YOUTH LANGUAGE PRACTICES IN AFRICA: ACHIEVEMENTS

AND CHALLENGES

Klaus Beyer

Abstract

This theoretical contribution looks at the present state of the art in African youth language

research and connects it to current trends in the field that rely mostly on data from

European metropolitan centers. The aim is not to present new data on African youth

languages but to highlight already attained findings and still remaining challenges on the

way to a general framework for the description of youth language practices worldwide.

To this end, theoretical and methodological insights from various research subfields and

different geographical areas are presented that all pertain to a comprehensive appraisal of

the phenomenon ‘youth language’. The paper makes, however, reference to some

currently ongoing research projects in Africa (and elsewhere) that – at least partly –

already fulfil some of the proposed requirements for the aspired goal.

1. Introduction

Research on youth language practices in Africa is by no means an extremely new or exotic topic but in

the course of time theoretical perspectives and research goals have changed tremendously. Until

recently, research on youth language varieties was dominated by a divide into mere descriptions and

analyses of linguistic structures of emerging youth codes1 on one side and more or less detailed

accounts of respective socio-cultural contents and contexts on the other.

For instance, in the papers collected in Chaudenson (1990), one author (Manessy 1990) looks

at recurrent structures in urban languages all over the continent while another (Antoine 1990) reflects

on young urbanites and their social status as being the driving forces behind linguistic hybridization.

Whether and how these two facets of urban youth languages are connected is not actively considered

by the authors.

The same divide is apparent throughout the discussion of what is nowadays known as

‘Nouchi’. Lafage (1998) describes in detail the linguistic processes underlying the ‘hybridation’ of the

‘français des rues’ [Street-French] but only sacrifices the last page for some reflections on its function

and social status. On the other hand, Kube (2002, 2004) explores extensively the social background

and language attitudes of Nouchi speakers while only very shortly commenting on the linguistic make-

up of the code.2

Moreover, whereas European research on young and urban ways of speaking was mainly

concerned with processes of integration into a given multicultural society, approaches to African urban

youth language varieties were often conceived of as contributions to Creole and/or contact linguistics

in the sense of observing ‘new’ linguistic varieties, as they come into being (Hattiger 1983, Manessy

1992, 1994).

Although in recent years more integrative approaches and comparative research have been

promoted in Africa and elsewhere, we are still far from anything that comes close to a unified

1 One of the challenges in youth language research is already apparent in these few lines. The object of research

is often not clearly defined which is also visible in the different denominations (e.g. variety, code, ways of speaking) also used in this paper. For the time being, the most appropriate term seems 'youth language practices' as it signals the fluid and unsteady character of the ways of speaking that reflect individuals' ideologies and self-portrayals in ever varying shades. 2 To be sure, I am not saying that a given author is only capable of doing either this or that. For instance, Lafage

(1980, 1984) has also described the social functions and cultural background of the current varieties of French in Abidjan, but, as many researchers of her time, she didn't really try to correlate the findings in a coherent way.

theoretical framework for the assessment of youth language practices. Notwithstanding the fact that

theory building is currently informed by studies predominantly from western-type urban centres, I

believe that data from African contexts will add substantially to an empirically informed theoretical

framework in this emerging field of research.

Following up on this claim, it is high time to define and adjust research questions and

methodologies as well as a descriptive framework that accounts for the different layers and facets of

youth language practices.

A first step into this direction is provided by Neuland (2006, 2007). She distinguishes six

layers for an adequate description of what she invariably calls 'youth languages'. It begins with a

global appraisal of the relevant historical context, continues with a sociolinguistic differentiation of

speakers, institutional frames and linguistic domains, and finally looks at functional styles and its

related linguistic outcomes (Neuland 2006: 51–53). As her framework has been developed in

European contexts it is not only biased data wise but may be also in her conception of a 'youth

language' as a discrete code. For researchers acquainted with less standardised languages in generally

multilingual contexts it is much easier to conceive of 'youth languages' as more unsteady linguistic

practice that are enacted in ever varying shades according to speakers' ideologies. Despite this critique,

her descriptive layers may still serve as a starting point insofar as the complex interrelations of social

and linguistic spheres become apparent.

In the following, I will first outline some of the latest developments in the field of youth

language research which is quite often closely connected to the wider field of research on urban

language practices. To that end, I start with an account of the state of the discussion as it is currently

led in Europe and the US. I then concentrate on the African context and specify findings and still

remaining challenges taking its possible input for a general theoretical framework of youth language

practices into consideration. In this section I also make reference to some of the latest research projects

in Africa that apparently already fulfil the proposed requirements but that also raise important

questions relevant for a general theoretical framework of urban language practices.

2. Developments in 'youth language' research

‘Youth languages’ as a sociolinguistic research topic in its own right is currently gaining growing

awareness worldwide. This is due to a general interest of linguists studying language variation

(variationists) who see youth language practices as an example for newly developing linguistic means

of expression. As such emergent language practices also generally appear in urban contact situations,

research topics are often extended from youth to urban languages.

Its earliest forerunners were descriptions of youth and/or student languages in anecdotic

lexicon-style compilations dating back to the 19th century. This kind of youth language lexicon was the

only way of describing special youth registers in Europe for at least a century (Kluge 1895, Müller-

Thurau 1983). Later, the related topic of dialect studies in urban centers began to see young and/or

marginalized speakers as pivotal actors for linguistic innovations (e.g. Northern Cities Shift in the

USA; Labov et al. 2006).

In the African context comparable research started with a focus mainly on the different

varieties of English and French that frequently provided the basis for Creole-like codes prospering in

the emerging urban centers predominantly situated at the (West-) African coastline. One motivation

for this kind of application-oriented research was to support French language development in Africa

under the label of ‘francophonie’3 and, more general, to support educational institutions based on the

former colonial languages (Alidou 2009, Chaudenson 1993, Derive 1983, Dumont 1993, Manessy

1993, 1994).

This kind of driving forces behind research on predominantly younger speakers appropriating

or even corrupting former colonial languages continue to be valid in some places while we currently

also witness a sea-change in research orientation that does away with essentialist views on languages

and ethnicity understanding (linguistic) diversity as an asset rather than a problem. This latter view is

connected to most recent developments in the field of migrant sociology and concomitant advances in

3 ‘Francophonie’ was originally a cover-term for all French speaking countries and later became a kind of label

for the French interest to keep its language on a par with English as world-wide means of communication.

general sociolinguistic theory and method. The following paragraph briefly sums up these

developments.

2.1. Recent paradigmatic shifts

2.1.1. From ‘multiculturalism’ to ‘superdiversity’

From the sixties onwards, the growing numbers of labor migrants reaching the metropolitan centers of

Europe (and North America) fostered migration research within sociology and related areas. Driven by

the same motivation sociolinguists started studying questions of multilingualism and related problems

of integration into the host societies.

One of the sociological answers to the growing integration problems of second and third

generation migrants was the ‘multiculturalism’ paradigm of the late seventies and eighties. This

paradigm prompted local government institutions as well as businesses and public organizations to

adopt policies and structures “…designed to address newly emergent modes of diversity and their

accommodation in wider society.” (Vertovec 2010: 84). Although by the end of the last millennium

this paradigm fell under anti-essentialist critique, as not being able to cope with the multiple and

highly diverse facets of contemporary migration patterns, ideas of neatly separable groups connected

to classical categories like ‘nation’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘religion’ and ‘language’ still linger on in

governmental politics of most western countries.

