) whether there is linguistic convergence between these
languages. This entails understanding the phonological workings of the two
languages in question by undertaking a detailed phonological analysis to observe
how such processes as semivocalisation, coalescence and vowel harmony are
transacted. Thus, as will become apparent, we ran with Hudson’s (1980, p. 36)
assumption that ‘the degree of mutual intelligibility depends not just on a number of
overlaps between items in two varieties, but on the qualities of the people
concerned’. Of interest are the two the qualities that he mentions: motivation and
2
experience. We concede that while the two qualities identified are important, there
are not entirely sufficient to unravel the complex workings of languages, especially
those that are found in the same geographical location. The actual observable
phonological materials are more faithful than which motivation and experience can
ever avail.
Contextualising the study
This study is framed within the broader sociolinguistic landscape of Zambia. This
location is important in understanding factors that shaped languages that are found in
these spaces. Revealingly, Zambia’s geographical location makes it lie in the centre
of the Bantu speaking area. Marten and Kula (2008) as well as Roberts (1975)
explain that the present-day Zambian Bantu languages are a product of several
linguistic, socio-economic and political developments taking place in both the
southern and northern Africa, which triggered the migrations, language contact and
language shift over the last two millennia. The resultant linguistic situation was that
of heterogeneity and multilingualism.
Although emphasis is normally placed on the seven regional official languages,
namely: Lozi, Tonga, Nyanja, Lunda, Luvale, Kaonde and Bemba, Zambia is replete
with the so called non-regional languages, leading to a complex sociolinguistic
situation. In fact, debate abounds as how many languages are there in Zambia. Some
have reported that there are 72 dialects in Zambia. While others hold the view that
these languages are reducible to twenty-six (26) linguistic clusters, which are
classified on the basis of mutual intelligibility (Jimaima (2016); Kashoki &
Ohonnessian, 1978; Marten & Kula, 2008; Wakumelo, 2013).
It is in this highly complex linguistic context where Bemba and Mambwe are found.
The two languages are spoken in Northern Province. The former is a language of
wider communication and it is the regional official language whereas the latter is a
minority language. Spitulnik and Kashoki (2001) point out that the Bemba-speaking
area stretches from the plateau between the escarpment of the Luangwa River to the
east and the Luapula River to the west. In Zambia, Chibemba is principally spoken in
the Northern, Copperbelt, Luapula and Muchinga Provinces. It is also spoken in the
southern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and southern Tanzania.
The phrase “the Bemba” carries several meanings. It may designate people of Bemba
origin, irrespective of where they live: whether in an urban area or the original rural
Bemba area. They may encompass a much larger population which includes other
different ethnic groups who with the Bemba constitute closely related ethno-
linguistic clusters known as the Bemba speaking people of Zambia. There are over
thirty (30) Bemba clans named after animals or natural organisms such as the royal
clan ‒ the people of the crocodile (Bena Ng’andu) or the Bena Bowa (Mushroom
clan). The Bashimba (Leopard clan) or Bena Ngo living among the Bemba are part of
the Bashimba People now living in Tanzania, Uganda and DR Congo.
According to the Census of Population and Housing (2010), Bemba was found to be
the most widely used language of communication spoken by 33.5 percent of the
population in the country, followed by Nyanja and Tonga at 14.8 percent and 11.4
percent, respectively.
The Mambwe speaking people are found mainly in Mbala District of Zambia; they
live directly on the junction of the routes between East and Central Africa. Mambwe
3
is spoken in the north east of Northern Province (mainly in Mbala), South of Lake
Tanganyika. It is also spoken in Tanzania’s Rukwa Region, Sumbawanga District,
the south eastern shore to the south of Lake Tanganyika, (Mambwe at Ethnologue).
The Mambwe and Lungu belong to the same language group known as the Mambwe-
Lungu. Thus, Mambwe and Lungu are dialects of this language group. According to
Zambia Central Statistical Office (2002/2010), there are 500 000 Mambwe speaking
people.
Some theoretical perspectives
Crystal (2008) indicates that out of the very wide range of sounds that the human
vocal apparatus can produce and which are studied by phonetics, only a relatively
small number are used distinctively in any one language. He adds that sounds are
organised into a system of contrasts which are analysed in terms of phonemes,
distinctive features or other such phonological units according to the theory used.
