Diversity and complexity in the typology of syllables in Creole languages

Thomas B. Klein

Georgia Southern UniversityDepartment of Writing & LinguisticsP.O. Box 8026Statesboro, GA 30458USA+1-912-681-0986tklein@georgiasouthern.eduwww.georgiasouthern.edu/~tklein

1

Diversity and complexity in the typology of syllables in Creole languages

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis and systematic survey of types of syllables based on atypological sample of 23 Creole languages. Onsets, codas and the occurrence of thesyllable types V, CV, CVC, VC, CCV, CCVC, CVCC, VCC and CCVCC areinvestigated based on data from Atlantic, African, Asian and Pacific Creoles withEuropean and non-European lexifier languages. In this strictly synchronic approach, it isfound that no Creole has exclusively CV syllables, that the syllable inventories of Creolelanguages are diverse and that they may exhibit considerable complexity. It is shown thatthe most common syllable template in Creole languages is (C) (C) V (C). These resultshave important implications for the understanding of Creole syllables because most viewsof syllable typology in Creole languages are grounded in the idea that simple CVsyllables are dominant. Instead, Creole languages center on a medium degree ofcomplexity in terms of the inventory of syllables they allow.

Introduction

Surveys of the structure of Creole languages have maintained that CV syllables, that is,open syllables consisting of a vowel preceded by a consonant, are dominant in theprosodic structure of these languages (e.g. Bartens 1995, Holm 2000, Kaye & Tosco2001, Romaine 1988). It has even been claimed that CV syllables are the only typeoccurring in Creole languages.

"Creoles have no initial or final consonant clusters. They have a simple syllablestructure which consists of alternating consonants and vowels, e.g. CVCV."(Romaine 1988: 63)

The alleged preference for CV syllables is taken to be the root cause for phonologicalrestructuring in superstrate words. Processes of vowel insertion, consonant deletion ormetathesis may indeed conspire to produce Creole forms that are more CV-like than thecorresponding items in European superstrate languages. The restructuring seen in (1)results in Creole words with exclusively CV syllables.

(1) Creole form Etymon Languagekupa ocupar Príncipesisa sister Sranankini knie Negerhollandspilime plume Mauritiansukú oscuro, escuro Papiamentu

(Data from Holm 2000: 141 ff.)

Words with divergent syllable types, in particular involving complex onsets and codas,have generally been treated as late or decreolized additions to the lexicon of a given

2

Creole language (e.g. Alleyne 1980, Boretzky 1983, Mühlhäusler 1997). Recent research,however, has shown that even languages considered radical Creoles like Saramaccan andSranan have syllables with complex onsets in the earliest stages of their formation.Examples shared by Early Saramaccan and Early Sranan are smoko ‘smoke’ and srepi‘self’. In addition to CCV syllables, Early St. Kittian and Early Jamaican also routinelyallow for syllable codas, as in lib ‘live’ and pass ‘past’. This evidence is important in thepresent context because it refutes the global idea that complex Creole syllables arenecessarily the result of later developments or decreolization. In other words, there isstrong evidence that the tendency towards CV word structure may have developed overtime, at least in the Suriname Creoles (Aceto 1996, Plag & Schramm, forthcoming; cf.Mühlhäusler 1997: 189).

A closer look at the evidence reveals that syllable types other than CV are attestedeven in items that have been subject to phonological restructuring and in Creolelanguages that are claimed to be influenced by the CV pattern.

(2) Non-CV syllable Creole form Etymon Language (a) a V álima alma Príncipe (b) flo CCV konofló knoflook Papiamentu

gro CCV groto groot Negerhollandswro CCV wroko work Sranan

(Data from Holm 2000: 141 ff.) (c) ret CVC sitiret straight Tok Pisin

(Example from Sebba 1997: 110)

The evidence in (2) shows that phonological restructuring in Creole languages does notuniformly result in CV syllables. Instead, restructured words may contain onsetlesssyllables, closed syllables or open syllables with complex onsets. This evidence suggeststhat syllable structures across Creole languages are significantly more varied thancommonly assumed. This idea is supported by observations in the literature that certainCreole languages fail to exhibit any significant tendency towards CV structure. AtlanticFrench-lexified Creoles have been cited in this context (e.g. Holm 2000, McWhorter2000, Parkvall 2000). Codas and consonant clusters may be found in other Creoleslanguages as well. For instance, Negerhollands routinely tolerates onset clusters andobstruent codas as in forfluk ‘sly’ (Sabino 1990, 1993, Stolz 1986; see also Parkvall2000).

Given that Creole syllable structure seems significantly more diverse thanpreviously assumed, the question arises as to what the actual syllable types of Creolelanguages are. However, no systematic survey of the syllable typology of Creolelanguages is available to date to address it. Few descriptive works of individual Creolelanguages such as Carrington 1984 and Stolz 1986 provide detailed analyses of syllabletypes. Linguists have no general source to glean the syllable typology of Creolelanguages. This is a significant shortcoming given the importance of Creole syllablestructure in discussions of substrate influence, diachronic development, decreolization,synchronic simplicity and uniformity, among other issues. Thus, it is important todevelop and implement a survey and analysis of the synchronic syllable types of Creolelanguages based on objective criteria.

3

It has been argued recently that the synchronic grammars of Creole languages arein some significant sense simple in comparison to the grammars of non-Creole languages(McWhorter 2001). This Creole simplicity hypothesis has not been tested with data fromsyllable structure. It is not possible at this point to compare a sufficiently rich sample ofthe syllable structure of non-Creole languages with the present sample of Creolelanguages. No comprehensive typological database and analysis of non-Creole syllablescomparable to, for instance, Maddieson’s (1984) work on consonants and vowels isavailable. Given that it appears that the syllable structure of Creole languages is richerthan previously thought, it is possible to test the Creole simplicity hypothesis by lookingat just the set of attested inventories of syllable types in Creole languages. If thephonology of Creole languages was indeed overwhelmingly simple, we would expect tofind a significant majority of simple syllable type inventories, perhaps similar to the CVdominance claimed in earlier works. It will be shown in the course of this paper that thisprediction of the Creole simplicity hypothesis is not confirmed. Instead, significantevidence is uncovered to support the idea that the synchronic syllable typology of Creolelanguages tends to occupy middle ground in terms of complexity.

This paper takes seriously the idea of diversity in Creole syllable structure andpresents results of a systematic survey of synchronic syllable types based on a typologicalsample of the world’s Creole languages. The remainder of the paper is structured asfollows. I show next how the present sample is constructed. Following this, basics ofsyllable structure and syllable typology are laid out. The analysis of the database isfollowed by a discussion of some of the implications of the results before conclusions areoffered. The appendix provides illustrative examples of the syllable types found in thelanguages in the present sample.

Database of Creole languages

The present sample is constructed to represent the range of Creole languages around theworld. Care is taken to include Creoles from diverse locations and with European andnon-European lexifiers. This is done to ensure that generalizations are based on Creolelanguages as a global phenomenon, not just a particular group of them. FollowingMaddieson’s (1984) work on the typology of phonemic systems, a quota sample isemployed. The quota is to bring in two Creoles with the same or very similar lexifierfrom a given geographical area wherever possible. The aim is to provide a balancedsample, to enable sampling efficiency and to ensure maximal diversity of languageswhile keeping the size of the database manageable.

Acrolectal Creoles, varieties or vocabulary are generally excluded. The reason isthat acrolectal material tends to be closest to the syllable structure of the correspondinglexifier languages and is, hence, not indicative of Creole structures. The focus is onmesolectal and basilectal varieties to make sure that distinctly Creole linguistic formsmake up as much of the database as possible. Recent additions to the lexicon of a givenCreole such as loanwords from European lexifiers have been avoided wherever they areobvious or the sources identify them. For example, additions from Dutch to the lexicon ofPapiamentu or loans from Guyanese Creole English in the lexicon of Berbice have beendisregarded to focus on the core of these Creole languages rather than the periphery.

4

There is also a bias towards the quality of the available descriptions. Creolelanguages are chosen in part based on how detailed the information on the phonology andword structure is in the sources and how reliable this information seems. Mostdescriptions of individual Creole languages do not discuss syllable structure in greatdetail. The necessary data to establish the range of syllable types in a given Creolelanguage must often be extracted from examples provided for other purposes or fromtexts, glossaries or dictionaries. As much as possible, only words that appearmonomorphemic in the Creole languages are considered for the present analysis. Onlylanguages with sources cumulatively containing enough data represented in some sort ofphonetic representation could be considered for the present study.

The sample contains 23 Creole languages. Table 1 lays out how they are classifiedaccording to geographic area and lexifier language. The sources for the data are identifiedin the appendix. Note that the sample includes varieties that have only recently becomenativized as Creoles such as Tok Pisin and Sango.