In reality, one currently observes a multiplicity of motives, itineraries and patterns of

migration into European centers that are mirrored by likewise highly diverse processes of insertion in

the host countries’ societies (Vertovec 2010: 86). This pattern change of migration to Europe has

altered the notion ‘migrant’ tremendously according to its cultural and linguistic features. Vertovec

(2007) introduces the notion of ‘superdiversity’ to account for this “diversion of diversity” (Blommaert

and Backus 2011: 4) that make up the complex nature of contemporary migration to Europe and the

US (Vertovec 2010: 87).

In sociolinguistic theory the linguistic correlates of such 'superdiverse' biographies are no

longer viewed as stable linguistic systems (i.e. languages) but as a continuum of practices with fuzzy

transitions between different registers and styles due to ever varying contexts, identity constructions

and speaker ideologies. The developments in sociolinguistic leading to this picture will be sketched in

the next paragraph.

2.1.2. The ‘third wave’ in variationist sociolinguistics

Alongside the aforementioned sociological adaption to the contemporary superdiverse make-up of

urban centers, a paradigmatic shift in sociolinguistics took place. This so-called ‘third wave’4 in the

variationist paradigm of sociolinguistics (Eckert 2012) brought about some major conceptual changes

which, for the most part, predated ‘superdiversity’ but were also informed and reinforced by this new

framework in migration-studies (Blommaert and Rampton 2011). The focal points of the ‘third wave’

may be divided into three interrelated subfields.

a) Language ideology: Since the work of Anderson (1983) we know that the formation of nation states

were heavily relying on ‘imagined communities’ which employed, among other concepts, ‘named

languages’ as ideological constructions for the definition of national membership. Such an ideological

construction of a coherent language as a pure, bound device for referring to things in the outer world

and reflecting national idiosyncrasies is by now deconstructed (Woolard et al. 1998) and can thus no

longer serve as an ideological kernel for the definition of any ethnically based group of speakers.

4 This term was coined by Eckert (2012) and refers to three successive stages observable in sociolinguistic

research. She equates the first stage with Labov's correlations of linguistic variables with major demographic categories (e.g. age, sex, class) in the seventies. From the mid eighties onwards, the second stage in variation studies, represented by the Milroys (1985), employs more ethnographic methods to highlight the relation between linguistic variables and local community configurations. The currently rolling third wave of variation studies focuses more on the social meaning of variables. It understands variables not directly as expression of identity and group belonging but views styles, rather than variables, as directly associated with identity categories, and explores the contributions of variables to styles (Eckert 2012).

Contemporary sociolinguistics therefore strives for a differentiated account of communicative

practices, as they emerge and develop. So, the ‘third wave’ concept does not just presuppose one

coherent language for all speakers in a given community, instead it admits that any speaker has several

linguistic styles and registers at his/her disposal which serve different kinds of communicative

purposes. In a multilingual context, the possibilities of variation within a given communicative context

may be multiplied (superdiverse) because any single speaker’s repertoire potentially encloses styles

and registers from more than one language. However, the general principles of variation-based

communicative practices don’t change as the speakers still need to choose the ‘right way’ of speaking

for any given communicative setting.

Although such views begin to be more widely accepted in ever widening linguistic circles, the

traditional linguistic orthodoxy is still the dominant paradigm, at least in African languages research

(Lüpke and Storch, 2013: 1–3). Moreover, traditional ideas on coherent language systems as a crucial

criterion for defining national membership still play out in current government politics. Contrary to

such conservative views, youth language practices in Africa seem to fit extremely well the model of

interwoven styles and registers based on multilingual repertoires that may be adapted to any

communicative needs in a variety of communities of practice and to individual self portraying.

b) Speech communities and linguistic repertoires: The correlate of the ‘ideal language’ employed to

define any kind of ethnically or nationally based group of speakers is the well known notion of a

‘speech community’. From the viewpoint of the current sociolinguistic approach a ‘speech

community’ is just another ‘imagined’ community that has no empirical basis. Much more suitable

concepts replacing these broad and empirical unreal notions are approaches that look at actual

‘communities of (language) practice’. This notion was introduced to sociolinguistics by Eckert (2000)

and relates to speakers that factually communicate with each other on a regular basis and thereby

develop specific observable linguistic features and norms. Such features may then take up the function

of (temporary) in-group shibboleths and identity markers. Under such a perspective, research, then,

“…has to address the way in which people take on different linguistic forms as they align and

disaffiliate with different groups at different moments and stages.” (Blommaert and Rampton 2011: 5).

Another related concept equally employed in third wave sociolinguistics is the ‘social network

approach (SNA)’. It was first introduced to sociolinguistic research by the Milroys (1985) who studied

qualities and quantities of social relations in a given group of actors and correlated these data with

specific language behaviour of the respective actors. This approach brought to light that close-knit

social networks with strong ties between the actors foster conservative speech behaviour while loose

network connections are more favourable for linguistic innovation and change of norms. One of the

major advantages of these concepts is their adaptability to “…often mobile and flexible sites and links

in which representations of group emerge, move and circulate.” (Blommaert and Rampton 2011: 4).

Although this latter remark characterizes the strong point of this approach very well, a fruit full

application of the SNA to urban and youth language practices in Africa still awaits its solid proof of

concept. Some advances have however be made in recent research as will be reported below (cp. 3.2).

The above mentioned approaches also put into perspective another stronghold of classical

descriptive linguistics that is related to the concept of a coherent national ‘speech community’ and tied

to an ideal monolingual standard family model. The ‘ideal hearer-speaker’ acquires complete native

speaker competence around the age of 16 (end of language faculty development of individuals)

through so-called ‘normal’ language transmission by his parents. The ‘ideal hearer-speaker’ is pictured

as the natural point of reference for a grammatical description in traditional generative linguistics.

Building on sociolinguistic works from early Labovian times onwards it is by now utterly

clear that nothing like an ‘ideal speaker’ with a complete grammatical competence exists. Thus, in the

current paradigm the concept of ‘linguistic repertoire’ supersedes such generativist idealizations. The

notion of the ‘linguistic repertoire’ accounts for the totality of linguistic resources that an individual

speaker or a community of practice may actuate to process socially significant interaction. Already

introduced to sociolinguistics by Gumperz and Hymes (1972 (1986): 20 f.) this notion was originally

tied to the concept of ‘speech community’ as the totality of linguistic resources a speech community

has at its disposal. However, in late post-modern times of superdiversity this notion is gradually

shifting to a concept applied more to individual speakers, as the presumption of stable communities is

replaced by more fluid views of networks, communities of practice and knowledge communities.

Moreover, individual linguistic repertoires in a superdiverse world can also be analyzed as records of a

given subject’s mobility patterns through his/her life-time, as different bits and pieces of his/her

repertoire develop at different times and places (Blommaert and Backus 2011: 22). So, in the context

of research on youth language practices a refined concept of the linguistic repertoire is indispensable

to reconcile linguistic diversity, mixed languages and individual multilingualism.

