afroasiatic language phylum by a. sosal a.


Published on

African languages families

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

afroasiatic language phylum by a. sosal a.

  1. 1. By Ahmed Sosal A. Department of Linguistics University of Khartoum November 2011List of abbreviations:Languages and languages groups
  2. 2. B Berber P-AA Proto-AfroasiaticC Cushitic P-C Proto-CushiticCh Chadic P-E Proto-EgyptianE Egyptian P-S Proto-SemiticO OmoticGrammatical categoriesAbs absolutive 3sg 3rd person singularAcc accusative 1pl 1st person pluralGen genitive 2pl 2nd person pluralNom nominative 3pl 3rd person pluralNP noun phrase m. masculine1sg 1st person singular f. feminine2sg 2nd person singularList of tables: Table1: Berber languages classification Table2: Chadic languages classification Table3: Semitic languages classification Table4: Cushitic languages classification Table5: Omotic languages classification Table6: Personal pronouns in AA languages Table7: plural formatives in AA languages 1. An introduction Of the other language phyla, Afroasiatic (AA) has the largest number of speakers inAfrica. This phylum contains over 300 languages in the Ethnologue count (Grimes 1996) spokenby nearly 250 million people. Written records of Egyptian and Semitic (both Afro-Asiaticlanguages) date back at least four thousand years, giving the Afro-Asiatic language family thelongest history of any known language group (Atlas, p.51). The date of its proto-language, i.e.,the date at which the proto-language began to diversify, “has been proposed by Diakonoff 1988(p. 25) …to a period prior to 8,000 B. C.”, over 10,000 years ago (Hayward 2000: 75). Outsideand within Africa can be found one of its most important members, Arabic; Hebrew and Aramaicalso belong to the phylum, both spoken exclusively outside Africa. The vast majority ofAfroasiatic languages, however, are found in Africa and the phylum as a whole originated there.
  3. 3. The numbers in parentheses after each family name represent the number of languages in thatfamily.Among Africanists there is no great controversy about the classification of Afroasiaticlanguages. Whereas, Near Eastern scholars are less happy with Afroasiatic, resenting thediminished attention accorded their languages in the accepted classification and the extrapolatedAfrican origin (Blench 1999b: 11). Some scholars consider them “minor languages” and excludethem from the Semitic family tree (Blench & Spriggs1999a: 12) (Child (2003:51). Nevertheless,regarding the overall AA hypothesis there has been wide satisfaction. The most securely established phylum today probably is Afroasiatic. Here, Greenberg followedup on pioneering work by nineteenth century scholars such as Müller (1867-1888) on what wasthen called Hamito-Semitic, and twentieth century scholars like Delafosse (1914), who seems tohave coined the term “afroasiatique”. In his initial series of studies on the genetic classificationof African languages, published between 1949 and 1954 and reprinted as a monograph in 1955,Joseph Greenberg accepted this phylum as a valid genetic grouping.Some of the AA phylum special features: i- It is the only phylum that includes some languages spoken exclusively outside of Africa( this why it is called „Afroasiatic‟, „Afroasian‟ or „Afrasan‟) ii- Historically, AA people have accomplished some of the earliest human achievements in civilizations (e.g., The Egyptian, Assyrian, Arabs, etc.). iii- AA languages have the great time-depth such as Semitic which has written documents dated back 4,000 years. Diakonoff (1988) proposed that the AA proto- languages have to be assigned to a period prior to 8,000 BC. Such time-depth prove useful when we come to linguistic reconstruction. 1.1. A survey of AA languagesCurrently, the AA phylum is divided into six major branches: Chadic, Berber, Egyptian, Semitic,Cushitic and Omotic. But there is disagreement concerning Cushitic. The majorlanguages/language families (phyla) of this branches (in Africa) 200–300: Arabic (180, allvarieties), Amharic (20), Hausa (22), Oromo (10) Somali (5–8), Songhai (2), Tachelhit Berber(3) Child (2003:44).
