Sexism and (Mis)Representation of Women in Sheng

Sexism and (mis)representation of women in ShengPeter Githinji Ã Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio Gender issues have not received much attention in previous studies on Sheng. Although many studies have noted the sex-distinctive differences in the use of this contact code, none has specifically addressed the question of gender. In this paper, gender issues are discussed under sexism encrypted in word connotations and word structure. Although sexism encompasses linguistic discrimination of both sexes, we are cognizant of the fact that more often than not, it is the women who are the victims of sexism. I examine the asymmetry in terms of frequency of referential terms that denote the two sexes and the parallel connotations between the words for males and those of females. By paying deliberate attention to women’s lexical choices in the words for girls and female body parts, I argue that women are not just passive recipient of male lexical labels but are also agents who participate in self definition. The parallels in terms of denotation and connotation of male and females words is discussed within the intergroup relations with males constituting the ingroup and females the outgroup. The paper also examines the role of the Swahili class 6-classifier prefix [ma]. This contribution of linguistic structure in the encoding of sexism in Sheng is discussed within the Whorfian notion of the interplay of phenotypes and cryptotypes in the construction of meaning. 1. Introduction The relationship between language and cognition has been an intriguing issue for linguists and psychologists, amongst others. In cognitive linguistics, the focus has mostly been on the organ- ization of language into structural properties that influence categorization of the world into pro- totypical models. This has seen a renewed interest in the Whorfian Hypothesis that postulates that the way we think is determined by the structure of our languages (see Whorf 1956). Earlier opposition to the Whorfian hypothesis stemmed from the implications of its strong version that views language as a prison of thought, i.e. language as the cause and thinking the result (Ying 2000). The weaker version of the hypothesis is usually favoured because it views language as a window of thought. In spite of this controversy, studies in linguistic relativity have vindicated the claim that language plays a key role in shaping speakers’ thoughts. Boroditsky (2003) for instance, reports that German and Spanish speakers differ in the way they ascribe feminine or masculine properties to similar objects because the two languages assign them to different grammatical gender categories. Using the ‘key’, as an example, Boroditsky observes that it is masculine in German but feminine in Spanish. In an experiment German speakers described it as ‘hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated and useful’ (ibid.: 920) to match its masculine classification. Spanish speakers, on the other hand, were more likely to describe the key as ‘golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny and tiny’ to match its feminine classification. Similarly, the difference between English and Mandarin speakers’ perception of time depended on whether the languages placed emphasis on vertical or horizontal metaphors Journal of African Cultural Studies Vol. 20, No. 1, June 2008, pp. 15–32 Ã Email: [email protected] ISSN 1369-6815 print/ISSN 1469-9346 online # 2008 Journal of African Cultural Studies DOI: 10.1080/13696810802159230 http://www.informaworld.com (Boroditsky 2001). These and other cases provide credible arguments that language orients speakers of different languages to attend to different interpretation of their experience. Lucy (1997: 294) remarks: Language embodies an interpretation of reality and language can influence thought about that reality. The interpretation arises from the selection of substantive aspects of experience and their formal arrangements in the verbal code. Such selection and arrangements is, of course necessary for language, so the crucial emphasis here is that each language involves a particular interpretation, not a common universal one. ‘Selection of substantive aspects of experience’ implies that language is not natural, neutral or static. It is subject to human manipulations in order to reflect those aspects of experience that users wish to express. In many societies, the patriarchal order has selected those aspects of experience that sustains it. This interpretation of reality from a male’s point of view has resulted in a sexist society, and language, as one of its institutions, has come to reflect that gender bias (see Spender 1985). The language’s different characterization of men and women has attracted the attention of feminists who have deplored its biases, innuendos, connotations and nuances, which are derogatory to women. For this reason, they have called for language reform to rid it of its inherent sexism. Following this awareness, Blaubergs (1978) proposed different strat- egies for reforming the language such as indirect change, circumvention, and emphasis on feminine terms. Most recently, Lei (2006) list some of the sexist words and provides a glossary of alternative non-sexist replacements. While all these efforts should be hailed, similar studies on non-European languages have received little or no attention. This paper therefore aims to examine the way Sheng – a Swahili based linguistic hybrid (Bosire 2006) – manifests discrimination against women. 2. Background: sexism in language Frye (1981: 8) defines sexism as ‘anything whatever which creates, constitutes, promotes, or exploits any irrelevant or impertinent marking of the distinction between the sexes’ (sic). Although this broad definition encompasses the two sexes, many studies on sexism gravitate towards the discrimination against women. Lakoff (1975) for instance, discusses how women experience linguistic discrimination in the way they are taught to use language and the way language treats them. Lakoff observes that while the semantics of male words is mostly denotative, that of female words is both denotative and connotative. The ascription of connotations in female words such as woman creates perceptions of unpleasantness and embarrassment, prompting their masking with euphemism such as lady. Unfortunately, lady itself conveys meanings that promote sex role stereotypes. In contrast, words for males, even the seemingly negative ones, are not masked with euphemisms. Other issues that Lakoff’s work covered include: different communicative patterns based on sex (e.g. colour description, common adjectives, tag questions and swearing), different interpretation of generic nouns and pronouns e.g. man, human, he, his etc., titles e.g. Mrs, Miss and Ms, and connotations in polar lexemes like bachelor and spinster. Lakoff’s claim about titles finds support in Connor et al.’s (1986) study that linked the use of titles and different perception of women. They found out that women who used Ms were less trusted because they were regarded as concealing something, which in this case would be their marital status within a patriarchal system. Their findings differed from those of Heilman 1975 (cited in Connor et al. 1986) on a similar topic. In his study, students had rated the courses listed under instructors using the titles Miss or Mrs as potentially less enjoyable, or 16 P. Githinji less intellectually stimulating compared to courses listed under a female using the title Ms. These two studies highlight the dilemma confronting women in the use of titles; they are torn between conservative and liberal values whose values can change according to different circumstances. A similar dilemma is discussed in Mills (2003) study where British women were shown to display different values in the negotiation of their individuality within the context of overlapping discourses. The asymmetric nature of the so called neutral pronouns and generic nouns has been studied by Briere and Lanktree (1984). Their study showed that while generic and masculine nouns and pronouns decreased the attractiveness of a psychology career for female judges, they had the reverse effect on male judges. This makes sense when we consider Lakoff’s (1975), Martyna’s (1980) and Spender’s (1985) claims that neutral masculine pronouns like he, his or a generic masculine noun like