Area IE-Lexifier CreoleAtlantic Dutch Negerhollands

BerbiceEnglish Ndyuka

SaramaccanFrench Haitian

St. LucianPortuguese Angolar

São TomenseSpanish Papiamentu

PalenqueroIndian Ocean/ German UnserdeutschPacific English Bislama

Tok PisinFrench Mauritian

TayoPortuguese Sri Lankan

KristangSpanish Zamboangueño

ErmitañoNon-IE-Lexifier

Africa Bantu KitubaSango

Arabic NubiAsia Malay Baba Malay

Table 1. Creoles in sample

The lexifier languages are assigned the central role in classifying the Creoles in thesample linguistically. The basic geographical division for Creoles with Indo-Europeanlexifier languages is between Atlantic creoles and the parts of the world delineated by the

5

Indian Ocean and the Pacific. The five European lexifier languages Dutch, English,French, Portuguese and Spanish are easily matched with two Creoles each in the Atlanticarea. This is less straightforward for the Pacific Rim/Indian Ocean Creoles because thereis no Dutch-lexified Creole in this area. Rabaul Creole German (Unserdeutsch) takes theplace of a Dutch Creole here given that the lexifier languages are very closely related.Creoles with non-Indo-European lexifiers are considered equally important for thecomprehensive understanding of Creole languages. They are classified geographicallyaccording to the continent on which they are found. There is only one Arabic-lexified andMalay-lexified Creole represented because of a lack of descriptive resources to extractsyllable structure information on other languages of this type.

Syllable structure and typology

For the purposes of this investigation, syllables are broadly defined descriptively as asurface sequence of consonant (C) and vowel (V) units dominated by the constituentsonset, nucleus and coda. Only nuclei are obligatory, whereas all other units are optional,as shown by parentheses, where appropriate. As an illustration, the syllable structure ofthe Unserdeutsch word /traxt/ ‘dress’ is displayed in (3) (σ = syllable, O = onset, N =nucleus, Cd = coda).

(3) σ

O N Cd

C C V C C

t r a x t

The sonority of the segments involved is a deciding factor in how they are arranged intosyllables. Vowels are most sonorous; glides, sonorants, fricatives and plosives decrease insonority, in that order. The nucleus is the sonority peak in a syllable, whereas segmentspreceding and following the nucleus have progressively less sonority. In the structure in(3), the peripheral plosive /t/ has the lowest sonority, the vowel peak /a/ has the highest,and the non-peripheral consonants /r/ and /x/ have intermediate degrees of sonority. Awell-known complication in the relation between sonority and syllable structure concernsclusters of /s/ or // followed by obstruents, which can be found in many Europeanlanguages. Against expectation, sonority does not progressively decrease towards theedge of the syllable in these clusters. There has been a diversity of approaches to resolvethis issue in the phonological literature. Some researchers have argued that /s/ or // areprespecified in onset position (e.g. Giegerich 1992), whereas others have maintained that/s/ or // are adjoined to the onset node (see Kenstowicz 1994). For the purposes of this

6

paper, I assume that clusters of /s/ or // plus obstruent belong to the syllable onsetwherever feasible. Among the optional constituents of the syllable, onsets are moreimportant than codas. Following Kahn (1976), among others, onsets are maximal in thatmaking legitimate onsets has priority over forming a legitimate coda. As one result, VCVsequences are syllabified as V.CV, where the dot indicates the syllable boundary. Asanother consequence, complex onsets are formed word-internally at the expense of codasif the complex onset can occur word-initially. However, complex onsets are not formedword-internally if they cannot occur word-initially.

There is good reason to argue that the Arabic-lexified Creole Nubi presents aninstance of the situation just given. This language exhibits a rich array of word-internalconsonant sequences, but there are no corresponding word-initial clusters. For example,given words such as /libra/ ‘needle’ and /asma/ ‘name’, one would expect wordsbeginning with br- and sm-. However, the only word-initial clusters found in Nubi areinstances of consonant plus w in a few words of African or unknown origin as in/gwanda/ ‘cassava’ (see Heine 1982, Pasch & Thelwall 1987). If clusters such as br- andsm- are analyzed as hetero-syllabic, even though the segments would fit into a singleonset according to their sonority profile, then the unexpected absence of word-initialclusters can be accounted for. They are not licensed because clusters not involving /w/are not allowed anywhere in the language. Thus, I propose that Nubi has essentially a (C)V (C) syllable template like its lexifier Arabic (see Kenstowicz 1994 and references citedthere) and that words such as the ones above are syllabified as /lib.ra/ and /as.ma/,respectively.

Across a variety of theoretical persuasions, the CV-phonology model (Clements1990; Clements & Keyser 1983) and the parameter-based approach to syllable typologyin Blevins (1995) have been influential with researchers aiming to understand thetypology of surface syllables in the languages of the world. The core syllable typology inthe CV-phonology model in (4) may be seen as constrained variations of the prototypicalCV syllable. Note that each C and V can represent a potential cluster in this model.

(4) Core syllable typology (Clements 1990, Clements & Keyser 1983)

Type I: CVType II: CV, VType III: CV, CVCType IV: CV, V, CVC, VC

In type I, syllables must have onsets and must be open. Languages of type II prohibitcodas, but onsets are optional. Closed syllables are allowed in type III, and onsets areobligatory. Type IV languages allow syllables without onsets as well as open and closedsyllables.

According to Blevins (1995), languages can be described in terms of a small setof binary-valued parameters defined over the sub-syllabic constituents onset and coda.The obligatory onset parameter determines whether an onset is required or not. The codaparameter decides whether a language allows codas or not. The complex onset andcomplex coda parameters determine whether a language does or does not allow complex

7

onsets or codas, respectively. Blevins (1995) also encodes edge effects, that is, theoccurrence of certain syllable types in peripheral versus medial position in the word.Following Blevins’ distinction between simple and complex onsets and codas, I haveinvestigated the occurrence of the following syllable types in Creole languages: V, CV,CVC, VC, CCV, CCVC, CVCC, VCC, and CCVCC.

Based on the set of potential surface syllable types and the settings for the foursyllable structure parameters, a language allowing only CV syllables shows the profile in(5).

(5) Typological profile for CV language (cf. Blevins 1995)

(a) Syllable types

V CV CVC VC CCV CCVC CVCC VCC CCVCCyes

(b) Parameter settings

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

yes no no no

Naturally, a strict CV language would only allow that syllable type, as in (5) (a). Only theobligatory onset parameter would be set to ‘yes’, whereas all other parameters would beswitched off, as in (5) (b). This is a simple inventory by any measure. Note that most, ifnot all, Creole languages should exhibit this profile, according to common wisdom inmuch of linguistics. As shown below, this turns out to be a myth when confronted withtypological data from the world’s Creole languages.

Onsets

The investigation of Creole syllables may be approached by looking at onsets and codasas distinct constituents. As far as onsets are concerned, the present investigation hasfound that no Creole language in the sample requires them. In other words, Creoles allowsyllables with or without onsets. This is expressed as the generalization in (6).

(6) No Creole language requires syllable onsets.

Table 2 provides data for onsetless syllables from all of the Creoles in the sample. Morespecifically, it provides examples for syllables consisting only of V in word-initialposition. Many Creole languages also allow VC syllables in word-initial position; someeven permit VCC syllables. Examples for such syllable types may be found in theappendix. In Table 2 and below, glosses have been translated if the original language ofthe source is not English. No gloss has been attempted if none could be found for a givenitem in the source.

