Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise: Alleyne (2000) argues that Old Haitian Creole was closer to Français Populaire than modern Haitian. What kinds of evidence does he adduce for this claim, and how convincing is it? (See also Baker 1993:136; DeGraff to appear, Detgers 2000).


8. Radical creole formation as SLA.

The parallels between creole formation and SLA were noted as early as the nineteenth century by scholars like Hesseling (1897), and later Jespersen (1922). Most creolists now espouse the view that creoles are products of a special form of SLA. In both cases, we find an early stage of grammar construction that yields a “basic” or pidginized variety of the L2 with a reduced lexicon and grammatical apparatus. Both also involve processes of elaboration in which three major sources of input are involved. These include input (intake) from the target language, L1 influence, and internally driven changes which regularize and expand the grammar. Still, the parallels between the two cases of acquisition are not identical. For instance, questions arise about the nature of the language that was the target of acquisition.

8.1. The target of acquisition.

It is questionable whether radical creoles like Sranan are instances of targeted SLA in the usual sense of that term. For one thing, the designation would imply that the creators of such creoles were not only targeting (dialects of) English, French, Portuguese etc, but had adequate access to them. Both of these assumptions are questionable, as Arends (1995), Baker (1990), Singler (1993) and others have argued. Rather, it would seem that most slaves brought to these colonies, particularly at the height of the plantation system, were attempting to learn an already established contact variety quite distinct from the superstrates.

Baker (1990) suggests that this contact variety, or “medium of inter-ethnic communication” (MIC) was itself the target. While this clearly applies to later arrivals, it still leaves open the question of how the MIC originated, and what the inputs to its earliest formative stage were. We can only speculate about this for most colonies, because we lack historical and textual records of the earliest period of settlement. However, in some cases, such records are quite revealing about the process by which the MIC first emerged.
For instance, evidence from Hawai‘i makes it clear that the formation of Hawai‘i Creole English (HCE) involved elaboration of an earlier English-lexicon pidgin that became a target of learning for adult immigrants and their locally-born children in the late 19^th century (Roberts 2000, Siegel 2000). Both adults and children had a major role in elaborating this pidgin into HCE. Siegel (2000) argues in particular that children of Portuguese and Chinese immigrants, bilingual in their ancestral languages and the pidgin, contributed much to the elaboration of the latter’s grammar. This explains why many aspects of HCE grammar can be traced to substrate influence from Cantonese and Portuguese. Siegel demonstrates that several key features of HCE grammar (including TMA categories) that had been ascribed to the putative language bioprogram could in fact be explained as the result of such substrate influence. Indeed he concludes that “in the use of the copula, non-verbal adjectives, combinations of tense markers, functions of the [+Non punctual] marker [the Progressive – DW] and for complementation, HCE is more similar to Portuguese than to other creoles” (2000:230).
In short, contra the LBH, the evidence suggests that HCE was the result of a typical 3-generation process of language shift. It started being acquired as a first language only after its grammar had been extensively restructured by the previous generation(s). Children acquiring it (later) as a first language may have helped regularize the grammar and perhaps introduced more innovations such as auxiliary combinations. However, HCE was essentially a creation by persons (including children) who already had a first language.
This scenario closely resembles that outlined in Chapter 8 for the creation of “extended” pidgins such as Melanesian. Based on these cases, it seems reasonable to assume that the first stage of radical creole formation involved a similar process, in which the grammar of a pidgin or simplified variety of the superstrate was elaborated by learners appealing to L1 knowledge and guided by universal principles of SLA. This new creation in turn became a target of learning for later arrivals. In places like Suriname, social and demographic conditions (see above) promoted the continuous re-learning of the contact variety by successive waves of new slaves.
However, not all scholars accept that this “pidgin to creole” scenario applies to all cases of creole formation. Chaudenson (1992, 2001), Mufwene (1996a, b) and others suggest that the initial stages of contact produced second language varieties of the superstrate that were restructured and “basilectalized” via a process of repeated SLA. In this approach, there is no need to assume that everyone spoke or targeted a stable superstrate-derived pidgin spoken as the lingua franca for some period before its elaboration into a creole began. Such an alternative may well be plausible for some cases of creole formation, e.g., Haiti (Alleyne 2000). But it is not inconsistent with the view that radical creole formation began with the restructuring of simplified, even pidginized forms of the superstrate, regardless of what input was previously available. Given the severe lack of access to full superstrate input that we find in all cases of radical creole formation, we can assume two things. First, individual learners, particularly new arrivals, began with a basic variety of the superstrate, based on whatever intake they could process from the available input. Second, lacking continued input from the full superstrate sources, learner/creators elaborated this basic variety by drawing more on their L1 knowledge and other compensatory strategies. Whichever scenario one chooses, it seems that creole formation was essentially a process of SLA with highly restricted TL input under unusual social circumstances.


