Mather - Creole Studies

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Uncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20020404] Prn:7/09/2006; 16:03 F: LLLT1614.tex / p.1 (49-157)chapter Creole studiesPatrick-Andr MatherUniversidad de Puerto Rico, Ro PiedrasRsumDans le prsent chapitre, nous nous proposons dexaminer diffrents modles sur la gensedes langues croles qui ont t proposs ou dfendus au cours des 40 dernires annespar des linguistes francophones en Europe (notamment Chaudenson, Hazael-Massieuxet Manessy), et en Amrique du Nord (notamment Lefebvre et Valdman), savoirles modles substratistes, universalistes et superstratistes (ou eurogntiques). Nousexaminerons les questions lies aux processus cognitifs responsables de la crolisation,notamment les processus dacquisition et dappropriation des langues premire et seconde,mais aussi les facteurs externes telle lhistoire socio-conomique des colonies o les languescroles ont vu le jour. Ensuite, nous aborderons les dbats thoriques et idologiquesrelatifs aux rles respectifs des langues europennes et africaines dans la gense descroles, tant donn que ces questions ont t, et demeurent, trs controverses parmi lescrolistes francophones. Enn, nous prsenterons lun des modles de crolisation les pluscourants, ou modle gradualiste, la lumire des recherches rcentes parmi les crolistesfrancophones et autres. Pour lillustrer, nous comparerons des structures de diffrentscroles franais et de franais langue seconde.AbstractThis chapter summarizes and discusses models of creole genesis that have developedover the past 40 years among Francophone (and other) linguists both in Europe(e.g., Chaudenson, Hazael-Massieux, Manessy) and in North America (e.g., Lefebvre,Valdman). It covers internal factors, such as the cognitive processes involved increolization, but also external factors such as the socio-economic histories of theplantation colonies where these languages emerged. In addition, ideological debatesconcerning the respective roles of European and African languages in the genesis ofcreoles will be addressed, as these are and have been very controversial among French-speaking creolists over the past few decades. Finally, one widely accepted model ofcreolization, the so-called Gradualist Model, is discussed in the light of recent researchamong Francophone and other creolists.Uncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20020404] Prn:7/09/2006; 16:03 F: LLLT1614.tex / p.2 (157-179)|oi Patrick-Andr Mather:. IntroductionIn this chapter we discuss the origin of French-lexier creoles, and the role of bothL1 and L2 acquisition in the genesis of these languages. Creoles are languages bornin the 17th and 18th centuries in European plantation colonies, through contact be-tween European superstrate languages (mainly French, English, Dutch, Portugueseand Spanish) and various substrate languages spoken by slaves and indentured labor-ers (e.g., from West Africa in the case of Caribbean creoles). Creoles are by denitionmixed languages: While their lexicon is mainly derived from their respective Europeansuperstrates (e.g., French), their morpho-syntax is a combination of substrate features(e.g., West African), superstrate features, and innovations resulting from processes ofrst (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition. Typically, creoles are highly analyticlanguages, with a xed SVO word-order, invariant preverbal tense, mood and aspect(TMA) markers, and little, if any, inectional morphology. Creole studies is relevantfor theories on language genesis and change, for models of L1 and L2 acquisition,and for sociolinguistics since creoles often co-exist with their respective lexier lan-guages in what is often termed diglossia (Ferguson 1959). Creolistics is thus concernedwith explaining mechanisms of language change, and teasing apart the respective rolesof substrates, superstrates and languages universals in the genesis of creole languages,that is, of L1 and L2 acquisition. In the following, we rst present the traditional modelof creole genesis that until recently was widely used in textbooks, a two-step model ofpidginization and subsequent creolization. Second, we discuss briey the history andgeographical distribution of French-lexier creoles. Then, we outline the main com-peting hypotheses on the origin of creoles, namely the substratist, superstratist anduniversalist views of creole genesis, which place different emphases on the respectiveroles of the L1, the L2, and universals of acquisition. Finally, we explore the GradualistModel of creole genesis, which is currently the most widely accepted among Franco-phone creolists, and which views creole genesis as the result of L2 acquisition of Frenchover several generations, with limited access to native speakers of French.i. The emergence of creole studies and the nativization hypothesisMost creolists draw a sharp