1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-18
19-21
22-24
25-27
28-30
31-33
34-36
37-39
40-42
43-45
46
dogmatics of convergence, based on a misreading of Gumperz & Wilson's 1968 paper
at
the Mona conference (in pre-print, published in its final version in the Proceedings
of 1971, pp. 151-67).
creolistics contributing significantly to the advancement of linguistic theory,
expectations which didn't materialize. Just before disappointment started gaining
the ranks, G&W, reinterpreting Weinreich's convergence of inner form in
sociolinguistic terms as a model for deviance phenomena underlying skills involved in
"code-switching processes", had the misfortune of singling out the position of Kupwar
Urdu ("a dialect of Urdu") as "creole-like", with a specific reference to the
position of Haitian Creole as a "dialect of French". They did not intend to concern
themselves "with the historical origin of deviant features" or to cast doubt on the
genetic classification of Kupwar Urdu or Haitian Creole as Urdu or French. They
wanted the exercice to be strictly "ethnographic" though they largely outflanked
themselves on that particular objective, but not at all in the direction creolists of
today would want so see the action bear.
"Inflectional morphs forming part of closed paradigmatic sets such as person
and gender agreement or tense merkers are almost never borrowed."(165):"The
Kupwar varieties [including Kupwar Urdu] have processes of reduction and convergence
suggestive of pidginization and creolization. To say that the varieties have in fact
undergone those processes would of course be misleading, if creolization is defined
as requiring a pidgin as its starting point. We have no evidence of a pidgin-stage
in the history of the village, OR REASON TO SUSPECT ONE. The adaptations involved
are the result of several centuries of language contact. [...]The need for
constant code-switching and for mutual adaptation WITHIN A SITUATION IN WHICH HOME
LANGUAGES ARE MAINTAINED has led to reduction and adaptation in linguistic
structure."(166): "To be sure, while it has been proposed that the major process of
change for pidgins in new settings has been re-lexification, the local Kupwar
varieties might be said to have undergone 're-syntactification' [...]."
FROM AFRICA did not evolve from a starting point requiring mutual adaptation WITHIN A
SITUATION IN WHICH HOME LANGUAGES FROM AFRICA WERE MAINTAINED. So why harp for
dogmatics in creolistics on the credo of linguists that have recanted since?
immigrants from elsewhere in adjusting within situations in which home languages are
NOT maintained should heed this piece of advice from Bethanie Morrissey (31/01/01) to
Michel DeGraff:
obvious answer is likely the correct answer.
FOR NO APPARENT REASON in a manner not similar to varieties of French spoken by
immigrants from elsewhere is PRIMA FACIE far less likely and should therefore be the
most likely INCORRECT answer.
applying parsimony to questions of the ultimate origin of consistent "aberrancies" in
varieties of French regardlessly of whether they're spoken by Blacks or by Whites.
another look at Magoua, a non-creole koine variety of French, and compare its
morphosyntax, to start with, with that of Louisiana Creole (LC).
verbs are
long or short. The long forms occur where verb movement is impossible, such as with
TMA markers; the short ones where the verb can be moved into TENSE. Verb movement
into tense is restricted to verbs which are incompatible with the TMA marker
[progressive], /ap(r)e/ in LC, /apre/ in Magoua (a similar constraint exists in HC
though mouvement cannot go over NEG, cf. Wittmann 1995:317-21). Take Magoua
sentences such as (Standard French equivalents between angles):
imàlàd <Jean est malade>
"John is sick" [adjectival [-past]]
(1)b Jan(i)te màlàd <Jean était malade>
"John was sick" [adjectival [+past]]
(2)a Janiàpreà-manjé à-pòm la <Jean mange la pomme>
"John is eating the apple" [non-stative progressive [-past]]
(2)b Jan(i)te àpreà-manjé à-pòm la <Jean mangeait la pomme>
"John was eating the apple" [non-stative progressive [+past]]
(3)aJani an-manj d à-pòm <Jean mange des pommes>
"John eats (a lot of) apples" [non-stat. non-prog. [-past]]
(3)bJani an-manj-e d à-pòm <Jean mangeait des pommes>
"John used to eat (a lot of) apples" [non-stat. non-prog. [+past]]
(4)aJani à-em ti-seúr <Jean aime la petite soeur>
"John loves (his) little sister" [stative [-past]]
(4)bJani à-em-e ti-seúr <Jean aimait la petite soeur>
"John loved (his) little sister" [stative [+past]]
(I'm trying to get them come out for you in bold face) representing subject or object
agreement derived from earlier pronouns where LC sports zero agreement. The shift
from lexical pronouns (in Old French) to unstressed clitics (still the case in
Acadian French) to agreement markers (in Magoua) to ultimately zero (in LC or HC) is
a very regular process in historical linguistics if there ever was one. That the
elements I singled out for Magoua do no longer function as "conjunct" pronouns can be
seen from these examples (the asterisk outside the parentheses means that the element
enclosed in *(X) is obligatory, the asterisk within the parentheses indicates the
element within (*X) to be agrammatical in that context;ungrammatical Standard
French equivalents between angles):
mwénj'*(à)kòne Ti-Ouiz<*moi je la connais Louise>
[IAGRS *(AGRO)know Louise] "I know Louise."