8

Negerhollands /ale:/ ‘alone’ /izu/ ‘iron’Berbice /atriti/ ‘reverse’ /oboko/ ‘hen’Ndyuka /agwado/ ‘stringed instrument’ /okoo/ ‘okra’Saramaccan /eside/ ‘yesterday’ /oto/ ‘other’Haitian /emab/ ‘amiable’ /ijen/ ‘hygiene’St. Lucian /epi/ ‘with, and’ /ofe/ ‘to offer’Angolar /abi/ ‘April’ /ome/‘human’São Tomense /ami/ ‘I’ /ose/ ‘sky’Papiamentu /iglesia/ ‘church’ /uzu/ no gloss givenPalenquero /abla/ ‘speak’ /uto/ no gloss givenUnserdeutsch /abn/ ‘evening’Bislama /akis/ ‘axe’ /eli/ ‘early’ Tok Pisin /abris/ ‘go past’ /epa/ ‘stingray’Mauritian /ale/ ‘to go’ /ena/ ‘there’Tayo /ako/ ‘again’ /ale/ ‘to go’Sri Lankan /ra/ ‘miss’ /æ:tik/ ‘tuberculosis’Kristang /eli/ ‘he, she, it’Zamboangueño /amo/ ‘boss’ /otro/ ‘other’Ermitaño /ele/ no gloss given /ohos/ ‘eyes’Kituba /awa/ ‘here’ /i.nsi/ ‘land’Sango /ape/ no gloss givenNubi /akulu/ ‘to eat’ /ila/ ‘except’Baba Malay /anak/ ‘baby’ /ula/ ‘snake’

Table 2. Onsetless syllables in Creoles

The data in Table 2 show that syllables consisting only of a nucleus are allowed in allCreoles. In terms of the CV-phonology model, this immediately excludes Creolelanguages from Type I and Type III because these types presume obligatory onsets for allsyllables. In terms of Blevins’ framework, the obligatory onset parameter is set to ‘no’ inall Creole languages. Furthermore, there appears to be a fairly strong edge effect, that is,onsetless syllables seem to be permitted only word-initially, for the most part. I havecome across data and reports of vowel hiatus in several Creoles, however. It is attested ina few Creole languages in the sample, as in Baba Malay /a.os/ ‘thirsty’, Berbice /bu.in/‘hide’, Sango /to.a/ (no gloss given), St. Lucian /ãvi.e/ ‘curious’ and Zamboangueño/a.ora/ ‘now’. Unfortunately, the currently available data sources preclude a more detailedinvestigation of the occurrence of vowel hiatus across Creole languages.

All Creole languages have CV syllables, that is, open syllables with a single onsetconsonant before the vocalic nucleus. This result is not surprising given that CV syllablesare found in any natural language. Examples may be gleaned from the appendix and fromTable 2, where most word-initial V-syllables are followed by a CV syllable.

It has been claimed in some works that CV syllables are overall most frequent inCreole languages. Few researchers have presented any quantitative analysis of Creolesyllable types, however. CV syllables are the most frequent type judging from Stolz’s(1986) numbers. In Carrington’s 1984 count of St. Lucian French Creole, CV syllables

9

occur in 61.33% of the total corpus analyzed. Whereas these results are suggestive, therehas been no systematic investigation of syllable type frequencies across Creoles. Thepresent investigation abstracts away from the question of syllable frequency. Instead, itfocuses on determining which syllable types and constituents are licensed to occur in thecore vocabulary of a given Creole. The goal is to uncover the possible, not the mostfrequent, syllable types of Creole languages and to make typological generalizationsframed in the phonological models selected. Thus, it is tangential to the present concernsif CV syllables are the most frequently occurring type in Creole languages, even thoughthis question is of interest to Creole studies and linguistics in general, of course.

Syllables with complex onsets, that is, at least two non-vocalic segments beforethe vocalic nucleus, are found in nearly all Creole languages. It seems necessary torecognize two classes, however. A few Creoles allow only glides (G) to the immediateleft of the nucleus, giving CGV structures, whereas a larger second class allows a fullerset of consonants in this position, in particular sonorants and glides. Saramaccan, BabaMalay and, with very few exceptions of Cw clusters, Nubi are the only languages in thesample allowing exclusively single onsets in citation forms. However, Pakir (1986)reports on a fast-speech rule of schwa-deletion in Baba Malay which creates word-initialCC clusters, e.g. /skali/ [skali], /prut/ [prot] (with vowel-lowering) (no glossesgiven). Thus, it appears that CC onsets may occur post-lexically in Baba Malay. Table 3lays out Creole complex onsets in citation forms with examples for all languages in thesample. Additional initial cluster data may be found in the appendix.

CG Ndyuka /dyendee/ ‘splendid’ /kwaka/‘cassava granules’Kituba /kudya/ ‘to eat’ /kwenda/‘to go’

CC Negerhollands /bwa/ ‘preserve’ /groma/ ‘greedy’Berbice /plk/ ‘place’ /speki/ ‘pork’Haitian /klu/ ‘nail’ /bra/ ‘arm’St. Lucian /plãte/ ‘to plant’ /bizwe/ ‘to need’Angolar /bwaru/ ‘good’ /staka/ ‘picket’São Tomense /tlisa/ ‘jaundice’ /kwelo/ ‘rabbit’Papiamentu /skapa/ ‘escape’ /subla/ ‘blow’Palenquero /drumi/ ‘to sleep’ /kumbla/ ‘to buy’Unserdeutsch /fry/ ‘early’ /kwel/ ‘source’Bislama /slo/ ‘slow’ /smol/ ‘small’Tok Pisin /tri/ ‘tree, three’ /klos/ ‘clothes’Mauritian /prekot/ ‘near’ /lapli/ ‘rain’Tayo /pli/ ‘plus’ /pukwa/ ‘why’Sri Lankan /dre:tu/ ‘correct’ /kwæ:ntru/ ‘coriander’Kristang /greza/ ‘church’ /stiru/ ‘style’Zamboangueño /klase/ ‘class’ /alegre/ ‘happy’Ermitaño /klaa/ ‘club’ /entro/ ‘inside’Sango /srango/ ‘doing’ /skula/ ‘to wash’

Table 3. Complex onsets in Creoles

10

20 out of 23 Creole (= 87%) in the sample routinely have complex onsets of some kind incitation forms. 2 of these 20 Creoles allow only glides as C2 in C1C2V complex onsetstructures. All other Creoles (18 of 23 = 78%) allow sonorant consonants as C2. Theseresults are the empirical backdrop for the generalization in (7).

(7) The great majority of Creole languages allows complex syllable onsets.

Recall that the CV-phonology typology does not distinguish between single and complexonsets. Thus, it cannot express the distinction between Creoles with only single onsetsand those with complex onsets. As far as the parameter-based model is concerned, thecomplex onset parameter is set to ‘yes’ in the vast majority of Creoles, allowing complexonsets. A minority of Creole languages has this parameter set to ‘no’, allowing onlysingle onsets.

The data in (8) provide evidence concerning the question if there is an edge effectacross Creoles with respect to complex onsets. A percentage of these examples is familiarfrom Tables 2 and 3.

(8) Word-internal complex onsets

Negerhollands /forfluk/ ‘sly’Berbice /atriti/ ‘reverse’Ndyuka /agwado/ ‘stringed instrument’Haitian /ijen/ ‘hygiene’St. Lucian /bizwe/ ‘to need’Angolar /uvwa/ ‘nine’São Tomense /kopla/ ‘to buy’Papiamentu /iglesia/ ‘church’Palenquero /abla/ ‘speak’Unserdeutsch /gmyk/ ‘decorated’Bislama /katres/ ‘cartridge’Tok Pisin /abris/ ‘go past’Mauritian /lapli/ ‘rain’Tayo /pukwa/ ‘why’Sri Lankan /kwæ:ntru/ ‘coriander’Kristang /ombru/ ‘shoulder’Zamboangueño /otro/ ‘other’Ermitaño /entro/ ‘inside’Kituba /uvwa/ ‘nine’Sango /ndapre/ no gloss given

The data in (8) reveal that all Creoles that allow complex onsets permit them word-internally. Recall that Saramaccan, Nubi and Baba Malay do not tolerate complex onsetsand, hence, do not appear in (8). Thus, there is no edge effect with regard to complexonsets found in any of the Creoles.

11

Codas

The claim that CV syllables are dominant in Creole languages entails that the greatmajority of Creoles should allow only open syllables. This section presents results of thecurrent investigation concerning codas in Creoles. Glides and nasals in potential codaposition have been excluded from the count when these elements are the only ones foundin coda position. Single codas of glides and nasals are often considered not to be ‘real’codas, in part because of the vocoid properties of glides and the frequently observedalternations of oral vowels plus nasal codas with nasal vowels. Thus, only the occurrenceof non-nasal sonorants or obstruents in the right periphery of the syllable establishes thepresence of the coda constituent for the present survey.

A handful of Creole languages do not allow codas by the measure used in thissurvey. They are Saramaccan, Ndyuka, Angolar, Kituba and Sango. This result is perhapsnot surprising. Saramaccan, Ndyuka and Angolar are considered to be among the mostradical and conservative Creoles in the world, whereas Kituba and Sango are lexified byBantu languages, which generally do not allow closed syllables. The remainder of theCreole languages in the sample allows codas consisting of single consonants. An edgeeffect may be observed as well. Dots have been given in Table 4 to mark syllableboundaries that may not be immediately obvious from the outline of syllabificationprinciples given earlier.

