- Khoisan languages
Group of more than 20 languages presently spoken by perhaps several hundred thousand Khoekhoe and San peoples of southern Africa.A number of Khoisan languages are now either extinct or spoken by very few people. Their most distinctive linguistic characteristic is the original and extensive use of click consonants. The genetic unity of the Khoisan languages remains disputed.
* * *Introductiona unique group of African languages spoken mainly in southern Africa, with two outlying languages found in eastern Africa. The term is a compound adapted from the words khoekhoe ‘person' and saan ‘bush dweller' in Nama, one of the Khoisan languages, and scholars have applied the words—either separately or conjoined—to refer to economic, social, physical, and linguistic features of certain aboriginal groups of southern and eastern Africa. Their most distinctive linguistic characteristic is the original and extensive use of click consonants, a feature which has spread through cultural and linguistic contact into a number of Bantu (Niger-Congo) languages—such as Xhosa (Xhosa language), Zulu (Zulu language), and Sotho in South Africa and Gciriku (Diriku), Yei (Yeye), and Mbukushu in Botswana and Namibia—and into Dahalo, a Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) language of Kenya. The linguistic use of clicks, whether original or borrowed, is restricted to these few African languages, with one exception: Damin. This ritual vocabulary of the Lardil of Australia contains some words with clicks together with other peculiar sounds, but the use of clicks is limited, and they have a symbolic value in addition to their linguistic function.OverviewThe Khoisan languages were once spoken across all of southern Africa from southern Angola in the west to Swaziland in the east and the Cape of Good Hope in the south (see the map). The 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, however, have witnessed the death of many of the recorded languages and dialects, and their distribution is now largely confined to Botswana and Namibia. (Click here—> for an audio sample of the extinct !Ora language.) The fact that many of the surviving languages are endangered and some are even on the point of extinction bears testimony to inexorable social, economic, linguistic, and demographic forces that continue to marginalize and consume indigenous linguistic and cultural minorities. Hadza (Hatsa), one of the East African Khoisan languages, is a remarkable exception to this, having retained its vitality through a pattern of stable bilingualism with Swahili (Swahili language), the dominant Bantu language in the area. Elsewhere many bilingual Khoisan speakers have tended to shift rapidly to the dominant language, thus ceasing transmission of the mother tongue to children and leaving it to contract and die, sometimes quite abruptly. In South Africa a variation of this process allowed the Khoisan languages to exert a powerful linguistic influence on the dominant languages before they disappeared, leaving Afrikaans (Afrikaans language) and some Bantu languages with a number of distinctive Khoisan features.The original and unique use of clicks in the Khoisan languages has invited speculation that these unusual sounds might reflect an earlier stage in the evolution of language when sounds were natural vocal adaptations to the environment. In this view Khoisan hunters might have developed clicks to camouflage their presence as they stalked their prey in an environment of insect and other noises or might have responded to various situations with onomatopoetic vocalizations containing clicks. But this line of thinking has proved fruitless. All languages use sound symbolism to some extent, and, while there are indeed examples of clicks functioning in this way (for example, !ã, the word for the clicking noise made by the knee joints of a walking eland [Taurotragus oryx], contains an appropriate click in one Khoisan language), their normal linguistic function is as unremarkable as the function of more familiar consonants such as b or s in any language. The origin of Khoisan click consonants and their peculiarly African provenance therefore remains a mystery.One puzzling feature of the Khoisan languages is that, despite some uniformity in their use of clicks, they differ considerably among themselves in aspects such as word formation, sentence structure, and vocabulary. In fact, these differences are so pronounced as to suggest that in a linguistic discussion the term Khoisan should be used only in a loose typological sense to refer to a group of languages that share