Creole Formation and Second Language Acquisition. Table of Contents: 1. Introduction:..........................................2 2. Developmental stages in SLA............................3 2.1. Early stages of SLA and creole formation............4 2.2. Strategies in the early stages of SLA and creole formation................................................5 3. Elaborative stages of SLA and creole formation........10 4. The elaboration of creole grammar.....................11 4.1. Restructuring, target language and superstrate input. ........................................................12 4.2. Restructuring and substrate input in creole formation...............................................14 4.3. Restructuring and internal developments............15 5. TMA and the process of restructuring in creole formation. ......................................................... 15 5.1. The emergence of the Haitian Creole TMA system.....16 5.2. The emergence of TMA in Sranan Tongo...............20 6. Conclusion............................................24 References............................................... 26 1
48
Embed
Creole Formation and Second Language Acquisition · Web viewThis pidgin, like Russenorsk, Hawai‘i Pidgin English and others (e.g, early Melanesian Pidgin) had the potential for
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Creole Formation and Second Language Acquisition.
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction:....................................................................................................................22. Developmental stages in SLA.........................................................................................3
2.1. Early stages of SLA and creole formation................................................................42.2. Strategies in the early stages of SLA and creole formation......................................5
3. Elaborative stages of SLA and creole formation...........................................................104. The elaboration of creole grammar................................................................................11
4.1. Restructuring, target language and superstrate input..............................................124.2. Restructuring and substrate input in creole formation............................................144.3. Restructuring and internal developments...............................................................15
5. TMA and the process of restructuring in creole formation...........................................155.1. The emergence of the Haitian Creole TMA system...............................................165.2. The emergence of TMA in Sranan Tongo..............................................................20
The parallels between creole formation and SLA were noted as early as the nineteenth
century by scholars like Hesseling (1897), and later Jespersen (1922). This relationship
has been the subject of continuing controversy in the field of creole studies. In particular,
there has been disagreement about whether creole formation is the outcome of first or
second language acquisition – an issue explored in Andersen (1983) and more recently in
DeGraff (1999a). Disagreement over this has wider implications for competing theories
of creole formation. Contemporary scholars remain divided over the relative contribution
of superstrate and substrate languages as well as the role of language universals in creole
formation.
Some still adhere to Bickerton’s LBH or some version of it that ascribes the primary
role in creole creation to children who appeal to innate universal principles to compensate
for deficient (pidgin) input to the L1 acquisitions process (Bickerton 1999). Most
creolists, however, maintain that creole formation was essentially a process of second
language acquisition in which adults and, quite probably, bilingual children played a
crucial role. Adherents of this view, however, still disagree on the nature of the earliest
forms of creoles. Some argue that creoles began as second language varieties of the
lexifier or “superstrate” languages and gradually diverged more and more from the latter
via a process of “basilectalization” (Mufwene 1996a, b). This is the so-called superstratist
position first proposed by Chaudenson (1992, 2001). Others adopt the traditional view
that creoles began as pidgins that were subsequently elaborated.
Not surprisingly, scholars in the two camps disagree on the extent of superstrate vs
substrate input to this process of elaboration. The superstratists maintain that most of
creole grammar can be traced to the lexifier language. Some of these, while
acknowledging that some creoles draw heavily on superstrate sources, still allow for
significant influence from substrate languages (Mufwene 1990). The “substratists” on the
other hand claim that the major influence on the grammar of “radical” creoles in fact
came from the substrate languages (Lefebvre & Lumsden 1994; Lefebvre 1996; Lumsden
1999, etc.).
2
Despite these differences, there is consensus that creole formation involved varying
degrees of “input” from both superstrate and substrate sources, and was guided by
principles that regulate all cases of language contact (Mufwene 1990; DeGraff 1999b).
More specifically, there is now wide agreement that creole formation was akin in many
respects to a gradual process of group second language acquisition. The issue then is
whether we can maintain this view and still reconcile the conflicting positions outlined
above.
The present paper attempts such a reconciliation by examining more closely the
similarities in the developmental stages, processes and principles that apply to all
instances of creole formation and (other) cases of second language acquisition (SLA). I
will argue that there are basic similarities in the paths of development characteristic of
both. First, both involve an initial or early stage of learning, in which a highly simplified
interlanguage (IL) system is created. This is followed by elaborative stages in which the
basic IL system is expanded, drawing on three major sources of input. These include
input (intake) from native and non-native varieties of the lexifier language, L1 influence,
and internally driven changes that regularize and expand the grammar.