No edge effect Word-final Word-medialNegerhollands /gobed/ ‘prayer’ /forfluk/ ‘sly’Berbice /glof/ ‘believe’ /fur.stan/ ‘understand’Haitian /sik/ ‘sugar’ /es.plãdid/ ‘splendid’St. Lucian /dokte/ ‘physician’ /uval/ ‘horse’Papiamentu /berdat/ ‘truth’ /falsu/ ‘mean’Unserdeutsch /gros/ ‘large’ /vl.h/ ‘which’Bislama /swit/ ‘sweet’ /has.ban/ ‘husband’Tok Pisin /fis/ ‘fish’ /alta/ ‘altar’Mauritian /latab/ ‘table’ /palto/ ‘jacket’Tayo /kat/ ‘four’ /solda/ ‘soldier’Sri Lankan /dews/ ‘god’ /korpu/ ‘body’Kristang /fasel/ ‘easy’ /uz.du/ ‘cuckold’Zamboangueño /abril/ ‘April’ /kombersa/ ‘speak’Ermitaño /bos/ ‘voice’ /pwelte/ no gloss givenNubi /marid/ ‘fever’ /wakti/ ‘time’Baba Malay /anak/ ‘baby’ /basat/ ‘bed-bug’

Edge effectSão Tomense /palma/ ‘palm tree’ /farkon/ ‘falcon’Palenquero /ah.ma/ no gloss given /olbia/ no gloss given

Table 4. Single codas in Creoles

12

All of the Creoles in Table 4 show non-nasal sonorants or obstruents in coda position.This does not preclude nasals or glides from occurring in this position, of course. Forexample, the Bislama word /swit/ ‘sweet’ clearly establishes the coda by allowing theplosive /t/ at the end of the word. In the word /has.ban/ ‘husband’, the fricative /s/ is alsoa coda because it cannot form a complex onset with the following consonant /b/.Naturally, nasals as in the syllable /ban/ are found in coda position as well.

A closer look at the data in Table 4 reveals the edge effect in the availability ofcodas. In São Tomense and Palenquero, codas are permitted in word-medial position, butno codas other than nasal consonants appear word-finally. In Palenquero, however,obstruent codas occur as the result of a post-lexical rule through elision of word-finalunaccented vowels following consonants (e.g. [kus] - /kusa/ ‘thing’, [entons] - /entonse/‘then’ and [tampok] - /tampoko/ ‘either’ in Bickerton & Escalante 1970: 257). All otherCreoles in Table 4 allow codas word-finally and word-medially in citation forms.

18 out of 23 Creole languages (= 78%) allow single non-nasal codas. This is animportant result for the understanding of Creole languages because it is completelyunexpected under the dominant CV idea. If open syllables were pervasive in the structureof Creole languages, we would expect most Creoles not to allow closed syllables.However, quite the opposite is the case, as expressed in the generalization in (9).

(9) The great majority of Creole languages allows closed syllables.

Given this generalization and the one in (6) above, only a minority of Creole languages inthe CV-phonology typology model is of Type II, that is, allowing onsetless syllables, butno closed ones. Type IV must serve the majority of Creoles because it features onsetlessand closed syllables. As far as the parameter-based model is concerned, the codaparameter is set to ‘yes’, therefore allowing closed syllables, in the great majority ofCreole languages. A minority of Creoles has it set to ‘no’, therefore allowing only opensyllables.

In the present sample, complex codas are robustly attested in a few Creolelanguages: Haitian, Mauritian, Negerhollands and Unserdeutsch. Consider the data in(10).

(10) Complex codas

(a) Haitian (Valdman1981)/kilt/ ‘cult’ /fiks/ ‘set, firm’/filt/ ‘filter’ /taks/ ‘tax’

(b) Mauritian (Baker & Hookoomsing 1987)/rekolt/ ‘harvest’ /fiks/ ‘firm, stuck’/filt/ ‘filter’ /taks/ ‘tax’

(c) Negerhollands/tomp/ ‘stomp’ (Sabino 1993)/kerk/ ‘church’ (Stolz 1986)

(d) Unserdeutsch (Volker 1982)/finf/ ‘five’ /as/ ‘afraid’

13

Valdman (1978) has stated that only the final consonant clusters /lt/ and /ks/ are found inFrench-lexified Creole languages. This is confirmed for Haitian and Mauritian, as seen in(10) (a) and (10) (b), respectively. The sources on St. Lucian and Tayo, however, do notprovide enough information to investigate consonant clusters fully. We find /taks/ ‘tax’ inMondesir (1992), but other candidate entries for the clusters are missing in this dictionaryof St. Lucian. One instance of a complex coda in Tayo can also be found in Ehrhart(1993), namely, /lareserv/ ‘reserve’, but the glossary is too short to test the othercandidates for complex codas.

Negerhollands and Unserdeutsch are among the most complex Creoles known interms of syllable structure. In addition to complex codas as shown in (10) (c) and (10)(d), respectively, Negerhollands allows clusters of three consonants in word-initial onsetposition (e.g. skrau ‘scratch’, Sabino 1993) and, according to Stolz (1986), in word-finalcodas, although he provides no example for this structure. Volker (1982) reports that inUnserdeutsch /s/ is added before // in clusters with /r/ and in word-final position, e.g./spra/ ‘language’ and /mns/ ‘person’. The resulting clusters are unusually complexby any measure.

Membership in the group of Creole languages lexified by Germanic languagesother than English., however, does not predict the presence of complex codas, as the caseof Berbice Dutch Creole shows. Berbice allows single codas, but complex codas arefound only in loans from Guyanese Creole English (see the vocabulary presented inKouwenberg 1994). The relative scarcity of complex codas in Creole languages iscaptured through the generalization in (11).

(11) Complex codas are uncommon in Creole languages.

The generalization in (11) holds over the core vocabulary of basilectal or mesolectalCreole varieties. Acrolectal lexicons, recent loans etc., in particular in Germanic-lexifiedCreoles, are well-known to show instances of complex codas with some frequency.

The syllable typology in the CV-phonology model does not capture the distinctionbetween Negerhollands, Haitian and Unserdeutsch on the one hand and the Creolesallowing only single consonant codas on the other. Both groups of Creoles fall into TypeIV given that codas are allowed. The parameter-based model, however, readilydistinguishes between the two groups. For Negerhollands, Haitian and Unserdeutsch, thecomplex coda parameter is set to ‘yes’, whereas it is set to ‘no’ for all other Creoles in thesample. There appears to be an edge effect, given that no complex codas could be foundin word-medial position.

In sum, this section has shown that single consonant codas are permitted in all butthe most radical Creoles and the Bantu-lexified Creole languages. Complex codas, on theother hand, are scarce in basilectal and mesolectal varieties. The next section presents theresults of the investigation of Creole syllable types.

Syllable types

Much of current thinking in linguistics would surmise that an extremely limited range ofsyllable types is observed across Creole languages. In particular, the idea of CV-

14

dominance would predict that there are no or very few syllable types other than CV inCreoles, notwithstanding the widely acknowledged occurrence of single codas in AtlanticFrench-lexified Creoles. The extent of the discussion of syllable types varies considerablyin descriptions of Creole languages. Some works offer excellent and wide-ranginginformation on syllable structure (e.g. Carrington 1984, Smith 1977, Stolz 1986), whereasit is treated scantily or not at all in many other works. In the present article, I aim totabulate the syllable types in Creole languages that can be extracted from the availablesources and present this information so that meaningful comparisons across Creoles andwith non-Creole languages are possible. Consider Table 5 in this context.

V CV CVC VC CCV CCVC CVCC VCC CCVCCyes yes Saramaccanyes yes yes Angolar, Kituba,

Ndyuka, Sangoyes yes yes yes Baba Malay, Nubiyes yes yes yes yes São Tomenseyes yes yes yes yes yes Berbice, Bislama,

Ermitaño, Kristang,Palenquero,Papiamentu, SriLankan, St. Lucian,Tayo, Tok Pisin,Zamboangueño

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Haitian, Mauritianyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Negerhollands,

Unserdeutsch

Table 5. Attested syllable types across Creoles

Table 5 shows that the Creole languages of the world exhibit a wide range of syllabletypes. The appendix presents structured data illustrating each syllable type. The datashow that all nine syllable types under investigation are attested, albeit not in all Creoles.Creole languages exhibit a cline as far as the inventory of syllable types is concerned,licensing anywhere from two to nine syllable types.

Despite the variation exhibited in Table 5, several generalizations are apparent.All Creoles have CV syllables, just like any other natural language. However, no Creolelanguage is limited to CV syllables. All Creoles have at least one additional type, namelysyllables consisting of just a vocalic nucleus. Furthermore, all Creoles, just like all othernatural languages, exhibit the following property: if clusters of n Cs are possible syllable-initially, then clusters of n–1 Cs are also possible syllable-initially, and if clusters of n Csare possible syllable-finally, then clusters of n–1 Cs are also possible syllable-finally (cf.Blevins 1995). Given Table 5, this means that the presence of clusters in onsets or codasentails the presence of single consonants in these positions, but not vice versa. Forinstance, a language like Baba Malay has single onsets and codas, but no complex ones.On the other hand, São Tomense has complex and single onsets.