  4. 4. Map: Afroasiatic six families’ distribution i- The geographical location and speakers:The families of Afroasiatic (Hayward 2000) Berber (30): Languages spoken by some 10 millionpeople in northern Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Niger, Mali, and Mauritania): Tachelhit,Tamazight, Kabyle, Tamezret, Tamasheq, Zenaga, etc.  Chadic (192): Languages of Nigeria, Chad, and Cameroon including Hausa, Ngizim, Miya, spoken by some 28 million people.  Cushitic (47–50): Languages of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan,Kenya, and Tanzania including: Dahalo, Iraqw, Oromo, Afar, Somali; 30 million speakers.  Egyptian (1): Coptic (disappeared in the fourteenth century)  Semitic (50): Middle Eastern as well as Ethiopian languages including (in Africa): Arabic (regional varieties), Gi‟iz, Tigre, Tigrinya, Amharic, etc.; 140 million.  Omotic (20+): Many languages spoken in Ethiopia. Three million speakers. Child (2003:50-51).According to Clements Rialland (2008:57) the geographical distribution of Africa the East zone,encompasses the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia). This zone islinguistically more diverse than what is called the North zone. Though nearly all its languagesare usually classed in the Afroasiatic phylum, they involve three independent stocks:
  5. 5. Ethio-Semitic in the north, Cushitic in the east and south, and Omotic in the west. ii- The phylum classificationGrimes (1996) claimed that AA languages consist of 371 extant linguistic varieties in thefollowing classification the extinct ones also are going to be included as same as those varietieswhich are of less interest. 1.1.1. Berber (or Libyco-Berber) In contrast to the other AA families Berber exhibits no deep linguistic differences. So such similarities facilities the earlier investigators study of Berber languages (Basset 1929). Classification: Here four main groups of languages and dialects clusters have been specified which is based on the geographical distribution more than the linguistic criteria. These four groups are, 1. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and 1. Tashelhit(3,000);Tamazight Libya. (3,000); Tarifit(2,000) and 2. Eastern Libya, Siwa Oasis in Kabyle(3,074). Egypt. 2. Awjilah(2,000) and Siwa(5). The varieties The location 3. Sahara-Sahelian varieties: 3. Desert if Algeria, Niger, Mali Tuareg (Tamahaq or and Burkina Faso. Tamajeq)(25-76). 4. A distinct variety spoken by Zenaga(25). 4. South-West of Berber range in Mauritania. Table1: Berber languages classificationThe extinct varieties belong to here are, Old Libyan language(s) (found in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco). Guanche (was ones spoken by indigenous of the Canary Islands). 1.1.2. Chadic The Chadic languages belong to the Afro-Asiatic family. It consists of about 140 languages (Newman1992:253). Hausa is a Chadic language spoken primarily in northern Nigeria. With more than 35 million speakers, Hausa is the biggest representative of the Chadic group Hartmann & Zimmermann (2007:259) and the largest African language if we exclude Arabic. Classification: Newman (1977) affiliate Chadic into four branches as follows:
  6. 6. .1. West Chadic languages: 1. A. The location Nigeria. Hausa,(22,000), Bole(100), Anga s(100) and Ron(115).B. Bade(250) and Ngizim(80), Warji(70) and C. The varieties 2. Northern Cameroon, North- Boghom(50). eastern Nigeria and Chad. 2. Tera(50), Bura(250), Kamwe(300 ), Lamang(40), Mafa(138), Sukur (15), Daba(36) and Bachama- Bata(300). 3. Sothern Chad, Cameroon and Buduma(59), Musgu(75) and Centeral African Republic Gidar (66). 3. A.Tumak(25), Nancere(72) and Kera(51). B. 4. South-western Chad and Dangaleat(27), Mokulu(12) and Northern Cameroon. Sokoro(5). Table2: Chadic languages classification1.1.3. Egyptian Four and half millennia of written records result in tracing a course of a single language back to its demise in the fourteenth century. As in any language the same in Egyptian languages comes across diachronic changes a matter to be considered in distinguishing varieties. Classification: Old Egyptian (3,100-2,000 BC), Middle Egyptian(2,000- 1,300BC), Late Egyptian, Hieratic, Demotic, Coptic, etc. often are associated with literary and graphic matters rather than linguistic features.1.1.4. Semitic „Recognition of the common features uniting the Semitic languages against all other groups of then-known languages probably began in the early Middle Ages although the name „Semitic‟ itself was not coined until very much later (von Schlözer1781)‟ Hayward (2003:241). Semitic is the most studied thus best understood branch of AA even there are some languages poorly known. It comprises of some fifty distinct varieties and dozen or more can be assumed to be under the umbrella of Arabic although they are not mutually intelligible. Classification: There is an agreement on threefold portioning of Semitic: North-east, North-west and South subfamilies.