The aim of phonology is to demonstrate the patterns of distinctive sounds found in a
language, and to make general statements about the nature of sound systems in the
languages of the world. However, it was not the intention of this study to make such
general statements about the languages of the world. The study has used phonemes
which have brought to the fore phonological differences between the languages
under study. This study has been informed by the lexical phonology framework
developed by K.P. Mohanan and P. Kiparsky (Udema, 2004). This is a theory in
which morphological and phonological rules are brought together within a single
framework and, therefore, it acts a base for analysing and interpreting the data.
Morphophonology deals with the analysis and classification of the phonological
factors which affect the shape or appearance of morphemes, (Crystal, 1991). In other
words, morphophonology is concerned with rules or alternations intermediate
between morphology and phonology, (Mathews, 2005).
Methodology
This study was conducted in Mbala District in the Northern Province. It is one of the
eleven districts in the province and shares the border with Tanzania in the north and
the east, Mpulungu District in the west and Senga Hill District in the South. This
place was chosen as a research site because of the proximity of the Bemba and the
Mambwe speaking communities: these are the people whose languages are spoken in
the same area; Bemba happens to be the Regional Official Language widely used in
the area. The study population consisted of all the people who are proficient in
Bemba and Mambwe. It was illuminating that the informants are proficient in the
languages. This is because in a qualitative study it is important to select
knowledgeable participants on the issue under investigation, (Kombo & Tromp,
2006).
One key informant was used for the interviews and five participants (including the
key informant) were engaged in focus-group discussions. With this study sample, the
researcher was able to obtain phonological differences between the languages under
study and to conclude that theses phonological differences contribute to (1) mutual
unintelligibility between the speakers of these languages and (2) the absence of
linguistic convergence between Bemba and Mambwe. Five informants were selected
from the study population. The objective of this sampling was to minimise, within
the limitation of the cost, the gap between the values obtained from the sample and
those prevalent in the larger population.
4
The researcher employed the interview schedule and focus-group discussion. He also
consulted academic books, scholarly journals and research reports.
Findings
This section presents the findings in relation to phonological differences between the
languages under study.
Feature changing rules
One of illuminating phonological rules in demonstrating the difference between
STDBEM and RULMAM was the feature changing rule as shown in Table 1 below.
It is important to note that the focus is on Consonant Segments where the Feature
Changing rule, f → v applies to STDBEM and RULMAM cognates as presented.
Table 1 showing then Feature Changing, f → v
Gloss
STDBEM
RULMAM
Ancestors
ifikolwe/i-fi-kolwe/
[ífɪkólwé]
vikolwe/vi-kolwe /
[víkolwé]
Rain
imfula/i-m-fula/
[íɱfulá]
mvula/m-vula/
[ɱvúlá]
Two
fibili / fi-bili / [fíβílí]
vili / vi-li / [vílí]
Three
fitatu /fi-tatu / [fítatú]
vitatu / vi-tatu / [vítatú]
Four
fine / fi-ne / [fíné]
vini / vi-ni / [víní]
Five
fisano / fi-sano / [físánó]
visano /vi-sano / [vísanó]
Elephant
Insofu / i-n-sofu / [ɪnsófú]