Again, to this end not much original empirical work from African contexts is at hand. This

may be due to the fact that it is quite difficult to disentangle the output of a multilingual repertoire

from general language-contact phenomena and variation introduced through incomplete language

acquisition. This is all the more the case when we consider that the analysis works mostly on the

backdrop of already diffuse linguistic systems (cp. below, 3.2) within supposedly rather unfocused

societies. What seems clear is that discourse partners under such conditions are used to stretch the

acceptance of linguistic variation to the very limits of an already diffuse linguistic system as long as

social conduct and behavioral norms of communication are respected (Beyer, forthcoming). This adds

a further complication to the description of the basis on which youth language practices develop.

c) Communication and meaning: The classical generativist’s notion of linguistics concentrates on

grammatical structure that produces meaning by processing meaningful elements through a set of rules

creating ‘language’ as output of the linguistic generator. In stark contrast to this, current

sociolinguistics treats meaning as an active process that is situated in the context of communicative

practice. Seen from the angle of communicative interaction it becomes clear that linguistic production

is not the only source for meaning because other semiotic devices like gesture, facial expression and

posture may equally add to the generation of meaning.

Language is, then, just one of several semiotic resources that need to be accounted for in an

analysis of the entire meaning production of a given communicative interaction. Correlated to this

aspect is the need to cover not only the denotational and propositional function of language but also to

analyze its indexicality and connotational significance. Meaning, under this broadened view of

communication, is multi-modal and any relevant analysis of meaningful conversation needs to adjust

empirically to these communicative conditions. This is even more so in cases where an already diffuse

linguistic system (compare above) lacks a tertium comparationis that is needed for any linguistic

deviation to become meaningful in terms of signaling individual or group identity. This line of

argument provides the background for Kress’ (2009) proposition to widen the sociolinguistic research

object from ‘language’ to ‘semiosis’ as part of a discipline called ‘semiotics’.

This proposition also sheds light on the hitherto unsolved problem of terminology. If we

accept that languages are more than ordered sets of rules shared by an ‘imagined’ speech community

and that individual linguistic repertoires enclose linguistic devices from various subsets together with

further non-linguistic means of communication, we should actually coin a new term for the output of

this system. Whether proposals like ‘semiosis’ or ‘languoid’5 or anything else are most promising in

this respect is not yet clear.

The multi-modal nature of language together with its widened indexical potential that are both

integral parts of the process that communicatively develops ‘meaning’, also raise questions about

common knowledge production and the status of negotiability, creativity and linguistic profusion in

this process. It is far from clear how all these additional elements of a meaningful conversation are

established in the first place.

If we add to this the complication that derives from superdiverse backgrounds of

communicative actors that mostly do not share common knowledge and cultural norms, the challenges

and chances of such a situation become obvious:

The observation of communicative practices in superdiverse contexts bears all facets of

linguistic norm development as linguistic structure and meaning is negotiated and established in ever

5 Good and Hendryx-Parker (2006) coined the term ‘languoid’ thus highlighting the arbitrary nature of the

concept of a uniform (named) language. For them ‘languoid’ is “…a cover term for any type of lingual entity: language, dialect, family, language area, etc.” (Good and Hendryx-Parker 2006 cited in Lüpke and Storch 2013: 3).

ongoing cycles. Or, in the words of Blommaert and Rampton (2011), the linguist observes “…the

emergence of structure out of agency” (Blommaert and Rampton 2011: 7).

2.1.3. Some words on methods

The above outlined developments of the ‘third wave’ in sociolinguistics also have a substantial bearing

on methodological issues. It goes without saying that the coverage and description of what has been

called ‘semiosis’ presupposes a fine-grained investigation of the communicative contexts and its

participants that are part and parcel of its substance. As meaning shapes in places, through activities

and social relations these facets need to be described in meaningful ways with adequate methodology.

The already evoked tool-kit of the social sciences and ethno-methodologies play a major role

in this undertaking. The coverage of a given actor includes an account of the internal organization of

her/his repertoire and resources building on her/his individual biography. This is done by close-up

descriptions of an individual’s language uses and performances in a wide variety of communicative

settings (see Matras 2009: 9-10). Such descriptions of current communicative activities and social

relations call for the researcher’s interaction and partaking in relevant situations. Technical support,

such as audio and video recording, will be helpful when applied with caution and respect. Awareness

of the ‘observer’s paradox’6 helps avoiding its pitfalls and developing adapted strategies to counter its

effects. Apart from the immediate communicative contexts, all language data will need further

contextualization on the background of institutional regimes, language ideologies and policies.

Without going into further detail suffice it to say that such a program presupposes a research

team that is extremely well acquainted with the respective setting under scrutiny.

2.2. Achievements of research on youth language practices in Africa and Europe

I will now turn to the African context and compare some insights from this research area with some of

the latest findings in European urban centers. I will claim that there are many common points that may

feed into a general theoretical framework of youth language practices but that there are also major

differences and case specific idiosyncrasies that challenge such a general framework.

It is, for instance, by no means clear whether the complex nature of migration as it is now

described under the ‘superdiversity’ paradigm for Europe is also a relevant concept for the description

of African urbanities and accompanying developments of youth language practices. Although in many

ways youth language practices may be reffered to as interethnical codes (Kießling and Mous 2004:

315, 316) not bound to whatever ethnic identitiy, there are places where the respective codes are still

closely connected to given ethnic backgrounds (cp. 3.2 below).

2.2.1. Recurrent social background

In most accounts of the historical beginnings of youth languages they are pictured as what Halliday

(1978) has called ‘anti-languages’. Whether we speak, e.g. of London (Hewitt 1986) and Paris (Lodge

2004) or Abidjan (Kube 2002, Ploog 2001) and Johannesburg (Aycard 2008, Childs 1997), beginnings

of specific youth ways of speaking are mostly traced back to some marginalized groups7, often

situated in juvenile male dominated low income and low education class milieus where specific ways

of speaking become a marker of ‘resistance identities’ (Castells 1998). The linguistic repertoires at the

disposal of such groups may vary in quantity and kind but the underlying processes of language

manipulations are often very much alike in Europe and Africa (see infra 2.2.2 and Kießling and Mous

2004).

6 Since the first description by Labov, “The aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how

people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain these data by systematic observation.” (Labov 1972: 209), the ‘Observer's Paradox’ has always been an issue in sociolinguistic and variationist research. A short account of more recent responses to the paradox can be found in Cukor-Avila (2000). 7 But see McLaughlin (2008) for another historical account of an urban code: She describes how urban Wolof, a

Wolof-French mix currently widely spoken in the urban centres of Senegal developed from a prestigious mixed code employed by métise-elites in the earliest French settlement on the West African coast, St. Louis, from the 18th century onwards.

The next step often observable in Africa and Europe (or elsewhere) is a gain in general

societal prestige of such resistance identities that are conceived of as indexical of an urban life style

(Freywald et al. 2011, Kube 2002, Ploog 2001, Rampton 2010). When this point is reached erstwhile

linguistic markers of marginal groups now become markers of ‘project identities’. At this stage the

linguistic repertoires that feed into the make-up of the youth language expand and diversify, because

now more speakers with a wider range of languages and styles at their disposal take part in its

formation. This means that the general ‘Gestalt’ of any emerging youth code is also diversifying.

Although a development as just outlined is not inevitable, it is reported time and again from urban

centres all over the world. Further developmental possibilities of youth languages are, however, less

clear and unitary.