man have context-specific uses that excludes women. Even gender neutral stimulus words like child and adult have been found to be infused with masculine reference in experimental conditions (see Wise and Rafferty 1982). Elsewhere, Lipton and Hershaft (1984) demonstrated that while the use of gender neutral label like person upgraded the female artist, it devalued the male artist. They hypothesized that that since the image of the male sanctioned by society was that of an assertive masculinity; neutral labels were regarded as non- assertive and were thus regarded as emasculation by male judges. On the other hand the positive evaluation neutral terms by female judges could be attributed to the fact that due to women’s powerless status in society, the neutral terms elevated their social status and hence their positive perception by female judges. Apart from marital titles, professional titles and names in English have also been shown to exhibit similar gender asymmetry. This is demonstrated in gender distinction in titles and names as indicated by marking; male terms are unmarked; while female are marked (Mills 1995: 93; Lei 2006; see also Lakoff 1975). Structurally, gender marking is done by addition of phonological materials that function as sex-identifiers – affixes like -ess, -ett, -in, etc. Attach- ment of words such as woman, girl, lady or female to professional words such as female professor, salesgirl, cleaning lady, and policewoman can also be viewed as gender marking. It has been argued that since male words taken as the norm are therefore rarely marked, addition of sex-specifier markers not only specify the gender of the female, but also implies that females are a deviation from universal male norms. In essence the markers signify the devalua- tion of the unmarked masculine term while associating the referents with negative connotations. It is no wonder then that ‘feminization’ of generics through addition of markers has come to be opposed by language reformers as a manifestation of sexism. Examples include oppositions such as governor/governess, host/hostess, master/mistress, god/godess (Mills 1995: 110–111). As Mills argues, the trivializing connotations of suffixes results from the fact that some of them derive from diminutives that carry the sense such as ‘smaller than’ or ‘less than’. In the above examples, we can see that the function of suffixes extends beyond binary specification of gender. A governess is not a female ‘governor’ but a ‘nursemaid’, while mistress refers to a ‘lover’ (Lakoff 1975). While courtier retains the meaning of someone attached to the court, courtesan refers to sexual servant or prostitute. Mills goes on to explain that while a god is associated with power in the mainstream religion, goddess has been downgraded to a deity of lower status. The same can be said of the priest as a person (male) whose duties are sanctioned by the mainstream religion while priestess is identified with deviant cults. Lakoff’s critics cite the weakness of her intuitive methodology on account that it is subject to different interpretations, and that it also ignores the circumstances in which the words are used. While accepting that words can demean, Fortunata (1981) argued that they could only do so if Journal of African Cultural Studies 17 they elicit feelings of being demeaned on the part of those concerned. According to Fortunata, if the speaker did not intend to demean, or the ‘victim’ is unaware of the overtones, then the linguistic use of the terms can hardly be described as demeaning. Though Fortunata’s arguments are valid, she ignores the fact that language enshrines ‘a set of dispositions’ (Bourdieu 1999) that regularize human negotiations. Bourdieu’s notion of habitus, and the way it is subcon- sciously built to regularize behaviour is in line with Whorf’s (1956) idea of habitual thought. You cannot for instance, swear or use taboo words in public and claim that you did not intend to offend anyone. Mills (2003) approach of combining the Bourdieu’s notion of habitus and the communities of practice theory thus provides a better model for treating sexism in languages. According to Mills, words are not frozen and are subject to negotiation (even by the women themselves) depending on changing contexts and motivation. In her study, she was amazed to discover that women who considered themselves feminists adopted their husbands’ names after marriage or adopted titles such as ‘Mrs’ for a variety of reasons ranging from marking new affiliation, aesthetics, lack of attachment to maiden names as well as professional considerations. This notwithstanding, it is important to bear in mind that an analysis of any discourse such as sexism must have a focus, which in this paper, will be the words and structure in Sheng. 3. Sheng in brief Scholarly work on Sheng has been going on for two decades now. Research has covered areas ranging from its emergence and development (Osinde 1986, Spyropoulos 1987, Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997). Its linguistic classification as a slang, pidgin, Creole or dialect has been discussed in Githiora (2002) while Mazrui (1995) looks at its slang and codeswitching elements. Ogechi’s (2005a) study focuses on lexicalization while its role in youth identity, especially in popular culture, and youth rebellion, has been studied by Githinji (2006 a, b), Samper (2002, 2004) and Mbugua (2003). Attitudes towards Sheng have also attracted attention: e.g. Migunda- Ettyang (2007), Fink (2005) and Githinji (2003) while Bosire’s work (2006) looks at linguistic hybridity in Sheng. Apart from scholarly work, Sheng has also been a hot subject in numerous newspaper commentaries especially with regard to its contribution to poor performance in Swahili and English and transgressive behaviour by the youth. It still continues to attract a lot of interest among the policy makers, journalists, scholars and laymen alike. Sheng has been defined as a Swahili based street language (actually an acronym of Swahili English) slang that has borrowed many words from English and other local languages. It is believed to have evolved in the late 1960 and early 1970s, e.g. Osinde (1986), Abdulaziz and Osinde (1997), Spyropoulos (1987) Githinji (2003, 2006a, 2006b), but see Mazrui (1995) who claims it might have existed as early as the 1930s. It is believed to have originated in the poor neighbourhoods of Nairobi before spreading to different parts of the city. In spite of this spread, typical Sheng is still identified with the poor neighbourhoods of Nairobi, though its use in areas far removed from Nairobi has also been studied (e.g. Ogechi 2002, 2005a, 2005b). Although there are claims that some adults carry Sheng into adulthood, the youth have remained the bulk of its speakers. Almost every study has mentioned Sheng’s tendency to mark the residential origin of the speakers, their age group and sex. In spite of its appropria- tion in popular culture (Mbugua 2003; Samper 2004), negative attitudes towards it and its speakers (Githinji 2003) still persist. While its reliance on Swahili structure (Githiora 2002; Mbaabu and Nzunga 2003) justifies its treatment within the broad context of Swahili language, its status as a marginal code dominated by males provides an interesting arena where we can observe 18 P. Githinji unequal representation of the two sexes. This paper begins by looking at the way females are underrepresented in Sheng as well as the way they are misrepresented by the mainly male researchers. 