Recent years have seen an increase in forced migration from the Global South, e.g., Congolese refugees with long transits in Uganda, to countries in the Global North, like Norway. Many of these newly-arrived Congolese refugees in Norway have English in their linguistic repertoires after decades-long transits in Uganda. English can thus be used as a lingua franca in Norway while they are learning Norwegian, as many Norwegians also have English in their repertoires. However, the ways these refugees have learnt English differ starkly from the ways most Norwegians have learnt English. While most Norwegians have mainly learnt English formally, i.e. in school, these Congolese refugees have mainly learnt English informally, i.e. outside language classrooms. The present article explores specific examples of how these refugees have learnt English. Some have, for example, learnt English through lingua franca interaction with other refugees with whom they do not share any other languages than English; others have initiated English language awareness in the wild themselves through, for example, talking explicitly about the English language with motorcycle riders in Uganda; and others have listened to English-speaking radio programmes in order to learn English faster. I argue that many of these ways of learning English informally can be referred to as “grassroots learning” of English, since English learning is initiated by the refugees themselves. These findings from empirical research among newly-arrived Congolese refugees in Norway may contribute to developing our understandings of informal English language learning, as well as making sure forced migrants’ voices are heard.

Afrikaans is spoken by a wide range of ethnic groups in Namibia, both as an L1 and an L2. Stell (2021) showed that, in its phonetic variation, Namibian Afrikaans forms a continuum between Whites and Blacks with Coloureds1 located in between. This article aims to find out whether a continuum can likewise be observed in the grammatical patterns of Namibian Afrikaans varieties. The dataset is based on a translation task, administered to L1 Afrikaans-speaking Whites and Coloureds and to L2 Afrikaans-speaking Damaras and Ovambos, whose respective L1s are Khoekhoegowab and Oshiwambo. The article finds a contrast between L1 and L2 speakers as the Damara and Ovambo Afrikaans varieties show evidence of L1 transfers. However, it also finds evidence of a continuum linking the Whites, Coloureds, and Damaras in the form of commonly shared Orange River Afrikaans features. The fact that Ovambo Afrikaans does not quite fit into this continuum, the article argues, has to do with the historically late exposure of Oshiwambo speakers to L1 Afrikaans varieties. Finally, the article attempts to match evidence of Khoekhoegowab influence on Damara Afrikaans with Den Besten’s (2001) and Roberge’s (1994a) reflections on historical contact between Khoekhoe and Cape Dutch.

This article examines Afrikaans V1-constructions with the verb laat ‘let’ and compares them with similar constructions in Dutch. I refer to these as pseudo-let imperatives (or PLI-constructions). Although PLI-constructions have the same form as some let-imperatives in both languages, they no longer function as commands and lack the directive force typically associated with imperatives. Instead, PLI-constructions are used to express the speaker’s perspective on a certain event or action. Drawing on grammaticalization criteria used by Van Craenenbroeck & Van Koppen (2015, 2017) in their work on perception and causative verbs in imperative(-like) constructions in Dutch, this article argues that PLI-laat/laten has undergone grammaticalization in both Afrikaans and Dutch. Additionally, I demonstrate that the Afrikaans PLI-laat has grammaticalized further than its Dutch counterpart. I propose that Afrikaans’ contact with a variety of other languages throughout its history may have accelerated the grammaticalization of laat relative to its Dutch counterpart, resulting in the observed differences in the grammaticalization of PLI-laat/laten constructions.

An avenue for the progress of areal linguistics in South America is the investigation of the geographical distribution of specific features, such as the expression of sociative causation. Sociative causation is a particular type of causation where the causer not only makes the causee do an action but also participates in it (Shibatani & Pardeshi, 2002). Guillaume & Rose (2010) hypothesize that dedicated sociative causative markers are an areal feature of South America, in particular western South America. The aim of the present paper is to reassess the spatial distribution of these markers based on a large worldwide sample of 325 languages. The results show that dedicated sociative causative markers are significantly more frequent in South America compared to the rest of the world.

Despite growing interest in African varieties of French, few attempts have been made to examine them from a variationist perspective. This contribution aims to use phonetic variation as a vantage point for exploring language ideologies surrounding the use of French in postcolonial contexts. The study focuses on the French variety spoken in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and draws on a bilingual Lingala–French dataset elicited from L1 Lingala speakers. The sample reflects a key social distinction in Kinshasa: that between long-term urban residents and recent rural migrants. Are there multiple phonetic varieties of Kinshasa French? To what extent do their forms merely reflect variation in Lingala? The study finds that the most focused variety of Kinshasa French is strongly associated with urban women and is approximated to varying degrees by rural migrants, particularly women. In addition to features with likely origins in either rural or urban Lingala, Kinshasa French exhibits hypercorrect forms and features that may mirror variation trends in Parisian French.

Lexical borrowing may provide valuable clues about the sociohistorical context of language contact. Here we explore patterns of vocabulary transfer between languages from three families (Kx’a, Tuu, Khoe-Kwadi) comprising the linguistic unit commonly referred to as Southern African Khoisan. In our data set, 20% of 1,706 roots are shared between at least two families. By applying a carefully chosen set of linguistic and extralinguistic criteria, we were able to trace the origin of 71% of shared roots, with the remaining 29% constituting good candidates for ancient contact or shared common ancestry of the forager families Kx’a and Tuu. More than half of the shared roots for which an origin could be determined trace back to Khoe-Kwadi and were borrowed into languages of other families within two major confluence zones with different sociohistorical profiles: (i) the Central Kalahari characterized by egalitarian interaction between languages of all three families and (ii) the southern and south-western Kalahari Basin fringes showing unilateral transfer from Khoe-Kwadi-speaking herders into resident forager groups. The findings of this study complement genetic and archaeological research on southern Africa and testify to the value of linguistics in the multidisciplinary inference of contact and migration scenarios.

Languages in contact commonly leave an imprint on one other. The most straightforward of these imprints to identify is MAT-borrowing, which results in clearly identifiable lexical items of one language (the donor language) being used in utterances of another language (the recipient language). This stands in contrast with PAT-borrowing, which does not involve any such incorporation of “other language” material but rather results in the reshaping of existing structures of the recipient language on the model of the donor language. This type of language change is therefore arguably more “invisible” to speakers since no easily identifiable “other language” material is present.

This study presents a detailed examination of PAT-borrowing in Guernésiais, the Norman variety spoken in Guernsey (British Channel Islands), which is now at an advanced state of language shift. It also highlights a major difference between MAT- and PAT-borrowing, namely that, whereas MAT-borrowing can only be explained with reference to the dominant language, PAT-borrowing can on occasion admit an internal explanation.