distinction between pidgins and creoles. For example, Hall(1966: xii) states: For a language to be a true pidgin, two conditions must be met: Itsgrammatical structure and its vocabulary must be sharply reduced [. . . ], and also theresultant language must be native to none of those who use it. Hymes (1971b: 6590)denes a pidgin as a simple code which evolves as a response to a limited need forcommunication and which encodes only the most basic functions of communica-tion [. . . ] the result being impoverished or absent morphology [. . . ] limited lexicalstock; a constrained number of adpositions; non-expression of the copula; and lackof sentential embedding. One frequently cited example of a pidgin is Russenorsk (de-scribed in Broch 1927; and Broch & Jahr 1984), a trade pidgin created and used inUncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20020404] Prn:7/09/2006; 16:03 F: LLLT1614.tex / p.3 (179-237)Creole studies |othe 19th century by Norwegian and Russian shermen. Russenorsk had a limited vo-cabulary, mainly SVO word order, no inectional or derivational morphology, and asingle multiple-use preposition. The following example is provided by Broch and Jahr(1984: 41):(1) Korwherejuyoustannomstaypaongammeloldras?timeWhere did you stay last year?For the purposes of this chapter, we will adopt this classic denition of a pidgin, assummarized by DeGraff (1999: 6): Pidgins [. . .] are simplied, lexically and struc-turally reduced, unstable nonnative systems, with variable and inconsistent patterns,created and used for limited communication among adults who are native speakers ofmutually unintelligible languages. This denition excludes so-called expanded pid-gins like Tok Pisin, since the latter are as structurally and lexically complex as anylanguage, creole or other.1Traditionally, a creole is dened as a pidgin that has be-come the native language of a speech community (Hall 1966: xiii). Once a pidgin isacquired as a native language by children, one says it has been creolized. Accordingto this theory, concomitant with nativization of the pidgin, there is structural expan-sion and complexication: As the incipient creole takes on all the functions of a rstlanguage, it complexies and acquires the various grammatical and stylistic resourcesneeded for the language to function as the main language of a community, such asmeans to express tense, mood and aspect, embedded structures, topicalization of cer-tain phrases, and so on. Thus, according to the traditional model of creole genesis(which views a creole as a nativized pidgin), it seems logical to assume that childrenare the main agents of creolization, which is viewed fundamentally as a process of L1,rather than L2, language acquisition. The main proponent of this model is Bickerton(1981, 1999), which we discuss below in Section 3.3.The traditional model of creole genesis, which views a creole as a nativized pid-gin, was until recently widely assumed to apply to most plantation creoles in theCaribbean and in the Indian Ocean. We will see in the following sections that mostFrancophone creolists dispute the claim that creoles were made by children, and theirargument is based in part on the absence of any evidence of a pidgin stage in Frenchplantation colonies.It is difcult to provide a precise denition of creole since there is much contro-versy surrounding the origin, development and typological features shared by creolelanguages. According to Thomason (2001: 159160):Creoles develop in contact situations that typically involve more than two languages(. . .); they typically draw their lexicon, but not their grammar, primarily from a singlelanguage, the lexier language (. . .). The grammar of a creole, like the grammar of a:. Tok Pisin is the ofcial name of New Guinea Pidgin English, which evolved as a contact languagein the 18th and 19th centuries and has recently acquired native (e.g., L1) speakers. It is also an ofciallanguage in Papua New Guinea.Uncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20020404] Prn:7/09/2006; 16:03 F: LLLT1614.tex / p.4 (237-321)|o| Patrick-Andr Matherpidgin, is a crosslanguage compromise of the languages of its creators, who may ormay not include native speakers of the lexier language.It should be added that most creoles share several typological characteristics, such asa xed SVO word order, reduplication, little or no inectional morphology (in par-ticular no morphological markings for gender or plurality, invariant verbs), and aseries of preverbal tense, mood and aspect markers instead of verbal sufxes. In short,creoles are highly analytical languages, and in this sense are typologically close toKwa languages from West Africa, and quite different from French, which even in itsnon-standard, spoken varieties has some inectional morphology and a more variableword-order. Thus, while the lexicon of French-lexier creoles is largely derived