3.1. Where are the women? Blackout of female speakers by researchers In addressing the under-representation of women in Sheng, three factors must be taken into consideration: (1) domination of the field by male researchers; (2) the distinction between the street level/deep Sheng and the basic Sheng (Samper 2002: 8); and (3) the asymmetric perception of Sheng speakers based on sex. Male dominance in Sheng research has had far-reaching implications on the conclusions drawn from these studies. As outsiders, male researchers are unable to penetrate the female networks, which constrain their account of interaction patterns that take place outside the male domains. Secondly, the hierarchical ranking of Sheng varieties into street level and basic Sheng mutes the female voices by labeling their versions deviant, which in a way contests their legitimacy. As a result, female varieties of Sheng attract little interest among researchers because they are not deemed authentic. Thirdly, the patriarchal institutions are so organized that women are allocated the social roles that inhibit their participation in the street culture. Eventually, the identification of Sheng with street culture where women are marginal participants justifies the exclusion of their variety from the study of Sheng. The few women who succeed in breaking this barrier are confronted by a biased value system that ensures that they do not derive the covert benefits of using the street level Sheng. Samper (2002: 154–155) captures this asymmetry when he notes that: Men derive cultural capital from the use of Sheng . . . but women lose those benefits. Sheng for men is a source of interpersonal power, and women’s avoidance of it reflects women’s lack of power in Kenyan society. . . the socioeconomic condition in Kenya and the enduring strength of traditional gender roles make it impossible for women to change current low status of their interpersonal power . . . Sheng could change this perception, but the patriarchal symbolic order closes this avenue of access to symbolic power by equating women’s skillful use of Sheng with prostitution and low moral values. In these terms, Sheng does not carry the same advantage for women as it does men (sic). Although Samper falls shy of direct mention of sexism, his asymmetric characterization of the role of Sheng based on sex leaves no doubt of the code’s inherent sexism. Considering that Sheng was invented by boys, it fits Spender’s (1985) ‘man-made language’ label in the literal sense of the phrase. While so much has changed regarding women participation in Sheng over the years, the long history of their marginalization and conservative society that employs double standards based on sex has resulted in disproportional representation of the two sexes when it comes to innovation and assigning names. Not only do variants for female words exceed those of males, but even the words for female body parts are derogatory. For the rest of this paper, I will focus on the mani- festations of sexismthrough assigning of derogatory words to women and their body parts, specifically buttocks and breasts. Following Lakoff (1975), it is expected that the semantics of male labels will be denotative while that of females will be both denotative and connotative. This will be attributed to the interpretation of reality from the point of view of one gender which has prompted Spender (1985: 143) to lament that: Males and the dominant group, have produced language, thought and reality. Historically, it has been the structures, the categories which have been invented by males – though not of course by all males – and they have been validated by reference to other males. In this process women have played little or no part. It has been male subjectivity which has been the source of those meanings, including the meaning that their own subjectivity is objectivity (1985: 143). Journal of African Cultural Studies 19 Apart from the polarity and muting of women voices as pointed by Spender, I will discuss how women claim agency by exploiting Sheng’s innovative power to coin words that portray them in a more positive light. Unfortunately, this is the area that has been ignored by previous research. The women’s rejection of the terms coined by males implies that ridding Sheng of sexism can be accomplished by erasing the boundary between deep and basic Sheng distinctions in order to accommodate non-sexist variants used by females. Although such negotiation and co-construction of reality might not completely rid Sheng of its sexism, it is an endeavour that can contribute in changing the way women are portrayed and perceived within the Sheng culture. 3.2. The data Data for this study were collected in Nairobi during the summer of 2004 as part of a broad project on Sheng’s variations and speakers’ multifaceted identity. 212 students from four primary schools (age: 12–17 yrs) and six secondary schools (age 13–19 yrs) filled the open questionnaires in their respective schools. Since the difference in age according to school levels (secondary vs primary) was insignificant, it will not be discussed in this paper. The data relevant to this study, especially section 4 comes from question 11, which investigated lexical variation. Subjects were given a list of 17 English words and asked to write down their Sheng equivalents. Of these 17 words, the 4 words that are relevant in the discussion of gender labeling are; ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘boy’ and ‘girl’. Other words addressed other aspects of the research. Apart from students, oral interviews were conducted on 54 non-student subjects divided into 12 groups: eight all-male, two mixed and two all-girls groups. These groups were interviewed in their local networks known as bazes (Githinji 2006b) and comprised of an average of four subjects per group (min. three, max. eight). The age of non-student subjects ranged between 18–28 years. The data from their oral interviews were transcribed and coded and is used in the discussions in sections 4.1, 4.2 and 5. 3.2.1. A note on the sex/gender of respondents I mentioned earlier that most researches on Sheng are conducted on male speakers to the exclusion of females. A shortcoming in this study is that out of 212 students who filled in the questionnaires, 57 were females while 155 were males. The researcher was denied permission to distribute questionnaires in two girls’ secondary schools which could have reduced the disparity. With regard to primary schools, the researcher had no control on the composition of students in the classes. A similar problem arose with non-student subjects. Out of the 54 subjects interviewed, 13 were females and 41 males. Getting a group of women to interview as a group proved a difficult task. Some were shy and unwilling to participate, others claimed not to speak Sheng, while others chose not to participate. Overall, we can see that for both student and non-student, the female to male ratio is approximately one to three. This gender imbalance might have affected the outcome of the interviews. However, this does not affect the validity of my argumentation. I will begin with the discussion of the asymmetry in naming practices and the connotations in female labels. 4. Androcentric naming practices: word frequency and connotations The results from the student respondents showed that there were more words for women than for men. Apart from the fact that female students in most cases provided fewer variants there 20 P. Githinji was no significant distinction between the words elicited from males and those from female students. The word ‘father’ for instance elicited 17 variants compared to the 25 for ‘mother’. Unlike English, words for females in Sheng are not distinguished from those of males through addition of suffixes as we can see from the data in Table (1). This is hardly surprising because gender is not morphologically marked in Sheng’s base language, Swahili. The discrepancy between phonology and orthography is pervasive in Sheng and needs to be resolved when determining what should count as a variant in order to eliminate the redundancy in lexical frequency. The difference between muthama and mthama for instance, does not justify their consideration as different words. This is because in the M and MU are allophones of [m] – the prefix of class (1) nouns in Swahili. 