nzovu / n-zovu / [nzóvú]
to hear
ukumfwa/u-ku-mfu-a/
[ukú:ɱfwá]
kumvwa/ku-mfu-a/
[kú:ɱvwá]
Hands
ifisansa / i-fi-sansa /
[ɪfísá:nsá]
vizanza / vi-zanza
/[vízá:nzá]
Chin
akalefulefu/a-ka-lefulefu/
[akálefúléfú]
cilevu / ci-levu / [tʃílévú]
Cousin
umufyala/u-mu-fyal-a/
[umúfjálá]
muvyala/mu-vyal-a/
[múvjálá]
Birds
ifyuuni /i-fi-uni / [ɪfjú:ní]
vyunyi/ vi-unyi / [vjúɲí]
Darkness
imfinshi/i-m-finshi/
[ɪɱfí:nʃí]
mvinzi /m-vinzi /
[ɱví:nzí]
Toes
ifikondo/i-fi-kondo/
[ɪfíkó:ndó]
vikando/vi-kando/
[víká:ndó]
Ribs
imbafu/i-m-bafu/
[ɪmbáfú]
mbavu /m-bavu / [mbávú]
Parent
umufyashi/u-mu-fyashi/
[umúfjáʃí]
muvyazi/mu-vyazi/
[múvjází]
Great grandchildren
ifishikulula/i-fi-shikulula/
[ɪfíʃíkúlúlá]
vizikululwa/vi-zikululwa/
[vízíkúlúlwá]
Sugarcane
ifisali / i-fi-sali / [ɪfísálí]
vizali / vi-zali / [vízálí]
Pumkins
ifipushi/i-fi-pushi/
[ɪfípúʃí]
vipuzi / vi-puzi / [vípúzí]
Cocoa yam
ifilungwa/i-fi-lungwa/
[ɪfílú:ŋgwáná]
vilungwa/vi-lungwa/
[vílú:ŋgwá]
Cucumbers
ifibimbi/i-fi-bimbi/
[ɪfíβí:mbí]
vimbi / vi-mbi / [ví:mbí]
5
big things
ifikalamba/i-fi-kalamba/
[ɪfíkálá:mbá]
vikalamba/vi-kalamba/
[víkálá:mbá]
Many(things)
ifingi /i-fi-ingi / [ɪfí:ŋgí]
vingi /vi-ingi / [ví:ŋgí]
New (things)
ifipya /i-fi-pya / [ɪfípjá]
vipya / vi-pya / [vípjá]
Trees
ifimuti /i-fi-muti /
[ɪfímútí]
vimiti / vi-muti/ [vímítí]
Shadows
ifinshingwa/i-fi-nshingwa/
[ɪfínʃ:íŋgwá]
vinzingwa/vi-nzingwa/
[vínzí:ŋgwá]
Traditions
ifishilano/i-fi-shilano/
[ɪfíʃílánó]
vizilano/vi-zilano/
[vízílánó]
hospitals
Ifipatala/i-fi-patala/
[ɪfípátálá]
vipatala/vi-patala/
[vípátálá]
The voiceless labio-dental fricative / f / heard in the STDBEM words is changed into
the voiced labio-dental fricative / v / in the environment before the high front vowel /
i / in the RULMAM words. Example are:
1 (i) ifikolwe [ífɪkólwé] ‘ancestors’ (STDBEM)
(ii) vikolwe [víkolwé] ‘ancestors’ (RULMAM)
2 (i) fitatu [fítatú] ‘three’ (STDBEM)
(ii) vitatu [vítatú] ‘three’ (RULMAM)
3 (i) ifishilano [ɪfíʃílánó] ‘traditions’ (STDBEM)
(ii) vizilano [vízílánó] ‘traditions’ (RULMAM)
Formalisation of the change is shown below:
→
/f/ /v/ /i/
The voiceless labio-dental fricative / f / heard in the STDBEM words is changed into
the voiced labio-dental fricative / v / in the environment before the voiced palatal
approximant / j / in the RULMAM words. Examples are:
4 (i) umufyala [umúfjálá] ‘cousin’ (STDBEM)
(ii) muvyala [múvjálá] ‘cousin’ (RULMAM)
5 (i) ifyuuni [ɪfjú:ní] ‘birds’ (STDBEM)
(ii) vyunyi [vjúɲí] ‘birds’ (RULMAM)
Formalisation of the change is shown below:
6
→
/f/ /v/ /j/
The voiceless labio-dental fricative / f / heard in the STDBEM words is changed into
the voiced labio-dental fricative / v / in the environment before the high back vowel /
u / in the RULMAM words. Examples are:
6(i) imfula [íɱfulá] ‘rain’ (STDBEM)
(ii) mvula [ɱvúlá] ‘rain’ (RULMAM)
7(i) insofu [ɪnsófú] ‘elephant’ (STDBEM)
(ii) nzovu [nzóvú] ‘elephant’ (RULMAM)
Formalisation of the change is shown below:
→
/f/ /v/ /u/
The voiceless labio-dental fricative / f / heard in the STDBEM words is changed into
the voiced labio-dental fricative / v / in the environment before the voiced labio-velar
approximant / w / in the RULMAM words. The example is:
8(i) ukumfwa [ukú: ɱfwá] ‘to hear’ (STDBEM)
(ii) kumvwa [kú:ɱvwá] ‘to hear’ (RULMAM)
Formalisation of the change is shown below:
→
/f/ /v/ /w/
The rule is that the voiceless labio-dental fricative / f / in the STDBEM words is
converted to the voiced labio-dental fricative / v / in the RULMAM words.
Consonant Segments: Feature Changing rule, ʃ → z
In the STDBEM and RULMAM cognates presented in the table below, the feature-
changing rule is applied.
