No abstract

Marten, Kula and Thwala (2007) compare the morphological and syntactic properties of ten Bantu languages by postulating 19 micro‐parameters with binary values, which capture many of the grammatical differences between the languages in their sample. In our paper, we extend the empirical basis of their study by describing the morpho‐syntax of the Bantu language Kinyarwanda (D61) with respect to the same 19 micro‐parameters. We then make a proposal about the insights that can be gained from comparative studies of this kind. We suggest that systematically organised data about micro‐variation in Bantu offer the opportunity to discover correlations between grammatical properties from which descriptive generalisations can be derived. These generalisations shed light on the abstract principles that determine linguistic variation and may lead to hypotheses about underlying ‘major’ parameters which control whole clusters of grammatical surface differences between groups of languages. We also discuss a number of examples of (unidirectional and bidirectional) correlations that we have found in the data, which point to interesting links between morpho‐syntactic phenomena such as agreement, relativisation, and word order in the Bantu languages.

In Bantu languages such as Chichewa or Herero, locatives can function as subjects and show noun class agreement (in class 16, 17 or 18) with predicates and modifiers. In contrast, (preverbal) locatives in Sotho-Tswana and Nguni have been analysed as prepositional adjuncts, which cannot agree. Our paper compares locatives in Kinyarwanda (JD61) with locatives in these other Bantu languages and demonstrates that the Kinyarwanda locative system is essentially of the Chichewa/Herero type. We show that Kinyarwanda locatives are nominal in nature, can act as subjects, and agree with predicates and modifiers. However, even though Kinyarwanda has four locative noun classes (16, 17, 18 and 25), there is only one locative agreement marker (class 16ha-), which indiscriminately appears with all locatives, regardless of their noun class. We explain this fact by arguing that noun class features in Kinyarwanda do not participate in locative agreement; instead, the invariant class 16 marker expresses agreement with a generic feature [location] associated with all locatives. We offer a syntactic analysis of this peculiar aspect of Kinyarwanda locative agreement, and we propose a parameter that accounts for the relevant difference between Kinyarwanda and Chichewa/Herero-type Bantu languages.

No abstract

This study explored the language developed by Gavin, a child raised by Kinyarwanda speaking caregivers, focusing on syntactic aspect. Data collection tools employed in this study are direct observation, recording and diary to maintain the study subject utterances. The study revealed that Gavin’s syntactic structure was limited to one word use from 16 months until 24 months; two or three words between 19 and 24months, multi-words at the age of 24 months, using different parts of speech with emphasis on those belonging to open class like nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives. He was able to construct subject–verb structure but unable to produce subject-verb-object structure. The findings recommend further research in the area to see if other children can develop the same language as the study subject. Studies should be extended to children over two years until school age to ensure the proper mastery of the mother tongue before introducing other languages like French or English as medium of instruction in nursery and primary education.