1 Similarly, the difference between muthes and mwothes can be attributed to the discrepancy between phonology and orthography. Since the phonology of the Kenyan English lacks the postvocalic -r, mathor and matha are pronounced the same and are therefore treated as a single word. Knowledge of the morphological structure of Swahili helps us understand that mathako is derived from the attachment of the possessive suffix -ko and it has no bearing on the nominal root. It can therefore be classified together with matha and mathor into the same paradigm. This whittles down the variants for mother to 21, in effect reducing the significance of the lexical frequencies between the variants for ‘father’ and those for ‘mother’. Conflation of phonologically identical data to rid them of redundancy is justified by Sheng’s lack of written conventions. Although we have seen that the difference in the number of referential terms for the two sexes is insignificant, this does not mean that those words are devoid of sexism. This becomes apparent when we move away from denotation to differences in connotation between the words assigned to both sexes. The three words in bold in Table 1 deserves special attention since they emphasize the central theme of my argument regarding the asymmetric representation of women. Beginning with the appearance of the word buda, which is an exclusive word for ‘father’ under ‘mother,’ it is quite surprising that although the word may have appeared here by mistake, it is also possible that the use of buda for ‘mother’ is comparable to the use of generic man in English. The context-specific use of buda is apparent from the impossibility of the statement mabuda wangu walidivorce ‘my parents divorced’ referring to both father and mother. This assignment of a context sensitive generic to ‘mother’ has a detrimental effect of making women invisible. It has been pointed out that when the semantics of neutral words narrows to refer to female, they become negative. This results from the polarity in many languages where female words are normally semantically downgraded while male words are semantically upgraded (Ng et al. 1993). If the word buda continues to be used for father and mother, its neutrality will strip it of the power associated with masculinity, 2 with a possible abandonment by males. 3 Two other words that exhibit gender polarity are kize for ‘father’ and mokoro for ‘mother’. It is not yet clear if kize 4 is derived from augmentative form of Kikuyu mu˜thee or the diminutive of Swahili mzee. While mzee in Swahili refers to an elder, male or female, the Kikuyu word mu˜thee (borrowed from Swahili) only refers to an elderly male. Mzee can undergo diminutive derivation Table 1. Lexical variants for ‘father’ and ‘mother’. father buda, budeng, budengdeng’, fatha, fathe, fusebox, gadabu, kize, mbulala, mdabu, mdagala, maze, oldman, papa, tifar, warinzu, zeiksman mother buda, gadama, mama, masa, matha, mathako, mathe, mathor, mdhema, myaka, mokoro, monthere, monthero, msa, mtassi, mthama, mthas, munthre, muthama, muthes, mwothes, themaa, therma, tima, zeikswoman Journal of African Cultural Studies 21 in Swahili as kizee or kijizee while its augmentative form is jizee. Similarly, its borrowed counterpart in Kikuyu mu˜thee derives augmentative and diminutive, yielding gı ˜thee and gathee respectively. It is possible that gı ˜thee 5 is borrowed into Sheng from Kikuyu augmentative with the hardening of [g] and the spirantization of th [ð], in which case it inherits meaning associated with augmentative such as monstrosity, invincibility and power. If borrowed from the Swahili diminutive, then it inherits the endearment associated with diminutives (adorable little things) with a possible pejorative sense e.g. abnormal or defficient, normally associated with diminutives. Whether kize is derived from Swahili diminutive or Kikuyu augmentative, we note that the endearment or respect and power associated the term is not extended to women. In contrast, women’s age seems to be emphasized. The word mokoro for ‘mother’ is borrowed from Kikuyu mu˜ku˜ru˜ ‘old person’ especially in the grandparents’ age group. Nowa- days, its meaning has narrowed down to refer to females only, especially mothers. Elevating mothers to the age of grandparents is pejorative because men are not treated the same way. As Mills (1995: 114) explains, one way of insulting women is giving them ‘terms which refer to their lack of attractiveness to men’. This can be seen when fathers are assigned words that call on their adoration, respect and power while mothers are assigned terms that shows their expired value as sex objects. In terms of numbers, the difference between words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’ is insignificant because parents are not creators of Sheng; they neither label themselves nor each other. Fathers and mothers are outsiders in the Sheng networks irrespective of their gender. Although we have seen that the words for ‘mother’ are not devoid of sexism, it is safe to argue that since Sheng is a youth code; the age distinction is more salient than sex differences. Intergroup bias is therefore expressed in terms of age. This changes when focus shifts to the words for boys and girls. Since age is not salient amongst the youth, we expect intergroup distinction based on sex to be more prominent. Indeed, we find that words for ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ exceed those for ‘father’ and ‘mother’. More importantly, words for ‘girl’ far outnumber those for ‘boy’ as illustrated in Table 2. Girls are assigned almost twice as many words as those for boys. There are 24 variants for ‘boy’ compared to 45 for ‘girl.’ Just like we did with words for ‘mother’, the phonetically similar words are combined in order to reduce redundancy and give a more realistic number of variants. For ‘boy’, three paradigms can be conflated as shown below: (i) boi, boy, boyii, huyu boy ¼ boi (ii) dume, ndaume ¼ dume (iii) muthii, mthi, mdhi ¼ muthii Despite the seeming similarity of the words muthee, msee and mzee in Table 2, there is enough justification to treat them as different words on account of their origin. Mu˜thee comes from Table 2. Lexical variants for ‘boy’ and ‘girl’. boy beshte, boi, boy, boyboy, boyii, kaboy huyu boy, chali, licha, charty, dume, ndaume, bro, hommie, jamaa, kijana, mdhi, mthi, muthii, muthee, msee, mzee, mru girl azguoba, bogola, chibela, chik, chile, cholosa, dame, dem, gala, gwaru, hoe, jaba, kemfaa, kenta, kff, kichuna, kidalipo, mama, man, mandu, manyake, manzi, nzima, mbas, mbus, buss, miogar, mlosho, mresh, mroro, roro, mtoto, toto mtoi, mshe, mshi, msusu, mtasi, nyambizi, nyang’we, shore, shwala, siste, supuu, wanyina 22 P. Githinji Kikuyu without undergoing any derivation while mzee comes unchanged from Swahili. Msee, sometimes written mse is the coined words for ‘boy’ which sometimes refers to ‘person’. Con- flation of phonetically similar words reduces the number of variants for ‘boy’ from 24 to 18. Applying the same treatment to words for ‘girl’, the following combinations are possible (i) dame, dem ¼ dem (ii) mshe, mshi ¼ mshi (iii) mbass, mbuss, buss ¼ mbuss (iv) mtoto, toto ¼ mtoto (v) mroro, roro ¼ mroro This conflation eliminates six variants, bringing the final tally to 39. Still, the words for ‘girl’ exceed those of ‘boy’ by a ratio of two to one. Assignment of more words to ‘girl’ can be compared to gender marking in English, only that in Sheng, deviance from males is indicated by a plethora of lexical items instead sex-specifying suffixes. Abundance of words for ‘girl’ can be explained using (Spender 1985) logic that since language is literally man made, 6 it represents a reality skewed in favour of men. This is confirmed by the difference in connotations between the words for ‘boy’ and those for ‘girl’. Beginning with the word man for ‘girl’, we can accept Abulaziz and Osinde’s (1997) obser- vation that it is an innovative strategy designed to obfuscate meaning among certain sections of Sheng speakers. 7 Nevertheless, its unconscious use echoes the use of generic terms whose effect of making women invisible is similar to the use of buda for ‘mother’. Caution should be exer- cised in treating man in this case as a generic noun because of its context specific use as illustrated by mandu (man-du), another word for ‘girl’. With its addition of the grammaticalized suffix -du, it is the only word that exhibits a sex-specifying suffix similar to English. The word du in Sheng means ‘fake’ or ‘dubious.’ Characteristic of patriarchal order, man is the norm while its counterpart mandu is deviant. The etymology of manyake and the images associated with it has led to its contention by females (Githinji 2006). The informants reported that manyake could mean ‘meat’, ‘women with overhanging flesh’, ‘butt’, ‘female genitalia’ or ‘women themselves’. All these senses bear the connotations of sex. Meat is ‘eaten’, which in this case refers to the sexual intercourse where ‘men eat women and not vice versa’ (Ogechi 2005b: 144). 