Gendered Dichotomies in African Youth Language and Language Practices: Urban and Rural Spaces, Virtual and Real-Life Gendered Discourses E-Book

• Herausgeber: ibidem
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Seitenzahl: 619

Beschreibung

Youth language data provides interesting perspectives on gender dynamics and gendered usage in society. However, the gender perspective has not received the deserved focus in youth language studies in Africa. This is partly due to the general perception that youth languages and classic youth language practices, such as slang and anti-language, are male-oriented. This collected volume focuses on gender dynamics and gendered usage in African youth languages and youth language practices, against the backdrop of urbanity as well as rurality. With representations from different parts of Africa, the volume examines sundry youth usage in different contexts and domains. While avoiding strict binarizations and potentially flawed dichotomies, the contributing scholars observe some of the motivations for different gender performatives and how these manifest in a variety of language forms and through predominated categories of use. Data samples were obtained through sociolinguistic and anthropological instruments, ranging from questionnaires and structured interviews to street-based observations and corpus analyses. On the whole, the volume engages the literature and debate on language, youth, and especially on gendering dynamics in African youth language practices.

Leseprobe

ibidem Press, Stuttgart

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Foreword

1 Gender(ed) Dichotomies in Language, and Youth Usage in African Settings

2 Gender Binaries in African Youth Language: The Case of Camfranglais

3 Gender, Age and Rural-Urban Dichotomies in S’ncamtho Familiarity and Usage in Zimbabwe

4 Clever or Smarter? Style and Indexicality in Gendered Constructions of Male and Female Youth Identities in Kenya and South Africa

5 From Slanging to Code-mixing …, Pidginization …, Antilanguages and Paroemic routines: Gender Dichotomies and Dynamics in the Language of Nigerian Undergraduates on Social Media Apps

6 Lugha ya Mitaani, Gender Stereotypes and Sexism. “Catcalling” as a Communicative Practice of Male Youths in Urban Public Spaces in Tanzania

7 Gender Stereotypes and Discriminatory Language in Luyaaye, Ugandan Youth Language

8 Hustling Vibaya : Femininities and the Modern Kenya Woman

9 Gender Dynamics in Camfranglais : A Study of Female and Male Cameroonian Musicians

10 Fluid Gender Identity Doing in the African Diaspora in New Zealand

11 ‘Baby, I’m coming’: The Linguistic Construction of Orgasm by Female Youth in Rural and Urban Nigeria

12 Intersecting Youth Digital Practices and Homosexuality: Identity Construction, Ideological Framing and Decolonisation in Homosexuality Narratives on Nigerian Twitter

13 Li(ea)ving Behind the Mask: The Stylistics of Nigerian Sexual Diversity, and Homophobic Discourse in The Digital Media

A Postscript

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support of the many scholars and colleagues who have either contributed chapters to this volume or have provided peer reviews for the chapters. Their contribution has no doubt enhanced the quality of the publication. Special thanks to Professors Mokaya Bosire and Fiona Mc Laughlin, both of whom spared the time needed to read the manuscript and provide the Foreword and Postscript respectively for the volume.

The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation provided support for this publication in two ways, firstly in the form of a renewed fellowship stay granted to me as a George Forster Fellow in 2021, and which was actualised at the University of Chemnitz in Germany. This provided the needed time, environment and resources to work on the theoretical background to the publication. Secondly, the Foundation also offered publishing support in the form of some subsidy to the publishers. All this is well appreciated. I also appreciate the support of Prof. Josef Schmied who was my academic host during the fellowship period.

The role played by the following editorial assistants is also acknowledged: Chris Lekan Olawale, Sam Akinmusuyi (University of Ilorin), and Oluwaseun Bamisaiye (Federal University Oye-Ekiti).

Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju, PhD

Department of English, University of Ilorin

George Forster Fellow, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Catalyst Fellow, The University of Edinburgh

Gendered Dichotomies in African Youth Language and Language Practices:

Foreword

Mokaya Bosire

(University of Oregon, USA)

A man who lived on the banks of the Niger should not wash his hands with spittle.

Chinua Achebe

In a continent where upwards of 2000 languages are spoken, one is constantly exposed to incredibly diverse ways and means of expressing oneself at home and at the marketplace, formally and informally, publicly and privately. From a young age, you are a member of a speech community and of discursive practices that construct and perform both contextualized and imagined identities that are both individual and collective. From using distinct languages (codes), to choosing dialects and variants of a particular language down to a particular accent, African peoples who live in these plurilingual realities may choose to use one code or mix and mesh codes in their utterances for effect. In many places on the continent, multi-lingual practices and language-contact outcomes like bilingualism, code-meshing, mixed languages, pidgins and creoles, “trans-languaging” and other extra-normative discursive practices are therefore a common phenomenon. These diverse ways of using language find full expression in Youth languages, both rural and urban. Such was my experience growing up in Nairobi that eventually led me to research the expressive, novel and surprising vitality of Sheng, amid all the codes Kenya had to offer.

Because languages track and index cultures and cultural change, the complex intricacies of language that can arise in such a language-rich place as Africa with rapid cultural and technological change are exciting and interesting to investigate. “Hot-button” issues of our time: politics, the economy, climate change and local controversies all jostle for discussion and expression with global issues and trends in food practices, style and fashion, gender and sexuality. In a young continent where the median age is less than 20 years in most places, where most young people are increasingly connected with the world through social media networks and the internet, the international is at once local and subject to interpretation and adaptation. Given their repertoire of codes, one basic question then becomes: in which codes are different African demographics discussing these issues? For example, are all genders using the same codes?

The youth of Africa, both men and women, use language in the new, extra-normative and rich-in-metaphor youth languages. The chapters in this volume cover the gamut of African youth language practices, revealing that, across the continent, young people are constantly morphing their linguistic repertoires in surprisingly comparable ways in disparate areas – Kenya, Cameroun, South Africa and everywhere in-between. The volume not only shows that there are nuances in the issues that young men and women in Africa are speaking to, but also that the discursive ways in which they are utilizing available codes to bolster their positions and perform evolving identities are gender-sensitive. My own research on Sheng shows that language practices align with individual, cultural and global conceptualizations of gender as construed through local power dynamics and contestations. I have found, for example, that, while all genders speak Sheng, men may use particular expressions in Sheng to project street-wise masculinity, while women would use Sheng to project different identities, including transgressing taboo rules for women in every-day life and in genres like music and stand-up comedy routines.

The authors of this volume, many of them accomplished researchers in youth languages and other extra-normative language varieties on the continent, have interrogated not just the different contemporary issues that young people in Africa are speaking to, but also the innovative ways in which language is performed by different genders. The volume is a must read for all African language researchers and youth language enthusiasts everywhere.