Some researchers see these ways of speaking as a strictly age related phenomenon. Dittmer

and Bahlo (2008) coined the term ‘juventulect’ for such a variety describing it as:

“Anders als dialektale [...] Varietäten, die langfristig und meist generationen-übergreifend an landschaftliche Räume [...] gebunden sind, ist die Jugendsprache (oder der Juventulekt) eine generationsspezifische Übergangsvarietät, die den

biologisch bedingten Aufbruch der Jugendlichen zum Erwachsenenstatuts in der Suche nach individueller und sozialer Identität in der Altersspanne zwischen 10 und 30 sprachlich und kommunikativ zum Ausdruck bringt.” (Dittmer and Bahlo 2008: 265) [Unlike dialectal varieties which are usually bound to specific landscapes in the long

run and across generations, youth language (or juventulect) is a generation-specific transition-variety, which linguistically and communicatively expresses the biologically-conditioned departure of the youth between 10 and 30 to adulthood in search of individual and social identity]

Wiese (2006) follows the same line of argument when she pictures Berlin Kiezdeutsch as part of an

adolescent identity marking variety of German that is given up as soon as its speakers promote to adult

lifestyle when finishing their studies or starting a paid job after, for instance, apprenticeship.

There is, however, growing evidence that denies such an inevitable outcome for European

cases. Rampton (2010: 10-11) describes urban business men in their forties in London who use

marked youth varieties in informal settings but also in business talk. He then introduces the term

‘contemporary urban vernacular’ for this kind of code to account for the fact that it is not just a variety

used by adolescent speakers.

As for African contexts, it has been stated for some time now that – at least in some places –

youth codes are not (or no longer?) age bound. There are many reports of ‘juventulectal’ varieties that

become urban languages effectively bridging generations. In some cases (e.g. Ferrari 2004, Rudd

2009) it is reported that Kenyan children are brought up with a variety of the youth language Sheng as

their L1. The same is reported for Isicamtho in Soweto, SA, which is likewise reported to be taken up

by children as a first language (Aycard 2008, 2014). The famous Nouchi from Abidjan is not only

spreading along the coast and to other major towns of Côte d’Ivoire and beyond but it is also used in

advertising, informal writing and on the internet. Some Ivoirians even think that it may develop into

the legitimate Lingua Franca of Côte d’Ivoire (Kube 2002), as it unites a multitude of Ivorian

languages into a kind of ‘native’ Creole:

“Le Nouchi se présente comme une volonté manifeste de notre génération de s’affirmer, mais surtout de rejeter la colonisation linguistique que veut imposer l’occident. Véritable créole ivoirien, il développe toute une philosophie qui nécessite de connaître l’environnement ivoirien pour percer ses mystères”

(http://leblogdeyoro.ivoire-log.com29/01/2008)

[Nouchi presents itself as a manifest volition of our generation of self-affirmation, in which especially the linguistic colonization imposed by the West is rejected. A true Ivorian Creole, it develops a philosophy which requires knowledge of the Ivorian environment to permeat its mysteries.]

The reports of children speaking urban codes as L1 and the high flying hopes expressed for the

erstwhile code of juvenile delinquents in Abidjan all seem to indicate the potential of these youth ways

of speaking to spread to wider parts of the urban communities and beyond. Thus, we witness right now

that these formerly age bound codes develop into markers of ‘legitimate identities’ (Castells 1998) and

become a general means of urban communication.

There are, however, also opposing factors. In accounts of, e.g. the Cameroonian youth

language Camfranglais it is often reported that elder people and intellectuals in general see

Camfranglais as a threat to education in English and French. Furthermore, Camfranglais is felt

responsible for undermining the civilizing function of those languages, as it is closely related to sub-

and youth culture equally not held in high esteem by the country’s elites (Féral 2009). It is through

such apprehensions that we realize that the traditional essentialist view of a ‘pure’ language together

with its traditional functions is still very much in place. The same line of arguments is still heard in the

context of many youth languages in European and other contexts8.

Another recurrent question deals with the internal structure of the social groups that use and

develop the targeted language practices. Dependent on the analytical goal and the scope of the

research most promising approaches look either at language use within a given community of practice

to find out how exactly meaning develops through (verbal) interaction of the participating actors. Or –

taking a wider perspective – one might want to look at connections of actors within and outside the

relevant groups in terms of social network ties to assess societal impact and flow of innovations.

Nassenstein, in his inspiring work on the youth language Yanké, presents two aggregates of

communities in Kinshasa that practice Yanké; while the more open organized Kolùna 'gangsters' are

better represented with a network model the much more closed circles of street children gangs better

fir the community of practice representation. (Nassenstein 2014: 23, 24). It is however clear that

communities of practice also always form social networks on a higher level.

Intimately tied to group structure is the question of leadership within a given community of

practice. In search of recurrent features and characteristics of leading actors who have the influence

and power to turn a mere linguistic deviation into an emblematic sign for a given group, some

elements have been highlighted in recent research. Labov, in his study of sociolinguistic forces in the

city of Philadelphia found frontrunners of ongoing sound change that he named 'saccadic leaders' thus

highlighting their advanced and somehow unexpected use of two specific phonological variables. His

characterization of these 'saccadic leaders' – in this case all women – states that:

"…their use of the Philadelphia sound changes is more than a step beyond their peers, and surpasses the level of other neighborhoods more advanced than their own. For them, this way of speaking is not a mode of conformity, but an expression of

nonconformity, which matches their rejection of the dominant norms for the stable sociolinguistic variables." (Labov 2001: 382)

Although the term 'nonconformity' recalls the 'anti-language' function of youth language practices it

seems at least unlucky to apply a term coined for female leaders of sound change in Philadelphia to the

central figures of communities of youth language practices in Africa. This proposition (Dimmendaal

2011: 249; Nassenstein 2014: 10) seems to ignore the role of gender and of consciousness in the

manipulation of the linguistic change.

8 It is only through the work of currently ongoing research that such prejudices are slowly given up. See for

instance the numerous texts, reports and audio files that are presented by Wiese and her collaborators on the 'Kiezdeutsch' web-page. (http://www.kiezdeutsch.de/).

While in many accounts of youth language practices in Africa the main actors are reported to

be male (Kießling and Mouse 2004: 317; Nassenstein 2014: 24, 25; Beyer 2015: 3, 4), Labov

explicitly states the leading function of women: "To sum up the findings so far on the leaders of

linguistic change, we find that they are women who have achieved a respected social and economic

position in the local networks" (Labov 2001: 409). Moreover, he even points out that these 'saccadic'

women are rather unconscious in their leading function and do not have the 'language engineering'

capacities that seem to play a major role in youth language practices. In comparing leaders in fashion

with leaders in sound change Labov reminds us:

"…to bear in mind the deep-seated difference between fashion and language.

Decisions on fashion are conscious decisions, or close to consciousness, linguistic change from below is entirely hidden from leaders as well as followers, at least in the early stages. […]Even when people become aware of change in its late stages […] efforts to control behavior have limited success" (Labov 2001: 362)

Beyond any doubt, it is high time to compare recurrent features in search of a typology of structures

and hierarchies typical for all the aggregates of African communities of youth language practises, but I

think also that we should not rely too closely on models and terminology developed from very

different data and contexts in the Global North.

2.2.2. Recurrent linguistic backgrounds

Comparing the linguistic structures of youth codes, we also observe a number of elements that time

and again appear as structural building blocks of such varieties.

Most youth language varieties employ the local dominant language of wider communication

(LWC) as their grammatical matrix language. Regarding African cities, this might be an African or

European language. While for instance Isicamtho is based on Zulu or Sotho and Sheng relies heavily

on Kiswahili, Nouchi and Camfranglais are both based on French as their grammatical matrix

language. This choice is closely related to the respective colonial history and further socio-linguistic

idiosyncrasies.