8.2. Restructuring in creole grammar.

The elaborative stages of creole formation have traditionally been referred to as “creolization”, which Hymes (1971b:84) defined as “that complex process of sociolinguistic change comprising expansion in inner form, with convergence, in the context of extension in use.” However, the term has been used in so many (sometimes conflicting) senses, that its usefulness has been seriously compromised (Winford 1997c:136). We will therefore avoid it here.¹⁸ Instead we will describe the elaboration of creole grammar as “restructuring,” in the sense in which this term is used in the literature on first and second language acquisition. With regard to L1 acquisition, van Buren (1996:190) defines restructuring as “discarding old grammars for new ones.” He adds, “As soon as new relevant data are encountered, the current grammar is restructured to accommodate the new input” (ibid.). SLA researchers define the concept in similar ways. For instance, Hultstijn (1990: 32) describes it as “the establishment of new procedures which reorganize a body of facts and rules previously acquired.” Similarly, Lalleman (1996:31) defines it as “the process of imposing organization and structure upon the information that has been acquired” [as new input is encountered – DW]. Note that this is very different from the sense in which creolists sometimes use the term, viz, to refer to restructuring of the lexifier language. This implies that creole creators began with the lexifier, modifying it over time.

The major issue facing creolists today is the nature of this process of restructuring and the relative contributions of the three major inputs referred to earlier. In addition, there is the question of the role of “universals” in the elaboration of creole grammar.
Before we proceed further, it is important to emphasize that the process of creole formation is both an individual and a community phenomenon. The restructuring process goes on primarily in individual learners’ attempts to construct and expand their IL system. The innovations introduced by these learners then become available for selection as part of the community’s language. Consequently, creole formation must be seen as a product both of individual grammar construction (I-language), and of the spread of features across individual grammars, yielding a shared community vernacular (E-language). We will return to the latter process later.


8.2.1. Restructuring and superstrate input to creole formation.

The frequently stated view that the superstrate contributes lexicon while the substrate languages contribute most of the grammar to creole formation is quite simplistic, even when applied to the most radical creoles. The reality is rather more complex. In the first place, some aspects of superstrate grammar do find their way into creoles, though they are generally transformed in various ways. For example, features such as infinitival and complementizer fo(r) found throughout Atlantic English creoles, have models in English regional dialects (Lalla & D’Costa 1990:107). Similarly, the Progressive/ Imperfective marker (d)a found in most CEC’s appears to derive from present periphrastic do (often pronounced /d´/ of South West English dialects, probably reinforced by the prefix a- found in English dialectal progressive constructions such as He’s a-hunting.

In the second place, the lexical features that creoles derive from their superstrate sources are often modified in various ways in the emerging grammar. For instance, we saw earlier how many superstrate-derived lexical items undergo changes in semantics and function, so that their lexical entries no longer match those of their counterparts in the European source language. On the other hand, it is clear that creoles draw on both lexical and structural resources of the substrates, though, as we will see, they do not replicate the latter exactly. Moreover, aspects of creole grammar often result from the interaction of both superstrate and substrate inputs. A case is point is the emergence of the complementizer se “that” in JC, which resembles both English say and Twi complementizer se “that”, used after verba dicendi and verbs of knowing etc. (Lalla & D’Costa 1990:77).
In the more radical creoles, these phenomena reflect learners’ limited access to the native varieties of the superstrate, and their heavy reliance on L1 knowledge in processing whatever input those sources provide. As we have already noted, the higher this input is, the closer creole grammar is to that of its lexifier.
8.2.2. Restructuring and substrate influence.