15

Most of the inventories in Table 5 cannot be distinguished under the CV-phonology typology. According to this model, Saramaccan, Angolar, Kituba, Ndyuka andSango would all be Type II because they allow only open syllables, whereas all otherCreoles would be Type IV, allowing codas. A more fine-grained model is needed tounderstand the variety of syllable types attested in Creole languages. The parameter-based model is better suited to account for the Creole syllable type inventories, but alsocannot capture all of them. The first inventory allows V and CV syllables; it is easilyaccounted for in the parameter-based model.

(12) Inventory: V, CV (Saramaccan)

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

no no no no

The syllable type inventory in (12) is the least marked that is possible in the parameter-based model, according to Blevins (1995). Given ‘no’ as the unmarked parameter settingand ‘yes’ as the marked one, the least marked inventory results when all parameters areset to ‘no’. This is interesting from the point of view of Creole linguistics given that ishas been argued numerous times that Creoles grammars are in some significant senseunmarked or, conversely, lack marked patterns or inventories. By this token, we wouldexpect a significant number of Creole languages with the parameter profile in (12) andthe resulting syllable type inventory of V and CV. However, this is not the case by a widemargin. Most Creoles allow codas and complex onsets, showing that Creole syllableinventories are rarely entirely unmarked. Instead, the vast majority of Creole syllableinventories contains syllable types of at least some degree of markedness. Inventories allowing only open syllables, but also complex onsets are easilyaccounted for in the parameter-based model. Consider the parameter settings in (13).

(13) Inventory: V, CV, CCV (Angolar, Kituba, Ndyuka, Sango)

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

no yes no no

The parameter settings in (13) allow for CCV syllables because the complex onsetparameter is set to ‘yes’. The next profile restricts codas and onsets to single units.

(14) Inventory: V, CV, CVC, VC (Baba Malay, Nubi)

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

no no yes no

The parameter settings for this inventory seem straightforward: the complex onsetparameter and the complex coda parameter are both set to ‘no’.

16

The profile in (15) accounts for most Creole languages.

(15) Inventory: V, CV, CVC, VC, CCV, CCVC(Berbice, Bislama, Ermitaño, Kristang, Palenquero, Papiamentu, Sri Lankan, St.Lucian, Tayo, Tok Pisin, Zamboangueño)

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

no yes yes no

The settings in (15) are clearly marked, given that two parameters are set to ‘yes’,including the complex onset parameter. The robust occurrence of this profile isunexpected under the traditional understanding of the syllable structure of Creolelanguages. However, Creole languages across the spectrum of European lexifierlanguages allow single codas and complex onsets resulting in six different syllable types.

The most complex inventory is also straightforwardly accounted for in theparameter-based model.

(16) Inventory: V, CV, CVC, VC, CCV, CCVC, CVCC, VCC, CCVCC(Negerhollands, Unserdeutsch)

Oblig.Onset

ComplexOnset

Coda ComplexCoda

no yes yes yes

This is the richest inventory in the sample, allowing nine syllable types. Complex codasare found together with all possibilities for the onset position. All parameters except theobligatory onset parameter are set to ‘yes’ to accomplish this.

The parameter-based syllable typology model has been able to account for mostof the Creole syllable type inventories straightforwardly. However, three inventoriescannot be captured by this model. The ‘yes’ setting of the coda parameter and thecomplex onset parameter would have to be chosen to arrive at V, CV, CVC, VC, CCV inSão Tomense. However, this predicts CCVC syllables as well, but there is no evidencefor them in this language. Furthermore, the complex onset parameter and the complexcoda parameter have to be switched on to generate CCV, CCVC and CVCC syllables inMauritian and Haitian. However, these settings also incorrectly predict robust VCC andCCVCC syllables in these languages. In short, the problem with the parameter-basedmodel is that the occurrence of complex onsets and codas in certain syllable types shouldlicense them across the board, whereas this is not observed in several languages. Giventhis shortcoming, future research needs to develop a theoretical model that can accountfor all attested syllable inventory types in the Creole languages of the world. It is beyondthe scope of this paper to address this issue.

17

Diversity and complexity in Creole syllable structure

The key concept in previous thinking about Creole syllable structure has been uniformity.It has been held that Creole languages do not allow many syllable types beyond CV, ifany. Few Creole languages such as Atlantic French-lexified Creoles and Negerhollandshave been recognized to license syllable codas routinely. These languages have beentreated as special cases, however, rather than the norm. The present survey has producedquite the opposite result. The Creole languages of the world show considerable diversityin terms of their syllable structure, particularly as far as the inventories of syllable typesare concerned. Only one parameter was found to be set uniformly: All Creole languagesallow onsetless syllables. Naturally, Creole languages display universals of syllablestructure that are found to be true in all natural languages: All Creole syllables must havea nucleus, all Creoles have CV syllables, and complex onsets and codas presupposesimpler ones. This should not deter from the fact that Creole syllables vary along severaldimensions including edge effect, whether or not codas are allowed and whether or notcomplex onsets or complex codas are permitted.

The wide range of syllable types employed in Creole languages may be illustratedthrough the list of syllable templates in (17). Syllable templates are understood in thepresent context as a descriptive short-hand device encoding the full set of syllable typesin a given language. For example, the syllable template (C) (C) V (C) encapsulates thetypes V, CV, CVC, VC, CCV and CCVC.

(17) Syllable templates in Creoles

(a) (C) V: Saramaccan(b) (C) (C) V: Angolar, Kituba, Ndyuka, Sango(c) (C) V (C): Baba Malay, Nubi(d) (C) (C) V (C): Berbice, Bislama, Ermitaño, Kristang, Palenquero,

Papiamentu, Sri Lankan, St. Lucian, Tayo, TokPisin, Zamboangueño

(e) (C) (C) V (C) (C): Negerhollands, Unserdeutsch

The syllable template notation enables a compact picture of the diversity of Creolesyllable types. However, it is not able to capture all occurring Creole inventoriescorrectly in this way. Complex onsets and single codas occur in São Tomense, but usingthe template (C) (C) V (C) would incorrectly imply that CCVC syllables occur in thislanguage. Analogously, Mauritian and Haitian have complex onsets and complex codas,but the template (C) (C) V (C) (C) would incorrectly imply that VCC or CCVCCsyllables are attested in these languages. The case for diversity, however, is not affectedby this issue. Sizable syllable type inventories are found across lexifier languages. Codasand complex onsets may be found in Creoles lexified by any of the European languages,as the lists in (17) (d) and (17) (e) show.

Recall that recent work by McWhorter (2001) has expounded the idea that Creolelanguages are in some significant sense typologically simple. The Creole simplicityhypothesis is that Creole languages are consistently simpler in structure than non-Creolelanguages and that Creole grammars are the world’s simplest grammars overall. The

18

preceding discussion has made clear that Creole languages occupy a wide range ofsyllable types similar to non-Creole languages. About the only inventory that was notfound for Creole languages is an exclusive CV language such as Hua (see Blevins 1995).

Given the results of the present study, we may test the simplicity hypothesisCreole-internally. If it is the case that Creoles are simple overall, then Creole grammarsshould cluster significantly around simple structures. In other words, there should not besizeable groups of Creole languages attesting to structures of any notable degree ofcomplexity. Most linguists would agree to consider (C) V, (C) (C) V and (C) V (C)syllable templates to be quite simple. In such languages, only open syllables are allowedor no clusters are permitted. Under this measure, Saramaccan, Angolar, Kituba, Ndyuka,Sango, Baba Malay and Nubi would be considered to have simple inventories of no morethan four syllable types among the Creole languages in the present sample. Note,however, that these Creoles are a minority (7/23 = 30%). On the other hand, inventoriesallowing the full or nearly the full set of complex onsets and codas may be consideredcomplex. Haitian, Mauritian, Negerhollands and Unserdeutsch fall into this categorybecause they allow complex codas in addition to complex onsets, even though onlyNegerhollands and Unserdeutsch display the full set. This group is a small minority (4/23= 17%). A middle group of languages allows complex onsets or complex codas, but notboth. This comprises a slight majority of Creole languages, ranging from São Tomense toZamboangueño in Table 5 (12/23 = 52%). I conclude that Creole syllable structure is notparticularly simple, not is it highly complex in the majority of cases. Instead, it displayswhat may be called medium complexity, with the majority of Creole languages showingfive, six or seven syllable types.