8 Using ‘eating’ as a euphemism for sexual intercourse looks at agency in the sexual experience from a male perspective – an interpretation regarded as sexist in previous lit- erature (e.g. Mills 1995). Back to manyake, women with overhanging flesh are not considered sexually appealing, while buttocks and female genitalia are tropes that enforce the perception of women only in sexual terms. Girls are also called mama ‘mother’ in reference to their perception within stereotypical sex roles of child bearing and motherhood. The fact that boys are not called baba, the antonym of mama, shows that boys are let on the loose, and are not confined to any stereotypical role. In a different sense, the elevation of the girls’ ages to that of mothers is similar to the elevation of ‘mothers’ to the grandparents age mentioned above signifying their diminishing sexual appeal (bearing in mind that sexual experience is interpreted from the male point of view). In contrast, the agelessness and youthful vitality of boys is evident in the broad paradigm for the word ‘boy’ in boy, boi, boyboy, huyu boy and boyii. At the other extreme, girls are depicted as childish and immature through the use of generic words for babies and children. The word mtoto ‘child’, toto ‘big child’ and mtoi (derivation from mtoto) are all derogatory because they evoke images of powerlessness, helplessness and vulner- ability. It is by no accident that mtoto, which is generic is not extended to boys. Here, we note Journal of African Cultural Studies 23 that Sheng follows the trend observed in other studies (e.g. Briere and Lanktree 1983, Lipton and Hershaft 1984) where generics are not preferred by males because they reduce the power associated with masculinity. The use of mtoto in Sheng compares well with the use of babe in English slang. As a diminutive, babe might be considered affectionate, but its negative meanings of attractiveness (women as sexual objects), innocence, naivety, or simply immature cannot be ignored. The pervasive sexual connotations are also evident in nyambizi ‘submarine’ that sub- merges the men. In warfare, a submarine is elusive and unconventional, a sense that can easily be extended to females through the use of the term nyambizi. Space would not allow me to discuss the connotations in all the female words in Table 2; but before I go to my next discussion, it is imperative that I briefly examine the words for ‘boy’ for a better representation of the asymmetry. Apart from eliciting fewer variant, words for ‘boy’ are very positive compared to those for ‘girl’. The ‘boy’ paradigm of boy, boi, boyboy, huyu boy and boyii are all borrowed from English with their positive semantic. Chali (derived from English Charlie) is also a general name in Sheng that is devoid of negative connotation while dume ‘bull’ or ‘stallion’ foregrounds males’ sexual prowess and positive perception of promiscuity comparable to English stud. The word beshte ‘best friend’ male or female is usually narrowed to refer to boys, but unlike in the case of girls where narrowing of generics leads to negativity, the narrowing of generics to refer to males only makes the terms very positive. Other generics like muthii ‘person’ when narrowed to male reference behave the same way as beshte. While calling a boy mzee, muthee or msee might at first seem derogatory by elevating him to a level of old people, this is hardly the case because the words are borrowed packaged with salient positive attributes of elder (power) and wisdom which overrides the age association. Mzee is thus used affectionately in ingroup circles and is normally not used on strangers. If a stranger refers to someone as mzee, s/he gets an angry rebuff mzee ni wewe ‘It is you who is old’ or unaniita mzee unafikiri mimi ni babako? ‘You call me an old man you think I am your father?’ The positive attributes of old age (for the males) thus ensure that boys do not feel insecure when told they are old in a jocular manner. In fact, it is a sort of compliment. To sum up this section, we need to point out that assignment of words is a disproportionate affair in favour of males. The positive words for males and the negative words for females arise from the fact that males are in most case the creators of words (although it also could be because words are only collected from males). Addressing sexism in Sheng from a social psychological perspective, we can define intergroup relations in terms of boys as insiders and girls the outsiders. Outsiders are labeled more, but insiders have no use of creating labels for themselves. Insiders view themselves favourably but this is not extended to outsiders. It is expected that an exploration of female networks would reverse this insider/outsider dynamics yielding a discourse that rids Sheng of sexism. In the next section I examine the connotations of words for girls and some of their body organs as provided by males. 4.1. Sexism in outgroup labeling In this section the words used by males to refer to ‘breast’, ‘buttock’ and ‘girl’ are put under scrutiny. The logic of choosing these three words is because women are more likely than men to be referred using words of their sexual organs. According to Mills (1995: 104) the words for female genitalia ‘can be used abusively to refer to the woman herself, so that sexual organs come to define the whole person’. Interestingly, it seems that the taboo associated with the word ‘vagina’ in Swahili and other African languages extends to Sheng. Although senye 24 P. Githinji or maku are used by both males and females, their reference does not extend to girl. Instead, the buttocks which ‘represent the perception of female beauty’ (Ogechi 2005) is used as euphemism for female genitalia. This in turn functions as a trope in which the female personality is perceived. The data comes from eight male groups, two mixed groups and two female groups (see section 4.0). This data from spontaneous discourse shows that the use of derogatory words for women and their body parts among the male speakers of Sheng cuts across networks and geographical locations. During the interview, women were uncomfortable with derogatory words and actually avoided them. Instead, they volunteered words that were very different from males as shown in Table 3. Reference to breasts as number plates shows that women are viewed as appendages of their body parts. If number plates identify cars, a question begs as to what could be the male number plates, unless their identity is taken for granted. The metaphors created by the words KCC and matuzo (two dairy companies) place women at the same level with dairy animals. In addition, breasts are turned into spiteful appendages by magnifying their size to undesirable proportions. 9 In ma-earphones ‘earphones’ women’s breasts are further objectified and equated with toys for male entertainment. However, the buttocks are the most labeled female organs. The asymmetry here is that while both male and females have buttocks, only the generic word rasa applies to male buttocks while most of the other words are used more in reference to women’s buttocks. Women’s buttocks are compared to car tyres (matyre), overhanging meat (manyake), work equipment (chombo cha kazi), the rear (mathutha, manyuma, manyu), carrier, mudguard, and sitting allowance (ma-sitting allowance). One might be misled by the seeming neutrality of some of these words, but the structural encoding on the ma- prefix (to be discussed in section 5) adds some nuances that accentuate the negative connotation to the words it attaches to. A problem arises when the semantics of words like manyake, masianda, maketho maloso and matyre become metonyms for ‘girl’. Since their original referent ‘buttock’ is a paired body part, it becomes impossible to detach plural prefix ma- in order to derive the singular form for girl. The ma- prefix constrains the perception of females as people without individual personality. Viewing women as groups rather than individuals in turn becomes the fodder for negative stereotypes because individuals cannot be stereotyped, but groups can. Something else that needs to be mentioned about metonymic use of words for buttocks to refer to girl is that they Table 3. Words for ‘breast’, ‘buttocks’ and ‘girl’. Word applied to girls . . . by females . . . by males breasts machungwa [‘oranges’], matinyo, [cf Std matiti ¼ ‘breasts’] KCC, matuzo [milk factories], number plate, ma- earphones butt mafinishings, matina, maduda, madusko, mathutha matyre, manyake [‘meat’], masianda, carrier, mudguard, nyungu [‘pot’], masitting-allowance, chombo cha kazi [‘work tool’], mathutha, manyuma [‘behinds’], manyu [see nyuma], maketho maloso [supposedly , Dholuo] i girl Waitherero [proper name], Chakachaka [proper name], Msupa [, Eng. super] manyake [‘meat’], mtoto [‘child’], first lady, kitu yangu [‘my thing’], maketho maloso [see above], wifey, masianda [‘butt’], matyre i . The respondents claimed that the word came from Dholuo and refers to the large buttocks because Luo women famed for their large behinds. The word is however not recognized by the Luo speakers I spoke to. Journal of African Cultural Studies 25 already bore negative connotation in their initial referents (buttocks and breasts). These negative connotations are transferred to their eventual referents (girl). When the body part concerned (buttocks), is associated with sexuality, then the perception of women as sex objects become even more derogatory. Kitu yangu ‘my thing’, wifey ‘wife’ and first lady are another set of words used by males to refer to females. Although kitu yangu may be regarded as a diminutive, likening of women to ‘thing’ implies objectification of women which is reinforced by the possessive yangu ‘mine’, implying ownership by males. In addition, diminutives further liken women to ‘cute little animals’ (Mills 1995: 117), irrespective of age and this is normally not extended to males. To sum up, it is evident that although Sheng is regarded as a dynamic code that challenges mainstream norms, words like wifey shows that girls are still defined according to their traditional sex roles. Even words derived from titles that on the surface appear harmless like first lady bears connotations of possession by the males, in addition to implying that there may be other ladies. The negative connotation in these words is what we would expect from outgroup labeling. The males define women from their own point of view. Ingroup loyalty dictates that everything ingroup is okay while everything outgroup is an aberration. What would happen if reality were perceived from the other side? This question is answered in the next section. 4.2. Ingroup labeling, expurgation of sexism and female agency Are women’s words for themselves different from men’s word for them? Answering this question takes us back to Lakoff’s assertion (1975) that women have a choice of lexical items that distinguish their language from that of males. These include the colour adjectives, tag questions and empty particles. When we shift our attention to the number and the semantics of words provided by women it becomes clear that the use of denigrating terms for women is a male preoc- cupation. In their self perception, ‘women do not identify themselves in sexual terms, in gender terms, as playthings, or as animals; only males use nonneutral terms to identify women’ (Baker 1981: 168). The women’s word for breasts machungwa ‘oranges’ lacks the negative connotations of playthings or milk factories that we saw in male terms. Although it could be argued that the term also objectifies the female body, it does not bear the deep sexual connotation such as the ones we find in male terms for female breasts. Oranges extol the beauty of breasts in terms of size and colour. On the other hand, matinyo ‘breasts’ is neutral because it is derived from Swahili word for breasts, matiti. From an aesthetic angle, the female words for buttocks like mafinishings associates buttocks with the finesse, beauty and completeness, but it can also give the literal meaning of organs that appear at the rear. Similarly, mathutha, madusko and maduda, all lack the negative preponderant that we see in male terms on account of their neutral meaning. Finally, matina which is borrowed directly from Kikuyu seems to have retained its neutral meaning. In contrast to the male tendency of broadening the words for buttocks to refer to girls, none of the words for buttocks provided by females exhibits these characteristics. Instead, women preferred words like msupa ‘the superb one’, or went for proper names like Chaka- chaka and Waitherero. 10 The choice of these two words show that women chose names that portray their personality as ‘whole persons’ rather than projections of their body parts. They also avoid the use of derogatory words assigned by the males. This rejection of derogatory words shows that women are agents in Sheng’s innovative project who negotiate for their positive identity and are not mere passive recipients of male lexical labels. When women’s lexical choices and innovations are taken into account, a different social reality 26 P. Githinji emerges where the discourse reduces to parallel innovation and lexical choice. Following this argument, it is prudent to re-examine some of the words regarded as ‘oldskool’ by male networks (Githinji 2006a/b). The fact that males have abandoned them does not mean that women have done so too. In fact, they might be the preferred words by females due to their neutrality. This examination of female lexical choice shows that it is possible to envisage Sheng that is not riddled with sexism. Again, intergroup dynamics comes into effect where ingroup loyalty drives women to assign themselves more positive words. Failure to appreciate women’s ingroup loyalty may be blamed for the continued marginalization of women’s varieties of Sheng. The obscuring of women’s modes of expression by Sheng researchers may thus be blamed from the failure to consider the intergroup dynamics. An account of Sheng will always be incomplete if the marginalized discourse of women continues to be ignored. 5. Linguistic structure and the encryption of nuances Many of the words used by males discussed above are not just laden with pejorative attitudes and stereotypes, but they also contain sexist nuances that are encrypted in the structure of Sheng in the form of cryptotypes. According to Whorf (1956: 71, see also Clarke et al. 1984), a cryptotype is ‘a submerged, subtle, and elusive meaning, corresponding to no actual word, yet shown by linguistic analysis to be functionally important in the grammar’. Cryptotypes differ from phenotypes which are defined as ‘the linguistic category with a clearly apparent class meaning and a formula mark or morpheme which accompanies it; i.e. the phenotype is the “classical morphological category”’ (Whorf 1956: 72). Aware of the limitations of phenotypes in grammatical analysis, Whorf proposed that cryptotypes also need to be factored in. He recognized that ‘in some languages at least, linguistic meaning is [an] interplay of phenotypes and cryptotypes, not from phenotypes alone.’ Drawing from Whorf’s insight, I examine some of the words that bear the ma- prefix in my discussion of the interaction between the structure and sexist atti- tude in Sheng. Taking the classifier morpheme ma- as the phenotype, the semantics of the ma- nominal class will be discussed as the cryptotypes that together with the phenotypes enshrine sexism in Sheng. To begin with, there is no unanimous view about the semantics of the Bantu nominal classes. Attempts at generalizations of the types of nouns in various noun classes are hampered by the fact that virtually all noun classes contain what grammarians call ‘miscellaneous nouns’ or something similar (Maho 1999: 63). This does not rule out the possibility of finding generaliz- able regularities. As Maho (p. 64) remarks noun classes are ‘not completely devoid of regular semantic tendencies’. What then are the semantics associated with the ma- prefix? For this, we examine Ashton’s (1966/1947: 64) list of the types of nouns that appear in the JI/MA noun classes. Only the plural forms are of relevance in this discussion since the singular forms lack the ma- prefix. Some of the underlying ideas associated with the ma class as listed by Ashton include the following: (a) names that occur in quantities but have singular counterparts such as: (i) parts of the body e.g. meno ‘teeth’, masikio ‘ears’ (ii) constituent parts of trees e.g. majani leaves, matunda ‘fruits’ (iii) phenomena which occurs in quantities e.g. mawe ‘stones’, mayai ‘eggs’ (iv) deverbal nouns (derived from verbs) e.g. maneno words cf kunena ‘to speak’ and mapigo ‘hits, blows’ cf kupiga ‘to hit’ Journal of African Cultural Studies 27 (b) miscellaneous word, some of foreign origin e.g., mashoka ‘axes’, mashamba ‘planta- tions’, masoko ‘markets’ (c) names of foreign titles and rank e.g., mabwana ‘masters’ (d) some relationship terms e.g., mashangazi ‘aunts’ (e) words expressing amplicative ideas majoka ‘huge snakes’, majiguu ‘big legs’ (sic) Excluded from Ashton’s list is the liquid category that has no singular manifestation e.g. maji ‘water’, mafuta ‘oil, fat’, maziwa ‘milk’ and mate ‘saliva’ where ma does not behave like a decomposable prefix. 