(5)bmwénj'*(à)kòne èl<*moi je la connais elle>
[IAGRS *(AGRO)know her] "I know her."
m Ø a àlé*(l)wér Pòpòl<*moi va aller le voir Paul>
[I Ø FUT go*(AGRO)see Paul] "I'm going to visit Paul."
(6)bm Ø a àlé*(l)wér lui<*moi va aller le voir lui>
[I Ø FUT go*(AGRO)see him] "I'm going to visit him,"
succeeds the erstwhile "conjunct" pronoun of earlier French in all bare DET
positions, that is to say in all positions other nouns do, whereas the erstwhile
"conjunct" pronouns succeed in (non-argument) agreement positions to the erstwhile
"bound" suffixes (such as -e/-s, -(e)s, -e/-t, -ons, -ez, -ont/-ent) of earlier
French. What's new is the development of object agreement:Object DPs and object
pronouns in transitive clauses will trigger Definite Direct Object Agreement as in
(5a), (6a), (5b) and (6b), the obligatory AGRO derived from etymological <le, la,
les> agreeing with the obligatory nominal argument it antecedes. Subject agreement,
on the other hand, deletes obligatorily in (6a) and (6b) (deletion being represented
by /Ø/) and optionally with past reference in (1b) and (2b).
positions in Magoua are phonetically filled (represented here in bold face), whereas
the only difference between LC and HC is that LC has short verb forms moving into
TENSE. This is what in the literature is referred to as "verb syncopation".
verb syncopation also extant in all varieties of Indian Ocean creoles (Reunion,
Mauritius, Rodrigues, Seychelles). In Magoua, verb syncopation also determines
whether past reference is going to be "creole-like" as (1b) and (2b) or suffixal as
in (3b) and (4b). This suffix /-e/ is the only fully productive inflectional affix
left from the rich fusional verb morphology of historical French (see my debate with
McWhorter, Wittmann 1999).
sentences such in (7a) and (7b) (alternatives are listed within braces separated by
commas):
{Jan,l-ga(la)} (pàre)*(i){màlàd-màlàd, dòkteur}
"{John,CL-man(DET)} (seems)*(AGRS){rather sick, a doctor}"
(7)b{Jan,l-ga *(la)} (pàre)*(s){en-dòkteur, l-bòs(la)}
"{John,CL-man *(DET)} (seems)*(AGRS){one doctor, the boss}*(DET)"
{Jan, nèg*(la)} (genlè)*(Ø){malad-malad, doktè}
"{John, man*(DET)} (seems)*(AGRS){rather sick a doctor}"
(8)b{Jan, nèg *(la)} (genlè)*(se){yondoktè, bòsla}
"{John, man *(DET)} (seems)*(AGRS){a, the} {doctor, boss}*(DET)"
differing vowel diacritics and other lexical trivia, subject agreement in Magoua (7a)
is marked by /i/ for definiteness, whereas the same syntactic position in HC (8a) is
phonetically empty but syntactically active (for assumptions underlying zero syntax,
see Pesetsky 1995, LaCharité & Wellington 1999). In (7b) and (8b), the same
syntactic position is phonetically filled for both languages. What is unusual is
that Magoua /sé/ and HC /se/ are overt AGRS markers marking AGRO covertly.
inherent stativity in non-argument positions. In (7b) and (8b), the element adjacent
to overt AGRS is a true DP complement, a phrase consisting of a DET head and a noun
phrase complement, occupying a true argument position. In Magoua, complements
occupying argument positions must obligatory be marked for corresponding object
agreement on the verb. Standard French equivalents of (7b) would have object clitics
marked on the verb TO BE <être> agreeing with the underlying object as in (7ba) or
(7bb):
Jean semblel'être (le patron). [object [+def]]
(7)bbJean sembleenêtre (un docteur). [object [-def]]
historical French, the object agreement load was "deferred" to the next available
subject agreement marker. "Deferment" is achieved in this way:AGRS agrees
syntactically with the surface subject but is semantically coindexed with the object
determiner (the DET head of the internal argument). The coindexed DET can be
definite or undefinite.
which as such can be marked for definiteness or is inherently marked for definiteness
such as in English "John is one real boss". There are also partitive uses to /en/
such as in /en àmi à mouén/ "one of my friends (we know about)". Needless to say
here that Magoua like all the French creoles except Seychelles Creole can have two
consecutive /la/ particles, a DET /la/ followed by a locative /la/ ADV.]
DIFFUSIONAL RESIDUE marking INCIDENTALLY, in a bantu-like style but with a reversed
order of relevancy, person > number > noun class. Alternately, definiteness can be
accessed via the post-nominal article /la/, obligatorily so with common nouns in AGR
deletion contexts. In all other cases, agreement is marked unredundantly and is not
sensitive to person, number or noun class.
calling for a gradually diffused abrupt change, a change that for socio-historical
reasons, debasilectalization and refrancization, will never come along.
or between proto-Germanic and English. However, the inherited structure is blatantly
![[made with GoClick]](imgs/goclick.gif)