Mokaya Bosire

University of Oregon

1Gender(ed) Dichotomies in Language, and Youth Usage in African Settings

Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju

(University of Ilorin, Nigeria)

“Let us forget our differences.” (Nnamdi Azikiwe)

“No, let us understand our differences.” (Ahmadu Bello)1

1. Introduction

The gender perspective has not received the deserved level of attention in youth language studies, especially in African settings. Indeed, the continent so far lacks a volume that is focused exclusively on gender issues or gendering patterns in “African youth language” and “language practices.”2 The objective of this volume therefore is to attempt to begin to fill this yawning gap, through a book level concentration on the subject. In doing so, contributors to the volume direct their investigative gaze on an obvious yet sometimes contentious phenomenon, the notion of difference or dichotomy between the genders, and between their respective languages or communication patterns.

There is a sense of conflict in this preoccupation, since, on the one hand, any notion of difference or dichotomy tends to echo that of gender binaries or a strict compartmentalization of genders in terms of sex and sexual categories (e.g., the man/woman-male/female binary, or the idea that “man” equals “male” and “woman” equals “female”), as well as the sexual (hetero-homosexual) binary. Such binarization has long been discouraged on the grounds of the multiplicity and complexity of these categories, such as the existence of non-binarized (intersex; transsexual), and of homosexual, bisexual, pansexual or otherwise non-heterosexual individuals. Secondly, the idea of a strict dichotomy between the language of females and males, or other genders, has also been subject to considerable debate. Thirdly, the very idea of comparison tends to promote an exceptional, male-as-norm, female-as-deviation, view and a possible denigration of the latter.

However, and perhaps ironically, youth language studies have generally been carried out precisely on the basis of a clear difference or dichotomy between female and male language and communication practices. This is partly due to the general finding that the established youth languages, and classic youth language practices (such as slang and anti-language), are male oriented. In African settings, youth usage samples have been described variously as being “predominantly by male youth” (Kießling 2005), a “predominant feature of male communication” (Hollington and Nassenstein 2018, 10), in use “primarily by male youth, although lingua franca claims are being made for some of the varieties” (Hurst-Harosh and Erastus 2018, 3; emphasis added), “a domain specific, identity forming and context driven male dominated discourse form” (Oloruntoba-Oju 2018, 198), or as representing “a male-dominated tendency” (Mensah 2016, 186). Correspondingly, usages elicited from the male subjects are projected universally as “youth language,” which tends to foreclose or at least mask the nature and extent of female contribution to the phenomenon and heighten the sense of a gender dichotomy within the domain. This research orientation is not necessarily an African phenomenon, as it accords with worldwide practice in the field. In many western contexts, for example, knowledge about male youth had been generalized to all “young people” (Phoenix 1997). Not only have gender-slanted representations of “youth language” persisted in these contexts, but also that negative cultural comments against the use of “male forms” such as slang by female youth have been reported in the settings (Nortier 2019). The notion of difference or dichotomy between the genders and their language therefore persists, reinforcing the idea that gender dichotomies truly and continually exist. Do they, or are they simply gendered in our perception and in certain behaviors?

It should be noted straightaway that the authors in this volume acknowledge the diversity of sex and gender, and the right of individuals to adopt and proclaim sex or gender identities that appear suited to their individual psychological orientations. However, notwithstanding such identities, questions as to the existence or otherwise of gender dichotomies or of gender distinctions in the language of the different sexes continue to animate debates in Sociolinguistics, and in Sociology. From the outcome of various studies, it does seem the case that, at the very least, such dichotomies are part of the dynamics of gender and are frequently reinforced through gendered behavior. This brief introductory chapter attempts to link ongoing research on African youth language(s) and language practices to aspects of the debate on language and gender.

2. Gendering in language

2.1 Difference, Dichotomy, Subjectivity, Dynamism

On a general level, the sociolinguistics of gender has been concerned with the manner in which gender as a social variable impacts language use in society, and especially the variations in language that occur either as a consequence of, or in relation to, gender. However, the reverse impact of language on gender has also been abundantly theorized (see Edley 2001, quite apart from the axiom that language does cognitively direct or redirect our views and our focuses). It is axiomatic that language not only reflects the state of gender in society but is also a gendering instrument in itself. Its impact on gender occurs through performative iteration, the dissemination of prejudices, reproduction of gender asymmetries and maintenance of the cultural status quo. Linguistic gendering describes the manner in which gender enters, or is manipulated into, social relations through language.

The relationship between language and gender had traditionally been studied, within Sociolinguistics, in terms of linguistic variation and of situationally or stylistically determined differences in language use of, or between, women and men. Mary Bucholtz, in her article, “From ‘Sex Differences’ to Gender Variation in Sociolinguistics” (2002), notes that such an orientation leads to a focus on “linguistic variables.” It has however become axiomatic over time that language is not just an instrument of communication but also a vector of identity, ideology and power. The fields of Critical Sociolinguistics, Conversation Analysis, Correlational Sociolinguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Stylistics and others have opened up lines of enquiry into the dissemination of power in discourse. Thus, the study of linguistic gendering demonstrates specific ways in which communities and individuals “do gender,” in the manner well elaborated by West and Zimmerman (1987), within specific contexts and domains, whether consciously or unconsciously; the sundry motivations for different performances of gender, as well as the various effects on gender relations. The critical issue for this volume is to examine such differences, if they exist, and such motivations within the specific context of youth language in general, specific youth languages, and sundry youth language practices in Africa (see note 2 above on the relevant definitions).

The trajectory of attempts to codify the nature of gendering in language becomes germane in a discussion of the gender phenomenon in African youth communications. Of particular interest is the unravelling of causal or, at least, contributory links between language and gender within the domain of youth. Issues relating to socialization, ‘habituation,’ contextualization, life affordances, styles, and the self-motivated construction of identities are among regular fares in language and gender enquiry. Related theoretical perspectives have ranged across numerous disciplinary boundaries—feminism, linguistic anthropology, applied linguistics, especially sociolinguistics—and more. Central notions have included, initially, those of patriarchal power and gender imbalance (with the masculine gender domineering in the use of power forms of language, and the feminine gender employing apparently “weaker” or “submissive” forms), and, later, a post-binary focus on the diversity of social, gendered, sexual and crossover experiences (see Arber, Davidson and Ginn 2003; Cameron 1998, 2005; Coates 1993; Jespersen 2013 [1922]; Lakoff 1975; Mills 2012; Tannen 1996; West and Zimmerman 1987 on this trajectory). These perspectives, which I try to disarticulate below, also employ a variety of frameworks for exploring gender differences in language, including, for example, sociolinguistics (e.g., Lakoff 1975; Coates 1993), pragmatics (e.g., Cameron 2005), indexicality (Ochs 1992), intersectionality (e.g., Levon and Mendes 2015).