The interaction between L1 knowledge, intake from superstrate sources and creative
adaptation operates within the developing IL system itself – or more accurately, within
the minds of individual learners creating IL systems or I-languages. This is not to claim,
however, that the parallels between the two broad types of SLA are identical. As we shall
see, there are significant differences in such aspects as the nature of the input, the extent
of L1 influence and the degree of internal innovation involved in each case, which help to
explain how creole formation differs from other cases of natural group SLA. Exploring
the precise nature of the similarities and differences between these two kinds of SLA
promises to enrich our understanding of both.
After presenting a broad outline of the stages and processes involved in SLA
(including creole formation), I will turn my attention to the creation of creole TMA
systems, focusing particularly on those of Haitian Creole and Sranan Tongo.
2. Developmental stages in SLA.
3
Studies of second language acquisition have revealed that there are several stages
through which learners go in their attempt to approximate the TL. The first stage involves
the construction of a relatively simple interlanguage system that is highly reduced by
comparison with the TL grammar. For instance, English-speaking children who are
learning German begin with two-word utterances before producing multiword sentences.
The overall pattern of development in this case is from two-word utterances to copular
sentences to sentences containing auxiliaries and finally main verbs (Felix 1977). SLA
research has also shown that learners go through various developmental stages in their
acquisition of specific areas of TL grammar such as question formation, negation,
relativization, etc. For example, Spanish-speaking learners of English first use no as an
all-purpose negator in all constructions, and later acquire invariant don’t, aux-neg forms
such as isn’t, can’t etc, and finally analyzed do + not (doesn’t, didn’t, etc.) (Schumann
1978:13). In general, in acquiring various aspects of TL grammar, learners first apply a
single invariant rule across the board in the first stage, and gradually acquire more
specific rules in later stages of acquisition. Similar stages of development apply to the
acquisition of TL tense/aspect systems, as we will see.
2.1. Early stages of SLA and creole formation.
Studies of the acquisition of various European languages by immigrants with a
variety of L1’s have demonstrated that learners first create a “basic variety” of the TL
that is quite uniform in structure regardless of L1 background (Klein & Perdue 1997).
This basic variety is characterized by a small but expanding lexicon made up mostly of
nouns and verbs, with a small inventory of adjectives and adverbs. It also employed a few
function words such as quantifiers, a few prepositions and determiners and a single
negative marker. In these and several other respects, the “basic variety’ shares many
characteristics with “prototypical” pidgins.
The conventional wisdom has it that creoles are elaborations of pidgins – the so-
called “two-stage” view of creole formation. As we saw earlier, this view has been called
into question of late, e.g., by Chaudenson and others who argue that second language
varieties of French etc, were the starting point of creole formation, at least in the French
4
colonies. We can reconcile these opposing viewpoints by making a distinction between
the kinds of input that are available from the putative TL, and the kinds of intake learners
incorporate into their developing IL. Whether the input to the first stages of creole
formation consisted of close L2 approximations to the superstrate language, or a
simplified or pidginized variety of that language, individual IL construction would still
begin with a basic variety that has pidgin-like characteristics.
It seems reasonable to assume, then, that in the first stage of both SLA and creole
formation, individual learners create a highly reduced, pidgin-like system, which they
then expand, depending on their access to further input from the TL and other sources, as
well as their motivation to create a more complex system. The I-grammars that
individuals create must be the starting point of our analysis of the processes of both SLA
and creole formation.
2.2. Strategies in the early stages of SLA and creole formation.
It is well known that, in the earliest stages of SLA, learners attempt to learn and
produce TL structures by appealing to various learning and communication strategies.
The former may include, for instance, memorizing, guessing, comparing L1 and L2
elements etc. We will not be concerned with these here. Communication strategies
include avoidance (avoiding certain structures, elements or topics) and compensatory
strategies. The latter include appeal to L1 knowledge, creative adaptation of existing IL
resources, and non-linguistic strategies such as gesture and mime (Poulisse 1996).
Studies of SLA (e.g., Poulisse 1996:149) have revealed that such communication
strategies are more common among early (less proficient) than advanced learners, though
of course not restricted only to the former.
