Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:56:48.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Problems of Classification of African Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig
Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig*
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
Get access

Extract

On principle, there are no language classifications which are right or wrong, but only classifications which are more or less useful or useless. This statement at the beginning of my paper is intended to indicate the teleological perspective in which I want to view the more general problems involved in the classification of African languages. I shall discuss these within a framework which I derive from the four main components of any language classification, namely:

  1. 1. the aims and objectives of language classification,

  2. 2. the basic units to be classified,

  3. 3. the criteria of classification,

  4. 4. the models of language classification.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 35 , Issue 137 , March 1987, pp. 113 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bryan, M., The Bantu Languages of Africa, London - New York - Cape Town, Oxford University Press, 1959 (Handbook of African Languages).Google Scholar
Dalby, D., Language Map of Africa and the Adjacent Islands, London, International African Institute, 1977.Google Scholar
Fivaz, D.; Scott, P.E., African Languages. A Genetic and Decimalised Classification for Bibliographic and General Reference, Boston, Mass., G. K. Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
Fodor, I., The Problems in the Classification of the African Languages, Budapest, Center for Afro-Asian Research of the Hungarian Academy of Science, 1966.Google Scholar
Fodor, I. A Fallacy of Contemporary Linguistics, Hamburg, Helmut Buske, 1982.Google Scholar
Goebl, H., Dialektometrie. Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der Numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie, Vienna, Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H., Studies in African Linguistic Classification, Branford, Conn., Compass, 1955.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H. The Languages of Africa, The Hague, Mouton, 1963.Google Scholar
Guarisma, G.; Möhlig, W. J. G., (eds.), La méthode dialectométrique appliquée aux langues africaines. (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
Guthrie, M., The Classification of the Bantu Languages, London - New York-Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Guthrie, M.” A two-staged method of comparative Bantu study.” African Laguage Studies (London), Vol. III, 1962, p. 1–24.Google Scholar
Guthrie, M. Comparative Bantu. An Introduction to the Comparative Linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages, Farnborough, Gregg Press. Part I, Vol. I, 1967. Vol. III, 1971. Part II, Vols. III-IV, 1970.Google Scholar
Heine, B.; Hoff, H.; VossEN, R., “Neuere Ergebnisse zur Territorialgeschichte des Bantu.” In Möhlig, W. J. G.; Rottland, F.; Heine, B. (eds.) Zur Sprachgeschichte und Ethnohistorie in Afrika. Neue Beiträge afrikanistischer Forschungen, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1977, p. 57–72.Google Scholar
Johnston, H.H., A Comparative Study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu Languages, Vol. II, London, Oxford University Press, 1922.Google Scholar
Koelle, S.W., Polyglotta Africana; or A Comparative Vocabulary of Nearly Three Hundred Words and Phrases, in More Than One Hundred Distinct African Languages. London, Church Missionary House, 1854.Google Scholar
Meinhof, C.; Van Warmelo, N.J., Introduction to the Phonology of the Bantu Languages, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1932.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W.J.G., Die Stellung der Bergdialekte im Osten des Mt. Kenya. Ein Beitrag zur Sprachgliederung im Bantu, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1974.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W.J.G.” Guthries Beitrag zur Bantuistik aus heutiger Sicht.” Anthropos. Zeitschrift für Völker- und Sprachenkunde (St. Augustin), Vol. 71, 1976, p. 673–715.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W.J.G.” The Bantu nucleus: its conditional nature and its prehistorical significance.” Sugia. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika (Hamburg), vol. I, 1979, p. 109–141.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W.J.G.” La dialectométrie: une méthode de classification synchronique en Afrique.” In Guarisma, G.; Platiel, S. (eds), Dialectologie et comparatisme en Afrique Noire, Paris, Selaf, 1980, p. 27–44.Google Scholar
Platiel, S. Bantu Languages. In Heine, B.; Möhlig, W. J. G. (eds.). Language and Dialect Atlas of Kenya, Vol. I, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1980, p. 11–53.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W. J. G.” Stratification in the history of the Bantu languages.” Sugia. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika (Hamburg), vol. III, 1981, p. 251–316.Google Scholar
Möhlig, W. J. G.” Mbugu.” In Jungraithmayr, H; Möhlig, W. J. G. (eds.). Lexikon der afrikanischen Sprachen und ihre Erforschung, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1983, p. 158 f.Google Scholar
Seguy, J., “La dialectométrie dans l'atlas linguistique de la Gascogne.” Revue de linguistique romane, Vol. 37, 1973, p. 1–24.Google Scholar
Tucker, A.N.; Bryan, M.A. “The 'Mbugu' anomaly.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London), Vol. 37, 1974, p. 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, D., Die westlichen Sudansprachen und ihre Beziehungen zum Bantu, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, D., Bryan, M.A., Languages of West Africa, London, Oxford University Press, 1952 (Handbook of African Languages, Part II).Google Scholar
Winter, J.C. “Inter(natio)nal classifications of Kilimanjaro Bantu compared: towards an East African dialectometry.” In Guarisma, G.; Platiel, S. (eds). Dialectologie et comparatisme en Afrique Noire, Paris, Selaf, 1980, p. 101–132.Google Scholar