- Pethias Siame 1*, Kennedy Njenje Kangwa 2, Humphrey M. Kapau 3 & Raphael Prince Akeem Chisenga 4
- Kwame Nkrumah University, Kabwe, Zambia
- DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17335172
This paper
presents an in-depth, comparative linguistic analysis of three closely related
yet distinct Bantu languages spoken in the northern region of Zambia: ciLungu
(Guthrie’s M14), ciMambwe (M15), and ciNamwanga (M22). Despite their genetic
proximity and shared historical lineage, these languages remain critically
under-documented, with significant gaps in the descriptive analysis of their
grammatical systems. This study aims to address this lacuna by conducting a
meticulous examination of their verbal morphophonology, identifying and
elucidating the core processes that govern verb form construction. Through a
methodical application of the comparative method, informed by principles of
Lexical Phonology and Morphology and comparative Bantu linguistics, the
research delineates a comprehensive inventory of phonological and morphological
operations. These include, but are not limited to, strategic vowel lengthening
for tense-aspect marking, gliding and glide-induced harmony, a suite of
strategies for resolving vowel hiatus, pervasive vowel and consonant harmony
systems, and various forms of vocalic coalescence. The investigation reveals
that while these languages share a foundational inventory of morphophonological
rules attributable to their common ancestry, they are distinguished by
systematic and predictable micro-variations. For instance, a key
differentiating feature is the realization of plural subject prefixes: ciLungu
and ciMambwe employ a voiced palatal glide [j], while ciNamwanga utilizes a
voiced bilabial glide [w]. Furthermore, ciLungu exhibits a unique use of the
voiceless glottal fricative [h] in specific verbal environments, a feature
absent in its linguistic relatives, which instead maintain a palatal glide. The
detailed findings of this research provide an indispensable empirical
foundation for applied linguistic endeavors, particularly for curriculum
developers, lexicographers, and language planners engaged in the creation of
pedagogical materials, grammatical guides, and literacy resources aimed at
promoting and preserving this vulnerable linguistic heritage.