Following Meisel (1977, 1983), simplification will be used here to refer to two kinds
of process – reduction of TL structures (reductive simplification) and strategies aimed at
regularization of the grammar (elaborative simplification). The former is a strategy of
avoidance that is particularly common in the earliest stages of IL construction. Its well-
known consequences include the elimination of TL morphology and the reduction of TL
syntactic strategies, among others.
5
Elaborative simplification on the other hand is a compensatory strategy that relies on
the available resources of the IL. For example, learners may compensate for loss of
morphology by employing periphrastic means instead. They may use adverbs to convey
temporal or aspectual meanings, or fixed word order to distinguish grammatical functions
such as subject and object. Another such strategy is rule generalization to eliminate
irregularities, as in the extension of past tense suffix –ed to irregular verbs like steal and
tell in L2 English.
Both kinds of simplification seem to be motivated by the need for transparency in the
emerging IL grammar. This in turn is related to general cognitive (processing) principles
that guide the acquisition process. For instance, Van Patten (1996:14-15) suggests that
the following principles (among others) determine which aspects of TL input learners are
likely to process earlier:
Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form;
Learners process content words first;
Learners tend to process lexical items before grammatical items for semantic
information.
Principles like these help explain why early IL systems include mostly lexical rather
than function morphemes and lack bound morphology. They constrain the amount of
input that actually makes its way into learner versions of the TL. This modified input, or
intake, becomes the primary material for restructuring of IL grammar.
Similar cognitive principles lead early learners to regularize IL grammar via
elaborative simplification. Among the principles that have been suggested in this
connection are the following:
The uniqueness principle (one form expresses one meaning);
The principle of canonical word order (Main clause word order constitutes the
basic word order. (Jordens 1996:32).
The principle of continuity (constituents that belong together are placed together).
6
Such principles allow learners to maximize ease of perception and production, and
help explain many of the characteristics of early IL. Andersen (1984, 1990) suggests that
features of early IL such as invariant word order and use of invariant negative markers
etc. can be explained in terms of his “One to One Principle”, which condenses the first
two principles stated above. The same kinds of principle have been proposed for pidgin
and creole formation, which is not surprising, given the strong similarities between these
and the earlier stages of SLA.
The well-known characteristics of pidgins include reduced vocabulary, absence of
bound morphology, a limited range of syntactic structures etc. These are precisely the
characteristics found in early IL systems, for instance the “basic varieties” of a host
community TL that immigrants create (Klein & Purdue 1997). In addition, pidgins share
strategies of L1 transfer and internal innovations found in early IL. It follows that the
creation and expansion of pidgin systems may shed light on the ways in which early IL
and particularly early creoles develop. A particularly relevant aspect of this is the creative
innovation that is a key characteristic of pidgin grammar. Like L2 learners, pidgin
speakers creatively adapt their limited intake from the source language(s) to achieve
communication. For instance, they expand the lexicon through compounding, paraphrase
and other strategies, and exploit various means (adverbials or other function morphemes)
to convey temporal and aspectual meanings.
Innovations in pidgin grammar are often reminiscent of the incipient patterns of
grammaticization that are quite common in language change generally, and in SLA in
particular. For example, Kotsinas (1996:133) compares uses of stannom ‘stay’ as a
locative copula in Russenorsk (RN)and immigrant L2 Swedish (IS). The following
examples illustrate:
(1) a. RN kor yu stannom på gammel ras
where you stay on old time
“Where were you last time?”
b. IS den tjugo år stanna Joannina
it twenty year stay Joaninna.
7
“She lived in Joannina [a town] for twenty years”
This is reminiscent of the use of stay as a copula in Hawaii Creole English. Pidgins
also employ a single preposition in a variety of functions, a strategy also found in early
SLA and creole formation. For example, both Russenorsk and Immigrant Swedish
employ the preposition på to mark various spatial meanings such as location, direction
and origin (Kotsinas (1996:139). På is also used in both contact varieties to mark indirect
objects and possession, as in the following examples (Kotsinas (1996:141-42):
(2) a. RN moja paa ju presentom baanbaan
I P you give candy
“I will give you candy”
b. IS Köpa på barn
buy P child
“[I] bought [clothes] for [my] child”
(3) a. RN mangeli klokka på ju?
how-much clock P you
“What time is it?” [Lit. how much is your clock?]
b. IS Stan på din mamma
town P your mother
“Your mother’s village”
In other uses, på seems to have the potential to function either as a preverbal marker
of some kind of desiderative mood (example 5), or as a complementizer (example 6) in
both RN and IS. (Kotsinas 1996:144-45)
(4) a RN Moja på-slagom på tvoja
I P hit P you
8
“I will hit you”
b. IS den barn sex månar kommer på skriva på kyrka.
it child six month come P write P church
“The child became six months old and we had to register him at church”
(5) a. RN gå på slipom
go P sleep
“Go to sleep”
b. IS och gå vi på simma och åta
and go we P swim and eat
“And we went to swim and eat.”