In European contexts the grammatical matrix of urban languages is usually the colloquial

‘standard’ variety of the host country. Be it, for example, London, Paris or Berlin, the urban codes are

all built on the respective ‘national’ languages.

The hybrid nature of youth language practices becomes most obvious in the lexicon. It is this

part of the grammar where the contact languages of a given urban area become easily visible. In

comparison to Europe African youth language practices usually rely on a greater number of input

varieties due to the usually much more diversified linguistic repertoires of its cities and the respective

hinterland. Where in Germany, for instance, youth languages make heavy use of two or three foreign

language sources, Nouchi has traces of various indigenous African languages (Jula, Baulé, Bété)

alongside with French, English and Spanish (Kießling and Mous 2004).

However, this reflection of the linguistic landscape is rather a difference in quantity than in

kind. Most youth languages employ comparable linguistic processes that help to integrate vocabulary

into the code. Among these processes linguistic means like word truncation, syllable metathesis and

semantic metaphors figure most prominently. This is again true for both, African and European youth

codes. Furthermore, one often observes hybrid morphology employing elements from several contact

languages and a grammatical structure that displays simplified paradigms in form and function.

Telling examples for all these shared features are abundant in the literature (Dittmer 2008, Dürscheidt

and Neuland 2006, Kießling and Mous 2004, Nassenstein 2014).

As most of the youth language varieties discussed here have not (yet) reached a state of

stability, let alone some form of standardization, another common feature can be seen in their

extremely rapid changing nature. This is most obvious in the lexicon where new words are very fast

introduced, altered and discarded. This flexible nature may also be visible in other parts of the

structure with morphology and word order being the most vulnerable parts (see Neuland 2007: 26).

In conclusion of this second part we retain that youth language practices in Africa and Europe

develop on comparable social backgrounds and employ comparable linguistic processes. It is therefore

not beside the point to think of developing a common theoretical framework for their description.

There are, however, still some major open questions that need to be addressed first. These challenges

become visible when we look at recent and ongoing research and the problems and questions that are

evoked in these works.

3. Challenges of youth language research

There are many open questions that await in-depth consideration. Most of them are related to the

paradigmatic shift that has been outlined in the preceding paragraph. Although they are also intimately

interrelated I split them again into three subfields for convenience.

3.1. The object of youth language research

As already mentioned above, one intriguing question is that of defining the object of research. It is not

only related to the widened perspective on meaning production (see 2.1.2) but also to the status of the

semiotic system within the context of the respective community of practice. Do we describe it as a

language, a variety or a style? Or is it all together in the sense of Kress’ (2009) ‘semiosis’ and we

always have to decide which of its subsystems we want to highlight in a given context and chose our

label accordingly?

Hurst (2008) coined the term ‘stylect’ for the urban language of Cape Town Tsotsitaal thus

underlining the fact that it has no unified grammatical basis and is, according to her:

“...a performed discursive practice, linking in to historical narratives yet surpassing

these through ongoing generic negotiation to provide a range of identity alignments which are reflected in the linguistic range.” (Hurst 2008: 2)

Like the case of Tsotsitaal, many African youth languages receive a name that is often coined by the

community of practice that developed the code in the first place. Interestingly, many of such varieties

subsumed under a general name do not even have the same grammatical bases and are thus not

mutually comprehensible. The urban language Isicamtho is a case in point: while many people in

Soweto (South Africa) claim to speak the ‘language’ Isicamtho, they refer to different varieties based

on a grammatical frame that is either derived from Zulu or from Sotho (Ntshangase 2002). Indoubil,

an urban/youth language in the Democratic Republic of Congo, spread from West to East thereby

changing its grammatical basis from Lingala to Swahili (Goyvaerts 1988, Nassenstein 2011).

Nowadays the Lingala version is spreading to more southerly regions including Kisangani in DR

Congo where it received yet another name, Kiyankee (Wilson 2011).

So, the naming practices are manifold and shed some light on the object problem. There are

many different approaches in the literature that reflect different research traditions and interests. They

also depend on whether the perspective is synchronic or diachronic and whether we describe parts of

an individual’s repertoire or a code of a specific community in a specific context.

Finally, political interest in and outside a given community of practice do also play a role in

the naming of languages as it is amply shown for the African context in Féral (2009). The same

observation also holds for Europe: The currently well researched urban language of the German

capital Berlin has been labeled ‘language variety’ by Dittmer and Bahlo (2008) but none the less

received its own name Kiezdeutsch (urban quarter German) by Wiese (2006). This author is supporting

the view that Kiezdeutsch is not just a pidgin variety of German but that it develops naturally as a

dialect of German under contact conditions. She characterizes her object of research as “a multiethnic

youth language” that “can be regarded as a new, dynamic German dialect.” (Wiese et al. 2012: 1). It is

however hard to judge from the published data whether it is a real ‘lectal’ variety of German or a

contextual style or register employed only in specific situations. The data presented in Wiese et al.

(2012) only show a limited picture of usage contexts which also seem to be biased by the ‘observer’s

paradox’.

Given these uncertainties, another set of research challenges develops quite naturally: how do

we define (or redefine) the criteria of the possible states of a youth language and how can we assess

the factors involved in a potential status transition?

3.2. Stability and norm development

While we acknowledge the fact that no two speakers have exactly the same linguistic resources at their

disposal and that consequently the multitude of repertoires is infinite, it is none the less clear that a

shared code that serves as communicative device at least needs some degree of stability and a

generally accepted norm throughout the relevant community of practice. This question is even more

relevant in superdiverse contexts, where the divergence of linguistic backgrounds and the general lack

of common sociolinguistic histories oppose the development of common interpretations of

communicative signs and general norms.

One important area of research is therefore the description of processes and key factors that

lead to common ground in a given community of practice. Can we describe for instance social

positions that correspond to ‘innovators’, ‘early adaptors’ and ‘conservatives’ in the process of

linguistic sign development? The flip side of this is the question whether specific linguistic and other

semiotic features correlate with specific social parameters. This whole issue refers back to the

discussion on the role of 'saccadic leaders' and to appropriate ways of describing interrelationships

between social and linguistic features of youth language practices. As already mentioned, not much

substantial research regarding such questions has been undertaken in African contexts so far.

There are, however, some rare studies pointing to the importance of young people in newly

organizing communities of practice in African cities leaving behind the traditional ethnically based

networks (but see also below). Honwana and de Boeck (2005) point to the role of adolescents as major

players in new informal economies, as well as innovators and creators of new forms of popular culture

who transform global trends into local forms. It is among such groups that adapted network research

needs to look closer in order to identify processes of innovation and norm development.

An earlier study from Ile Ife (a Yoruba speaking major city in central Nigeria) also points to

the role of predominantly young speakers’ social networks as a key factor for the development of

locally spoken varieties of standard Yoruba in this city (Salami 1991). Looking at linguistic aspects of

social network positions in a rural African contact situation, Beyer and Schreiber (2013) demonstrate

that highly mobile actors who are not restrained by too many strong social ties are the leading

innovators regarding contact induced language features. In the course of this research it also became

clear that in a multilingual community where most languages do not display a high degree of

standardization (i.e. 'diffuse linguistic systems' (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 181, 182)) the

social network approach (SNA) needs some fine tuning in order to capture locally prevailing linguistic

variation patterns, and, even more important, to understand their possible indexical values.