Feature Changing, ʃ→ z
7
Table 2 Showing rule ʃ→Ζ
Gloss
STDBEM
RULMAM
Pineapple
icinanashi/i-ci-nanashi/ [ɪʧínánáʃí]
cinanazi /ci-nanazi/ [ʧínánází]
Month / moon
umweshi/u-mu-eshi/ [umwéʃí]
mwezi /mu-ezi/ [mwézí]
Name
iishina /i-i-shina/ [i:ʧíná]
izina /i-zina / [ɪzíná]
Parent
umufyashi/u-mu-fyashi/ [umúfjáʧí]
muvyazi/mu-vyazi / [múvjází]
Sister
inkashi /i-n-kashi/ [ɪ-ήkaʃí]
nkazi /n-kazi/ [ήkazí]
Pumpkin
icipushi /i-ci-pushi/ [ɪʧípúʃí]
cipuzi /ci-puzi/ [ʧípúzí]
Bed
ubusanshi/u-bu-sanshi/ [uβúsá:nʃí]
musanzi/mu-sanzi/ [músá:nzí]
milk from animals
iishiba /i-i-shiba/ [í:ʃɪβá]
iziya / i-ziya / [ízɪjá]
Fireplace
iishiko /i-i-shiko/ [í:ʃɪkó]
iziko /i-ziko/ [ízɪkó]
Water
ameenshi/a-ma-inshi/ [amé:nʃí]
manzi /manzi / [má:nzí]
Housefly
lunshi /ø-lunshi/ [lú:nʃí]
lunzi /ø-lunzi/ [lú:nzí]
night
ubushiku/u-bu-shiku/ [úβuʃíkú]
uziku / u-ziku/ [úzikú]
Darkness
imfinshi/i-m-finshi/ [íɱfɪ:nʃí]
mvinzi /m-vinzi/ [ɱví:nzí]
Shadows
ifinshingwa/i-fi-nshingwa/ [ífɪ:nʃí:ŋgwá]
vinzingwa/vi-zingwa [ví:nzí:ŋgwá]
Bend
icinshoko/i-ci-nshoko/ [ɪʧí:nʃókó]
cinzyoko/ci-nzyoko/ [ʧí:nzjókó]
The voiceless postalveolar fricative / ʃ / heard in the STDBEM words is changed into
the voiced alveolar fricative / z / in the environment before the high front vowel / i /
in the RULMAM words. Examples are:
9 (i) inkashi [ɪήkaʃí] ‘sister’ (STDBEM)
(ii) nkazi [ήkazí] ‘sister’ (RULMAM)
10 (i) ameenshi [amé:nʃí] ‘water’ (STDBEM)
(ii) manzi [má:nzí] ‘water’ (RULMAM)
11(i) ifinshingwa [ífɪ:nʃí:ŋgwá] ‘shadows’ (STDBEM)
(ii) vinzingwa [ví:nzí:ŋgwá] ‘shadows’ (RULMAM)
Formalisation of the change is shown below:
8
→
/ʃ/ /z/ /i/
The generalisation is that the voiceless postalveolar fricative / ʃ / heard in the
STDBEM words is changed into the voiced alveolar fricative / z / in the environment
before the high front vowel / i /.
In STDBEM, there are two allophones of the voiced alveolar lateral /l/, and these are
/d/ and /l/. The allophonic rule states that the allophone /d/ is applicable if the voiced
alveolar nasal /n/ immediately precedes it whereas the allophone /l/ occurs
elsewhere. In this study, contrast has been noted in the languages under investigation
in relation to this rule.
The allophonic rule operating on consonant /l /; (See Mann, 1999: 2)
Table 3 Showing allophonic rule operating on /l/
Gloss
Bemba Pronunciation
Mambwe pronunciation
I eat
n-la-li-a → ndalya
[ndáljá]
n-ka-li-a → nkalya
[ήkaljá]
I’m eating
n-lee-li-a → ndeelya
[ndé:ljá]
n-ku-li-a → nkulya
[ήkuljá]
It is evident from the study that the allophonic rule operating on the voiced alveolar
lateral /l/ is, in this context, applicable only to STDBEM because the voiced alveolar
lateral /l/ in the present simple tense marker -la- and the present progressive aspect
marker -lee- is realised as allophone /d/ immediately after the voiced alveolar nasal
/n/ which happens to be the subject marker. In constrast to this, the voiceless velar
plosive /k/ which is the initial consonant phoneme for both the present simple tense
marker -ka- and the present progressive tense marker -ku- in the RULMAM verbs in
the table is not part of the allophonic rule stated above despite the fact that both
STDBEM and RULMAM verbs in the table convey the same meaning.
