The effect of language contact on Romance verbal paradigms: an empirical survey
Abstract
Rather than conveying morphosyntactic meaning, conjugation classes determine how such properties are expressed. Conjugation classes are therefore ‘ornamental’ properties of language and clearly not essential to communication. Such purely formal distinctions tend to be absent from contact varieties largely because adults have a natural tendency to bypass linguistic features that are perceived as semantically unnecessary (e.g., Seuren and Wekker 1986, McWhorter 2001). The goal of this paper, however, will be to show that language contact does not necessarily lead to a loss of meaningless forms. Building on recent work by Luís (2008, forthcoming), we provide empirical evidence which shows that Romance conjugation classes respond in different ways to language contact. In particular, we show that conjugation classes may undergo different types of morphological change, such as lexicalization, levelling, retention and extension. Our evidence will be drawn from contact varieties which have derived from the contact between one Romance language (either Portuguese or Spanish) and one (or more than one) non-Romance language.
References
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Baerman, M. 2007. Morphological typology of deponency. In: M. Baerman et al. (Eds.). Deponency and morphological mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-19.
Bakker, P. 2003. Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In: Y. Matras; P. Bakker (Eds.). The Mixed Language Debate. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 107-150.
Baptista, M. 2003. Inflectional plural marking in pidgins and creoles: a compara- tive study. In: I. Plag (Ed.). Phonology and Morphology of Creole Languages. Linguistische Arbeiten 478. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 315-332.
Baptista, M.; Mello, H.; Suzuki, M. 2007. Cape Verdean Creole and Guinea- Bissau Creole. In: J. Holm; P. Patrick (Eds.) Comparative Creole Syntax. London: Battlebridge, 53-82.
Boretzky, N.; Igla, B. 1994. Romani Mixed Dialects. In: P. Bakker; M. Maarten (Eds.). Mixed Languages. 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining. Ams- terdam: IFOTT, 35-68.
Cardoso, H. 2006. Diu Indo-Portuguese: change and continuity since 1882. Paper presented at the meeting of the Associação de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola, University of Coimbra.
Clements, J. C. 1996. The Genesis of a Language: The formation and development of Korlai Portuguese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Clements, J. C.; Koontz-Garboden, A. 2002. Two Indo-Portuguese Creoles in Contrast. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 17(2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191-236.
Crothers, J. 1978. Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems. In: J. Greenberg (Ed.). Universals of Human Language. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, Vol. 2, 93-152.
DeGraff, M. 2005. Morphology and word order in ‘creolization’ and beyond. In: G. Cinque; R. S. Kayne (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford: OUP, 293-372.
Kihm, A. 1994. Kriyol Syntax. The Portuguese-based Creole Language of Guiné- Bissau. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klein, W.; Perdue, C. 1997. The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research. 13(4): 301-47.
Luis, A. R. forthcoming. Tense marking and inflectional morphology in Indo- Portuguese creoles. In: S. Michaelis (Ed.). Roots of creole structures: weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Luis, A. R. 2008. Conjugation classes in Portuguese-based creoles. Paper given at the meeting of the Associação de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, July 4.
Maiden, M. 2008. Why heteroclisis? Paper given at the International Conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, University of Cambridge, March.
Masica, C. P. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP.
Matras, Y.; Bakker, P. (Eds., 2003). The Mixed Language Debate. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McWhorter, J. H. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology. 5: 125-166.
Plag, I. 2008. Creoles as interlanguages: inflectional morphology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 23(1): 114-131.
Prévost, P.; White, L. 2000. Missing Surface Inflection or Impairment in Second Language Acquisition? Evidence from Tense and Agreement. Second Lan- guage Research. 16(2): 103-133.
Rosensweig, J. B. Caló. Gutter Spanish. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Schuchardt, H. 1883. Kreolische Studien III. Ueber das Indoportugiesische von Diu. In: Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (philosophisch-historische Klasse) 103, 3-18.
Seuren, P.; Wekker, H. 1986. Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In: P. Muysken; N. Smith (Eds.) Substrata versus universals in creole genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57-70.
Siegel, J. 2004. Morphological simplicity in pidgins and creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 19(1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139-162.
Stump, G. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language. 82(2): 279- 322.
Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Veenstra, T. 2003. What verbal morphology can tell us about creole genesis. In: I. Plag (Ed.). Phonology and Morphology of Creole Languages. Linguistische Arbeiten 478. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 293-313.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Linguística Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