It is for instance very well feasible to identify variation in the pronunciation of a given

phoneme by speakers of a specific vernacular variety in well defined social networks but it is less clear

what we can make of such data. SNA-studies from the Global North usually rely on vast datasets

signalling the direction and speed of ongoing changes through space and society and thereby assign

individual speakers or communities of practices a place in the continuum from conservative to

innovative language users. As such a background of comprehensive linguistic data is rarely available

for multilingual contact zones in e.g. an urban area in Africa one needs other means to appraise the

significance and reach of any variation.

One first step towards a solution for such problems is the definition of a 'descriptive norm'

based on diachronic linguistic evidence combined with a classification of variables in terms of their

correlated usage patterns in the given community of practice. One could for instance describe how a

specific element (e.g. a vowel or a morpheme) displays extreme variation or that speakers from all

parts of the community only vary within a very small range. This leads to a classification of variables

in terms of their indexical possibilities and functional load within the targeted community of practice

and thus prepares the background for further analyses along variationists' guide lines. This is not only

possible for phonological or morphological variables but also for other parts of a linguistic system like

syntactic structure and lexical items. Such an approach is currently developed on the basis of linguistic

and network data from a rural contact zone in West Africa. From these findings it seems as if variables

could be used in the same way as in classical sociolinguistics but based on the divergent premise they

just tell other stories (Beyer, Schreiber (forthcoming).

It is also clear that general questions relating to norms and stabilization are intimately

connected to the social reality in which a given youth language practice develops. Whereas in

European urban centers the superdiversity paradigm seems most fruitful for grasping the social

background of the respective codes, this is less clear for African cities. An often reported pattern of

intra-African migration from rural to urban centers follows pre-established family and ethnic lines

(e.g. Antoine et al. 1998, Southall 1973). This means that the suburbs of many African urban centers

have been and still are ethnically organized so that newcomers to town are usually directed to the

quarter where they are sure to find people speaking their languages and sharing the same cultural

background (e.g. Salami 1991). For instance, many South African townships are (still) organized along

ethnic lines. Migrants from rural areas usually search for their first urban contacts in specific township

areas where ethnically determined networks already exist (Hurst, personal communication).

Consequently, urban language practices in such areas often rely on an specific vernacular language

that ultimately finds its way also into the respective youth language practices. However, social realities

are – at least partly – also changing in Africa and new trajectories of urbanism develop that need an

adapted response (e.g. K’Akumu and Olima 2007 on Nairobi).

3.3. Methodological challenges

The aforementioned challenges also call for a mix of adapted research methods to cover the whole

range of factors productive in youth language formation. Correlative to the different levels of

description a layered approach seems most fruitful.

On the micro level, we need to focus on individual speakers’ practices in their different

communicative contexts. To that end, real life data of communication in peer groups and small

communities of practices need to be recorded alongside with a full account of all other relevant

semiotic subsystems like e.g. posture, gesture and dressing style. Audio and video recordings are

indispensable tools for data preparation and storing but need to be used with great caution and

responsibility in order to reach a good balance between individual rights of the speakers, obligations of

the researcher and the effects of the ‘observer’s paradox’.

On the intermediate level researchers need to look at social network constellations and collect

attributive data within the communities of practice. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of

correlations between social and linguistic behavior within the relevant groups in relation to different

contexts, places and situations will bring out the focal points of norm development and stabilization of

urban codes. The developmen of a 'descriptive norm' (cp. 3.2 above) as a backdrop for further analysis

is indispensable to make sense of any data from heterogenious and diffuse contexts. Additional reports

of self-estimations and group internal meta-discourse on the relevance and forms of urban speech will

complete any data of a given youth language variety9.

The kind of approaches as requested above put some pressure on any person doing the

research. Not only does s/he need to speak a maximum of the languages and codes involved in the

communicational patterns of a given community of practice but s/he also needs to adapt her/his

personal lifestyle to the researched communities and closely interact with any relevant actors. This can

only be possible when the researcher becomes intimately acquainted with the group under scrutiny or

– even better – is already an integral part of it. Although this is admittedly a real challenge for

researchers working in African urban contexts, I am not as pessimistic as some colleagues who speak

of ‘insurmountable difficulties’ in most multilingual settings in Africa (Lüpke and Storch 2013: 39).

My more optimistic outlook is fueled by the fact that a number of interesting projects are

currently on the way where young researchers establish close contacts to various African communities

of practices – often in collaboration with local researchers – and start delving deep into the different

layers of youth language development and repartition. For instance, Hurst (this volume) and her

9 A lot of relevant background information and meta linguistic knowledge is nowadays available on the internet.

There are innumerous web-sites where youth languages are discussed by users (and non-users) and additional fora where the communities of practices discuss related themes (e.g. http://www.nouchi.com/; https://www.facebook.com/TsotsiTaal; http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/guide-to-swahili-street-slang-in-stone-town-zanzibar/; http://www.kiezdeutsch.de/ ).

collaborators in the South African based SANPAD project are at the moment researching various

communities of practice in different major cities and have already come up with inspiring audio and

video material that is currently still in the process of analysis (Aycard, Bembe, Gunnink, Hurst and

Buthelezi, Makhanya and Mathonsi, all in Hurst, in preparation). Other currently ongoing projects

cover various capital cities all over Africa and also follow a participatory approach generating data in

natural contexts of very fine quality (Nassenstein, this volume).

For a grounded appreciation of any data deriving from the micro and intermediate level the

wider picture also needs coverage. It goes without saying that every research on a given youth

language should be firmly embedded in a general sociolinguistic account of the linguistic landscape

under consideration. This includes descriptions of historical and contemporary migration patterns

alongside an account of the historical and current developments of relevant language politics. An

example for such a macro-approach to historical facts is found for instance in Ploog and Reich (2006).

4. Conclusions

As pointed out in this paper, research on youth language practices in Africa and elsewhere is at least as

complex as fascinating. Its multifaceted character calls for a combination of linguistic and sociological

approaches under both, synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Consequently, it reaches out into a

multitude of areas, for instance studies of language contact, urban development and social psychology.

It is also clear from the outset that no single researcher could handle this plurality of aspects which

leads quite naturally to the insight that scientific collaboration and mutually adjusted approaches are

not only desirable but a necessity in order to grasp the whole of the phenomenon.

In an ideal world we would form research teams combined of specialists for each and every

aspect of youth language practices all over the world. These specialists would gather data from a

multitude of benevolent consultants which then are organized and analyzed following comparable

methods and pre-established principles. All this would then feed into an international database

network consultable for scientist and other interested people. Knowing that an ideal world is just day-

dreaming it may however be helpful to recapitulate the key points emerging from research undertaken

so far.

From all we know by now, the most critical aspect is the data themselves. It is indispensable to

work with naturalistic data that cover not only phonetic output but also gesture, posture and other

performance aspects of communication. To that end, naturalistic video data seem most promising

provided the camera does not interfere too much with the situation which is, admittedly, a problem in

its own right. Alongside such primary data on any given youth variety an array of secondary data, e.g.

language use in media, education, formal contexts etc. completes the picture and helps defining the

status and reach of a given youth speech form.