Though på has not been grammaticalized as either an auxiliary or a purpose
complementizer in Russenorsk or Immigrant Swedish, its similarity to other all-purpose
prepositions such as long (< along(a)) in Tok Pisin and fu (< for) in Atlantic creoles is
striking. It is precisely these kinds of potential for restructuring based on the internal
resources of the developing IL system that we find in creole formation, and to some
extent in natural SLA.
So far I have argued that the starting points of pidgin formation, early IL and creole
creation are quite similar, if we view them from the perspective of individual I-language
construction. Each has the potential to develop into a more elaborate system, but the
nature of that elaboration depends crucially on the nature and availability of continuing
input from the TL and other sources. Most pidgins never develop further, because of lack
of motivation or lack of access to more input. But some pidgins such as Hawaii Pidgin
English and Melanesian Pidgin have developed into elaborate systems, via processes
quite similar to those involved in creole formation. The restructuring process in these
cases involves far more appeal to L1 knowledge and internally-driven innovation than is
found in the more usual cases of SLA. Let us now examine the nature of this
restructuring process with particular attention to the origins of creole TMA systems.
9
3. Elaborative stages of SLA and creole formation.
In SLA, learners progress beyond the basic variety by adding more morphological
apparatus, grammatical rules, vocabulary etc. The major source of these additions is the
TL, but learners also continue to appeal to their L1 knowledge and use the resources of
the IL system itself in expanding their grammar. These contributory factors remain active
throughout the acquisition process, though with different effects at each stage. As Brown
(1980:163) notes:
“By a gradual process of trial and error and by hypothesis testing, the learner slowly
and tediously succeeds in establishing closer and closer approximations to the system
used by native speakers of the language.”
However, the degree of access to native models of the TL is a crucial factor in
determining how successful learners are. In fact, what really distinguishes most cases of
creole formation from other types of SLA is the nature and accessibility of continuing
input from the superstrate source. The degree of access learners have to such sources is in
inverse proportion to the extent to which they appeal to their L1 and to creative
innovation in the expansion of their IL system.
Differences in the degree and nature of superstrate input correspond to differences in
the ecology of the contact situations, including community settings, patterns of
interaction among groups, demographic ratios among groups, etc. We will not pursue
these further here. But such factors make for significant differences among the outcomes
that have traditionally been referred to as creoles. Some of these, like Bajan or Reunion
Creole, are quite close approximations to their respective lexifier languages. Others
diverge from their lexifiers to varying degrees, some quite radically, because they were
created under conditions of decreasing input from, and accessibility to, native varieties of
the lexifier language. I discuss this further below.
10
4. The elaboration of creole grammar.
Scholars have traditionally referred to the elaborative stages of creole formation as
“creolization”, which Hymes (1971:84) described as “that complex process of
sociolinguistic change comprising expansion in inner form, with convergence, in the
context of extension in use.” Unfortunately, researchers have used the term “creolization”
in so many different senses that its usefulness is now in question. Moreover, the term
implies some unitary process of change that is quite at odds with the diversity and
complexities of change involved in creole formation. I will therefore refer to the
elaboration of creole grammar as “restructuring,” in the sense intended by researchers in
first and second language acquisition.
With respect to first language 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”
Referring to SLA, 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. For the same reason,
restructuring should not be equated with terms like “basilectalization” (Mufwene ???),
which may be more appropriately used to refer to the gradual changes we observe in the
community language over time, than to the processes that lead to such changes.
It is important once more 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). Our focus
here is primarily on the first of these, the ways in which individuals create I-languages.
11
Let us first deal briefly with the role of superstrate input in the expansion of creole
grammar, before we examine the role played by substrate influence and internal
innovation in that process. We will also consider the similarities between SLA and creole
formation in the way these factors come into play in the elaboration of learners’ IL
systems.