Explorations such as the above have elaborated language use by women and men either according to some hierarchical configuration or differentiated language and discourse norms between the genders. These approaches have been summarized in terms of what may be referred to as the “four Ds” (“DDDD”): deficit, dominance, difference and dynamic approaches (see Coates 1993). Both “deficit” and “dominance” suggest the evaluation of male speech as the linguistic norm in society, and female speech as a somewhat deficient and subordinated category; for example, lacking in syntactic complexity or being less well-formed (Jespersen 1922, 273). While these approaches are typically traced to Jespersen’s (1922) chapter titled “The Woman,” they also represent traditional conceptions in many societies with patriarchal organizational patterns. Within the deficit/dominant approach, aspects of conversation such as interruption and direct forms of expression are seen as signaling male dominance (Zimmerman and West 1975), while the preponderant use of indirect forms, hedges, excessive politeness, emotivity, and “empty adjectives” by women (Lakoff 1975) tend to signal deficit and subservience, according to this view. Difference, on the other hand, disavows any hierarchical relationship between female and male languages; only that, the two derive their languages from different socialization norms leading to different forms of expression. In 1990, Tannen (1993) introduced the dimension of “misunderstanding” in or between female and male talk on account of different talk patterns, such as the female “rapport” forms that apparently exhibit empathy and emotivity, as against male “report” forms that apparently exhibit competition and emotional indifference. These variations are not analyzed or interpreted as deficient or dominant either way, but simply as different. Instructively, however, the same expressions associated with “feminine usage” and regarded as paradigms of subservience above are held up within the difference paradigm as indices of difference in socialization resulting in different strategies of discourse. As Tannen later clarified, “all the strategies that have been taken by analysts as evidence of dominance can in some circumstances be instruments of affiliation” (Tannen 1993, 173). More recently, Bucholtz (2009, 4) observes, with regard to slangs, that “terms ideologically associated with one gender or the other may in fact be shared in practice” by both genders.

The critique of these two main approaches (deficit/dominance vs difference) has involved the theorization of an interface between both. These approaches may be seen as representing “reflexes of inequality” (Cameron 1998) on the one hand, and variation dynamics on the other. Each approach is invested with arguments that ironically expose their own weaknesses. For example, the difference approach ignores the political/ideological nuances involved in gender relations and the associated language(s), while the dominance approach ignores language representational dynamics other than ideology. The approach of dynamism,on the other hand, suggests that contextually relevant dynamics shape the specific conversational approaches of the different genders, and that people simply “do gender” based on contextual needs, affordances and related dynamics, rather than on intrinsic or essentialist sex-gender attributes. Eckert's (1989) “gender is not enough,” drew attention to other mediating variables such as age, class, ethnicity3 and sundry environmental factors. This dynamism also follows the established multifunctionality and potential ambiguity of linguistic strategies (Cameron 1998, 439), in which conversations and interpretations are based on the pragmatics of discourse or the assumptions that interlocutors make. A related term is “gendered subjectivity,” which again entails a movement away from the idea of innate and invariable identities (e.g., women/men–male/female) to a notion of sundry social exigencies that confer individual subjectivities on persons and groups (see Holloway 2014; Cott and Pleck 1979). Research in gendered subjectivity focuses on the “lived experiences” of women, rather than on apriori assumptions regarding structural or lingual differences between women and men. The former enables a more relevant probe into the manner in which gender contributes to the treatment of women, and also how women perceive the various meanings associated with womanhood (Cott and Pleck 1979, 9).

The sum of these latter approaches is therefore to avoid a binary appreciation of gender in general and that of language and gender in particular, in favor of the “diversity of gendered and sexual identities and practices” (Cameron 2005, 482). How these notions impact the trajectory of difference or dichotomy in gender studies has also been elaborated. With difference, Cameron continues, “research presupposes the existence of two internally homogenous groups, ‘men’ and ‘women’ and looks for differences between them,” while, with diversity “research assumes an array of possible gender identities or positions, inflecting or inflected by other dimensions of social identity [and] intra-group differences and inter-group similarities are as significant as differences between groups.” The notions of “context dependency” (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1999; Cameron 1998, 2005), “relationality” (Cameron 1998) and “relativity” (Tannen 1993) can be employed in the service of both difference and diversity. The terms are, albeit in different ways,4 in keeping with the constructionist/postmodernist view that “identities are not fixed and stable attributes of individuals, but are constructed in particular contexts through particular practices” (Cameron 2005, 492).

3. Does Dynamism Invalidate Notions of Difference or Dominance?

Linguistic asymmetries in the domain of sex and gender continue to appear in many relevant researches. Examples over time have included differences between male and female in politeness forms (e.g., Lakoff 1975), types and degrees of verbal aggression (Luther, Legg and Robert 2010), response patterns (whether minimal or maximal); listening orientation in terms of level of attentiveness (Tannen 1990); turn taking behavior (DeFrancisco 1991; Goodwin 1990),among others. Within the African setting, Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert and Leap (2009) found continued trends of dominance in the form of interruptions by males, and rapport forms, as well as the so-called submissive forms in the form of compliments, hedges and tag questions, by females. Kimani, Nyarigoti and Gatnigia (2018) also found a significant relationship between gender and language use in different domains, including a hundred percent differential in the use of the youth language, Sheng, by males compared to females within the sampled population. Boakye (2007) found a greater level of vagueness in the language used by females within the sampled population. Elsewhere, and even within the new approaches to language and gender, Soni-Sinha (2010) found substantial differences in the manner in which women and men constitute their subjectivities within the workplace.

These findings suggest that the new approaches that emphasize diversity would not necessarily cancel out the reality of difference or dichotomy in the domain. The relationship between “difference” and “diversity” itself, from the semantic point of view, is one of mutual entailment and sometimes of synonymy,5 for which reason explanations of “diversity” invariably take a recourse to the notion of “difference,” or to cognate terms such as “varied” or “contrastive.”6It does seem a profound irony that discourse ‘against’ difference should be based precisely on the notion of diversity; that is, on a certain recognition of difference(s).

The main issue, from the postmodern perspective, is not whether certain differences exist between the sexes, since they obviously do, but whether, as Cameron (2005, 486) phrased it, there should be any ontological status attached to these differences or, put differently, in terms advanced by Judith Butler, whether related perceptions have any grounding in “brute facts of biology.” What is in issue therefore is the pre-discursive status of gender, whether gender flows autonomously from biological facts, or is only realized discursively and socially constructed phenomenon relating only to norms of behavior entrenched by patriarchal societies and the associated cultures. Although postmodernism would answer the former in the negative and ascribe all perceptions to societal constructs, attempts to separate language use from “brute facts of biology” tend to flounder when such attempts actually come in contact with “brute facts of biology.”