some features of sound structure (mainly involving clicks) and not as the name of a language family in the strict sense—such as Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, or Bantu—in which some shared features are found at all levels of structure and these features are assumed to have been inherited from a common ancestral language. Even though the sound structure of the Khoisan languages is unique, their resemblance to each other in this respect has not provided the evidence needed to unravel all their internal genetic affiliations, let alone their relationships to other African languages. The debate about these relationships remains a prominent feature in the linguistic study of Khoisan languages, and the disagreements that sustain it have never been satisfactorily resolved.Classification of the Khoisan languagesA traditional linguistic classification of the Southern African Khoisan languages divides them into three effectively unrelated groups: Northern, Central, and Southern. Sandawe of Tanzania has a distant relationship to the Central group, but the place of Hadza even in relation to Sandawe has always been unclear; and the status of Kwadi, an extinct language of Namibe (formerly Moçâmedes) in southwestern Angola, remains uncertain. Kwadi may be very distantly related to the Khoe group. Within each group one finds more or less closely related languages and dialects with distinctive grammatical or lexical features, but between groups there are pronounced linguistic differences. In a more refined subdivision of the languages, the geographic adjectives are replaced by the names for ‘person' in each major cluster of languages, so that Ju replaces Northern, Khoe replaces Central, and !Kwi and Taa expand Southern.The Ju dialects !Xũ, Ju | hoã, and ǂKx'au ǁ 'eĩ are spoken by about 11,000 people mainly in northeastern Namibia and adjacent parts of Ngamiland in Botswana; there also may be a few speakers in southern Angola. The Khoe languages—notably the Khoekhoe group, consisting of Nama (officially called Khoekhoegowab) of Namibia, with about 230,000 speakers, and !Ora and Gri (both extinct) of South Africa—are the most numerous. The majority of the remaining Khoe languages and dialects of the Non-Khoekhoe (NKK) group, which altogether comprise about 66,000 speakers, are found over the whole of western, central, and northern Botswana. Of the so-called Western NKK languages, Naro is spoken in the west (with a few speakers in adjacent parts of Namibia), | Gui and ǁGana are spoken in the west-central area, and Buga and ǁAni are spoken to the north in the Okavango delta. (Kxoe, which is closely related to the latter, is found in the Caprivi Strip, Namibia, and along the Kwando River in southeastern Angola.) The Shua and Tshua groups of languages are spoken in the eastern parts of Botswana. The Taa dialects of the Southern group, consisting of closely related varieties of !Xóõ, are spoken by fewer than 2,500 people in southwestern Botswana (click here—> for an audio clip of the !Xóõ language). The extinct !Kwi dialects of the Southern group, such as | Xam, ǁXegwi, ǁNg, and |'Auni, were spoken in South Africa; of the !Kwi dialects, only ǂKhomani is still spoken, by a few individuals in Northern Cape province (click here—> for an audio clip of the ǂKhomani language). ǂΗuã, a language of southeastern Botswana with fewer than 100 speakers, shares features with both the Southern and the Ju groups. In East Africa, Sandawe is spoken by 70,000 people in Tanzania northwest of Dodoma, and Hadza is spoken by some 800 in north-central Tanzania near Lake Eyasi. Click here—> for an audio clip of the | Gui language and here—> for a clip of Ju.The hypothesis of a genetic relationship between all these languages leads to the postulation of a Macro-Khoisan family represented in the form of the family tree. The dotted line connecting Hadza to the root reflects uncertainty about its membership in the family, and the alignment of Sandawe's and Kwadi's separate branches alongside the Khoe group posits a possible but remote connection between those branches. The evidence for a subgroup of genetically related Southern African Khoisan languages in the tree is, however, very thin and of such uneven quality that the reality of a Macro-Khoisan family has been questioned. Conventional methods of linguistic comparison applied between the main groups of the Khoisan languages have failed to yield regular sound correspondences, which would allow common roots to be reconstructed; and shared innovations in grammatical structure, which are regarded as the best source of evidence