Cover not available
Article published In:
Creativity in Language
Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Andrea Hollington, Nico Nassenstein and Anne Storch
[International Journal of Language and Culture 6:1] 2019
► pp. 29–44

Chibende

Linguistic creativity and play in Zimbabwe

| University of Cologne
Play language practices are common around the globe and have been described for several parts of the world. While some contributions on play language focus on the structure, manipulative strategies, and rules, this paper ties in with approaches that seek to view play language practices in their respective sociolinguistic contexts (e.g. Sherzer 2002; Storch 2011). Chibende, the play language practice under study in this paper, is analyzed in its Zimbabwean context. By looking at Zimbabwean examples and by broadening the perspective on these creative linguistic phenomena, it becomes evident that play languages are not performed in isolation but are deeply entangled with other language practices, such as youth language, as part of complex repertoires and social practices as well as acts of identity. By focusing on creativity and also taking the aspect of fun into account, the agency of the speakers becomes a central feature which is also reflected by the metalinguistic knowledge of the practitioners of Zimbabwean play language. In this regard, the discussion in this paper centers on the speakers’ ideologies of play language.
Keywords: youth language practice, Zimbabwe, secret language, creativity, metalinguistic knowledge, manipulation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Zimbabwe: Sociolinguistic background and creative language use
  • 3.Chibende and its communities of practice
  • 4.Play languages as ways of speaking: Chibende in context
  • 5.Metalinguistic knowledge
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00014.hol
References (23)
References
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1988. Alternative Phonologies and Morphologies. PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
. 1989. The crossing constraint and ‘backwards languages’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7,4, 481–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Language games and related areas. In Goldsmith, John (Ed.). The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 697–712). Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2010. Secret Language. Codes, Tricks, Spies, Thieves, and Symbols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Botne, Robert and Stuart Davis. 2000. Language games, segment imposition and the syllable. Studies in Language, 24. 2, 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 211, 461–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galliker, Esther. 2014. Bricolage. Ein kommunikatives Genre im Sprachgebrauch Jugendlicher aus der Deutschschweiz. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Ofelia and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollington, Andrea. 2018. Transatlantic translanguaging in Zimdancehall: Reassessing linguistic creativity in youth language practices. The Mouth, 3 (special issue: Critical Youth Language Studies – Rethinking Concepts), 105–123.Google Scholar
Hollington, Andrea & Tafadzwa Makwabarara. 2015. Youth language practices in Zimbabwe. In Nassenstein, Nico & Andrea Hollington (Eds.). Youth Language Practices in Africa and Beyond (pp. 257–269). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makoni, Sinfree, Janina Brutt-Griffler & Pedzisai Mashiri. 2007. The use of “indigenous” and urban vernaculars in Zimbabwe. Language in Society, 361, 25–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mashiri, Pedzisai. 2009. Shona-English code-mixing in the speech of students at the University of Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20,4, 245–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mawadza, Aquilina. 2000. Harare Shona Slang: A linguistic study. Zambezia, XXVII(i), 93–101.Google Scholar
Ndlovu, Sambulo. 2017. A Comparative Analysis of Metaphorical Expressions Used by Rural and Urban Ndebele speakers: The Contribution of S’ncamtho . PhD Thesis, Cape Town, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
Nyota, Shumirai & Rugare Mareva. 2012. What’s new in Shona street lingo? Semantic change in lingo adoptives from mainstream Shona. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2, 6, 112–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1970. Talking Backwards in Cuna: The Sociological Reality of Phonological Descriptions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26,4, 343–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. Play languages: Implications for (socio) linguistics. In Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (Ed.). Speech Play (pp. 19–36). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Speech Play and Verbal Art. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Storch, Anne. 2011. Secret Manipulations. Language and Context in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Typology of secret languages and linguistic taboos. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 187–322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tusting, Karin. 2005. Language and power in communities of practice. In Barton, David & Karin Tusting (eds). Beyond Communities of Practice. Language, Power and Social Context (pp. 36–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wild, F. 2009. ‘Zimbolicious’ The Creative Potential of Linguistic Innovation: The Case of Shona-English in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies, 35, 3, 683–697. DOI logoGoogle Scholar