Sex and gender have long been organizing categories of society, and have inevitably influenced the assignment of roles and construction of values, based on observable differences. This has occurred in ancient societies long before any scientific evaluation or confirmation of biological and psychological (sex-gender) dimorphism. In other words, brute facts of biology led to what over time became a stereotypic assignment of societal tasks and functions in ancient societies; that is, the idea, given a cisgender orientation, that a dense muscularity should determine who chopped woods, went to war, or offered protection to the other,7 an ancient version of noblesse oblige, while fecundity determines who nurtured the young, tempered hostilities, etc.), with all the associated social and cultural values and gender biases. Still, further research continues to underscore a mean attribute between notions of biology and constructs of society. The notion of gender ultimately centers on “the premise that notions of men and women/male and female are sociocultural transformations of biological and social categories and processes” (Ochs 1992, 339).

Without doubt these ancient societies also deconstructed gender by acknowledging diversity within the domain; they did not deny the existence of female masculinities, or of trans- elements such as the androgynous, masculine woman or feminine man8 (for whom there are contemporary slang renditions such as tomboy, femboi), as well as non-heterosexual (LGBTQ) categories. In these cases, gender behavior would appear to not be in sync with observable body characteristics, triggering overt or covert resistance towards stereotype gender expectations on the part of the individuals concerned.

The fact remains that a lot of language issues directly from the body, whether in terms of the partonomic principle (body parts and compositionality), the associated partonomic onomasis (naming of the body parts), and related activities, functions, and perceptions.9 It also triggers complex psychological inferencing and the associated meaning constructs or meaning extensions of the body. Whether particular bodies adhere to gender norms and expectations or not, brute facts regarding the body continue to figure in linguistic appropriations of the body within the society, and especially among the youths of respective societies.

The fact of language being intimately woven with the body has therefore become well established in linguistic theory. Of particular importance here is the work of Johnson and Lakoff, and others, on language and embodiment, especially the notion that “there is no severing, separation from, or bleaching out of the bodily dimensions of meaning. Mind is embodied, meaning is embodied, and thought is embodied in this most profound sense” (Johnson and Lakoff 2002, 249). Associated researches have over time provided evidence for “body-based meaning” (250). Work in neurology in particular has provided neural evidence for the notion of linguistic embodiment. Iconic linguistic items are “related to their meanings through physical resemblance” (Taub 2001, 8), while “embodiment fundamentally underlies human conceptualization” in general (Brenzinger and Kraska-Szlenk 2014, 2). Names relating body to behavioral characteristics were some of the earliest indications of the inseparability of language from the body (e.g., terms like “front,” “back” mimic anatomical characteristics; the “I” in English mimics the erect body, etc.). Cognitive metaphors deriving from the body (e.g., “artery” as a metaphor for critical supply paths, from oceanic grain routes to battlefront ammunition lines, etc.), fall in the category of body-to-language meaning extensions; interesting expressions such as “look up to her/him” or “look down on her/him/you/them” also implicates body dynamics and spatial orientation in discourse.

Related to sex-gender linguistics, the meeting point between the linguistic axis of chain (syntactic) and axis of choice (lexical, semantic, and pragmatic) is inevitably mediated by brute biological facts regarding distinctive parts. Clearly, a lot of sex-differentiated language derives its vocabulary and usage from the body and associated experiences. For example, certain possessive expressions relating to gendered body parts (e.g., “my/her womb” or “my/his penis,”10 etc.) are sex exclusive and can hardly collocate across the sexes or make meaning outside of the appropriate biological frames of reference. Paralinguistic aspects such as pitch also seem to be biologically regulated—allowing of course for cases of intersex or transsexuality, as well as deliberate irony, symbolism, wordplay, or misrepresentation. In other words, the body itself creates a sex differentiated language ab initio. Bodies matter (Butler 1993), in this case linguistically to the extent that they lead to differentiation in verbal identification, expression of bodily experience and corresponding nuances of language (see, however, the rather difficult to sustain argument amplified by Zimman 2014, 5).11

Such direct, body-to-language, occurrences as highlighted above key consciously or unconsciously into analytical associations between the different genders and their languages. However, whether the language of females and males actually or partially “flows from the body,” beyond obvious anatomical references such as the above; in short, whether the body has anything to do with gender ontology, or is exclusively socially constructed, has also been a matter of debate as noted above. It does seem philosophically plausible that thoughts, ideas and experiences associated with body, with body characteristics, body capabilities, body lacks and desires would coalesce into expressions of femininity or masculinity. To start with, the gestural communication of femininity and masculinity flows inevitably from the body, and relates, more so within heterosexual relations, to respective body characteristics of women and men (cf. the crotch grabbing, chest heaving, vs. butt wriggling of rappers/dancers, which are manifestly gendered communications of the respective sexualities deriving from differentiated body characteristics). It is certainly unimaginable that femininities or masculinities would not reflect in verbal communication at all. However, beyond philosophical or intuitive appraisals, neural studies also reveal stunning evidence that our thoughts about our bodies and about other bodies influence our language—for example: “part of the motor cortex connected to the hands is active not just in hand experience, but also in literal sentences about the hands” (Rohrer 2001, cited by Johnson and Lakoff 2002, 250).

A number of differences in discoursal facility between women and men have certainly been scientifically ascribed to cerebral hard wiring, such as women being better at communication skills (Baron-Cohen 2003), and episodic memory (Herlitz and Rehnman 2008), among others. Scientific findings relating behavioral sex differences to the “structural connectome” or structural formations in the brain have not been disputed (Tunç et al. 2016).

In addition, various “vignettes” or scenarios provided in language and gender studies of different ideological hues tend to wittingly or unwittingly accentuate the notion of language-consequential difference between the sexes. Perhaps the most celebrated case was that of the transgender Agnes, which was popularized in the study by Harold Garfinkel (1967), and is often held up as the locus classicus of the role of socialization in gendering and in the associated languages (e.g., Goffman 1977; West and Zimmerman 1987). Attempting to transit from being a man to being a woman, Agnes Torres discovered that she needed medical affordances such as the use of estrogen pills, and later surgery, to acquire female body characteristics. She also needed to learn a new language and acquire a whole new range of different discourse behaviors appropriate to femininity. Her success in this regard would therefore appear to be conclusive evidence that gendered linguistic behavior does not flow naturally from the body but is only discursive, and a product of socialization. However, Agnes did need to change her body parameters from man to woman to attune with her perceived feminine (or female) orientation; she eventually underwent a transsexual surgery to “release” her “trapped” femininity from the masculine body. Correspondingly, Agnes also needed a special effort to unlearn the male language that flowed naturally from the male body (c.f., “my penis” vs “my vagina”12), then learn the language of femininity, including pitch levels, and sundry feminine mannerisms that her new, not-so-natural body, did not appear to automatically entitle her to.13 Garfinkel introduced a number of noticeable caveats in his description of Agnes’s language: “Her voice, pitched at an alto level, was soft, and her delivery had the occasional lisp similar to that affected by feminine-appearing male homosexuals. Her manner was appropriately feminine with a slight awkwardness that is typical of middle adolescence” (60; emphasis added). The conclusion seems inevitable that even if being biologically woman does not or cannot tell the entire story of “feminine” language, it certainly has something to do with it.