for postulating linguistic relationships are, frustratingly, absent. The table—> illustrates this problem with a few basic words from the main subdivisions. The overwhelming impression is of radical differences between the groups. The word for ‘buffalo' shows Sandawe's link to the Khoe group, but the similar form in Ju is most probably a borrowing from a neighbouring Khoe language rather than an inherited form from a common ancestor. The similarity between the Khoe and !Xóõ forms for ‘drink' and ‘laugh' hints at possible sound correspondences between the vowels and the consonants, but this similarity fails to extend to other words in the two groups. The congruent differences between the Ju forms for ‘drink' and ‘laugh' on the one hand and the Khoe/!Xóõ forms on the other are intriguing, but, because they fail to generalize, they remain merely tantalizing. Ultimately, linguistic comparisons have led to far too few reasonable correspondences to establish secure family relationships between the languages.A different approach to the problem of exploring linguistic relatedness involves mass comparisons of words between languages in the different groups. By allowing some flexibility in associating meanings and words rather than insisting on close semantic correspondences and rules of sound change, this technique has yielded some suggestive similarities, with a few of them even extending beyond the Khoisan languages to languages of the Niger-Congo (Niger-Congo languages) family. When such cases involve clicks in Khoisan words corresponding to nonclicks in Niger-Congo words, the intractable problem of click genesis and click loss arises. It is possible that the failure to demonstrate Khoisan linguistic relationships convincingly is a function of the limitations of conventional and other comparative methods to penetrate the great time-depth separating the groups.Linguistic characteristicsWhile the word and sentence structure of the various Khoisan groups differ considerably, the similarity in sound structure of the Southern African Khoisan languages is pervasive. All these languages are tone languages and use the same four basic clicks, symbolized |, ǁ, !, and ǂ; the Southern group is unique in its use of a fifth, the bilabial or “kiss click,” symbolized ʘ. Sandawe and Hadza use only the three basic clicks |, ǁ, and !. Each click combines with a number of accompanying articulations such as voicing, nasality, aspiration, and ejection to produce a large number of sound complexes involving a click. Languages differ in the number of such distinctions; they vary from a low of 9 in Hadza through 20 in Nama, 52 in | Gui, 55 in Ju, and 83 in !Xóõ. To the click complexes must be added varying numbers of nonclick consonants resulting in some uniquely large and complicated consonant systems. The | Gui system of 90 consonants, the Ju system of 105 consonants, and the !Xóõ system of 126 consonants are the largest in the world. By contrast, Nama—which, like | Gui, is a Khoe language—has only 32 consonants, and Hadza has a modest 54. While these figures show that the numerical balance of clicks to nonclicks in the Khoisan languages varies, the proportion of words containing clicks to those with other consonants reveals a strong bias toward clicks. In Nama the ratio is 8:1, and in Ju, | Gui, and !Xóõ it is 7:1. In Hadza, however, click words are outnumbered by nonclick words 7:1, confirming a very different history for that language.In all the Southern African Khoisan languages, strict rules govern where particular consonants may appear in a word: all the clicks and most of the nonclicks must appear at the beginning of a word and must be followed by a vowel; between the vowels of a word only a handful of consonants such as b, m, n, l, and r may appear, and, if a word ends in a consonant, it must be m or n (and possibly p, ts, or s, which are grammatical suffixes in the Khoe languages only). Hadza and Sandawe deviate completely from these restrictions, thus reinforcing their distinct historical development. The effect of the Southern African Khoisan restrictions somewhat compensates for the complexity that an abnormally large number of unusual consonants might pose for speech perception and language learning: clicks and most other consonants uniquely identify the beginning of words. In running speech the effect of the clicks is diluted by the grammatical particles, most of which do not contain a click. Nevertheless, the overall auditory clicking effect of a Khoisan language is nothing less than spectacular. In addition to consonantal complexities, many of the languages