Morphology of Creole Languages - Lecture 1 Prolegomenon · 2019-09-24 · MorphologyofCreoleLanguages Lecture1Prolegomenon FabiolaHenri UniversityofKentucky [email protected] LSASummerInstitute

Morphology of Creole LanguagesLecture 1 Prolegomenon

Fabiola Henri

University of [email protected]

LSA Summer InstituteJuly 7th, 2017

Henri (Lexington) Morphology of Creole Languages July 2017 1 / 31

[email protected]

On Creole morphology

Most pidgins and creoles either lack morphology entirely or havelimited morphological resources compared with those of the lexifierand input languages. Morphology also tends to be extremely regu-lar when it does exist in pidgins and creoles, without the widespreadirregularities that are so very common (. . .) in other languages’ mor-phological system.

Thomason (2001, 168)


What are Creoles?

Outline

What are Creoles?

Creole Genesis

Creole Morphology


What are Creoles?

Creoles: A definition

Strictly speaking, creoles (. . .) are new language varieties that de-veloped out of contacts between colonial nonstandard varieties ofa European language and several non-European languages aroundthe Atlantic and in the Indian and Pacific Oceans during the seven-teenth to nineteenth centuries. (. . .) Creoles emerged in settlementcolonies whose primary industry consisted typically of sugar caneor rice cultivation, for which non-European slaves or contract la-borers were employed who constituted the overwhelming majorityof the plantation populations.

Mufwene 2015b, 133–134


What are Creoles?

Against the P-to-C life cycles

Creoles do not evolve from pidgins

+Genetic Creolistics & Genetic LinguisticsSalikoko Mufwene M/Tr 3:30-5:20 PM


What are Creoles?

Against the traditional P-to-C life cycles

General claim: Pidgins arose from an abrupt break from the gradualdevelopment of languages.

6 The study of pidgin and creole languages

words, no linguistic or social violence is involved. We speak of a lingua franca when speakersof various different languages are involved, and of a koine when the dialects of a singlelanguage are involved.

In chapter 26 there is an annotated list of languages where these distinctions and somefurther ones are used to classify over 500 languages and dialects. To complicate mattersspeech forms may change in status over time. Various scenarios or life-cycles (cf. Hall 1966,whoused the term somewhat differently) have beenproposed for thedevelopment of creoles.Mühlhäusler (1986) presents three such scenarios:

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3jargon jargon jargon

stabilized pidgin stabilized pidgin

expanded pidgin

creole creole creoleHawaiian Creole

EnglishTorres Straits

Creole EnglishNew Guinea

Tok Pisin

As will be argued in chapter 3, however, not all jargons or pidgins are part of such a life-cycle,and neither can we show that all creoles had a jargon or pidgin stage. It is in this respectthat mixed languages display an important difference from creoles. On the one hand, mixedlanguages did come into existence at a particular moment in time, on the other hand theywere formed from ordinary languages with native speakers – there was no jargon or pidginphase.

1.3 Distribution of pidgins and creolesThe question of the distribution of pidgin and creole languages is one of the growth areasin linguistics. Because of their mixed character these speech varieties have frequently notbeen accorded the status of language. The frequent prejudice against their recognition asproper linguistic systemshas meant that lists of theworld’s languages, producedup till fairlyrecently, tended to ignore these speech varieties. While many linguists, and sometimeseducationalists, recognize the fact of their existence, this is by no means universally the case.The effect of this is that new creoles and pidgins are continually being added to the listsof such languages.

Recognition has come quickest for those creoles and pidgins (partially) based on Euro-

Figure: Muysken and Smith (1994, p. 6)


What are Creoles?


Ï The post-creole stage: Decreolization

58 Variation

As can be seen from the table, the distribution of fu/tu is patterned implicationally. Speakersusing tu after Class III verbs also use tu after Class II and I verbs, and speakers using tu afterClass II verbs also use it after Class I verbs. It is also evident that the change from fu to tustarts in environment I. According to Bickerton (1973), what we see here is a change inprogress by the step-wise incorporation of a acrolectal element. In the process of decreoliza-tion, basilect speakers do not randomly adopt rules from the acrolect, but instead startapplying a rule in one specific environment, generalize the rule in this environment beforeproceeding to apply the rule in the next environment. The rows in Table 4 are not isolects:they simply represent speakers’ outputs in differing isolects. Constructing a table like Table4 enables one to locate individual speakers’ outputs in a poly-lectal grid as presented inTable3. The data from speakers 1 and 19, for instance, may be considered as the output of the samemost acrolectal isolect. The variable use of fu/tu by speakers 11 and 25 in environment II andby speaker 14 in environment III must be due to the application of two rules belonging totwo different isolects: they are in the process of making the transition from one isolect tothe another.