Another scenario concerns the case of call center operators (Cameron 2000; Hultgren 2008), an industry in which linguistic femininity seems to be a distinctive requirement. Aspects of this include “the ability to project certain kinds of affect using intonation and voice quality, such as enthusiasm for the task in hand, interest in the caller and sympathy for his or her problems […] to suppress or conceal negative feelings like anger and boredom” (Cameron 2005, 500). That the men who opt to work within this industry were expected to “feminize themselves in these respects” would seem to reinforce the constructionist view that so called norms of speech, including gendered speech, are a product of social engineering, with corresponding, context-dependent shifts in linguistic values. Thus, today’s managers are no longer expected to be authority figures but team players, complete with behavioral values traditionally regarded as feminine, such as empathy, facilitation, negotiation and the like. In the case of call center operators in the research reported above, the few male workers in the industry did not necessarily orient themselves to the feminine “emotional labor” required of the industry (smiling, showing empathy, etc.); still, they achieved positive results.

This phenomenon was also investigated by Hultgren (2008), with the finding that, overall, “female agents adhere more to the rules [of femininity] than their male colleagues” (146). The study shows that “women on the average are more attuned than their male counterparts to the interpersonal, or relational, level of talk; they are better at creating rapport, showing empathy, and providing customer care in general” (147-148; her bolding). Despite this emphatic finding, Hultgren remained somewhat hesitant to locate the differential linguistic binary between the female and male agents categorically as a consequence of either sex or gender. One of the options that she considers is that perhaps the male agents were only consciously avoiding expressions of femininity as “a way of asserting their masculinity.” Again, while not categorically rejecting this option, Hultgren proposes a second possible reason for the differential male behavior: “it is not so much whether the rule in question is perceived by the male agent as being at odds with their linguistic construction of masculinity, but rather a lesser degree of attentiveness by male agents to rules per se” (149; her emphasis). However, neither of these options seems to consider the awkward implication of a similar explanation for the linguistic behavior of the female agents; that is, could the female agents then be said to be consciously adhering to the call center rules only as a way of avoiding masculinity and in order to assert their femininity? Or, the second option: could it be that the female agents are adhering to the rules, due to a higher degree of attentiveness to rules, rather than being more naturally inclined towards feminine linguistic behavior? It does seem needlessly circular to say that the linguistic tendency of males observed in the studies is not because they are male but because they want to avoid being female, or that the males in the studies are reluctant to adhere to rules that entail adherence to femininity, again not because they are male, but because they have a tendency to not adhere to rules. The two options merely beg the question. They also lead to an irony in which striving to avoid one binary (regarding linguistic behavior) simply leads to the creation of another binary regarding adherence to rules.

What the uncertainties expressed by the vignettes above suggest, in my view, is that the “fear” of binaries should not mean the end of related enquiries, nor should a priori assumptions about gender foreclose the possibility of novel encounters or new discoveries. This is not only because scientific enquiry is a continuous process that does not brook foreclosures, but also because, beyond abstract theorizations, difference or dichotomy is a continued reality and part of the lived of experience of real-life females and males. Related enquiries, should therefore, continue and not be foreclosed. Interestingly, Hultgren (2008, 142), in a thesis incidentally supervised by Deborah Cameron, also keenly observes that “the dichotomous views of gender” continue to flourish, [posing] a challenge to current theories of language and gender […].” She then advises, correctly in my view, that: “Rather than ignoring or denying the existence of circulating gender stereotypes from a political standpoint […] researchers need to investigate them (and possibly refute them) empirically” (emphasis added; See also Hultgren 2005).

This is not to suggest that the empiricism of this task would always be cut and dried, or clearcut. Added to the theoretical complexities highlighted above is the problem of “knowability” (Oloruntoba-Oju 2019), or “non-exclusivity” (Ochs 1992), in which case, it is not always possible to “confidently assert” (Soames 2002) information tying specific speakers to specific features of language. The caveat is always to be inserted, therefore, that linguistic features alone cannot account for the concepts of male or female. As again noted by Ochs (1992, 342), the analytical process would often rely on a complex of “probabilistic” and “constitutive” networks, between language, on the one hand, and biological or social fact on the other.

4. African Youth Language at the Intersection of Gender

The influence of language in youth and gender is bound up in its role in the construction, or co-construction, of the two identities. So co-construed, language use within the domain is appraised along the lines of its intersection with youth and with gender, that is to say, the manner in language is drawn upon to construct the category youth plus male, or youth plus female. African youth expressions in general serves indexical functions in terms of various parameters of identity, such as the following:

“Youthness”/self/gender/ethnicity/culture)

Ideology /“stances”:

of ‘becoming’

of engagement in

politics

contestation of social and cultural praxis

internationalism – “glocality”

of rupture and change

of superlative agency(“can do”)

Hierarchicalness (peer & gendered)

Social practice

What the above parameters indicate is that youth identity is primarily an identity of self, in terms of youthness, and in terms of the gendered self, as female or male, and the ethnic and cultural self, for example, as African, along with the flaunting of this self, including representations of north-south dichotomy. Along with youthness comes a ritual of coming into oneself, or what van Dijk et al (2011) describes as “becoming,” and a sense of superlative agency, the “can do” or can move mountains mentality in relation to life’s challenges. Other forms of identity may relate to ideology, social attitudes, and what Ochs (1992, 342-343) referred to as “stances” in the course of conversations. These would include affective stances (hesitancy, expressions of coarseness or delicacy), evaluative (praise, criticism, recontextualization), or epistemic stances (expression of knowledge attributes). A subversive attitude towards established order may result in a cascade of ruptures in the domain of fashion or language, hence an established pattern of “anti-languages” (Halliday 1978) in relation to language. A “hierarchical swagger” is also prominent in the domain of youth, which comes from a sense of higher ranking in relation to peers and to the other gender, and which manifests in demeanor, carriage and language. Youth identity may also manifest in patterns of engagement, in politics, social and cultural contestations, internationalism (for example, global/local (“glocal”) linguistic representations).