expand a basic system of five plain vowels through the use of colourings—for example, nasalization, pharyngealization, and different voice qualities such as breathy and creaky voice. !Xóõ thus ends up with more than 40 vowel differences.GrammarWord and sentence structure varies markedly between the major groups of languages and even within the Southern group. Word structure in the Ju languages is extremely simple, with a dearth of suffixes and no prefixes. Nouns are assigned to five classes determined entirely by the pronouns they select, and the semantic basis of the different classes is vague: one class includes nouns referring to humans, most animals are assigned to a different class, and many inanimate nouns fall into another. The main parts of a sentence follow the order subject–verb–object (SVO), as in English. The Khoe languages are distinguished by a system of noun genders based on the categories masculine, feminine, and common, which are present to different degrees in the form of distinctive singular, plural, and dual (pair of) suffixes. Thus the Nama root khoe- ‘person' appears as khoe-s ‘woman,' khoe-b ‘man,' khoe-i ‘person.' In Khoe languages of the Non-Khoekhoe branch these suffixes may be dropped when the gender is clear from the context. While the assignment of animate nouns to such sex-based classes is fairly obvious, the assignment of inanimate nouns is quite arbitrary. However, because the genders are also associated with rough semantic distinctions of shape (masculine with long, narrow objects and feminine with short, broad, round objects), specificity, and countability, inanimate nouns may be more naturally assigned to one rather than the other gender.In certain cases these semantic distinctions can be seen clearly when the same root for an inanimate noun appears in the different genders. Thus, in Naro, tsa-ba (masculine) is a borehole, tsa-sa (feminine) is a pan or water in a (geographic) pan, and tsa-ne (common) is water; |'e-ba (masculine) is a match or piece of firewood, |'e-sa (feminine) is a fire, and | 'e-ne (common) is firewood; tsau-ba (masculine) is a finger, but tsau-sa (feminine) is the whole hand. In addition to affecting the singular, dual, and plural forms, nominal genders control agreement (known as concord) on dependent forms in the sentence. For example, in ǁAni the singular and dual forms for masculine ‘leopard' control the italicized suffixes of the numeral and the object marker in the sentences | ui-m !'ui-ma ti mũ-m-ta (literally ‘one-[masculine singular] leopard [masculine singular] I-see [masculine singular]'; i.e., ‘I see one male leopard') and | am-tsa !'ui-tsa ti-mũ-tsa-ta (literally ‘two-[masculine dual] leopard [masculine dual] I-see [masculine dual]'; i.e., ‘I see a pair of male leopards'). Unlike that of the Ju group, the order of the major parts of the sentence in the Khoe languages is commonly subject–object–verb (SOV).The word and sentence structures of the two branches of the Southern group of languages differ in some major respects. Whereas suffixes are few in the !Kwi languages, they are prolific in the Taa dialects, and there is even a remnant of a prefixal system in some of the latter. Nouns fall into five classes, some of which have distinctive suffixes that—as in Ju—are associated with vague semantic classes but not ones based on the Khoe gender principle; the singular and plural forms of a noun may be marked by a change of suffix but not necessarily by a change of class. By contrast, a common way of forming plurals in | Xam, a !Kwi language, is through reduplication of the stem: ǁnáin ‘house,' ǁnáin-ǁnáin ‘houses.' Nouns in the Taa dialects govern suffixal agreement on dependent forms in a way reminiscent of Khoe agreement. This rule requires that adjectives, transitive verbs, and third-person pronouns bear an appropriately agreeing suffix, as can be seen in the demonstrative pronouns in the following examples: tâa té'e (literally ‘person this'; i.e., ‘this person'); tùu tú'u (literally ‘people these'; i.e., ‘these people'); |ûma tá'ã (literally ‘python this'; i.e., ‘this python'); tàli tí'i (literally ‘blood clot this'; i.e., ‘this blood clot'); tháa tán'n (literally ‘thing this'; i.e., ‘this thing'). A grammatical feature common to many of the Khoisan languages is the use of verb compounds where English would use a preposition or a single verb. Thus ‘go in' is ‘go enter' and ‘trample' is ‘stand squash' in !Xóõ; ‘send away' is ‘send go off' and ‘touch' is ‘feel sense' in Ju.Vocabulary and writingAs may be expected, Khoisan vocabulary reflects the cultural adaptations of the