  7. 7. 1. North-east subfamily. 1. Akkadian(extinct langauge of The subfamily The lnaguages/varieties Assyrians and Babylonians). 2. North-west Semitic. 2.A. Centeral: Armanic, Western Neo-Armanic/ Malula(15), Turoyo(70) and Assyrian(200). B. South-centeral: Phoenician, Biblical Hebrew, Modren Hebrew(4,510), Ugaritic. Arabic (Egyptian(42,000), Hassanya(2,230) , Sudanese(16,000-19,000), etc. 3.A. South Arabian and Ethio- Semitic( Hadrami,Minaean, etc.). B. Modren South Arabian Soqotri(70), Mehri(77), Jibbali(25) 3. South Semitic and Harsusi(700). C. Ethio-Semitic: Tigre(683), Tigrinya(6,060), Amhari c(20,000), Harari(26). Table3: Semitic languages classification1.1.5.Cushitic This family consists of six groups of languages. Yaaku belong to here as nearly extinct language spoken in Kenya. Beja is a language spoken in Sudan, Eritrea and southern Egypt. It is classified as the only member of the North Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic family. Sabrina (2003:50). Classification: These six groups have the geographical based labels as follows 1. Bedawi/Beja(1148). The group The langauges/varieties .1. Northern Cushitic 2.Agaw: 2. Centteral Cushitic Bilin(70), Kemant&Kawara(1,000), Xamtanga(80), Awngi(490). 3.Burji(87), Sidamo(1,500), Kambat 3.Highland East Cushitic a & Hadiyya (million). 4. Northern: Saho(144) Far(1,200) 4. Lowland East Cushitic Oromoid: Oromo proper(13,960) and Konso(200). Omo-Tana: Kenyan Rendille(32), Boni(5), Somali(8,335) , etc. 5. Dually 5. Tsamay(7), Gawwada(65-76). Southern Cushitic languages 6.Iraqw(365), Gorowa(30), Burunge Table4: Cushitic languages classification (31),and Dahalo(3,000).
  8. 8. 1.1.6. Omotic This family consists of two major groups of languages (North and South Omotic. Omotic are the only Afroasiatic families which are marked nominative. Ko¨nig (2008:283). Classification: South Omotic: Aari(109), Hamer-Banna(25), Karo(600) and Dinme(2,128). North Omotic: Dizoid and Gonga-Gimojan. 1. South west Ethiopia, Kafa 1. Dizoid: Dizi(18), Nayi(12) and The location The varieties region. Sheko(23). 2. Ethiopia 2. Gonga proper: Kafich(500), Shakacho(70), Boro (7) and the extinct Anfillo. Gimojan:Yemsa(500), and Gimira-Ometo. Gimira:Bench(80), Wolaytta(2,0 00), Gamo(464), etc. Table5: Omotic languages classification 1.2. A cultural survey It is difficult neither to provide a precise characterization of the AA people accordingto their culture nor to give enough justification for the cultural achievement of one of them inshort section. In the pre-industrial times AA people learned to make use of every habitable nicheand to adopt every possible way of life. Historically, most of them were interested in religionsand priests and this constitutes some of their minorities but some of them moved far away fromthis routine engaging in trade (e.g., the Phoenician, and the Arab).AA people in locations as in the Nile Valley, Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent presentamazing urban civilization in the world one day. Their astonishing historical remains still standas an evidence of their great achievements.All three monotheistic world religions originated in Semitic peoples so they believe in supreme(male) Sky-God.Other habits and believes:  The practice of circumcision,  Rituals directed towards spirituals entities associated with trees, wells and mountains,  Believe in the „evil eye‟. 2. A history the concept of Afroasiatic The AA hypothesis has been given a genetic affinity by the linguists who subscribed to itand that offer better explanation for the linguistic facts. The history of the evaluation of thishypothesis began with quite early recognition of the relatedness of the Semitic languages. Earlier
  9. 9. studies of the African languages admitted that the relationship between Semitic languages is poorone. The following is an attempt to identify some of the main events and shifts through theprocess of AA hypothesis history. 2.1. Semitic It is derived from the name of Noah‟s eldest son, Shem. This was first coined as a genetic term for languages as Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic by Von Schlozer (1981). But there is disagreement about its actual relatedness date. The present day Semitic languages includes languages of South Arabian, Gurage and Neo- Armaic groups. 