The current volume investigates what would appear to be gender dichotomies in youth language usage, within the African context. The chapters in the volume share a sociological and linguistic interest in discovering to what extent such gendering persists within the examined contexts and “communities of practice,” and if the related practices can be generalized beyond the individual communities. The volume asks: what is the nature of linguistic gendering amongst African youths in various domains of expression, including internet domains, and in sundry media? What are the variables involved; for example, how much of this gendering may be due to sex or gender or to other variables? Since the emergence of youth languages is often linked to urbanity and social stratification (Mc Laughlin 2009, 8), what roles do urbanity, rurality or other, non-spatial, dynamics play in the gendering process? How does gender continue to factor into the power play between the sexes in the examined domains? What new expressions emerge in the process of gendering within the context of African youth language? Are there strict gender dichotomies or are they simply gendered in our perception and in sundry behaviors?

Gendering being a feature of linguistic usage, the various chapters attempt to demonstrate specific ways in which youths “do gender” through language in specific contexts and domains, and what appear to be the motivations for different performatives of gender within those contexts. It should be noted that most of the enquiry has been carried out within the context of heterosexual relations; however, two chapters also discuss the language problem in homosexuality related discourses.

In what follows, I introduce the chapters in this volume under the following headings:

Continuities in Difference, Dichotomy, Dominance in African Youth Language and Language Practices

Gendered Harassment: The Weaponization of Difference

Dynamism, Typicality and Complementarity

Gender and Female Sexuality: The gendered body in African Youth Language and Language Practices

4.1 Continuities of Difference, Dichotomy, Dominance

The continued dichotomous orientation of African youth language and language practices occupies the attention of many contributors in the volume, with examples drawn from different parts of the continent. Most of the chapters in the volume reveal binaries along gender lines, acknowledging that the various youth languages on the continent, such as Camfranglais in Cameroon, Lugha ya Mitaani in Tanzania, Luyaaye in Uganda, Sheng in Kenya, S’ncamtho in Zimbabwe and Tsotsitaal in South Africa, as well as the numerous established youth language practices such as slanging, antilanguage and sundry linguistic vulgarities, along with the topoi of sex, music, money, etc., are predominantly male youth domains.

Comfort Oben Ojongnkpot’s chapter on Camfranglais from Cameroon reveals binaries along gender lines, “not only with male youths being more numerically involved than the female in the use of Camfranglais, but also in terms of morpho-syntactic differences in their usages.” Titled “Gender Binaries in African Youth Language: The Case of Camfranglais.” As Kießling (2005) notes, Camfranglais was spoken “predominantly by male youths.” Ojongnkpot’s chapter examines some of the manifestations of gender in the language as a representative African Youth Language. Amongst these are slangs, various grammatical forms of language (including intensifiers and modal verbs), sundry discourse forms and speech styles. Ojongnkpot also finds dichotomies in levels of competence, discourse sustainability or ability to sustain discussion in Camfranglais. Other novel findings in the area include: that girls do not, or hardly, speak Camfranglais in exclusive girl-gatherings, and they only use it minimally when in the company of boys. The study concludes that gender plays an important role in the language patterns of Camfranglais users in the urban centers and that the study has implications for language development.

It is interesting that in another chapter on Camfranglais in this volume, Elizabeth Abang, whose research is within the domain of music, also finds that males do use Camfranglais more, but does not find the difference to be significant; however, Abang’s research involves different dynamics, as I will later elaborate.

Sambulo Ndlovu’s continued research into S’ncamtho in Zimbabwe, in this volume, also makes significant findings relating to gender dichotomies in youth language usage in the country. Also, the chapter delves into urban-rural dichotomies. It engages Rogers’ (2003) innovation-decision process to establish that innovations from urban areas are presumably carried to rural areas where they are first adopted by male youth and that “rural areas are the typical majority and late adopters in the adoption of S’ncamtho innovations.” The global totals indicate that location, age, and sex affect the innovation and spread of youth language innovations. While male youth are the innovators and early adopters, “male adults are the majority adopters, and female adults are generally the late adopters [of] S’ncamtho linguistic innovation” along the innovation-decision process. The reason for late or non-adoption of S’ncamtho by females is laid on societal judgments that frown at females “for the use of coarse language or engagement in topics such as sex, drugs,” among others. Ndlovu’s analysis of the intersection between urbanity-rurality, gender and language is important, as it elaborates on the spatial variable and its role in the potential degendering of youth language practices. Maribe and Brookes (2014, 2002, also cited by Ndlovu) had observed the input of the sexuality variable, noting that “lesbian women sometimes join male street-corner groups and engage with the boys.” In the process, they also deploy some of the Tsotsitaal lexicon to demonstrate a streetwise township identity. Ndlovu however notes that, in the case of Zimbabwe, the environment for women participation in street life is more restrictive, which also affects their level of familiarity with S’ncamtho.

The chapter by T. Oloruntoba-Oju and O. Oloruntoba-Oju examines the performance of gender in language at various levels. Discourse forms that have been closely associated with youth language, are examined at the level of lexis (slang, vulgarization, swear words, abuse, relexicalization); syntax (pidginization, code-mixing, subversive syntax, graphetics, abbreviation, spelling) and rhetoric (paroemic routines—idioms, proverbs, aphorisms; cryptic usage, liturgical forms). Focused on a mixed gender chat room comprising university undergraduates, the chapter concludes, based on this investigation, that African youth language expressions can generally be described in terms of diverse or mixed gender practices, but that the preponderance of use of established youth antilanguages lies with the male factor, while a number of sub-categories, including male-gaze-driven “female partonomic onomasis,” remain an almost exclusive male practice.

Following the same trajectory of gender dichotomies, two well established youth languages in South Africa and Kenya, Tsotsitaal and Sheng respectively, provide data that male youths, especially, embrace lifestyle choices and youth lingo that enable them to assume the identity of kleva and smarta, respectively, which in turn enables them to maintain street level authenticity and credibility to navigate risky contexts. As elaborated in the chapter by Ellen Hurst-Harosh and Fridah Kanana Erastus, these epithets represent “the urban dweller who speaks Tsotsitaal and Sheng respectively, and understands the urban environment well enough to be financially viable (often through ‘hustling’), and to not be easily intimidated.” While “women also utilize streetwise metapragmatic stereotypes through linguistic performances” (emphasis added), the iconic kleva and smarta image remains predominantly male.