The consonant /β/ has two allophones, namely: the voiced bilabial plosive /b / found
in the nasal complex /mb/ and the voiced bilabial fricative /β/ which is used
elsewhere. It is clear from this study that the two allophones: the voiced bilabial
fricative /β/and the voiced bilabial plosive /b/ are applicable to STDBEM whereas in
RULMAM only the voiced bilabial plosive / b / in the nasal complex /-mb-/
manifests as the table below illustrates:
Table 4 Allophonic rules operating on consonant /ꞵ / (Sourced from Mann,
1999: 2)
Gloss
Bemba pronunciation
Mambwe pronunciation
work (verb)
bomba [βó: mbá]
omba [ó:mbá]
9
people
abantu [aβá:ntú]
antu [á:ntú]
wedding
ubwinga [uβwí:ŋgá]
winga [wí:ŋgá]
come back
bwela [βwe:lá]
wela [we:lá]
The corresponding RULMAM words delete the voiced bilabial fricative /β/ in the
STDBEM words in the environment before the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/ in
the last two words in the table. In the first and second RULMAM words (omba and
antu) in the table, the voiced bilabial fricative /β / has been deleted in the
environment before the mid back vowel /o / and the low central vowel /a /,
respectively. The study has, therefore, concluded that the allophonic rule of the
voiced bilabial fricative /β / applies to STDBEM, but not to RULMAM. In fact, the
two allophonic rules are applicable to STDBEM. However, the voiced bilabial
plosive /b / occurs in nasal complexes /-mb-/ in RULMAM as is the case in the
words omba [ómba] ‘work’, amalumbo [amálumbó] ‘praises’ and mpemba
[mpémba] ‘white clay’.
Palatalisation and postalveolarisation occur in causative verbal forms: This section
brings to the fore the differences between the languages under study in relation to
palatalisation and postalveolarisation in causative verbal extension. The items in the
table below illustrates these differences.
Table 5 showing Palatalisation and postalveolarisation in causative verbal forms
Gloss
STDBEM
pronunciation
RULMAM pronunciation
to cause something to burst
ukupoosha [úkupó:ʃá]
kupusya [kúpusjá]
to cause (a dog) to hunt
ukulunsha [úkulú:nʃá]
kulusya [kúlusjá]
to cause somebody to drink
ukunwesha
[úku:nwé:ʃá]
kuŋwesya [kú:ŋwe:sjá]
The process of palatalisation refers to any articulation involving a movement of the
tongue towards the hard palate, (Crystal, 2008). Palatalisation usually occurs in the
environment of high front sound such as /i/ or /j/, (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer &
Harnish, 2001). In some languages, including the languages under investigation, the
/s/ and /z/ preceding the /i/ or /y/ [j] undergo palatalisation. For example, the /s/ in
the STDBEM and RULMAM words ukupoosya /ukupoosja/ and kupusya /kupusja/,
respectively, is palatalised to /sj/. However, there is deletion of the voiced palatal
approximant /j/ in the STDBEM word ukupoosja and as a result of that the voiceless
alveolar fricative /s/ undergoes postalveolarisation; hence, the STDBEM word
ukupoosha ‘to cause something to burst is phonetically realised as [úkupó:ʃá]. On the
other hand, the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ in the RULMAM word kupusya
[kúpusjá] ‘to cause something to burst’ remains palatalised.
The finding, in this regard, is that the infinitives in RULMAM under causative verbal
extension end at palatalisation level whereas those in STDBEM undergoing the same
verbal extension go two steps further by having their voiced palatal approximant /j/
deleted and the voiceless alveolar fricative/s/ postalveolarised.
Palatalisation and postalveolarisation feature in intensive verbal forms:
Palatalisation and the consequent postalveolarisation in STDBEM verbs when they
are extended into intensive verbal forms and palatalisation in RULMAM verbs when
10
they are derived into intensive verbal forms are quite similar to what have been
discussed earlier under causative verbal forms. The table below illustrates this fact.
Table 6 Showing Palatalisation and postalveolarisation in intensive verbal form
Gloss
STDBEM pronunciation
RULMAM
pronunciation
to run too much
ukubutukisya
/ukuβutukisja/
[úkuβútúkɪʃá]
kusimulisya [kúsɪmúlísja]
to shout too much
ukupundisya
/ukupundisja/
[úkupú:ndíʃa]
kulaizisya [kúlaízísja]
Morphophonological rule of vowel harmony as used in applicative (or applied)
verbal extension:
This section presents some differences between STDBEM and RULMAM in relation
to the application of morphophonological rule of vowel harmony. The rule stipulates
that in applied verbal extension, the preceding mid vowel, either the mid back vowel
/o/ or the mid front vowel /e/ in the verb radical causes the high front vowel /i/ in the
applied verbal extension morpheme /-il-/ to be realised as the mid front vowel [e].