The use of implicational scales has produced some interesting and important findings.On the basis of synchronic data it may reveal the ways in which ongoing changes spreadthrough time and space. The technique of implicational scaling as used by e.g. Bickerton(1975) has been heavily criticized as being unreliable and methodologically unsound (e.g.Romaine 1982:177-182). Recent developments in variable rule analysis, however, have madeit possible to uncover implicational patterns in variation, and to test the reliability ofimplicational scales constructed (see Dittmar & Schlobinski 1988 and D. Sankoff 1988).

5.2.3 The applicability of the model of a unidimensional continuumThe languagevarieties inacreole-speakingcommunity formacontinuumonly if theycanbeordered along a single dimension: [+/-creoleness]. Consider Figure 2.

Figure 2. Graphic representation of a creole continuum

creole standard/lexifier

basilect mesolect acrolect

As long as varieties can be shown to differ only in creoleness, such a unidimensional contin-uum is an appropriate model. However, as soon as one or more other dimensions are neededto distinguish different varieties from one another, a multidimensional model is called for.A hypothetical example of a multi-dimensional (in this case two-dimensional) model is pre-

Figure: de Rooij (1994, p. 58)

Ï The creole continuum is at odds with creole as a ground-zerolanguage.


What are Creoles?


Etymology the term Pidgin appeared in the 19th century while theterm Creole dates from the 16th century


What are Creoles?


They do not share the same geographical distribution

5

Figure: Mufwene (2007)Henri (Lexington) Morphology of Creole Languages July 2017 9 / 31

What are Creoles?


Creoles are not nativized by children


Creole Genesis

Outline

What are Creoles?

Creole Genesis

Creole Morphology


Creole Genesis

Theories of Creole Genesis

Ï The universal approachÏ The substratist approachÏ The supertratist approachÏ The gradualist approach


Creole Genesis

The Universalist Approach

1. The Language Bioprogram Theory (Bickerton, 1984)Ï Creoles are created by childrenÏ Similarities accross creoles are explained by the language facultyÏ Creoles are unmarked

2. Maximization of semantic transparency (Seuren and Wekker, 1986)Ï UniformityÏ Universality

“This renders morphology essentially alien to creole languages.”(Seuren and Wekker, 1986, 66)

Ï Simplicity


Creole Genesis

The Substratist Approach

Ï Emphasizes input from the substratic languages to account for thedifferences between lexifier and creoles

Ï Similarities across creoles are explained by substratic influence1. Relexification: European words but African grammar (Lefebvre, 1998)2. SLA and substrate transfer (Siegel, 2003)


Creole Genesis

The Superstratist Approach

1. Monogenesis2. Baby/Foreigner talk3. Imperfect Second Language Acquisition4. European nonstandard dialect


Creole Genesis

The gradualist approach

+ The structure of a creole should be described in light of

(. . .) the nature of the lexifier, structural featuresof the substrate languages, changes in the ethno-linguistic makeups of the populations that came incontact, the kinds of interactions between speak-ers of the lexifier and those of other languages,and rates and modes of population growth.

Mufwene 2015b, 138

Ï Cognitive processes involved in language learning also contributes tothe ermerging creole.


Creole Genesis

Language change also applies to Creoles

Ï Creoles follows the same unidirectional path of language change but ata faster pace

Ï Syntactic combinations morphologizeÏ Phonological alternations morphologize


Creole Genesis

Developmental Sciences

Ï Multiple factors interact in the making of an object or a behavior

(. . .) identify instances of the targeted phenomenon,catalogue its local variability and try to identify inter-acting factors that recur in similar combinations, ine.g. different languages, in order to motivate its exis-tence. Sometimes similar pathways defined by inter-acting factors lead to the same results, sometimes theylead to similar results, and sometimes unexpected re-sults. Sometimes differing pathways lead to the sameresults, and sometimes they lead to similar results, andsometimes to different ones. The potential for lan-guage variation is vast when interpreted in this way.

(CHAPTER 1 Ackerman and Nikolaeva, 2010)

+ Rethinking and reconceptualization in linguistics using probabilisticmodelingHenri (Lexington) Morphology of Creole Languages July 2017 18 / 31

Creole Morphology

Outline

What are Creoles?

Creole Genesis

Creole Morphology


Creole Morphology

On Creole Morphology

The morphology of creole languages has longbeen a neglected area of study. One reasonfor this state of affairs may well have been thewidespread belief among linguists that creole lan-guages are characterized (among other things) bylittle or no morphology.