It is unexpected the Creole simplicity hypothesis that the great majority of Creoleslanguages shows syllable type inventories of medium or higher complexity (5 to 9syllable types) (16/23 = 70%). This outcome is not a great surprise, however, in light ofrecent detailed investigations into the syllabic and segmental structure of Creolelanguages. Plag & Schramm (forthcoming) have concluded that syllables in earlySuriname and Caribbean Creoles are of medium complexity, allowing codas or complexonsets. Furthermore, Klein (forthcoming) has found that segmental inventories of Creolelanguages occupy the medium range identified for non-Creole languages in Maddieson’s(1984) typological study. Thus, the evidence from Creole languages converges on theidea that their phonologies exhibit a typical or medium degree of complexity.

In terms of the parameter-based model, it is surprising to the Creole simplicityhypothesis that unmarked parameter settings are attested in only a minority of Creolelanguages. We may consider those parameter settings as unmarked in which no more thanone parameter is set to ‘yes’. These Creoles show no more than four syllable types. IfCreole languages in general tended towards unmarked, simple syllable inventories intheir synchronic phonology, one would expect a majority of unmarked parametersettings.

Given the diversity and complexity found in Creole syllables, it seems thatsyllable typology is not a defining linguistic characteristic of Creole languages. We maytest this idea by investigating the syllable structure of Creole languages that have beenargued to be prototypical and identifiable as a typological class: Ndyuka, Tok Pisin,Saramaccan, Haitian, St. Lucian, Mauritian, Fa d’Ambu, and Negerhollands (McWhorter1998). All of these are in the present sample, with the exception of Fa d’Ambu. Judging

19

from Post (1995), however, the syllable structure of Fa d’Ambu is similar, if not identicalto its neighboring relative Angolar. Thus, in the present context, Angolar takes the placeof Fa d’Ambu in exploring if there is a correlate in the distribution of syllable types toarguably prototypical Creoles.

(18) Syllable type inventories in prototypical Creoles

V, CV V, CV,CCV

V, CV, CVC,VC, CCV,CCVC

V, CV, CVC,VC, CCV,CCVC, CVCC

V, CV, CVC, VC,CCV, CCVC, CVCC,VCC, CCVCC

Saramaccan Angolar,Ndyuka

Tok Pisin,St. Lucian

Haitian,Mauritian

Negerhollands

The display in (18) shows that the languages of the Creole prototype do not correspond toa uniform syllable structure. Instead, we find five inventories with considerable diversityof syllable types across these languages. Furthermore, only two of the five inventoriesmay be considered simple. Whereas Saramaccan, Angolar and Ndyuka have only opensyllables, the other languages have closed syllables with single or complex codas. Thus, itappears that there is no correlation between potentially prototypical Creole languages anduniformity or simplicity of syllable structure.

Conclusion

The results of the present investigation make necessary a fundamental rethinking of thesyllable structure of Creole languages. Far from being uniform, Creole languages exhibitanywhere from two to nine syllable types in their inventories. Strong evidence has beenmounted against the idea that Creole languages are limited to CV syllables in anysignificant sense. No Creole language is limited to CV syllables, whereas all Creoleshave them as part of their inventory, just like any other natural language. There is a fairrange of syllable types, with the most frequent template being close to or more complexthan (C) (C) V (C). The simplest template is (C) V; the most complex template is (C) (C)V (C) (C). Given that acrolectal varieties and recent loans have been excluded fromconsideration in this investigation as much as possible, it seems clear that the morecomplex inventories are not due to decreolization. Instead, it appears that the phonologyof the core vocabulary of basilectal and mesolectal Creole varieties encompasses a gooddegree of diversity and complexity in terms of syllable structure. However, decreolizationand post-creole loans may result in even more complex syllable types if the languageexerting the contact influence has them. The extensive literature on variable word-finalconsonant cluster simplification in English-lexified Creoles provides evidence for thisbecause it shows that word-final complex codas are attested, at least in a sizeableminority of cases. Thus, the syllable structure of certain Creole languages is probablymore complex than laid out in this investigation when acrolectal varieties and recentloans are considered, in particular where Germanic lexifier languages are involved.

The two models of syllable typology employed in this investigation have beenable to provide important guideposts for the analysis. However, it has become apparent

20

that the structure of Creole syllables provides challenges to both of them. The CV-phonology model is not fine-grained enough to distinguish between the diverse Creolesyllable inventories, in part because it relies on the presence versus absence of obligatoryonsets as a defining characteristic. The present analysis has shown that this parameter isvacuous for Creole languages, given that none of them requires onsets. The parameter-based model has done a good job in accounting for most of the Creole syllableinventories, but does not capture all of them. The issue for future research is to devise amodel where parameter settings need not necessarily apply across the board.

The results of the present investigation provide strong evidence against the Creolesimplicity hypothesis. The syllable types attested in Creoles may be classed as simple inonly a minority of Creole languages. A distinct majority of Creoles, however, displayssyllable structure of medium or higher complexity. This result corroborates recentevidence from other phonological investigations strongly supporting the hypothesis thatthe phonology of Creole languages is of medium or typical complexity.

Given the present analysis, a number of tasks for future research have becomeapparent. The cause of the phonological restructuring of superstrate words needs to berevisited, now that it seems clear that CV syllables are significantly less dominant withinCreole languages than previously thought. Furthermore, a theoretical explanation for theconsiderable diversity and complexity of syllable structure in the Creole languages of theworld needs to be found and a viable model accounting for all Creole syllable inventoriesneeds to be developed. In addition, the phonotactics of Creole languages, that is, theconstraints on permissible sequences of sounds in Creole words and syllables need to beinvestigated in more detail. Furthermore, the hypothesis that Creole phonologies exhibitmedium or typical complexity needs to be examined further, particularly in comparisonto its competitor, the Creole simplicity hypothesis. Finally, it is hoped that this paper hascontributed to showing that the phonology of Creole languages in general is an excitingand rewarding area of linguistic research.

21

Appendix

The purpose of the appendix is to identify the sources used and to provide structured dataexemplifying each of the syllable types that are attested in a given Creole language in thesample. More data are given in total than would have been possible in the main text. TheCreole languages are presented in the order in which they appear in Table1. Glosses fromsources written in languages other than English have been translated wherever possible.Where no glosses were given in the source, an effort has been made to retrieve themeanings of the items in question. This is not always been successful as indicated by theannotation ‘no gloss given’. Periods are provided to indicate syllable boundaries onlywhere this is not immediately obvious.

Negerhollands

Sources: Sabino (1990, 1993) (Sa 90, 93), Stolz 1986All data are from Stolz (1986), unless indicated otherwise.

V/izu/ ‘iron’ /ale:/ ‘alone’

CV/fekete/ ‘fight’ /bini/ ‘inside’

CVC/pik/ ‘pluck’ /gobed/ ‘prayer’

VC/ef/ ‘if’ /alma/ ‘all’

CCV/bwa/ ‘preserve’ (Sa 93) /groma/ ‘greedy’

CCVC/glof/ ‘believe’ (Sa90, 93) /forfluk/ ‘sly’/frag/ ‘ask’ (Sa 90)

CVCC/tomp/ ‘stomp’ (Sa 93) /kerk/ ‘church’/mant/ ‘month’ (Sa 90) /wort/ ‘word’ (Sa 90)

VCC/aks/ ‘axe’ (Sa 90) /akt/ ‘eight’ (Sa 90)

CCVCC/an.stons/ ‘instantly’ (Sa 90) /skerp/ ‘sharpen’ (Sa 90)

22

Berbice

Source: Kouwenberg (1994)

V/atriti/ ‘reverse’ /oboko/ ‘hen’CV/toko/ ‘child’ /pili/ ‘arrow’

CVC/purkaru/ ‘to fight’ /talma/ ‘serve out’/timbabos/ ‘type of worksong’

VC/bu.in/ ‘hide’ /ondro/ ‘under’

CCV/speki/ ‘pork’ /waskolo/ ‘why’/plk/ ‘place’

CCVC/furstan/ ‘understand’ /krombu/ ‘bend’/glof/ ‘believe’ /klup/ ‘hit’

Ndyuka

Source: Huttar & Huttar (1994)

V/okoo/ ‘okra’ /uma/ ‘woman’

CV/nosu/ ‘nose’ /sido/ ‘to sit’

CCV/dyendee/ ‘splendid’ /alandya/ ‘type of citrus fruit’/kwaka/ ‘cassava granules’ /agwado/ ‘stringed instrument’

Saramaccan

Sources: Aceto (1996) (A), Johnson (1974) (J), Rountree (1972) (R)

V/oto/ ‘other’ (A) /ahalala/ ‘centipede’ (R)

23

/eside/ ‘yesterday’ (J)

CV/si.nki.ni/ ‘skin’ (A) /gba.mba/ ‘meat’ (R)/koti/ ‘cut’ (R)

Haitian

Sources: Cadely (2002) (C), Nikiema (2000) (N), Valdman (1978, 1981)All data are from Valdman’s works, unless noted otherwise.