This implies that the high front vowel /i/ in the applied verbal extension morpheme /-
il-/ remains unaltered if the vowel in the verb radial is neither the mid front vowel /e/
nor the mid back vowel /o/. It is also important to indicate that this rule applies to
both languages under study; however, some minor differences have been noted. The
study reveals that the mid front vowel /e/ in the STDBEM verb radical –seep- [se:p]
‘harvest (the millet)’ changes the high front vowel /i/ in the applied verbal extension
morpheme /-il-/, which carries the semantic value of ‘doing something on behalf of’,
to the mid front vowel /e/ to derive the applied verbal form seep-el-a which become
seepela [sé:pelá] ‘harvest (the millet) on behalf of. For the RULMAM word sinza
[si:nza] ‘harvest (the millet)’, the high front vowel /i/ in the applied verbal extension
morpheme /-il-/ does not change to the mid front vowel /e/ because the vowel in the
verb radical –sinz- [si:nz] ‘harvest’ is neither the mid front vowel /e/ nor the mid
back vowel /o/. Instead, the vowel in the verb radical is the high front vowel /i /.
Hence, the applied verbal form derived from –sinz-a is sinz-il -a which becomes
sinzila [sí:nzɪlá] ‘harvest (the millet) on behalf of’. The table below illustrates the
facts on vowel harmony.
Table 7 showing morphophonological rule of vowel harmony
Gloss
STDBEM
RULMAM
harvest (the millet) for
seep-il-a → seepela
[sé:pelá]
sinz-il-a → sinzila
[sí:nzɪlá]
throw for or on behalf of
poos-il-a → poosela
[pó:selá]
sumb-il-a → sumbila
[sú:mbɪlá]
guard for or on behalf of
lond-il-a → londela
[ló:ndelá]
lind-il-a → lindila
[lí:ndɪlá]
cut (tree) for or on behalf
of
tem-il-a → temena
[témená]
tem-ila → temela [témelá]
11
There are instances where the rule applies in the same way for both STDBEM and
RULMAM as it is noted in the case of the verb radical -tem-: tem-il-a becomes
temena for STDBEM and temela for RULMAM. The difference in this case is that in
the STDBEM word temena, another rule has been applied, and this is progressive
nasal assimilation: the voiced alveolar lateral / l / in the applied verbal extension
morpheme /il-/ becomes the voiced alveolar nasal /n / in the environment after the
voiced bilabial nasal /m / which is in the verb radical tem- while in the
corresponding RULMAM word temela, the voiced alveolar lateral /l/ does not
undergo progressive nasal assimilation.
Another theme contributory to this study is semivocalisation (i.e., gliding). The unit
at the centre of this sub-theme is the semi-vowel which is phonetically like a vowel,
but whose place in a syllable structure is characteristically that of a consonant,
(Matthews, 2005). As a matter of fact, semivocalisation is a morphophonological
process by which semivowels or glides are formed. In this process, the high back
vowel /u/ is represented as the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/ in the
environment before another vowel with the exception of the high back vowel /u/. In a
similar manner, the high front vowel /i / is realised as the voiced palatal approximant
/j / in the environment before a vowel, except the high front vowel /i /. These
phonological rules are formally presented below:
(i) u →/w/ ∕ [ i, o, e, a]
(ii) i→ /j/ ∕ [e, a, o, u]
It is evident from the study that semivocalisation occurs in both languages. However,
there are some minor differences. For example, in the STDBEM word u-mu-inshi
which becomes umwinshi [úmwi:nʃí] ‘door way’, the high back vowel /u/ in the
prefix mu-glides with the initial high front vowel /i/ in the base –inshi [i:nʃí] ‘door
way’ to produce the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/ whereas in the
corresponding RULMAM word: mu-li-ango which is rendered as mulyango
[múlja:ŋgó] ‘door way’, the gliding occurs between the high front vowel / i / in the
second syllable - li -, which is part of the base, and the adjacent low central vowel / a
/. The prefix does not feature in the RULMAM word.