Braun and Plag (2003, P. 81)


Creole Morphology

On Creole Morphology

Ï Claim largely based on a particular view of word structure:morphemic

Ï More affixationÏ TMA: Inflectional in the lexifiers vs mostly periphrastic in the creolesÏ Language complexity

Ï Less vocabulary+ Not all languages can be described using a morphemic approach


Creole Morphology

Theoretical bases

Figure: Morphological lineages (Blevins et al., 2016)


Creole Morphology

Theoretical bases

In the ancient model the primary insight is notthat words can be split into roots and formatives,but that they can be located in paradigms. Theyare not wholes composed of simple parts, but arethemselves the parts within a complex whole. Inthat way, we discover different kinds of relation,and, perhaps, a different kind of simplicity.

Matthews (1991, P. 204)


Creole Morphology

Historical bases

Le maniement du verbe français avec ses flexionsde mode, de temps, de nombre et de personne,offrait des complications que le créole devait néc-essairement écarter. Ici la simplification a étépoussée à ses dernières limites. Le thème verbaln’a qu’une forme unique : mo vini je viens; to tévini tu es venu; li va vini il viendra; etc., etc.

Baissac (1880, P. 23)


Creole Morphology

Historical bases

Creoles are characterized as corrupted versions of their lexifierlanguages during the colonial period.(Degraff, 2001a, 297)


Creole Morphology

Historical bases

Creole languages result from the adaptation ofa language, especially some Indo-European lan-guage, to the (so to speak) phonetic and gram-matical genius of a race that is linguistically infe-rior.

(VINSON 1889, Degraff, 2001a, 297)


Creole Morphology

Morphology & Complexity

Ï Morphology as a measure of language complexity in both creoles andnon-creoles revived in the last decades

Ï Traditional grammar = MorphologyProto Indo-European → . . . → Latin → . . . → French

Ï The comparative method has been used in creolistics for typologicalclassification but also complexity classifications

Ï Creoles form a natural class distinct from other languages (McWhorter,2001; Bakker et al., 2017)


Creole Morphology

Creole Simplicity

The world’s simplest grammars are creole gram-mars

McWhorter (2001, and subsq.)


Creole Morphology

Against Creole exceptionalism

“Anomaly” doesn’t exist in language, rather, lurk-ing behind it are anomalous presumptions andconvictions that obtain in linguistic theory.

Ackerman and Nikolaeva (A. E. KIBRIK, 2010, 304)


Creole Morphology

Goals of this course

Ï Using quantitative data where possible, we investigate why creoleshave the type of morphology they have

Ï Examine quantifiable aspects of creole morphology by applying thesame concepts and methodology that have been applied to non-creolelanguages, without making claims about the complexity of the creolesas a whole

Ï Empirical evidence clearly show thatÏ The same complex inflectional phenomena found in non-creoles are alsofound in creole languages

Ï Morphology in creoles is anot necessarily regular or transparentÏ Morphological innovations in creolesÏ There is no compelling evidence that creoles are more or less complexoverall from that point of view.


Creole Morphology

Outline

Course Schedule ReadingsJuly 7th Creole morphology – Prolegomenon Degraff 2001b,a; Plag 2006; Bakker 2017

Muysken 2016; Mufwene 2007, 2015bJuly 11th Tracing the origins of inflection (Mtian, I-Portuguese) Chaudenson (2003); Becker and Veenstra (2003)

Mufwene 2015a; Luís 2010; Bonami et al. 2012July 14th Guest Lecture – Silvia Kouwenberg

July 15th FACS5July 18th Opacity in French-based creoles’ inflectional paradigm (Henri, 2010; Bonami and Henri, 2010)

(Luís, 2011; Bonami and Luís, 2014; Luís, 2014)July 21st Guest Lecture – Greg StumpJuly 25th Conversion relations Henri et al. (to appear)July 28th The development of nominal inflection (Baker, 1984; Grant, 1995)

(Ladhams, 2007; Jean-Louis and Zribi-Hertz, 2007)Aug 1st Nominal inflections; Conclusions


References

Aboh, E. O. (2015). The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars. Cambridge Approaches to LanguageContact. Cambridge University Press.

Ackerman, F. and Nikolaeva, I. (2010). Descriptive typology and grammatical theory: Aconstruction-based study in morphosyntax of relative clauses. California: CSLI Publications.

Baissac, C. (1880). Étude sur le patois creole mauricien. Imprimerie Berger-Levrault et cieNancy.

Baker, P. (1984). ‘Agglutinated french articles in creole french: Their evolutionary significance’.TeReo.

Bakker, P. (2017). Key concepts in the history of creole studies, chap. 2. Dordrecht: JohnBenjamins Publishing, 81–104.

Bakker, P., Borchsenius, F., Levisen, C., and Sippola, E. (eds.) (2017). Creole Studies –Phylogenetic Approaches. John Benjamins Publishing.

Becker, A. and Veenstra, T. (2003). ‘The survival of inflectional morphology in French-relatedCreoles.’ SSLA, 25:285–306.