2.2. Egyptian Champollions works in Egyptian in 1820s revealed many similarities between that language and the old Semitic ones. Many works then follws e.g., Renan(1855) who considered Cushitic languages (e.g., Galla or Ormo) as sub-Semitic and Lotter(1860) who assumed to be the first who used the term „Hamitic‟. As pointed out in Greenberg (1955), the term “Hamito-Semitic”…. should be avoided, for Semitic constituted but one of the five branches; moreover, the concept “Hamitic” had developed racist connotations during preceding decades, in particular after Meinhof‟s (1912) publication of Die Sprachen der Hamiten, which constituted a mixture of genetic and typological as well as (physical) anthropological criteria; Hamitic languages, according to Meinhof, originally were spoken by stock-keeping peoples of Caucasian stock. Dimmendaal (2008). 2.3. Other earlier taxonomies Comparing languages forms reveals physical anthropological and linguistic typological features in reaching their judgment Cust characterized Hamitic languages as (a) Being not Semitic, (b) Having grammatical gender and (c) Located in north/north-east Africa. In 1912 Meinhof employed classification that relies on a mixture of genetic, typological and morphological criteria. In 1950 Greenberg introduced five branches of Afroasiatic phylum. By the application of the mass comparison which led to The inclusion of languages such as Massai and Fulfulde, Underscore most of the family divisions within the phylum and Claimed the unambiguity of AA membership for Chadic. In 1969 Fleming together with Bender‟s (1971) exhibit the need to exclude the West Chadic entirely from Cushitic and affiliate it to the independent Omotic.All these work based widely on descriptive grammars and lexical materials. AA as a phylumwith five or six co-ordinate branches presents an irresistible temptation of subgrouping.
  10. 10. 3. Evidences for AfroasiaticOn the basis of the assumption of AA hypothesis evidences now we come to the commonancestry for the six linguistic families of this phylum. This assumption evidence is in thefollowing paragraphs.It was on the basis of „mass comparison‟ not the comparative method Greenberg established theAA languages phylum. He avoided the reliance on typological features though his classificationgained general acceptance.There is much more structural diversity in Afroasiatic than in Nilo-Saharan languages: e.g., inthe Afroasiatic languages case is expressed by accent shift, suffix, tone, or some combination ofthese. And in the Afroasiatic languages there is as a rule a much larger set of case categories.Ko¨nig (2008:288-289).Genetic relatedness evidences: (a) Shared morphology, (b) phonemes have no meanings of themselves without real influence, (c) Lexicon is always open to infiltration by borrowing. (d) Linguistic features within Ethiopia tend to hug genetic boundaries to a certain extent (Tosco 2000b), though a few, such as the common presence of implosives in consonant inventories, cross boundaries as well. Clements and Rialland (2008:57). 3.1. The personal pronounsThe personal pronouns provide strongest support for the hypothesis but as in most casesOmotic languages show less agreement in pronominal forms. Pronominal elementsidentification is possible by looking at them with forms of possessive determiner and objectcomplement functions. These precisely similar forms are called ‘primary such as follows:The grammatical Languages(s) group Examplecategory1st sg ‘me, my’ Egyptian *--ay Berber -i, -i-n Chadic wa, ni2sg ‘you, your’ P-E m. **-ku f. **-ki P-S m. *-ka f. *-ki3sg ‘him, his, her P-AA m. & f. *si, *isi O m. iz-n, f. iz-n
  11. 11. 1pl ‘us, our’ P-E **-ina P-C *na~*nu~*ni etc.2pl ‘you’ Ch Kum P-AA *kuuna3pl ‘them’ P-S m. *-sumu, f. *-sina B m. –sn, f. -sntTable6: Personal pronouns in AA languages 3.2. Case markerCase distinctions between subjects and objects are less rare in both two phyla (Afroasiatic andNilo-Saharan). Within Afroasiatic, the majority of Chadic languages have no case system, butsome Central Chadic languages use prepositions to code objects, and many Berber, Omotic,Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic languages distinguish between subject and object by way ofmorphological case on nouns. Thus, in the Omotic language Maale, case suffixes (whose formdepends on gender and definiteness) as well as tonal inflection are used to distinguish these twocore functions (Amha 2001: 56–8). Clements and Rialland (2008:107) Compare: (a) na-att-a´ bayi yenk’-a´-ne Child-PL-SUBJ cattle: ABS herd-IPF-POS: DECL „Children herd cattle‟ (b) ?__z__ na-att-o´ naR k-a´-ne 3MSG: SUBJ child-PL-ABS like-IPF-POS: DECL „He likes children‟.The Berber languages allow for the following prediction: if a Berber language has inflected case,it is marked nominative, and it is either North or South Berber, all East and West Berberlanguages having lost their marked nominative system. Ko¨nig (2008:283). (i) Absolutive marker: is characterized by final *-a. It marks the head of NP functioning as the direct object of a verb. (ii) Nominative marker: opposed to the absolutive marked by *-u found in subject NP that are unfocused.Languages(s) group The grammatical Example categoryS-Akkadian Srr-u-m ‘king’ Sarr-a-m ‘king’Classical Arabic Malik-u Malik-a ‘king’C-Afar m.nom Awk-i Awk-a ‘boy’