4.2 Gendered Harassment: The Weaponization of Sex-Gender Differences

In this volume, Uta Reuster-Jahn reports the verbal sexual harassment of adolescent girls and young women by groups of male youths in public urban spaces in Lugha ya Mitaani (LyM), a male dominated urban youth language in Tanzania. This is “a locally unnamed practice that reinforces gender stereotypes and objectifies the women.” The participants in the study are fairly evenly divided between those with a rural background (5), township background (5) and city background (3). However, they all lived in the city at the time fo the research and urbanity may have largely neutralised aspects of their backgrouns. Nonetheless, many of the expressions used are obviously dichotomized relative to the expressions by women, to the extent that they are mostly male authored and are weaponized against women. Indeed, Reuster-Jahn definitely tags the expressions a form of harassment akin to western type catcalling. Mawere & Moyo (2019, 106) had opined that “harassment of women has been and is still a common feature throughout the world” and especially among youths, their data being drawn from undergraduates in Zimbabwe. However, in the specific case of LyM researched by Reuster-Jahn, the expressions are locally tagged “euphemisms,” since the language provides some kind of license for the use of uncouth expressions that are otherwise frowned at in mainstream Swahili. Male youth fixation on female-male anatomical differences is also prominent in the language. In this contribution to research into linguistic gendering in African Youth Languages, Reuster-Jahn brings out a private-public dichotomy in the expressions by male and female youth. Parallel expressions by women within LyM tend to be expressed in private and also tend to be topically differentiated and stereotypically feminized.

From Tanzania to Uganda: Sauda Namyalo traces the trajectory of the weaponization of sex-gender differences and the resultant dichotomy in language use between the sexes from traditional culture and the corresponding community of practice to contemporary usages in the youth language, Luyaaye, in Uganda. The continuity is clearly established in the deployment of descriptive vocabulary that is derogatory of women in Luyaaye. “The absence of words to describe a man with features similar to those of a woman is a clear indication that there is a skewed level of vocabulary usage against the female gender. This vocabulary usage reflects similarly skewed cultural expressions.” The chapter not only establishes the linguistic resources that speakers of Luyaaye use to portray women as inferior and to promote male superiority or dominance of men, but also examines the flipside of this dichotomy of female representations in the language. Here, Namyalo presents an irony, which is the manner in which female speakers of Luyaaye actually amplify male-authored gendered discourses to their own detriment. While this is not a new phenomenon (Githinji 2008; Maribe and Brookes 2014; Rudwick 2013 and others had explored how the appropriation of youth languages have sometimes conformed to traditional gender order and practices), a novel development is how Ugandan women appropriate the negative discourses and re-interprete them in a positive light. This euphemisation style has not been discussed in African Youth Language research prior to now, and it deserves investigation in other AYLs.

The issue with sex and gender is not so much with difference per se as with the weaponization of sex-gender difference, and especially against the female gender.14 Many of the ways in which languages literally weaponizes sex-gender differences or in which communities weaponize language over these differences, have been identified in the literature. Perhaps the most visible of these is the generic use of male forms, commonly the use of the male pronouns “he” (in English) as a universal for all genders and for humankind, which creates a dominance configuration and a potential weapon in the denigration of females. Allied to this are those syntactic ordering modalities that tend to privilege maleness (“he or she,” “men and women,” rather than “she or he,” “women and men”), which feminist advocacy for gender free replacements (“they”/“them”/“their” etc.) seeks to remedy. Weaponization of difference also takes the form deployment of male terms as “metaphors of value” (Oloruntoba-Oju 2009, 213) and in sundry connotations of hierarchy in many languages. It is worth noting here that the prominence of generic pronouns in global languages has apparently misled many scholars, including African scholars (cf. Oyewumi 2000; Yusuf 1989, 2002) into the assumption that languages in which gender pronouns are absent are thereby “genderless” or “gender neutral” and are able to avoid the negative consequences of linguistic gendering. Contrary views have however been expressed (Bakare-Yusuf 2004; Oloruntoba-Oju 2009). Specifically, it has been demonstrated that in some of the cited languages, such as Yoruba, many male terms other than pronouns are used generically, especially as leadership terms (Oloruntoba-Oju 2009, 216, 219-222). In addition to such occurrences, lexical gender (Hellinger and Bußmann 2001) is also employed to weaponize sex-gender difference in a variety of ways. Examples within the Nigerian context include “gendered lexical specification” such as “lady mechanic,” “female doctor” or “woman police” which are not gender-specified for men. The reverse also occurs when men are in roles that tend to violate stereotypic gender role expectations (e.g., “male baby-sitter,” “male midwife”; “family man”).

The majority of weaponized expressions in youth language are related to the female body. While hundreds of metaphors, if not thousands, derive from the body generally. the female body has proved particularly more susceptible to complex metaphoric appropriations, by virtue of its partonomic conspicuity and functional multiplicity, often much more than the male’s. Kate Millet in Sexual Politics (1970) had keenly observed that the female body could hardly escape a heightened state of social and sexual inscription, much more than the male. This has been a common thread in feminist writings, and more so in feminist postulations on the body and its performance in discourse (Butler 1990, 1993). Common manifestations of heightened and inscriptions of the female body include the discursive yoking of multiple female partonomic functions in gendered metaphors and sundry expressions—for example the yoking of the parturitional or lactational and erotic aspects of respective body parts, which would only apply to the female.15 Performative “citations in which the [lexis] ‘woman’ [and associated lexemes] are placed in unflattering or deprecating socio-linguistic environments” (Oloruntoba-Oju 2009, 228) are an all-too-common form of weaponizing sex-gender differences. Formulaic or frozen language forms, such as proverbs, aphorisms or pithy sayings in various languages are replete with such weaponization.

In this regard, female and male body differences seem to function as youth language affordance—since it plays very much into male youth fantasies and erupts in sometimes uncouth language about the body, especially the buttocks. It also leads to the multiplicity of what may be called “female partonyms” or names for female body network including the intimate regions. Uta Reuster-Jahn, in this volume, points out, citing relevant literature, that “the semantic domain of ‘buttocks’ is lexically more elaborated than any other part of the female body” (see Reuster-Jahn and Kießling 2006). This assessment syncs well with the general assumption, supported by scientific findings, that response to visual stimuli is dichotomized along the lines of gender. Men respond more strongly to visual stimuli, especially sexual stimuli (Rupp and Wallen 2008). As noted earlier, T. Oloruntoba-Oju and O. Oloruntoba-Oju in this volume also observe male youth fascination with specific regions of the female anatomy, as shown in their current data from mixed-gender chatrooms. The language is accordingly dichotomized in terms of male youth assignment of fanciful and sometimes derogatory “partonyms” to the female body. Makoni (2015) had also concentrated on the differentiated labeling of the genitalia in a Southern African context, noting that males metaphorically associate female genitalia with possession, while females draw on Africana womanism values in their own labeling of female genitalia.