11 Attachment of the ma- prefix to female body parts is congruent with the conventional grammatical processes of assigning the phenotypes in these categories the semantics of paired body parts (a/i) and parts of trees (a/ii). It can even be argued that in a way, matuzo refers to the milk that comes out of breasts. However, we begin to get suspicious when ma- prefix attaches to words for ‘girl’ as in manyake, maketho maloso and masianda. It is not possible to clas- sify ‘girl’ under Ashton’s (c) and (d) because the word does not denote a foreign title (unless we imply she is foreign to males) or relationship (to the males), both of which are in any case, sexist associations. This leaves us with cryptotype (e) – amplicative idea, or augmentative, which is indeed supported by male speakers of Sheng as, illustrated by the following exchange between the researcher PG and respondents Karis and Dau from Kabete baze. KARIS: . . . unajua kwa hawa wasichana utakuta . . . unajua ile shape yake ndiyo itam-describe PG: Enhe KARIS: hata pengine ako na titi kubwa utasikia watu wakimwita Tuzo. PG: Tuzo? [laughter] PG: Tuzo ni yule ana matiti? KARIS: Mm-hm [laughter] DAU: yaani inatokana na . . . si unajua hii factory ya maziwa hii ya Tuzo? PG: Ooo ooo ooo ooo! [laughter] DAU: . . . ako amebeba the whole factory [laughs] KARIS: you know for these girls, you will find that their shape is the one that will describe them PG: Enhe? KARIS: like maybe she has large breasts, people will be calling her Tuzo PG: Tuzo? [laughter] PG: Tuzo refers to the one with breasts? KARIS: Mm-hm [laughter] DAU: that is, it derives from. . .you know this milk factory called Tuzo? PG: Ooo ooo ooo ooo! [laughter] DAU: She is carrying the whole factory [laughs] From this exchange it is clear that reference to milk is not about secretions from the mammary gland. Instead, it refers to the nuances associated with the massiveness of a factory, any factory. The factory metaphor also encrypts images of exploitation – production, commerce and profit. Taking into account the fact that big buttocks define the African conception of beauty (Ogechi 2005), the contribution of the ma- prefix in amplifying the size of the woman buttocks becomes obvious. When we consider the etymology of manyake from nyake, we see how addition of the ma- prefix amplifies the conception of ordinary meat to extraordinary proportions. The males 28 P. Githinji would prefer the size of female buttock to be different from that of males, so that the sexual appeal could be enhanced. This is evident from the fact that ma- prefix does not attach to rasa which also refer to male buttock. If amplification portrays women in a derogatory manner, what then can we say about the words with the ma- prefix that women use to refer to themselves? It can be argued that careful choice of words by females ensures that the semantics of the root word before ma- affixation cancels out possible negative cryptotypes that may result from ma- affixation. In ma-finishings for instance, if the aesthetics attributes of finishings is taken into account, we find that amplification enhance the qualities of the referent. Interpretation of ma-finishings as ‘behinds’ or ‘rear areas’ gives a one-to-one connection with buttocks contributing to its neutral sense of paired body parts. Machungwa fits Ashton’s (a/ii) category of paired body parts, freezing the addition of extra nuances. The use of mathutha ‘rear areas’ by both sexes seems to imply that it is neutral. Possibly, the conversion from abstract noun thutha ‘behind’ or ‘rear’ to concrete noun in the derivation of mathutha freezes the semantics of mathutha to paired body parts, hence blocking the encryption of negative connotations. If this is true, its variants which are used by females like maduda (formed by replacing the interdental fricatives [ð] with voiced alveolar stop [d]) and madusko (formed from clipping [da] from maduda before adding suffix sko) inherits this neutral meaning. It can also be argued that the matinyo is devoid of negative connotations because it is a modified version of a borrowed word matiti ‘breasts’ which bears the same semantics. Caution should be observed here because Sheng tends to make class 6 i.e. the ma class the ‘default plural class’ (Bosire 2006) for many nouns that are traditionally classified in other noun classes in Swahili. 6. Conclusion This paper showed that Sheng discriminates against women in different ways. Not only do researchers shun their discourse, but also the language portrays them negatively through assign- ments of more words compared to men. In addition, most of the words for women are derogatory and portray them as deviants. This can be interpreted within the patriarchal order where social roles are biased against women. Masculine roles are associated with power and prestige while feminine roles are considered unimportant and useless. Language reflects and reinforces existing social structures which in turn are constructed to women’s disadvantage. It was argued that in Sheng, linguistic structures place women at the margins of two extremes. At one end, diminutives portray them as helpless, powerless and vulnerable while at the opposite extreme, augmentatives portray them and their body parts as outrageously big. Women do not assign themselves negative words, instead they choose words that enhance their own positive self-identity. The disparity between the male and female labeling of females and their body parts was interpreted in terms of intergroup dynamics where males regard females as outgroups and hence legitimate targets of negative stereotyping. In contrast, women’s positive self-portrayal was interpreted as ingroup loyalty driven by the need to cultivate a positive self-image. The arguments advanced in this paper question the strict adherence to the Saussurean paradigm about the relationship between the signifier and signified in a linguistic sign (Saussure 1959). This is because it fails to completely address the connotation of words or the attitudes that speakers associate with those words. While this paper is not a criticism of Saussure, its focus on the connection between language and thought shows that linguistic structures are not always arbitrary as is widely assumed. They are loaded with nuances and innuendoes that only become apparent after a critical look. Journal of African Cultural Studies 29 Although the paper looks at Sheng as more manifest amongst the males, it was also shown that females also participate in Sheng, only that their styles do not attract the attention of researchers. Just because women are not using the words that are popular with the males does not mean that they do not speak Sheng, neither does it justify giving them a linguistic blackout. For a fair representation of both sexes, as well as purging Sheng of its sexism, the artificial boundaries between deep and basic Sheng that contest the legitimacy of women styles need to be discarded. Finally, it is expected that deliberate attention to female styles in Sheng would help address its sexism from two perspectives. First, it will restore women agency, ensuring that they are also co- participants in the construction of reality. Since their words are less vulgar, their competition with male terms in Sheng discourse will lead to abundance of lexical choices by the users thus reducing the prominence of derogatory words. Luckily, Sheng is a fluid code where everything is up for negotiation. It is not beyond salvage. Notes 1. Though in Standard Swahili the morpheme for noun class one is m, some upcountry speakers add u, which is analogical to a similar morpheme in the same category in their respective first languages. 2. This is similar to Lipton and Hershaft (1984) finding that a change from the masculine he to a neutral person downgraded the male artist because it was regarded as emasculation of males. 3. In Githinji (2006a, b), I explained that names that are no longer in use are called oldskool. Buda is one of the words considered oldskool in some Sheng networks. 4. The name mzee in Swahili means an elder. Augmentatives jizee, and diminutives kizee seem to exhibit gender sensitivity in that while augmentatives are usually applied to males, diminutives are most often applied to women. Kikuyu has borrowed the name mu˜thee from Swahili to refer to an old man. The augmentative form in Kikuyu is gı ˜thee and its dimunitive gathee. Both refer to males (see also Githinji 2006). 