4.1. Restructuring, target language and superstrate input.
The claim made by Chaudenson and others to the effect that creoles “began” as
second language varieties (i.e., close replicas) of the superstrate and gradually diverged
from them appears to be accurate, if we compare the starting point of the contact situation
with its eventual outcome. But, from the perspective of the act of creole creation itself,
this claim appears to be somewhat misleading. If, as we argued earlier, every individual’s
acquisition of a TL begins with a highly reduced system – a basic variety, then it makes
more sense to say that such reduced systems were the true starting point of creole
formation, just as they are for SLA. The nature of the continuing input in each case would
then determine the nature of the outcome. Moreover, one has to distinguish the available
input from the kinds of intake individual learners incorporate into their developing IL
systems.
Distinctions such as these may help resolve some of the controversy regarding the
role of the superstrate in creole formation. For instance, the long standing controversy
concerning the true “target” in creole formation stems in part from the tendency to equate
“target” only with the superstrate, in a way analogous to more usual SLA. Such a position
may be a quite reasonable one to take for some cases of creole formation. As noted
earlier, in some cases, first and/or second language varieties of the superstrate became
consolidated among a significant portion of the population, and continued to be available
as targets of acquisition. Hence the resulting creoles were closely akin to dialects of the
superstrates, as noted earlier for Barbados and Reunion.
But in other cases, such targets were either not available, or changed drastically over
time. For example, in the case of Hawai‘i Creole English, there appears to be agreement
that the primary input came from Hawai‘i Pidgin English, many of the characteristics of
12
which persist in the creole. In this case, expansion of pidgin into creole involved use of
L1 strategies by learners of Chinese, Portuguese and other languages. Hence there is
ample evidence of substrate influence from these languages on HCE (Siegel 2000). On
the other hand, the evidence from Haitian Creole suggests that many of its features are
modeled on regional French dialects, though various kinds of simplification and
reanalysis have occurred. At the same time, the gradual loss of access to such regional
dialects, and the continuing process of SLA by succeeding generations of Africans in
Haiti, created the conditions for significant substratum influence to affect the evolution of
HC.
The circumstances in which Surinamese creoles like Sranan Tongo arose are
somewhat different from both of the scenarios just discussed, though they resemble the
HCE case more. The very early withdrawal of the vast majority of English-speaking
planters and their slaves within roughly thirty years of the colony’s inception in 1651
meant that the major input to new arrivals from Africa after 1680 came from pidginized
or highly changed second language varieties of English (Migge 1998). Hence, in
elaborating early creole grammar, individual learners had to draw heavily on their L1
knowledge as well as the internal resources of the IL system itself. This in part explains
why the Surinamese creoles diverge so radically from their original English sources. In
short, what distinguishes Haiti from Suriname seems to be the continued availability of
lexifier language models (including close approximations acquired by many Africans) in
the former colony, by contrast with the early withdrawal of such models in Suriname.
For reasons such as these, we must be cautious about the notion that creoles like
Sranan Tongo, or for that matter Haitian Creole, are instances of targeted SLA in the
usual sense of that term. Such a designation implies that the creators of creoles were not
only targeting (native varieties of) French, English, etc., but had adequate access to them.
As Arends (1995), Baker (1990), Singler (1990) and others have argued, such
assumptions are questionable. It would seem instead that most slaves who were
transported to these colonies, especially at the height of the plantation system, were
attempting to learn an already established contact variety quite distinct from the lexifier
languages.
13
In many if not most cases of creole formation, the nature and types of superstrate
input changed over time, as successive waves of new learners created their own L2
versions of existing targets. In such cases, if we were to freeze the contact situation at
different points in time, we would find quite different scenarios, with different targets,
and hence differences in the superstrate-derived input. This presumably is what led Baker
(1990) to argue that, in the formation of many creoles and “expanded” pidgins, the true
target was not the superstrate, but the emergent contact variety itself. From the
perspective taken here, this position is not incompatible with the view that creoles were
always the result of second language acquisition.
4.2. Restructuring and substrate input in creole formation.
The less creole creators could continue to draw on superstrate input as they elaborated
their new language, the more they relied on L1 knowledge. The role of L1 or 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, especially Gbe, 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). There are many similar studies that argue convincingly for significant substrate
input to creole formation.