hunter-gatherers who speak the languages. In !Xóõ, for example, there is an extensive anatomic vocabulary reflecting their scientific knowledge of the animals they hunt; all botanical species, whether functional or not, are named; and there is an elaborate set of terms to describe ecological niches where particular plants and trees grow, niches that attract specific game animals and provide edible berries, seeds, and tubers or arrow poison and herbal medicines. Nine verbs for ‘squeeze' express the subtleties of extracting edible material from intestines, insects, and the pulp of moisture-bearing tubers. Drinking hot or cold liquid, whether kneeling or not, from an ostrich egg or through a straw, from the rumen of an antelope or the pulp of a tuber, to quench one's thirst or not, needs 10 different verbs. Stalking prey unsighted, sighted, at a run, or as a feline requires 4 different verbs. More than 20 words describe subtle differences in the taste or texture of food, testifying to a gourmet sensitivity to the hunter-gatherer menu. At the same time there are elaborations in vocabulary that are not obviously functional, such as the 13 verbs for ‘carry' and the 26 verbs for ‘sit'; the attention to the vertical or horizontal orientation of one as opposed to many things leads to 25 different verbs for ‘put.' Finally, a rich and colourful vocabulary of insults provides some verbal lubrication for the workings of the social categories of respect and familiarity and the obligations, generosity, and meanness of the participants.There is a rich and well-documented folklore of the Khoisan languages. Most of the languages are unwritten, but Nama, Naro, and Ju have practical orthographies and teaching materials. Nama has a long tradition of literacy, and it even boasts a radio service. Click here—> for an audio clip of a news report in the Nama language.Anthony TraillAdditional ReadingClassificationJoseph H. Greenberg, The Languages of Africa, 3rd ed. (1970), is the influential and classic application of mass lexical comparison to the Khoisan languages, which concludes that they fall into a single family of languages. J.C. Winter, “Die Khoisan-Familie,” in Bernd Heine, Thilo C. Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff (eds.), Die Sprachen Afrikas (1981), pp. 329–374, is a thorough survey of many sources on the Khoisan group. An important article by L.W. Lanham and D.P. Hallowes, “Linguistic Relationships and Contacts Expressed in the Vocabulary of Eastern Bushman,” African Studies, 15:45–48 (1956), describes relationships between extinct !Kwi languages. Rainer Vossen and Klaus Keuthmann (eds.), Contemporary Studies on Khoisan, 2 vol. (1986), collects articles in English and German on a variety of related subjects. Rainer Vossen, “What Do We Do with Irregular Correspondences: The Case of the Khoe Languages,” History in Africa, 18:359–379 (1991), assesses the importance of irregularity of sound changes in a group of dialects whose relationships are not in doubt. Rainer Vossen, Die Khoe-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas (1997), is the most extensive comparative study of the Central Khoe languages of Botswana, documenting the linguistic relationships between 14 languages or dialects. Merritt Ruhlen, On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy (1994), discusses the problem of Khoisan linguistic relationships, which he regards as the most important unsolved problem in the reconstruction of the language families of the world. E.O.J. Westphal, “The Click Languages of Southern and Eastern Africa,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa (1971), pp. 367–420, vol. 7 of Current Trends in Linguistics, gives a radically skeptical view about Khoisan genetic relationships, in contrast to Greenberg and Ruhlen. Bonny Sands, Eastern and Southern African Khoisan: Evaluating Claims of Distant Linguistic Relationships (1998), contains a survey of competing claims about relationships among the Khoisan languages and examines the widest range of evidence with a bearing on this.Linguistic descriptionDorothea F. Bleek, “Bushman Grammar: A Grammatical Sketch of the Language of the |Xam-ka-!k'e,” Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, 19–20:81–98 (1928–30), is an early study. J.W. Snyman, An Introduction to the !Xũ (!Kung) Language (1970), is the first detailed description of the grammatical structure and aspects of the phonological structure of the Ju|hoã dialect of Ju spoken in Namibia. Roy S. Hagman, Nama Hottenot Grammar (1977), is the most extensive grammatical description of a Khoekhoe language. Oswin