V/emab/ ‘amiable’ /ijen/ ‘hygiene’

CV/tete/ ‘bosom’ (C) /pare/ ‘prepare’

CVC/sik/ ‘sugar’ /ps/ ‘plaque’ (C)

VC/aksidan/ ‘accident’ (N) /egzod/ ‘exodus’ (N)

CCV/klu/ ‘nail’ /bra/ ‘arm’/megri/ ‘to become thin’ (N)

CCVC/pwop/ ‘clean’ /klas/ ‘class’ (N)

/CVCC//kilt/ ‘cult’ /fiks/ ‘set, firm’/filt/ ‘filter’ /taks/ ‘tax’

St. Lucian

Source: Carrington (1984)

V/ofe/ ‘to offer’ /epi/ ‘with, and’

CV/batõ/ ‘stick’ /hote/ ‘height’

24

CVC/dokte/ ‘physician’ /uval/ ‘horse’

VC/i/ ‘offspring; child’ /ãvi.e/ ‘curious’

CCV/plãte/ ‘to plant’ /bizwe/ ‘to need’/ublie/ ‘to oblige’

CCVC/blag/ ‘joke’ /vwel/ ‘sail’

Angolar

Sources: Lorenzino 1998, Maurer 1995All data are from Maurer (1995).

V/abi/ ‘April’ /ome/ ‘human’

CV/biri/ ‘to open’ /kega/ ‘to carry’

CCV/bwaru/ ‘good’ /fyoko/ ‘to hurry’/uvwa/ ‘nine’ /vevya/ ‘to grow’

São Tomense

Sources: Lorenzino (1998) (L), Valkhoff (1966)All data are from Valkhoff (1966), unless noted otherwise.

V/ose/ ‘sky’ /ami/ ‘I’

CV/galufu/ ‘fork’ /supeto/ ‘clever’

CVC/palma/ ‘palm tree’ /farkon/ ‘falcon’ (L)/di.glasa/ ‘misfortune’ (L)

25

/VC//alvuli/ ‘tree’

CCV/bligasõ/ ‘obligation’ /tlisa/ ‘jaundice’/kwelo/ ‘rabbit’ /kopla/ ‘to buy’

Papiamentu

Main sources: Kouwenberg & Murray (1994; K & M), Munteanu (1996)Auxiliary source: Maurer (1998)Data are from Munteanu (1996) unless noted otherwise.

V/iglesia/ ‘church’ /uzu/ no gloss given

CV/suku/ ‘sugar’ (K&M) /zoya/ ‘swing’ (K&M)

CVC/falsu/ ‘mean’ (K&M) /nos/ ‘our’/harta/ ‘to glut’ /sigel/ ‘age’/berdat/ ‘truth’

VC/altar/ ‘altar’ /ermen/ no gloss given

CCV/skapa/ ‘escape’ (K&M) /subla/ ‘blow’ (K&M)

CCVC/tres/ ‘three’ /skirbi/ ‘to correspond’

Palenquero

Sources: Bickerton & Escalante (1970) (B&E), Lewis (1970)All data are from Lewis (1970), unless noted otherwise.

V/abla/ ‘speak’(B&E) /uto/ no gloss given

CV/kusa/ ‘thing’ (B&E) /tampoko/ ‘either’ (B&E)

26

CVC/tumba/ no gloss given /lihto/ no gloss given/tad.de/ no gloss given

VC/entonse/ ‘then’ (B&E) /ahma/ no gloss given/olbia/ no gloss given

CCV/drumi/ ‘to sleep’ /negro/ ‘black’/flako/ no gloss given /kumbla/ ‘to buy’

CCVC/blanko/ no gloss given /pwehko/ no gloss given

Unserdeutsch

Source: Volker (1982)

V/abn/ ‘evening’

CV/ve/ ‘way’ /son/ ‘sun’/dasu/ ‘to that’ /gsa/ ‘said’

CVC/ber/ ‘mountain’ /bu/ ‘book’/vlh/ ‘which’

VC/is/ ‘ist’

CCV/fry/ ‘early’ /kwel/ ‘source’

CCVC/gmyk/ ‘decorated’ /gros/ ‘large’/flansu/ ‘plantation’

CVCC/finf/ ‘five’ /hols/ ‘wood’

27

VCC/as/ ‘afraid’ /unt/ ‘and’

CCVCC/traxt/ ‘dress’ /sekraft/ ‘ability to see’

Bislama

Sources: Lynch (1975) (L), Tryon (1987), Meyerhoff (1993) (M)All data are from Tryon (1987), unless noted otherwise

V/akis/ ‘axe’ /eli/ ‘early’

CV/holem/ ‘to hold’ /tede/ ‘today’

CVC/bokis/ ‘box’ /sotfala/ ‘short’/pipol/ ‘people’ /naf/ ‘enough’/hasban/ ‘husband’

VC/olketa/ ‘all’ (L) /is/ ‘east’/emti/ ‘empty’

CCV/kopra/ ‘copra’ /slo/ ‘slow’ (M)

CCVC/swit/ ‘sweet’ /gris/ ‘fat’/katres/ ‘cartridge’ /brok/ ‘broken (adj.)’ (M)/smol/ ‘small’ (M)

Tok Pisin

Sources: Smith (2002), Verhaar (1995) (V)All data are from Smith (2002), unless noted otherwise.

V/abris/ ‘go past’ /epa/ ‘stingray’ (V)

28

CV/redi/ ‘ready’ /pikinini/ ‘child’

CVC/fis/ ‘fish’ /abus/ ‘animal food’/aninit/ ‘underneath’

VC/ensin/ ‘engine’ /asde/ ‘yesterday’/alta/ ‘altar’ (V)

CCV/tri/ ‘tree, three’ /bekri/ ‘bakery’ (V)

CCVC/fren/ ‘friend’ /klos/ ‘clothes’

Mauritian

Sources: Baker (1972), Baker & Hookoomsing (1987) (B&H)All data are from Baker (1972), unless noted otherwise.

V/ale/ ‘to go’ /ena/ ‘there’

CV/vini/ ‘to come’ /fizi/ ‘rifle’

CVC/palto/ ‘jacket’ /latab/ ‘table’

VC/alzeb/ ‘algebra’ (B&H) /apsoli/ ‘absolut’ (B&H)

CCV/prekot/ ‘near’ /lapli/ ‘rain’

CCVC/deswit/ ‘immediately’ /blag/ ‘joke’ (B&H)/pret/ ‘priest’ (B&H)

CVCC/rekolt/ ‘harvest’ (B&H) /fiks/ ‘firm, stuck’ (B&H)/filt/ ‘filter’ (B&H) /taks/ ‘tax’ (B&H)

29

Tayo

Source: Ehrhart (1993)

V/ale/ ‘to go’ /ako/ ‘again’

CV/pu/ ‘for’ /tape/ ‘to beat’

CVC/kat/ ‘four’ /solda/ ‘soldier’

VC/er/ ‘hour’ /o:t/ ‘disgrace’

CCV/pli/ ‘plus’ /pukwa/ ‘why’

CCVC/pret/ ‘priest’ /labrus/ ‘brousaille’

Sri Lankan

Source: Smith (1977)

V/ra/ ‘miss’ /æ:tik/ ‘tuberculosis’

CV/læ:ñ/ ‘firewood’ /kupa/ ‘stare’

CVC/korpu/ ‘body’ /dews/ ‘god’

VC/is.kamu/ ‘fish scale’ /:n.d/ ‘wave’/altu/ ‘tall, high’

CCV/dre:tu/ ‘correct’ /obrigadu/ ‘thanks’

CCVC/kwæ:n.tru/ ‘coriander’ /friz.mu/ ‘dear’

30

Kristang

Sources: Baxter (1988), Thurgood & Thurgood (1996) (T&T)All data are from Baxter (1988), unless noted otherwise.