I am also convinced that research in Africa and beyond has by now reached a level where

cumulative comparisons allow interesting generalizations. Given that in contemporary urban

adolescent contexts change is rapid and mobility is high it will be helpful to compare old and new data

sets from the same loci provided there are any forerunners at all. This is definitely the fact for such

‘famous’ cases as Nouchi of Abidjan, Sheng of Nairobi and Isicamtho/ Tsotsitaal in South African

cities, to name but a few.

Another comparative approach should address different generations from a synchronic

perspective. A case in point is McLaughlin’s (2009: 74, 75) report of different language attitudes

towards urban Wolof by various age groups. Interestingly, it is the middle aged group from 30–45

years that is very critical and against urban Wolof while elder speakers are very tolerant and just

except it as a convenient means of communication that has always been around. Whether this

difference in attitude is also reflected in differences on the linguistic level or in usage contexts is not

reported.

Other interesting fields of comparison relate to different channels of mediation of the youth

codes. How do oral and written instantiation relate to each other? What is the role of mass media and

advertisement and how do the new media add to the shape of a youth language? For instance, Vold-

Lexander (2011) describes the impact of text-messaging in Dakar on the literacy potential of the

related African languages which also relates to the general make up of urban Wolof itself. It seems as

if new media help – at least partly – to stabilize urban Wolof, as it establishes mixing as a possible

means of texting communications.

So far, comparative evidence also indicates that urban languages mostly develop out of youth

language practices but a dividing line is hard to pinpoint. At least we can try to narrow it down by

comparing diachronic data and data from different sites. Following Mesthrie and Hurst (2013)

defining South African Tsotsitaals as “...essentially a highly stylised slang register of an urban form of

language, expressing male youth culture within the broader matrix of an urban identity” (Mesthrie and

Hurst 2013: 125), I believe, that youngsters will always try to have their own way of speaking but

provide a starting point for more stabilized urban languages. Just how and when this happens is yet

unclear and thus provides one of the key questions for the whole research field: how can we define

unambiguously the status of a given youth language form and consequently the elements needed for a

switch to another aggregate state?

Putting all forces together, considering previous and currently ongoing research, developing

new coordinated approaches and projects, I firmly believe that youth language research from Africa

will have a deep impact on this still young research field in general. I also think it will fertilize other

linguistic sub-disciplines and have a bearing on areas like urban sociology and development studies.

References

Alidou, Hassana. 2009. Promoting multilingual and multicultural education in Francophone Africa:

Challenges and perspectives. In Birgit Brock-Utne & Ingse Skattum (eds.), Languages and

education in Africa, 105–131. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined communities. London: Verso.

Antoine, Philippe. 1990. Croissance urbaine et insertion des migrants dans les villes Africaines. In

Robert Chaudenson (ed.), Des langues et des villes, 49–66. Paris: ACCT/Didier Erudition.

Antoine, Philippe, Dieudonné Ouédraogo & Victor Piché. 1998. Trois générations de citadins au

Sahel: 30 ans d’histoire sociale à Dakar et Bamako. Villes et entreprises. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Aycard, Pierre. 2008. ‘Speak as you want to speak: just be free!’. A linguistic anthropological

monograph of first language Iscamtho-speaking youth in White City, Soweto. Leiden: African

Studies Centre, University of Leiden MA thesis.

Aycard Pierre. 2014. The use of Iscamtho by children in White City-Jabavu, Soweto: Slang and

language contact in an African urban context. PhD Thesis (under examination), University of Cape

Town, South Africa.

Beyer, Klaus. 2015. Urban language research in South Africa: achievements and challenges. Southern

African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32(2): 1–8.

Beyer, Klaus (forthcoming) Input limitations in a diffuse linguistic setting: Observations from a West-

African contact zone. In Helena Halmari and Ad Backus (eds) Life with two languages: Linguistic

implications of input limitations. Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.

Beyer, Klaus & Henning Schreiber. 2013. Intermingling speech groups: Morpho-syntactic outcomes

of language contact in a linguistic area in Burkina Faso (West Africa). In Isabelle Léglise &

Claudine Chamoreau (eds.), The interplay of variation and change in contact settings –

Morphosyntactic studies, 107–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Beyer, Klaus & Henning Schreiber (forthcoming). The Upper Sourou Contact Zone. A sociolinguistic

history of a linguistic area. Cologne: Köppe.

Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity.

Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 67. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ldc (accessed 11 June

2014).

Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13(2). 1–21.

Castells, Manuel. 1998 (2002). Das Informationszeitalter 2: Die Macht der Identität. Opladen: Leske

und Budrich Verlag.

Chaudenson, Robert (ed.) 1990. Des langues et des villes. Paris: ACCT/Didier Erudition.

Chaudenson, Robert. 1993. Francophonie, ‘français zéro’ et français régional. In Michel Beniamino &

Didier de Robillard (eds.), Le français dans l’espace francophone: description linguistique et

sociolinguistique de la francophonie. Paris: Honoré.

Childs, G.Tucker. 1997. The status of Isicamtho, an Nguni-based urban variety of Soweto. In Arthur

K. Spears & Donald Winford (eds.), The structure and status of Pidgins and Creoles, 341–367.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2000. Revisiting the observers paradox. American Speech 75(3). 254–255.

Derive, Marie-Josée. 1986. Francophonie et pratiques linguistiques en Côte-d’Ivoire. Politique

africaine 23. 42–56.

Dumont, Pierre. 1993. “L’enseignement du français en Afrique: le point sur une méthodologie en

crise.” In Michel Beniamino & Didier de Robillard (eds.), Le français dans l’espace francophone:

description linguistique et sociolinguistique de la francophonie, 471–482. Paris: Honoré.

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2011. Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Dittmer, Norbert & Nils Bahlo. 2008. Jugendsprache. In Heidemarie Anderlik & Katja Kaiser (eds.),

Die Sprache Deutsch, 264–268. Dresden: Deutsches Historisches Museum.

Dürscheidt, Christa & Eva Neuland. 2006. Spricht die Jugend eine andere Sprache? Neue Antworten

auf alte Fragen. In Christa Dürscheidt & Jürgen Spitzmüller (eds.). Perspektiven der

Jugendsprachforschung, 19–33. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.

Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of

variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41. 87–100.

Féral, Carole de. 2004. Français et langues en contact chez les jeunes en milieu urbain: Vers de

nouvelles identités. In Moussa Daff, Gisèle Prignitz, Xavier Blanco & Ambroise Queffélec (eds.),

Penser la Francophonie: Concepts, actions et outils linguistiques, 583 – 597. Paris: Archives

contemporaines éditions.

Féral, Carole de. 2009. Nommer et catégoriser des pratiques urbaines: Pidgin and Francanglais au

Cameroun. In Carole de Féral (ed.), Le nom des langues III. Le nom des langues en Afrique sub-

saharienne: pratiques, dénominations, catégorisations, 119–152. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.

Ferrari, Aurelia. 2004. Le Sheng: Expansion et vernacularisation d’une variété urbaine hybride à

Nairobi [Sheng: Expansion and vernacularization of an urban hybrid variety in Nairobi]. In

Akinbiyi Akinlabi & Oluseye Adesola (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th.World Congress of African

Linguistics, New Brunswick 2003, 479–495. Cologne: Köppe.

Freywald, Ulrike, Heike Wiese, Sören Schalowski & Katharina Mayr. 2011. Kiezdeutsch as a multi-

ethnolect. In Friederike Kern & Margret Selting (eds.), Ethnic styles of speaking in European

metropolitan areas, 45–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Goyvaerts, Didier. 1988. Indoubil: a Swahili hybrid in Bukavu. Language in Society 17(2). 231–242.