The other difference is that in the STDBEM word u-ku-isala which becomes
ukwisala [úkwi:sála] ‘to close’; the high back vowel /u/ in the locative –ku- [ku] ‘to’
is semivocalised in the environment before the high front vowel / i / which is in the
base –isala [ɪsálá] ‘close’ while there is no semivocalisation of the high back vowel
/u/ in the locative -ku- [ku] ‘to’ in the corresponding RULMAM word ku-i-ala which
becomes kuyala [kúja:lá] ‘ to close’, but there is the gliding of the high front vowel /
i / in the base -i-ala [já:la] ‘close’ in the environment before the low central vowel / a
/. A similar situation occurs in the STDBEM and RULMAM words u-ku-isula which
becomes ukwisula [úkwi:súla] ‘to open’ and ku-i-ula which is rendered as kuyula
[kúju:lá] ‘to open’, respectively. This shows that in both the former pair and latter
pair, the environments of semivocalisation are totally different.
Coalescence contributes to the differences in this study:
This section of the study presents the differences concerning coalescence, which is
also known as meger or fusion. Coalescence is a morphophonological process by
which units, in this case phonemes, that are separate at one level of representation are
realised by a form in which there is no corresponding boundary, (Crystal, 2008;
Mathews, 2005).
12
Some aspects of this process are in focus to show the differences between STDBEM
and RULMAM. It has been noted that in STDBEM the low central vowel /a/ in the
prefix ba [βa] ‘them’ coalesces with the mid back vowel /o/ in the stem –onse
[ó:nsé] ‘everyone’ into /-oo-/; therefore, the combination of ba – and – onse forms
the word boonse [βó:nsé] ‘all of them’. It is also worth mentioning that in this word
compensatory lengthening occurs: the low central vowel /a/ in the prefix ba- is lost
and the mid back vowel /o/ in the stem –onse is lengthened. In the corresponding
RULMAM word, the high front vowel / i / and the mid back vowel /o/ fuse (i.e i+o)
to form the initial syllable i-o → / yo- / [jo] in the word yonsi [jó:nsí] ‘all of them’;
semivocalisation of the high front vowel / i / also occurs.
It has been noted that in the STDBEM word fi-onse, there is fusion of the high front
vowel / i / in the prefix /fi-/ [fɪ] ‘standing for things’ and the mid back vowel / o / in
the stem –onse [o:nse] ‘everything’ into / yoo- / [jo:]. Consequently, this coalescence
forms the word fyoonse [fjó:nsé] ‘all the things’. It has also been noted that in this
process, three other processes occur, namely: semivocalisation, palatalisation and
vowel lengthening. In the corresponding RULMAM word, the high front vowel /i/
in the prefix vi- [vɪ] ‘(standing for things’ has coalesced with the mid back vowel /o/
in the stem –onsi [o:nsɪ] ‘everything’ to form / -yo / [jo]. This process forms the
word vyonsi [vjó:nsí] ‘all the things. Phonologically, there is no doubling of the mid
back vowel /o/ in the RULMAM word vyonsi; this is unlike the case in the STDBEM
word fyoonse.
Conclusion
The evidence from the data, as demonstrated in the analysis, persuasively indicate
that despite the two languages – Bemba and Mambwe – being in close proximity
geographically, the two languages have resist any form of phonological convergence.
The phonological processes arising from the feature changing rule, as they relate to
semivocalisation, coalescence, vowel harmony, as well as to some aspects of vowel
lengthening and palatalization reveal that the two languages are phonologically apart.
It is, therefore, concluded from the preliminary findings of the study that the
phonological differences between the Standard Bemba and Rural Mambwe should
provide evidence to the effect that there is likely to be mutual unintelligibility
between Bemba and Mambwe speakers who have had no experience of each other’s
language; and that these findings potentially point to the absence of sufficient
linguistic convergence between Bemba and Mambwe despite the fact that they are
geographically in close proximity with speakers sharing neighbourhoods. This is not
entirely surprising since the languages in question are not dialects. We thus, get back
to Hudson’s (1980, p. 36) assumption that ‘the degree of mutual intelligibility
depends not just on a number of overlaps between items in two varieties, but on the
qualities of the people concerned’. Of interest are the two qualities that he mentions:
motivation and experience. We concede that while the two qualities identified are
important, there are not entirely sufficient to unravel the complex workings of the
two languages, especially when they are found in the same geographical location.