  12. 12. Table6: Case marker in AA languages„It has been demonstrated quite convincingly that Proto-Cushitic can be reconstructed with asurface case system which at least in masculine nouns reflects rather directly an original systeminherited from Proto-Afroasiatic‟ (Sasse 1984; Appleyard 1986). Hayward (2003:245) i.e. masculine/feminine absolutive *-a various vocalic endings nominative *-i no change oblique *-i *-ti 3.3. Conjugational features of the verb 3.3.1. Prefix-conjugation (P-Cj): This is familiar from the imperfect of most modernSemitic languages and it is characterized by a prefixal pattern of subject agreements e.g. theimperfect paradigm in Arabic:„Write‟ 1sg ?-aktub-u; t-aktub-u; y-aktub-u; t-aktub-u; etc. 3.3.2. Stative conjugation: It is found in the Egyptian e.g. the pseudo participle1sg –kw, -ky, 2sg –ty, etc. 3.3.3. Present stem: Greenberg assumed two features in what he called „presentstem‟ (a) internal ablaut to –a; and (b) medial consonant germination. 3.4. Plural formativesInternal plural maker: AA languages display multiple plural formatives but also there are certainformations belong to P-AA. Greenberg (1955) demonstrated a likely AA pattern of pluralformation involving ablaut to a, usually in last syllable of a noun. Sometimes it is accompaniedby reduplication and triggers dissimilation or assimilation of other stem vowels of the plural.Languages(s) group Example MeaningS-Proto-Hebrew *malk: *malak ‘king/s’B-Kabyle Amq rqur: i-mq rqar ‘frog/s’C-Beja a- anim: ‘reed/s’ i- unamRendiller Ur: urar ‘stomach/s’Ch-Ngizim Gimsik: gimsak ‘man/men’Table7: plural formative in AA languagesPlural suffixes: It occur across a majority of six AA families AA plural suffixes containing alabial-velar glideas as proposed by Zaborski(1976).
  13. 13. For the singular and the plural in various Afroasiatic languages consider the following examplesfrom Berber and Chadic. Bendjaballah (2003:42)1. Berber:Kabyle BerberSingular Plural Gloss argaz irgaz6n “man” axxam ixxam6n “house”2. Chadic:a. Hausa (Newman 1990:28)Singular Plural Gloss kàazaa kàa_ii “frog” fàaraa fàarii “grasshopper”b. Pa‟a (Newman 1990:29)Singular Plural Gloss tàka tàkí “arrow” wíla wíli “axe” 3.5. Other morphological evidenceFeatures widely across AA but these are not completeness. The morpheme for „judgement‟ is h-k-m, the only material that is constant across all three columns; for „grape‟ it is the threeconsonants -n-b, etc. The last two examples illustrate four-consonant morphemes or“quadriliterals” Child (2003:119).Non-concatenative morphology (Afroasiatic): The most widely publicized instantiation of thisphenomenon occurs in Classical Arabic, e.g., where sequences of consonants can be recognizedacross a wide variety of words containing a semantic core. Consonants always appear in thesame order but may be interrupted by other morphemes as well as by epenthetic segments,hence, because of all the interruptions, the term “nonconcatenative” or “discontinuous”morphology. Note how the k-t-b sequence, known as a “triliteral”, is always present but never inthe same way.55 The triliteral k-t-b, a discontinuous morpheme, is part of each of the followingforms: Child (2003:118-119).The non-concatenative morphology of Classical Arabic(Anderson 1985:34–36)Kitaab „book‟Katab „write‟kaatab „write to someone‘aktab „dictate, cause to write‟Takaatab „correspond, write to each other‟ktatab „be registered‟staktab „ask someone to write‟