Gumperz, John & Dell Hymes (eds.). 1972 (1986). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of

communication. London: Blackwell.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Antilanguages. In Michael A. K. Halliday (ed.), Language as Social

Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, 164–182. London: Edward Arnold.

Hattiger, Jean-Louis. 1983. Le Français Populaire d’Abidjan: un cas de pidginisation. Abidjan:

Université d’Abidjan, Institut de linguistique appliquée.

Honwana, Alcinda & Filip de Boeck. 2005. Children and youth in Africa: Agency, identity and place.

In Alcinda Honwana & Filip de Boeck (eds.), Makers and breakers: Children and youth in

postcolonial Africa, 1–18. Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press.

Hewitt, Roger. 1986. White talk Black talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hurst, Ellen. 2008. Style, structure and function in Cape Town Tsotsitaal. Cape Town: University of

Cape Town dissertation.

Hurst, Ellen. (ed.) (in preparation). Non-standard urban varieties of South African languages .

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (SALALS).

K’Akumu, Owiti A. & Washington H. Asembo Olima. 2007. The dynamics and implication of

residential segregation in Nairobi. Habitat International 31. 87–99.

Kießling, Roland & Maarten Mous. 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological

Linguistics 46(3). 308–341.

Kluge, Friedrich. 1895. Deutsche Studentensprache. Straßburg.

Kress, Gunther. 2009. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.

London: Routledge.

Kube, Sabine. 2002. Das Nouchi in Abidjan: Vom Argot der Straßenkinder zur zukünftigen

Nationalsprache der Côte d’Ivoire?. In Jürgen Erfurt (ed.), “Multisprech”: Hybridität, Variation,

Identität. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 65. 131–153.

Kube, Sabine. 2004. Gelebte Frankophonie in der Côte d’Ivoire. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

Labov. William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell..

Labov, William, Sharon Ash & Charles Boberg. 2006. The atlas of North American English. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Lafage, Suzanne. 1980. Petite enquête sur la perception du français populaire ivoirien en milieu

estudiantin. Bulletin du Centre d’études sur le Plurilinguisme 6(80). 1–37.

Lafage, Suzanne. 1984. Note sur un processus d’appropriation socio-sémantique du français en Côte-

d’Ivoire. Cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain 9(3–4). 103–112.

Lafage, Suzanne. 1998. Hybridation et ‘Français des Rues’ à Abidjan. In Anne Queffélec (ed.),

Alternances codiques et français parlé en Afrique, 279–291. Aix en Provence: Publications de

l’Université de Provence.

Lodge, R. Anthony. 2004. A sociolinguistic history of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lüpke, Friederike & Anne Storch. 2013. Repertoires and choices in African languages. Berlin,

Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Manessy, Gabriel. 1990. Modes de structuration des parlers urbaines. In Robert Chaudenson (ed.), Des

langues et des villes, 7–23. Paris: ACCT/Didier Erudition.

Manessy, Gabriel. 1992. Normes endogènes et normes pédagogiques en Afrique Noire. In Daniel

Baggioni, Luis-Jean Calvet, Robert Chaudenson, Gabriel Manessy & Didier de Robbilard (eds.),

Multilinguisme et développement dans l’espace francophone, 43–75. Paris: ACCT/Didier

Érudition.

Manessy, Gabriel. 1994. Normes endogènes et français de référence. In Gabriel Manessy (ed.), Le

français en Afrique Noire: Mythes, stratégies, pratiques, 215–227. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLaughlin, Fiona. 2008. On the origins of urban Wolof: Evidence from Louis Descemet’s 1864

phrase book. Language in Society 37. 713–735.

McLaughlin, Fiona. 2009. Senegal’s early cities and the making of an urban language. In Fiona

McLaughlin (ed.), The languages of urban Africa, 71–85. New York: Continuum.

Mesthrie, Rajend & Ellen Hurst. 2013. Slang registers, code-switching and restructured urban varieties

in South Africa: An analytic overview of Tsotsitaals with special reference to the Cape Town

variety. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(1). 103–130.

Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.

Journal of Linguistics 21. 339–384.

Müller-Thurau, Claus Peter. 1983. Laß uns mal `ne Schnecke angraben: Sprache und Sprüche der

Jugendszene. Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag.

Nassenstein, Nico. 2011. Tozóyékola Lingala: eine Einführung in die aktuelle Sprache von Kinshasa.

Aachen: Shaker Media.

Nassenstein, Nico. 2014. A Grammatical Study of the Youth Language Yanké. München: Lincom.

Neuland, Eva. 2006. Deutsche Jugendsprache Heute: Total Normal? In Christa Dürscheidt & Jürgen

Spitzmüller (eds.), Perspektiven der Jugendsprachforschung, 51–73. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Neuland, Eva (ed.). 2007. Jugendsprachen: Mehrsprachig, kontrastiv, interkulturell. Frankfurt am

Main: Lang.

Ntshangase, Dumisani K. 2002. Language and language practices in Soweto. In Rajend Mesthrie (ed.).

Language in South Africa, 407–418. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ploog, Katja. 2001. Le non-standard entre norme endogène et fantasme d’unicité. Cahiers d’Études

Africaines 41(3–4). 423–442.

Ploog, Katja & Uli Reich. 2006. Urbane Prozesse. Migration und Variation in Lima, São Paulo und

Abidjan. In Thomas Krefeld (ed.), Modellando lo spazio in linguistica/ Modellierung sprachlicher

Räume, 215–256. Frankfurt: Lang.

Rampton, Ben. 1998. Speech community. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert &

Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Rampton, Ben. 2010. From ‘multi-ethnic urban heteroglossia’ to ‘contemporary urban vernaculars’.

Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 61. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ldc (accessed 11 June

2014).

Rudd, Philip W. 2009. Nairobi, Sheng and the Creole-interlanguage continua. Ms.

Salami, L. Oladipo. 1991. Diffusion and focusing: Phonological variation and social networks in Ile-

Ife, Nigeria. Language in Society 20(1). 217–245.

Silverstein, Michael J. 1985. Language and the culture of gender. In Mertz, E. and R. Parmentier

(eds.), Semiotic mediation, 219–259. New York: Academic Press.

Southall, Aidan (ed). 1973. Urban anthropology. Cross-cultural studies of urbanization. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Le Page, Robert B. & Andrée Tabouret-Keller.1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to

Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Superdiversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30. 1024–1054.

Vertovec, Steven. 2010. Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, contexts and

conditions of diversity. International Social Science Journal 199. 83–95.

Vold Lexander, Kristin. 2011. Texting and African language literacy. New Media & Society 13(3).

427–443.

Wiese, Heike. 2006. ‘Ich Mach Dich Messer’: Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache

(‘KanakSprak’), Linguistische Berichte [Linguistic reports] 207. 245–273.

Wiese, Heike, Ulrike Freywald, Sören Schalowski & Katharina Mayr. 2012. “Das Kiez Deutsch-

Korpus: Spontansprachliche Daten Jugendlicher aus Urbanen Wohngebieten. Deutsche Sprache 2.

Wilson, Catherina. 2011. The Congolese Yankee. Leiden: Leiden University MA Thesis.

Woolard, Kathryn A., Bambi B. Schieffelin & Paul V. Kroskrity. 1998. Language ideologies: Practice

and theory. New York: Oxford University.