The actual observable phonological materials are more faithful than what motivation
and experience can ever avail. For, on the basis of the historical factors, there is
sufficient evidence in support of the fact that the speakers of the two languages have
had a rich linguistic experience of the two languages and yet they have not yielded to
the structure of one of them. Similarly, the evidence in support of lack of motivation
to yield is not sufficient to make a cut and dried argument for the failure of the
linguistic convergence with respect to the two languages. It is, therefore, illuminating
13
to lean on the internal phonological structure of the two languages for an
explanation. In the data presented, the persistent differences in the phonological
features – voiceless vs voiced, for example - do convincingly demonstrate the rigid
phonological systems that have developed parallel to each over a long period of time.
And it is safe to argue for linguistic vitality for both languages.
14
REFERENCES
Akmajian A.et al. 2001. An Introduction to language and communication. London:
MTT Press.
Crystal, D. 2008. A dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford. Blackwell
Publishers.
Crystal, D. 1991. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Halemba A. 1994. Mambwe-English Dictionary. Ndola: Mission Press.
Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jimaima, H. 2016. Social Structuring of language and the mobility of Semiotic
Resources across the Linguistic Landscapes of Zambia: A Multimodal
Analysis. (Unpublished) PhD Thesis. Cape Town: University of Western
Cape.
Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamfuli, B.A. 2009. A Grammar of Verbal Extensions in Bemba. (Unpublished) MA
dissertation. University of Zambia.
Kandeke, T. 1990. A Handbook of Icibemba Synonyms. Lusaka: Kenneth Kaunda
Foundation.
Kangwa, N.K. 2007. A Study of English Derived loan words in Bemba.
(Unpublished) MA dissertation. University of Zambia.
Kashoki. M, 2000. Notes on Mother Tongue Literacy Education Language Issues in
Developing Countries. Stockholm: Stockholm University Centre for
Research on Bilingualism.
Kashoki, M.E. &M. Mann (1978). ‘A general sketch of the Bantu languages of
Zambia’. In S.I. Ohannessian & M.E. Kashoki (eds.): Language in Zambia. London:
International African Institute, pp. 47-100.
Kashoki, E.M & Ohannessian, S. 1978. Language in Zambia. London: International
African Institute.
Kashoki E.M. 1977. Language in Zambia: Grammatical Sketches, volume. Lusaka:
Grammatical Printers.
Kashoki, E.M. 1975. Migration and Language Change: The interaction of town and
country. In Town and Country in Central and Eastern Africa, D. Parkin (ed.), 228 –
249. London: International Africa Institute.
Kashoki E.M. 1967. A Phonemic Analysis of Icibemba: A presentation of Bemba
syllable structure, phonemic contrasts and their distribution. Michigan: Michigan:
State University. USA.
Kombo, D.K. & Tromp, D.L.A.2006. Proposal and thesis writing: An introduction.
Nairobi: Pauling’s Publications Africa.
Lumwanga, C.R. 2015. Some linguistic variations of Bemba: A Dialectological study
of Standard Bemba, Luunda and Ƞumbo. (Unpublished), MA
dissertation. University of Zambia.
15
Mann M. 1999. An Outline of Bemba Grammar. Lusaka: Book world.
Marten, L. & Kula, N.C. 2008. Zambia: one Zambia, One Nation, Many Languages.
In A Simpson (ed.), Language and National identity in Africa, pp.291-
313.
Mathews P.H. 2005. The concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Musonda, M & Kashoki, E.M. 1982. Lexical adaptability in Bemba and Luunda:
Some implications for present-day communication. In Africa Social Research; No
34, 293-298.
Scholarly articles for Mambwe at Ethnologue (18th ed. 2015
Sloat, C., Taylor, S. H. & Hoard, J.E. 1978. Introduction to phonology. New Jersey
(USA): Prentice –Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliff.
Spitulnik, D. & Kashoki, E.M. 2001. Brief Bemba linguistic profile. In J. Garry &
C. Rubino eds. Encyclopaedia of the World’s Major Languages, Past
and Present. New York: Rublin H.W. Wilson.
Udema, S. 2004. The Theory of Lexical phonology. Munich: GRIN Publishing.
Wakumelo, M.N. 2013. A Critical analysis of Zambia’s language-in education
policy: Challenges and lessons learned. In H. Mcllwraith (ed).
Multilingual education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba language in
education conference. pp. 127-146.London: British Council.
Werner M. & A.N. Tucker. 2009. Mambwe Proverbs. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zambia Central Statistical Office (ZCSO). 2002/2010 Census of Population and
Housing: National Analytical Report. Lusaka: Central Statistical Office.