fromFrench, the morphosyntax and semantics is the product of independent developments,possibly with considerable transfer from West African (and other) substrates.. An overview of French-lexier creolesThe colonization of various territories by the French during the 17th and 18th cen-turies led to the emergence of various creolized varieties of French. These varieties fallinto two main groups.The rst group of creoles emerged in the Americas during the late 17th and early18th centuries: The creoles spoken to this day in Guadeloupe, Martinique, Dominica,St Lucia and French Guyana are to a large extent mutually intelligible, and are some-times referred to collectively as crole antillais (see examples below and in Section 5.3).There are two other French creoles in the same area: Haitian, which is a more radicalcreole and not mutually intelligible with crole antillais, and Louisiana Creole, whichis closer to Standard French than both Haitian and crole antillais (see also Caldas thisvolume). The following examples are taken from Poullet and Telchid (1990: 248250):(2) Louisiana Creole: To bezwen monj kkjoz oubyen to va tonb malad.Guadeloupean Creole: Ou bizwen manj kchoz sansa ou k tonb malad.French: Tu dois manger quelque chose sinon tu vas tomber malade.You must eat something, otherwise you will become sick(3) Haitian Creole: Nan nuit la mt blij chang pozisyonGuadeloupean Creole: Adan lannuit-la an t oblij chanj pozisyonFrench: Dans la nuit, jai t oblig de changer de position.During the night, I had to change positionHaitian is a more radical creole for several reasons. One is the fact that the country hasbeen linguistically and culturally isolated from France since its independence in 1800,with only 5% of the population being able to speak French uently. This contrastswith other French creoles in the Caribbean, which often co-exist with French (as inMartinique, Guadeloupe and French Guyana).The second group of French-lexier creoles, referred to as Isle de France creoles,are spoken on islands in the Indian Ocean that were settled in the 18th century fromUncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20020404] Prn:7/09/2006; 16:03 F: LLLT1614.tex / p.5 (321-430)Creole studies |o,Mauritius. Mauritian is a radical creole spoken on Mauritius, with closely related va-rieties in Rodrigues and the Seychelles. A more acrolectal variety (i.e., a variety closerto French in terms of its morpho-syntax, most notably its verbal inectional morphol-ogy) is spoken on the French island of Runion (see Mather 2001). These islands weresettled in the same way as the Caribbean islands, except that slaves and laborers werebrought in mainly from East (rather than West) Africa, Madagascar (during the initialphase of settlement, or socit dhabitation), and many Indian contract laborers weresubsequently brought in after the abolition of slavery. Structurally, Isle de France cre-oles are quite similar to Caribbean Creoles, with the exception of Runionnais whichis sometimes referred to as a semi-creole because it represents a partial, rather thancomplete, restructuring of French and retains some French morphology like genderand tense inection (see Holm 2004: 19).The following are sentences in Haitian, Guadeloupean and Mauritian creoles,along with their translations in English and French.(4) Haitian Creole (Holm 2000: 91; adapted from Valdman 1970: 260):Teantgenhaveyouatantimezannimoanimalsteantgenhaveyouawakingkiwhoteantyouanonmmantrveryentlijancleverepiandtrverymalen.cunningIl tait une fois des animaux qui avaient un roi trs intelligent et trs malinThere once were animals who had a king who was a very clever and very cunningman.(5) Guadeloupean Creole (Poullet & Telchid 1990: 57):YYesterdaymaten,morning,ManMrs.ElvinaElvinatanttouslaloneaninkazhousea-y,at-her,sbetimounchildrena-y-laat-her-detpanottantla,there,yotoutalltantsoti.gone.Hier matin, Madame Elvina tait toute seule dans sa maison, ses enfants ntaient pas l,ils taient tous sortisYesterday morning, Mrs. Elvina was alone in her house, her children werent there,they were all gone(6) Mauritian Creole (Adone 1994):MoItiantavamodnperfkapavableetidyestudysiifmoIpanottipastmizerpoorJaurais pu tudier si je ntais pas pauvreI could have studied if I were not poorThe three examples above illustrate the main characteristics of creoles: Although mostof the lexicon and some structures can be traced back to (non-standard) French (withsome phonological changes), the sentence structure and word-order are markedlydifferent. For instance, several French verbs, modals and past participles (such ast been, tait was, va go, ni nished) were reanalyzed as invariant, pre-verbalmarkers expressing tense, mood and aspect. Creoles are thus typologically distinct lan-guages, and despite similarities in the lexicon, cannot be considered dialects of French.Uncorrected proofs - John Benjamins Publishing CompanyJB[v.20...


View more >