One of the major differences between creole formation and (other types of) SLA lies in the perseverance of L1-based strategies in the former. As it progresses, SLA typically involves replacement of such strategies (and other compensatory ones) by those adopted from the TL. By contrast, radical creoles, and to a lesser extent the intermediate ones, continue to draw on the substrate languages and its own internal resources as the grammar develops.

The role of substrate influence in creole formation has been convincingly demonstrated in many recent studies. In the case of the Surinamese creoles, studies by Arends (1986), McWhorter (1992), Sebba (1987) and Smith (1996) have argued for Kwa substrate influence on serial verb constructions. Research by Bruyn (1994) points to influence from Gbe (and to some extent Kikongo) on complex prepositional phrases in Sranan. Finally, Migge has argued for Gbe influence on various Paamaka constructions, including “give”-type SVC’s (1998), attributive (property) predication (2000) and the copula system (to appear).
By way of brief illustration, consider the case of ‘give’-type SVC’s in Paamaka. There are strong parallels between such structures and those in the principal Kwa substrates – Gbe and Akan. The ‘give’ serial verb in all cases performs a variety of functions, assigning recipient, benefactive and substitutive roles, among others, to its complement NP. The following are examples of the first type, from Migge (1998:236).

(18) a. Mi seli a osu gi en (Paamaka)

I sell DET house give 3s
“I sold the house to him/her”

b. Ye dJra maSin-a ne Amba (Ewegbe)

3pl sell machine-the give Amba
“They sold the computer to Amba”

c. Me tOOn me dan ma-a no nnera (Twi)

I sell-PAST my house give-PAST him yesterday
“I sold my house to him yesterday”

Migge provides many examples of similar correspondences in other types of ‘give’ SVC. Correspondences between the Surinamese creoles and their Kwa substrates can be found in other types of SVC mentioned earlier, including comparative and instrumental-type constructions.

Smith (1996) also demonstrates strong parallels between contrastive (identificational) focus constructions in Saamaka and Fongbe. In fact, Saamaka uses exactly the same focus marker (wE~), in the same position (following the focussed element) as Fon does. The following examples illustrate:

(19) SM a. di mujee wE~ mi bi bel, naa di womi

DET woman FOC 1sg PAST phone NEG DET man.
“It was the WOMAN I telephoned, not the man.”

b. kaí wE~ mi kaí kó a di baáka dendu

fall FOC 1sg fall come LOC DET hole inside
“I FELL into the hole.”

(20) Fon a. mO!to~ O~ wE~ su!nu~ ∂e! gba~

car DET FOC man DET destroy
“It was the CAR a man destroyed”
b. gba~ wE~ su!nu~ ∂e! gba~ mO!to~ O!
destroy FOC man DET destroy car DET
“The man DESTROYED the car (he didn’t fix it)”

Migge (to appear) shows that there are strong correspondences between Paamaka and Gbe with regard to presentational and contrastive (idenficational) focus constructions. However, the Paamaka constructions are not direct replicas of those in Gbe. (See further discussion below in section 8.2.4.)

The correspondences between these radical creoles and their substrates suggest that creole formation involved, in part, the retention of abstract substrate syntactic patterns, into which superstrate-derived lexical forms were incorporated. For instance, the abstract pattern underlying recipient ‘give’ SVC’s is as follows:

Semantic Elements: Agent Transfer Theme Dative Recipient

Syntactic Elements: NP Vtrans NP “give” NP

Similar shared underlying patterns underlie other SVCs. How such patterns become part of creole grammar will be discussed below, in sections 9.3 to 9.5.

Strong syntactic parallels like these led Sylvain (1936) to assert that Haitian Creole was a language with Ewe grammar and French words. Similarly, Wilson (1962:ix) described Guinea-Bissau creole as a West African language. Berbice Dutch even preserves overt grammatical morphemes from its primary substrate, Eastern Ijo (Kalabari). In the latter case, the homogeneity of the substrate was no doubt a factor in allowing such retentions. In the case of Guinea-Bissau creole, the strong substrate influence was partly due to its continued co-existence with its substrates. But, these exceptions aside, radical creoles do seem to preserve much of substrate grammar, though they hardly replicate it exactly.