4.3 Dynamism, Typicality and Complementarity

A pushback against the stereotypic representations of youth language, as being exclusively male, has resulted in focused studies in western settings with an objective to elicit female contribution to youth language (for example Huffaker and Calvert 2005; Goodwin and Kyratzis 2014, among others). Such a pushback is also noticeable in African settings, and this has taken the form of data representations in which women also employ street slangs and other forms of usage that are predominantly associated with young men (e.g., Githinji 2008; Rudwick, Nkomo & Shange, cited in Hurst-Harosh 2019; Mensah 2016, among others). This theme is taken up in varying degrees by some chapters in this volume, in an effort towards a dynamic representation. particularly Rudd and Erastus, Abang, Hurst-Harosh and Erastus). As noted earlier, other chapters had also drawn attention to the occasional participation of women in the employment of youth languages or street argots within specific contexts, thus allowing for a context-dependent or relational view of the relevant data.

The theme of the subversion of conventional gender discourses is specifically taken up in a focused manner by Phillip Rudd and Fridah Kanana Erastus in their chapter titled, “Hustling Vibaya: Femininities and the Modern Kenya Woman.” The chapter discusses the phenomenon of women “hustlers” in Kenya who assume subject positions, thereby overturning the “common sense of a culture” and demonstrating that women “can seize agency to enact, contest, and reformulate hegemonic repertoires.” Paradigms of femininity and gender role stereotypes are employed as gendered repertoires and as analytical parameters, including: “woman as natural child bearer/rearer,” “mother as homemaker,” “woman of difference.” Counter categories by which the modern Kenyan woman seeks to repulse hegemonic categories include the description of the modern women as anayehustle (one who hustles), and anayecall the shots, who are often being driven in “Maybachs.” The manifestations of the various paradigms are encountered as “linguistic traces” in sundry extracts by the female participants. However, the authors acknowledge the point that this analysis is not without limitation. Firstly, the data relates only to heterosexual women and did not obtain data from non-heterosexual women. Secondly, the conversations are purposefully moderated, with the introduction of specific topics. The choice of topics speaks to an awareness of gender dichotomies in discourse, and to the continued role of gender role stereotypes. The sequences are therefore unlike naturally occurring conversations. Still, the participants challenge existing gender hegemonies by drawing on the identity of the woman entrepreneur or “hustling vibaya.” The conversations bear linguistic traces that demonstrate a potential stride towards dynamism in the gender experience in general, and in youth language practices in particular.

As noted earlier, Ellen Hurst-Harosh and Fridah Kanana Erastus also examine youth language from the perspective of indexicality. With regard to gender, the authors observe that “women also utilize streetwise metapragmatic stereotypes through linguistic performances within typically male contexts” (emphasis added). They also note a couple of caveats to this inclusion of female participation in a typical male domain. For example, the use of typical male identities by women on the streets seems accentuated amongst specific sexuality demographics (e.g., lesbians); secondly, the iconic image within Tsotsitaal is still that of the streetwise young male hustler, and female users are often denigrated as “manly” or “tomboyish.” Nonetheless, Hurst-Harosh and Erastus make the point here that this image is sometimes utilized by women for streetwise authenticity, which again draws attention to the potential dynamism in youth language usage.

The notion of complementarity is employed in the chapter by Elizabeth Abang, even though the author does not use this term. Titled “Gender Dynamics in Camfranglais: A Study of Female and Male Cameroonian Musicians” the chapter notes that the use of Camfranglais in Cameroon in general and in Cameroonian music in particular was originally identified as “a male discourse terrain in which female linguistic representation appears largely muted.” However, female artists eventually “took the baton.” This deliberate vocabulary invokes the image of a relay race, with female and male musician apparently in partnership in the deployment of Camfranglais in music. The article also examines the frequency of Camfranglais insertions in music by female and the male artists and the associated contexts. Results showed no great or significant difference between the Camfranglais used in the music of Cameroonian female musicians and that used in the music of Cameroonian male musicians.

Elizabeth Abang’s chapter presents a cross between dichotomy and dynamism. There is “some dichotomy […] though not much,” the author states. The choice of music for the study of Camfraglais in this chapter is informed by the fact that the domain of music is a variety of popular culture, with “abundant samples of youth language expressions” (Oloruntoba-Oju 2018, 185). More significantly, music and virtual space—internet and the social media—have provided affordance for the expression of youth identities by females, away from normative strictures that they face directly in real-life settings. “Digital adoption offers women, and girls in particular, opportunities to overcome hurdles they may face in the physical world” (OECD 2018). Furthermore, “digital access can empower women and girls, help expand their sense of self in the world, increase civic engagement, and raise awareness of their rights.” The dynamics here suggests the context-dependency of Camfranglais usage especially by the female musicians.

Toyin Olasumbo Kolawole examines the “doing of identity” in the African Diaspora in New Zealand. The chapter reveals a familiar trajectory of engagement with traditional gender stereotypes from home (in this case, Africa). The author observes how prevailing discourses of gendered cultural norms of roles and expectations of behaviors continue to frame the experiences and metapragmatic linguistic practices of Black African women in the diaspora. Also examined is the language of the women as they negotiate shifting roles and the emerging contradictions in their enactment of gendered norms. Their identity doing is fluid and context-dependent to the extent that they employ language that is sometimes acquiescent, conforming to feminine stereotypes, sometimes defiant. The chapter exposes how the field of discourse(s) that a participant inhabits would influence what she can say, do, or intend, in relationships. The chapter also touches on the socialization process through language. “While, from a young age, females are made to perform ‘all’ the house chores, males are dissuaded in a language (i.e.: ‘probably,’ ‘maybe’), which the boys quickly realize as a license for exemption,” Kolawole adds.

4.4 Gender and Female Sexuality: The sensuous body in African Youth Language and Language Practices

Perhaps no area is more representative of gender dichotomies in language than in the area of body and the erotic, a subject that feministic writing has theorized extensively. Within French feminism in the 70s the concept of l’ecriture feminine or “women’s writing,” as well as la parler femme (“womanspeak”) was prominent. This writing was theorized as flowing from the body. In Julia Kristeva terms, female language is more rhythmical and less, unlike male language, symbolic. This Francophonic approach echoes the notion of difference highlighted in Anglophone criticism, save for the emphasis here on language and body relations. As I will elaborate later, other French feminists such as Helene Cixous and Luce Irigaray extend this language and body discourse to the core area of female sexuality, a prominent topos in youth language discourses.16

This concept of ecriture feminine and especially the link with body experiences has been critiqued in postfeminist analysis, as encouraging essentialization and the related objectification of the female body that feminism struggles against. However, continued enquiries into sexual talk seem to affirm the assertion by Irigaray (1981) that female sexual language is complex or “more diffusive” because of the apparent multiplicity of potential erogenous zones within the female body complex. Presumably, this multiplicity explodes in a feminized and effusive language of the erotic, a sort of: “Out of the abundance of pleasure the woman speaks.”

4.4.1 Language of the Erotic among Youths

Eyo Mensah, Romanus Aboh and Lucy Ushuple