Strong syntactic parallels like these led Sylvain (1936) to assert that Haitian Creole
was a language with Ewe grammar and French words, thugh that claim has been called
into question (Chaudenson 2002). More recently, Lefebvre, Lumsden and their associates
have argued that most of Haitian Creole grammar derives more or less directly from Gbe
languages such as Fongbe (Lefebvre & Lumsden 1994). Their “Relexification
Hypothesis” of HC genesis has been challenged for (among other things) its failure to
take account of all substrate inputs as well as the significant contribution of provincial
French dialects to the formation of HC (Chaudenson 2002).
14
Still, the evidence presented by studies like these suggests that, in general, creoles do
preserve elements of substrate grammar in varying degrees, though they hardly replicate
such elements exactly.
4.3. Restructuring and internal developments.
The elaboration of early creole grammar, like that of developing interlanguage and
expanding pidgins, involves innovations driven by tendencies already present in the
developing system. For instance, Kouwenberg (1996), while acknowledging Kalabari
(Eastern Ijo) as the source of several aspects of Berbice Dutch grammar, also points to
several others that cannot be attribute to either Ijo or Dutch influence. These include
invariant SVO order, preverbal auxiliaries and negative marker, predicate cleft, and a
serial verb construction in which a verb “say” introduces complement clauses. Migge
(2003) also discusses several aspects of the copula system of Paamaka which appear to be
innovations in the creole, though much the system seems to be modeled on that of the
Gbe substrates.
Innovative features like these appear to arise from processes of internal restructuring
similar to those found in developing IL and in the elaboration of pidgins. In all cases,
speakers exploit intake from both L1 and L2 sources to expand their grammar, and this
often leads to new structures peculiar to the developing I-language. Such tendencies can
be seen at work even in “prototypical” pidgins, as we saw in the case of Russenorsk
earlier. Developments of a similar kind will be discussed below, in relation to the
emergence of TMA and other functional categories in creoles.
The overview of creole formation that we have given so far makes it clear that this
process was a complex one, involving a variety of linguistic inputs and strategies of
restructuring. In the following sections, I examine these strategies in more detail.
5. TMA and the process of restructuring in creole formation.
15
As Bickerton (1988:278) noted, the elimination of inflectional morphology in the
early stages of creole formation results in, among other things, a loss of TMA markers.
Hence these have to be reconstituted in the elaboration of creole grammar. The specific
sources of these TMA markers, and the nature of the processes involved in their
emergence in creole verbal morphosyntax, have long been matters of controversy. Again,
most of the disagreement revolves around the comparative contributions of superstrate
input, substrate influence and creative innovation to the restructuring of creole TMA
systems. There is clear evidence that these three types of contribution varied significantly
from one case of creole creation to another. Such differences can readily be found if we
compare the evolution of the Haitian Creole (HC) TMA system with that of Sranan
Tongo (SN).
5.1. The emergence of the Haitian Creole TMA system.
The major functional categories of the Haitian Creole TMA system are shown in
Table 1, which is based on DeGraff (1999b) and Spears (1990).
Table 1. Haitian Creole TMA categories.
Tense/aspect.
Perfective aspect Unmarked
(Relative) Past te
Prospective Future (a)pral(e)
Progressive/Immediate Future ap
Terminative (Perfect) fin(i)
Modal categories
Possible Future va (a/av/va)
Expectation/likelihood pu
16
Two radically different accounts of the sources of these TMA markers have been
suggested. On the one hand, Lefebvre (1996) argues that they arose through a process of
“relexification” by which substrate categories are relabeled with the phonetic shapes of
superstrate lexical items. Lumsden (1999) revises this somewhat so as to restrict the
process of relexification to the creation of a new vocabulary of lexical categories.
According to Lumsden, some of these lexical categories are subsequently re-interpreted
as functional morphemes via a process of “reanalysis.” For both Lefebvre and Lumsden,
the semantic and syntactic properties of the newly-created functional heads are more or
less directly modeled on substrate TMA categories.
On the other hand, researchers like Chaudenson (1992), Fattier (1998), DeGraff (to
appear) and others have argued that HC TMA markers as well as other functional heads
are derived more or less directly from 17th century French cognates with which they share
semantic and distributional properties. DeGraff (to appear) offers a succinct summary of
the key points of evidence for this view, which is quite compelling. He offers various
comparisons of HC and (earlier) regional French verb structures, which demonstrate
close correspondences between HC TMA markers and elements used in periphrastic
strategies for marking TMA meanings in the French dialects.