Köhler, “Observations on the Central Group of Khoisan Languages,” Journal of African Languages, 2:227–234 (1963), provides an overview; Köhler's article “Les Langues Khoisan,” in Jean Perrot (ed.), Les Langues dans le monde ancien et moderne, vol. 1 (1981), pp. 455–615, contains an important summary of views on Khoisan linguistic relationships and descriptions of Ju|hoã and Kxoe, while his Die Welt der Kxoé-Buschleute im Südlichen Afrika, 2 vol. (1989–91), is a masterpiece of linguistic and ethnographic data on an endangered Khoisan language. Rainer Vossen, “Some Observations on Nominal Gender in Naro,” in Franz Rottland (ed.), Festschrift zum 60. Geburtsag von Carl F. Hoffman (1986), pp. 373–390, discusses the semantic basis of noun genders in one Khoe language. Wilfred H.G. Haacke, “Dislocated Noun Phrases in Khoekhoe (Nama/Damara): Further Evidence for the Sentential Hypothesis,” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 29:149–162 (1992), is a specialist's discussion of a unique and fascinating feature of Nama noun structure. Lars-Gunnar Andersson and Tore Janson, Languages in Botswana: Language Ecology in Southern Africa (1997), contains a survey of the sociolinguistic and linguistic features of the Khoisan languages spoken in Botswana.Phonetics and phonologyClement M. Doke, “Outline of ǂKhomani Bushman Phonetics,” in J.D. Rheinallt and Clement M. Doke (eds.), Bushmen of the Southern Kalahari (1937), pp. 61–88, is an excellent phonetic description of a !Kwi dialect just before it began to disappear. D.M. Beach, The Phonetics of the Hottentot Language (1938), is a classic description of the phonetics of Nama and !Ora. Anthony Traill, Phonetic and Phonological Studies of !Xóõ Bushman (1985), is the most detailed description of the phonetic structure of a Khoisan language after Beach's masterly description. Bonny Sands, Ian Maddieson, and Peter Ladefoged, “The Phonetic Structures of Hadza,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 84:67–87 (June 1993), provides a detailed description of the sounds of Hadza and a list of 232 words.DictionariesDorothea F. Bleek, A Bushman Dictionary (1956), the largest comparative vocabulary of the Khoisan languages, has influenced many studies of Khoisan linguistic relationships. Alan Barnard, A Nharo Wordlist (1985), contains notes on grammar and is a valuable record of the most western of the non-Nama Khoe languages, based on extensive anthropological research among the speakers. J.W. Snyman, Žu|'hõasi Fonologie & Woordeboek (1975), is the first thoroughly researched and reliable description of the vocabulary of a San language, with a detailed description of its phonetic and phonological structure and more than 3,000 entries. Patrick Dickens, English-Ju|'hoan Ju|'hoan-English Dictionary (1994), based on Snyman's Woordeboek (with some additions), uses the official practical orthography of the language. Anthony Traill, A !Xóõ Dictionary (1994), is the first dictionary of the Taa dialects, with more than 3,000 entries and a grammatical sketch.Sociolinguistic settingAlan Barnard, Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa (1992), is the best comparative ethnography of the Khoisan people, containing summaries of their linguistic affiliations. Anthony Traill, “!Khwa-ka Hhouiten Hhouiten ‘The Rush of the Storm': The Linguistic Death of |Xam,” in Pippa Skotnes (ed.), Miscast: Negotiating the Presence of the Bushmen (1996), pp. 161–183, reconstructs the sociolinguistic conditions that led to the abrupt shift from |Xam to Afrikaans by the speakers of the Cape San language. Two useful articles are Robert K. Herbert, “The Sociohistory of Clicks in Southern Bantu,” Anthropological Linguistics, 32(3–4):295–315 (Fall–Winter 1990); and E.N. Wilmsen and Rainer Vossen, “Labour, Language, and Power in the Construction of Ethnicity in Botswana,” Critique of Anthropology, 10:7–37 (1990).FolkloreW.H.I. Bleek and L.C. Lloyd (compilers), Specimens of Bushman Folklore (1911, reprinted 1968), is the only source of linguistic data about |Xam, the extinct Cape Bushman language. Roger L. Hewitt, Structure, Meaning, and Ritual in the Narratives of the Southern San (1986), based on the material collected by Bleek and Lloyd, analyzes the anthropology and literature of the Cape |Xam Bushman. Megan Biesele, Women Like Meat: The Folklore and Foraging Ideology of the Kalahari Ju|'hoan (1993), is a sensitive analysis of a collection of oral texts from Ju women. Mathias Guenther, Bushman Folktales: Oral Traditions of the Nharo of Botswana and the |Xam of the Cape (1989), is also useful.Oswin R.A. Köhler Anthony Traill
* * *