5. In Gikuyu, g is realized as a velar fricative [g]. In Sheng, this phone converts to a voiceless velar stop [k]. In addition grapheme ı ˜ [e] changes to [i] changing the name githee to kizee. 6. Marginalization of girls prevents their lexical innovations from surfacing while the patriarchal order that perpetuates the impression that girl’s Sheng is deviant ensures that no importance is attached to their innovations. 7. Abdulaziz and Osinde (1997) observed that Engsh speakers in the Westlands areas of Nairobi called their girlfriends man. 8. Another common word for sexual intercourse is manga — a Romance borrowing that means ‘to eat’. Although this word is borrowed from French manger [ma˜zˇe], the phonological disparity can be attributed to the fact that Sheng speakers could have accessed this borrowing through its written form and then adapted it to the local phonology. This is a common feature in Sheng, even with words borrowed from local languages and can be attributed to Sheng’s freedom in innovation as well as its lack of orthographic conventions as we can see in this section. 9. We should bear in mind that young men prefer women with a small chest and big buttocks as captured by the song Vile (ni)Tafanya ‘What I will do’ by Jua Cali, Nonini and Prezzo: . . . awe na kifua ndogo, na nyuma mahaga ‘. . . she should have a small chest and large buttocks.’ 10. Yvonne Chakachaka is a popular South African musician who was very popular in the 1980s and 1990s and still commands a huge following in Kenya. Waitherero is a Kikuyu female name 11. It is however important to group these nouns in this class because their grammatical manifestation is similar to the nouns listed in the text. We should also bear in mind that other Bantu language have nouns with paradigms that shows that some of these nouns are decomposable. In Kikuyu for instance, you can say maaı ˜ ‘water’, tu˜u˜ı ˜ ‘little water’, ru˜u˜ı ˜ ‘river’. References Abdulaziz, Mohammed & Ken Osinde. 1997. Sheng and Engsh: development of a mixed code among the urban youth in Kenya. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 125: 43–63. 30 P. Githinji Ashton, Ethel. 1966/1947. Swahili grammar (including intonation). (2nd edn). London: Longmans. (1st edn 1947). Baker, Robert. 1981. ‘Pricks’ and ‘Chicks’: a plea for ‘Persons’. In Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis, ed. Mary Vetterling-Braggin, pp. 161–182. Totowa NJ: Littlefield, Adam. Blaubergs, Maija. S. 1978. Changing sexist language. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2, no. 3: 244–261. Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time. Cognitive Psychology 43: 1–22. ———. 2003. Linguistic relativity. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science, ed. Lynn Nadel, pp. 917–921. London & New York: MacMillan. Bosire, Mokaya. 2006. Hybrid languages: the case of Sheng. In Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of African Linguistics, ed. Olaoba F. Arasanyin and Michael A Pemberton, pp. 185–193. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briere, John, and Cheryl Lanktree. 1983. Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles 9, no. 5: 625–632. Clarke, Mark A., Ann Lossof, Margaret McCracken & David Rood. 1984. Linguistic relativity and sex/ gender studies: epistemological and methodological considerations. Language Learning 34, no. 2: 47–67. Connor, Jan, Fiona Byrne, Jodi Mindel, Donna Cohen & Elizabeth Nixon. 1986. Use of the title Ms., Miss, or Mrs.: Does it make a difference? Sex Role 14, nos. 9/10: 545–549. Fink, Teresa. K. 2005. Attitudes towards languages in Nairobi. (Masters thesis, University of Pittsburg). Fortunata, Jacqueline. 1981. Lakoff on language and women. In Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis, ed. Mary Vetterling-Braggin, pp. 81–91. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adam. Fyre, Marilyn. 1981. Male chauvinism: a conceptual analysis. In Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis, ed. Mary Vetterling-Braggin, pp. 7–22. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adam. Githinji, Peter. 2003. Language attitudes: Nairobi people and Sheng. (MA thesis, Michigan State University). ———. 2006a. Sheng and variation: The construction and negotiation of multiple identities. (Ph.D dissertation, Michigan State University). ———. 2006b. Bazes and their shibboleths: lexical variation and Sheng speaker’s identity in Nairobi. Nordic Journal of African Studies 15, no. 4: 443–472. Githiora, Chege 2002. Sheng: peer language, Swahili dialect or emerging creole? Journal of African Cultural Studies 15, no. 2: 159–181. Heilman, M.E. 1975. Miss, Mrs., Ms or none of the above. American Psychologist 30: 516–518. Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row. Lei, Xiaolan. 2006. Sexism in language. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5, no. 1: 87–94. Lipton, Jack, and Alan Hershaft. 1984. ‘Girl,’ ‘woman,’ ‘guy,’ ‘man’: the effects of sexist labeling. Sex Roles 10, no. 3/4: 183–194. Lucy, John. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312. Maho, Jouni. 1999. A comparative study of Bantu noun classes. (Orientalia et Africana Gothoburgensia 13). Go¨teborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Martyna, Wendy. 1980. Beyond the ‘he/man’ approach. The case for nonsexist language. Signs 5, no. 3: 482–493. Mazrui, Alamin. 1995. Slang and codeswitching: the case of Sheng in Kenya. Afrikanistische Arbeitspa- piere 42: 168–179. Mbaabu, Ireri & Kazungu Nzunga. 2003. Sheng-English dictionary: Deciphering East Africa’s underworld language. Dar es Salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili, Chuo Kikuu cha Dar es Salaam. Mbugua wa Mungai. 2003. Identity politics in Nairobi matatu folklore. (Ph.D dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem). Migunda-Attyang, J. 2007. Attitudes towards Sheng: an emerging language in Nairobi. Chemichemi: International Journal of the School of Social Sciences, Kenyatta University 4, no. 1: 29–43. Mills, Sara. 1995. Feminine stylistics. London & New York: Routledge. ———. 2003. Caught between sexism, anti-sexism and ‘political correctness’: feminist women’s negotiation with naming practices. Discourse and Society 14, no. 1: 87–110. Ng, Sik., Kam Kwen Chan, Ann Weatherall & Joanna Moody. 1993. Polarized semantics: change of words associated with females and males. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12, nos. 1&2: 66–80. Journal of African Cultural Studies 31 Ogechi, Nathan. 2002. Trilingual codeswitching in Kenya: Evidence from Ekigusii, Kiswahili, English and Sheng. (Ph.D dissertation, University of Hamburg). ———. 2005a. On lexicalization in Sheng. Nordic Journal of African Studies 14, no. 3: 334–355. ———. 2005b. The language of sex and HIV/AIDS among university students in Kenya. Stichproben. Wiener Zeitschrift fur Krische Africastudien 9, no. 5: 123–149. Osinde, Ken. 1986. Sheng: an investigation into the social and structural aspects of an evolving language. (MA thesis, University of Nairobi). Samper, David. 2002. Talking Sheng: The role of a hybrid language in the construction of identity and youth culture in Nairobi Kenya. (Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). ———. 2004. ‘Africa is still our Mama’: Kenyan Rappers, youth identity and the revitalization of traditional values. African Identities 2, no. 1: 31–51. Saussure, Ferdinard de. 1959/1916. Course in general linguistics. (Tr. Wade Baskin). New York: Philoso- phical Library. (Cours de linguistique geńe´rale, Paris: Payot, 1916). Spender, Dale. 1985. Man made language. (2nd edn). London & Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Spyropoulos, Mary. 1987. Sheng: some preliminary investigations into a recently emerged Nairobi street language. Journal of Anthropological Society of Oxford 18, no. 1: 125–136. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language thought and reality: Selected writings. (Edited with Introduction by John B. Carrol.) Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Wise Erica and Janet Rafferty. 1982. Sex bias and language. Sex Roles 8, no. 12: 1189–1196. Ying, H.G. 2000. The origin of contrastive rhetoric revisited. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, no. 2: 259–268. 32 P. Githinji

Sexism and (Mis)Representation of Women in Sheng

Comments

Description