  14. 14. 3.6. Verbal derivation AA languages create new verbs from existing ones by means of affixes, often in combination. So the derived verbs differ from their bases in terms of syntactic argument structure voice and like. 3.7. Lexicon and phonology Labial (or labiodental) flaps, where the teeth touch well below the outer eversion of the lip, which is flapped smartly outwards, downwards. They have been found in all African phyla except Khoisan, e.g. in Chadic of Afroasiatic (Margi, Tera). Heine and Leyew (2008:39) Within Afroasiatic, all Chadic languages according to Schuh (2003); these sounds are usually glottalized to some extent, and for this reason they are usually classified as glottalized or laryngealized stops in descriptions of Chadic languages. Glottalized implosives and A also occur in varieties of Arabic spoken in south western Chad, where they have replaced emphatics (Hage`ge 1973). In the East and Rift zones, implosives are again distributed through several genetic units. In Afroasiatic, they occur distinctively in Omotic languages (e.g. Hamer and Kullo) and in Cushitic languages as far south as Dahalo on the central Kenyan coast. Clements and Rialland (2008:78) i- The consonants: Sound correspondances. E.g. P-AA *b. ii- Obstruent must be organized in triads contrasting glottalised with plain voice. Tone Within Afroasiatic, all Chadic languages are tonal; since Proto-Afroasiatic was probably not tonal, the most likely source of tone in Chadic is early and continued contact with non-Afroasiatic tone languages (Schuh 2003). The origin of the predominantly tonal or tonal accent systems of Omotic languages in the western Ethiopian highlands is more of a problem; if this group is a member of Afroasiatic, as is widely assumed, it is unclear where their tone systems might have come from. Clements and Rialland (2008:91).3.8. The Urheimat: Militarview and Shenirleman assumed the existence of AsianUrhimat.4. ConclusionIf asked to compile a short list of those linguistic characteristics that we regard as typologicallycommon to Afroasiatic, it is likely that our answers would vary according to the extent of ouracquaintance with languages across the phylum. But if it were possible to assume (though this isa highly unrealistic assumption) a familiarity with Semitic, Cushitic, Berber, Egyptian andChadic, it would probably lead us to list features such as:
  15. 15. morphological behavior involving templates and patterns of ablaut (apophony); a two-term masculine : feminine gender system requiring agreement within the verb and various NP categories; a well-developed system of derivational morphology in the verb expressed mainly through affixation patterns and most commonly concerned with changing valency; a surface case system opposing an unmarked absolutive with marked nominative and oblique cases – though Chadic seems to offer no support for this; some Afroasiaticists might also want to include a morphologically-signalled distinction between stative and inchoative aktionsart, and within the inchoative category a two-fold aspectual system of perfect : imperfect – though all this is probably rather restricted in its distribution across the phylum. But although these features have been spoken of as „typological‟, comparative work yields unmistakable evidence that some of the morphological exponents involved are actually cognate, so that the relationships are genetic as well as typologically. 5. References list Hyward J., Afroasiatic; in African languages: an Introduction, ed. Bern & Nurse (2000), Cmbridge Univ. Press. The Atlas of Languages. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996. Childs George Tucker(2033), An Introduction to African Languages, John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam-G.N. Clements and Annie Rialland; Africa as a phonological area,- Denis Creissels et al.; Africa as a morphosyntactic area,- Joachim Crass and Ronny Meyer, Ethiopia,-Christa Ko¨nig; The marked-nominative languages of eastern Africa; In: A Linguistic Geography of Africa, ed.: Heine & Nurse (2008), Cambridge University Press, New York Hartmann Katharina and Malte Zimmermann; Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A reanalysis of the particle nee/cee;In Focus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic; ed.: Olade´ Enoch, Hartmann Katharina, Zimmermann Malte (2007); Mouton de Gruyter Berlin Gerrit J. Dimmendaal(2008); Language ecology and genetic diversity on the African continent; Language and Linguistics Compass 2/5 (2008): 840–858, Blackwell Publishing Ltd
  16. 16. -Sabrina Bendjaballah (p:42) The internal structure of the determiner in Beja - The „empty quarter‟ of Afroasiatic Linguistics;In: RESEARCH IN AFROASIATIC GRAMMAR II; Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000; Vol.241; ed.: Lecarme Jacqueline(2003); John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amesterdam