Bickerton, D. (1984). ‘The language bioproram hypothesis’. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences,7:173–221.

Blevins, J. P., Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R. (2016). ‘Word and Paradigm Morphology’. InJ. Audring and F. Masini (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford.

Bonami, O. and Henri, F. (2010). ‘How complex is creole inflectional morphology? the case ofmauritian’. Poster presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting.

Bonami, O., Henri, F., and Luís, A. R. (2012). ‘Tracing the origins of inflection in Creoles: aquantitative analysis’. Paper presented at the 9th Creolistics Workshop, Aarhus, Denmark.


References

Bonami, O. and Luís, A. R. (2014). ‘Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison duportugais: une étude quantitative’. Mémoires de Société de Linguistique de Paris:Morphologie Flexionelle et Dialectologie Romane.

Braun, M. and Plag, I. (2003). How transparent is creole morphology? A study of Early Srananword-formation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 81–104.

Chaudenson, R. (2003). La Créolisation: Théorie, Applications, Implications. Paris:L’Harmattan.

de Rooij, V. (1994). ‘The study of pidgins and creoles’. In J. Arends, P. Muysken, and N. Smith(eds.), Variation, CLL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–74.

Degraff, M. (2001a). ‘Morphology in Creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology’. InM. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, 1–61.

——— (2001b). ‘On the origin of creoles: A cartesian critique of neo-darwinian linguistics’.Linguistic Typology, 5:213–310.

Grant, A. P. (1995). ‘Article agglutination in creole french: a wider perspective’. In P. Bakerand C. L. R. Group (eds.), From contact to Creole and beyond, Westminster Creolisticsseries. University of Westminster Press.

Henri, F. (2010). A Constraint-Based Approach to verbal constructions in Mauritian. Ph.D.thesis, University of Mauritius and Université Paris Diderot.

Jean-Louis, L. c. and Zribi-Hertz, A. (2007). ‘From noun to name: definiteness marking inmodern martinikè’. In P. C. Hofherr and A. Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies onNoun Phrase structure and reference, vol. 39 of Syntax and Semantics. London/Boston:Brill, 269–315.

Ladhams, J. (2007). ‘Agglutinated articles in the portuguese-based creoles’. In A. Bartens andP. Baker (eds.), Black through white. London: Battlebridge Publications.


References

Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar. New-York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Luís, A. R. (2010). ‘The loss and survival of inflectional morphology’. In S. Colina, A. Olarrea,and A. M. Carvalho (eds.), Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Romancelinguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 39th linguistic symposium on romance languages(LSRL), Tucson, Arizona, March 2009. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

——— (2011). ‘Morphomic structure and loan-verb integration: evidence from lusophonecreoles’. In M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, M. Goldbach, and O. Hinzelin (eds.), MorphologicalAutonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 235–254.

——— (2014). ‘Inflectional structure without morphemes: similarities between creoles andnon-creoles’. PAPIA Revista Brasileira de Estudos Crioulos e Similares, 24:381–406.

Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McWhorter, J. (2001). ‘The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars’. Linguistic

Typology, 5:125–166.Mufwene, S. (2007). ‘What do creoles and pidgins tell us about the evolution of language?’ In

B. Laks, S. Cleuziou, J.-P. Demoule, , and P. Encrevé (eds.), The Origin and Evolution ofLanguages: Approaches, Models, Paradigms. London: Equinox.

——— (2015a). ‘L’émergence des parlers créoles et l’évolution des langues romanes : faits,mythes et idéologies’. Études Créoles, 33:1–29.

——— (2015b). ‘Pidgin and creole languages’. In J. D. W. (editor-in chief) (ed.), InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 18. Oxford: Elsevier, 2nd editionedn., 133–145.

Muysken, P. (2016). ‘Creole languages’.Henri (Lexington) Morphology of Creole Languages July 2017 31 / 31

Creole Morphology

Muysken, P. and Smith, N. (1994). ‘The study of pidgins and creoles’. In J. Arends,P. Muysken, and N. Smith (eds.), Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction, CLL. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 3–14.

Plag, I. (2006). ‘Morphology in Pidgins and Creoles’. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Linguistics, 2nd Edition, vol. 8. 304–308.

Seuren, P. and Wekker, H. (1986). ‘Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis’. InP. Muysken and N. J. Smith (eds.), Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 57–70.

Siegel, J. (2003). ‘Substrate influence in creoles and the role of transfer in second languageacquisition’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25:185–209.

Thomason, S. (2001). Language Contact. Edinburgh University Press.


Documents

Morphology of Creole Languages - Lecture 1 Prolegomenon · 2019-09-24 · MorphologyofCreoleLanguages Lecture1Prolegomenon FabiolaHenri UniversityofKentucky [email protected] LSASummerInstitute