A few examples of this will suffice. Note first of all the clear similarities between
Past te and French était in sentences like the following (from DeGraff to appear: 39)
(6) a. HC. Li te (deja) ale
3sg PAST (already) go
“He had (already) gone”
b. FR. Il était (déjà) allé
3sg masc was (already) go (PP)
A similar correspondence is found between te and the French past participle été as
seen in the following (DeGraff to appear, 39-40).
(7) a. HC Li te malad
17
3sg PAST sick
“S/he was/has been sick”
b. FR. Il a été malade
“He has been sick”
Detgers (2000:150), following Chaudenson (1981:206f) suggests that était in French
periphrastic constructions such as il était à écrire “he was writing” was the source of Past
te in French creoles. No doubt all of these inputs complemented each other. It seems clear
that te has its source in the French past imperfect étais/étais, with possible reinforcement
from past participial été.
Similar correspondences can be found between HC modal pu and its French cognate,
the preposition pou “for” and between Future va and French va(s), the present singular
forms of aller, used in the Future construction aller + V “be going to V.” The following
examples from DeGraff (to appear, 40) illustrate.
(8) a. Mwen pou marye semen pwochèn (HC)
1sg. for marry week next
b. Je suis pour me marier la semaine prochaine (Canadian French)
1sg am for me marry the week next
“I am to get married next week”
(9) a. Ou (a)va ale demen (HC)
You FUT go tomorrow
b. Tu vas aller demain.
“You will go tomorrow”
Similar (regional) French cognates can be found for other HC TMA markers. For
example, Progressive marker ap(e) has its source in the preposition après, employed in
the earlier French construction être après à +V “to be V-ing.” HC Prospective (a)pral(e)
can be traced to the progressive construction après (de/à) aller + V “to be going to V”.
Terminative Perfect fin(i) similarly derives from the lexical verb finir.
18
Table 2 summarizes the correspondences between the TMA markers of HC and their
regional French cognates.
Table 2. Sources of main HC TMA markers.
HC catetory HC marker Regional French sources
Perfective Unmarked Infinitival/3rd sing/particle
(Relative) Past te Imperf. était / PP été
Prospective Future (a)pral(e) après (de/à) aller
Progressive/Immediate Future ap être après à +V
Terminative (Perfect) fin(i) finir “finish”
Possible Future va (a/av/va) va(s) + V
Expectation/likelihood pu être pour + V
In fact, as DeGraff (to appear: 39) points out, “Most of the HC functional heads…
have French cognates with which they share substantial distributional and semantic
properties.”
These facts are in keeping with the view that the input to early HC came from first
and second language varieties of regional French dialects that remained available as
models during the first stages of HC formation. As DeGraff (to appear), Chaudenson
(1995), Detgers (2000) and others have argued, the emergence of these TMA categories
can be accounted for in terms of simplification and reanalysis of the French models by
second language learners. These processes and outcomes can be found in other cases
where Africans and other learners acquire French as a second language (Mather 1995;
Prévost & White 2000). All of these situations also allow for a certain degree of L1
influence in the restructuring of the TMA system. As Mather (1995:259) points out:
19
“Once the French periphrastic constructions were stripped of their inflectional
endings by the first generation of creole speakers, they could be reinterpreted as
preverbal TMA markers by adult and children speakers of Kwa languages, who
identified them with their own L1 TMA markers.”
This might allow for some compromise between the strict “superstratist” account of
HC formation offered by Chaudenson (1995) and the quite different “substratist” account
offered by LeFebvre (1998).
We would expect that, in cases where superstrate input is more limited, creole
creators would compensate for this by drawing more heavily on L1 knowledge as well as
the internal resources of their developing IL system. A case in point is Sranan Tongo.
5.2. The emergence of TMA in Sranan Tongo.
Like Haitian, Sranan Tongo employs preverbal free forms to express temporal, aspectual and modal meanings. One exception is the perfect marker kaba, which always occurs in VP-final position. The inventory of the major tense/aspect categories and the forms that express them in SN are shown in Table 3. Note that Potential sa is more of a modal than a marker of just future time reference, but it is included here for purposes of comparison with o, the other marker of futurity.
Table 3. Major Tense/Aspect categories in Sranan (Winford 2000)