V/eli/ ‘he, she, it’ /ati/ ‘until’ (T&T)

CV/kaza/ ‘house’ /dagu/ ‘jaw’

CVC/forsa/ ‘strength’ /fasel/ ‘easy’/mas/ ‘more’ /muler/ ‘wife’ (T&T)/aros/ ‘rice’ (T&T)

VC/ombru/ ‘shoulder’ /uzdu/ ‘cuckold’/albi/ ‘tree’ (T&T)

CCV/stiru/ ‘style’ /greza/ ‘church’/otru/ ‘other’ (T&T) /alegri/ ‘happy’ (T&T)

CCVC/drentu/ ‘inside’ /tres/ ‘three’ (T&T)/tras/ ‘behind’ (T&T)

Zamboangueño

Sources: Forman (1972), Whinnom (1956) (W)All data are from Forman (1972), unless noted otherwise

V/amo/ ‘boss’ /otro/ ‘other’/a.ora/ ‘now’ (W)

CV/gana/ ‘win’ /barato/ ‘cheap’

CVC/soltero/ ‘brother’ /kombersa/ ‘speak’

VC/anda/ ‘go’ /algun/ ‘certain’

31

CCV/klase/ ‘class’ /alegre/ ‘happy’

CCVC/abril/ ‘April’ /tyempo/ ‘time’

Ermitaño

Source: Whinnom (1956)

V/ele/ no gloss given /ohos/ ‘eyes’

CV/sumi/ no gloss given /boka/ ‘mouth’

CVC/pulseras/ ‘bracelets’ /bos/ ‘voice’

VC/el/ ‘the’ /urta/ no gloss given

CCV/klaa/ ‘club’ /entro/ ‘inside’

CCVC/pwelte/ no gloss given /etras/ ‘after’

Kituba

Sources: Fehderau (1962) (F), Mufwene (1997) (M), Swift & Zola (1963) (S&Z)

V/i.nsi/ ‘country, land’ (S&Z) /awa/ ‘here’ (F)

CV/munoko/ ‘mouth’ (M) /dikulu/ ‘leg, foot’ (M)

CGV /ku-vwanda/ ‘to sit down’ (S&Z) /ku-dya/ ‘to eat’ (S&Z)/uvwa/ ‘nine’ (F)

32

Sango

Sources: Pasch (1997) (P), Walker & Samarin (1997)All data are from Walker & Samarin (1997), unless noted otherwise

V/ape/ no gloss given /to.a/ no gloss given

CV/mere.nge/ ‘child’ /men/ ‘certain’/sukula/ ‘to wash’ (P)

CCV/nda.pre/ no gloss /srango/ ‘doing’

Nubi

Main sources: Heine (1982), Pasch & Thelwall (1987)Auxiliary source: Owens 1997All data are from Pasch & Thelwall (1987).

V/akulu/ ‘to eat’ /abat/ ‘armpit’/ila/ ‘except’

CV/kidima/ ‘work’ /mutSele/ ‘rice’/bara/ ‘outside’

CVC/marid/ ‘fever’ /kuwes/ ‘good, nice’/asab/ ‘vein, root’ /sas/ ‘frying pan’/wakti/ ‘time’ /lib.ra/ ‘needle’

VC/abdegi/ ‘butterfly’ /agder/ ‘to be able’/alan/ ‘because’ /as.ma/ ‘name’/ag.rab/ ‘scorpion’

Baba Malay

Sources: Lim (1981) (L), Pakir (1986) (P)

33

V/ula/ ‘snake’ (L) /anak/ ‘baby’ (L)

CV/budak/ ‘child’ (L) /tahu/ ‘to know’ (P)

CVC/tingal/ ‘to stay’ (L) /nasi/ ‘rice’ (P)/basat/ ‘bed-bug’ (P) /cakap/ no gloss given (L)

VC/erti/ no gloss given (L) /a-pau/ no gloss given (L)/a.os/ ‘thirsty’ (P)

34

References

Aceto, M. (1996). Early Saramaccan syllable structure: An analysis of complex onsetsfrom Schumann’s 1778 manuscript. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 11(1), 23-44.

Alleyne, M. (1980). Comparative Afro-American. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Baker, P. (1972). Kreol. A description of Mauritian Creole. London: Hurst.Baker, P. & V. Hookoomsing (1987). Dictionary of Mauritian Creole. Morisyen –

English – Français. Paris: L’Harmattan.Bartens, A. (1995): Die iberoromanisch-basierten Kreolsprachen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter

Lang.Baxter, A. (1988). A grammar of Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese). Pacific

Linguistics (B-95). Canberra: Australian National University.Bickerton, D. & A. Escalante (1970). Palenquero: A Spanish-based Creole of Northern

Colombia. Lingua 24, 254-267.Blevins, J. (1995): The syllable in phonological theory. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The

handbook of phonological theory (pp. 206-244). Oxford: Blackwell.Boretzky, N. (1983). Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.Cadely, J.-R. (2002). Le statut des voyelles nasales en Créole haïtien. Lingua 112, 435-

464.Carrington, L. (1984). St. Lucian Creole. Hamburg: Buske.Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J.

Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I. Between thegrammar and physics of speech (pp. 283-333). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Clements, G. N. & S. J. Keyser (1983). CV phonology: A generative phonology of thesyllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ehrhart, S. (1993). Le créole français de St-Louis (le tayo) en Nouvelle-Calédonie.Hamburg: Buske.

Fehderau, H. (1962). Descriptive grammar of the Kituba language. A dialectal survey.Léopoldville: American Mennonite Brethren Board of Missions.

Forman, M. (1972). Zamboangueño texts with grammatical analysis. A study ofPhillipine Creole Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Giegerich, H. (1992). English phonology. An introduction. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Heine, B. (1982). The Nubi language of Kibera – An Arabic Creole. Berlin: Reimer.Holm, J. (2000). An introduction to pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Huttar, G. & M. Huttar (1994). Ndyuka. London: Routledge.Johnson, M. (1974). Two morpheme structure rules in an English proto-creole. In D.

DeCamp & I. Hancock (Eds.), Pidgins and Creoles: Current trends and prospects(pp. 118-129). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Unpublisheddoctoral disstertaion, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Kaye, A. & M. Tosco (2001). Pidgin and Creole languages. München: Lincom Europa.

35

Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Klein, T. B., forthcoming. Creole phonology typology and complexity: Evidence from

phoneme inventory size, vowel quality and stop consonants. In P. Bhatt & I. Plag(Eds.), The structure of Creole words: Segmental, syllabic and morphologicalaspects. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Kouwenberg, S. (1994). A grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Kouwenberg, S. & E. Murray (1994). Papiamentu. München: Lincom Europa.Lewis, A. (1970). A descriptive analysis of the Palenquero dialect. Unpublished M.A.

dissertation. University of the West Indies, Mona.Lim, S. (1981). Baba Malay: The language of the ‘straits-born’ Chinese. Unpublished

B.A. (Hons.) dissertation. Monash University.Lorenzino, G. (1998). The Angolar Creole Portuguese of São Tomé: Its grammar and

sociolinguistic history. München: Lincom Europa.Lynch, J. (1975). Bislama phonology and grammar: A review article. Kivung 8 (2), 186-

204.Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maurer, P. (1995). L’angolar: Un créole afro-portugais parlé à São Tomé. Hamburg:

Buske.Maurer, P. (1998). El papiamentu de Curazao. In M. Perl & A. Schwegler (Eds.),

América negra. Panorámica actual de los estudios lingüísticos sobre variedadeshispanicas, portuguesas y criollas (pp. 139-218). Frankfurt a. M.: Vervuert.

McWhorter, J. (1998). Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class.Language 74 (4), 788-818.

McWhorter, J. (2000). The missing Spanish Creoles. Recovering the birth of plantationcontact languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McWhorter, J. (2001). The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars. LinguisticTypology 5, 125-166.

Meyerhoff, M. (2003). Reduplication in Bislama. An overview of phonological andsemantic factors. In S. Kouwenberg (Ed.), Twice as meaningful. Reduplication inPidgins, Creoles and other contact languages. (pp. 231-238). London:Battlebridge.

Mondesir, J. (1992). Dictionary of St. Lucian Creole. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Mufwene, S. (1997). Kitúba. In S. Thomason (Ed.), Contact languages. A wider

perspective (pp. 173-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Mühlhäusler, P. (1997): Pidgin and Creole linguistics (2nd ed.). London: University of

Westminster Press.Munteanu, D. (1996). El papiamento, lengua criolla hispánica. Madrid: Gredos.Nikiema, E. (2000). Lexical and epenthetic initial vowels in Haitian Creole. Journal of

Pidgin and Creole Languages 15 (1), 171-177.Owens, J. (1997). Arabic-based pidgins and creoles. In S. Thomason (Ed.), Contact

languages. A wider perspective (pp. 125-172). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Pakir, A. (1986). A linguistic investigation of Baba Malay. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation. University of Hawai’i.Pasch, H. (1997). Sango. In S. Thomason (Ed.), Contact languages. A wider perspective

(pp. 209-270). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

36

Pasch, H. & R. Thelwall (1987). Losses and innovations in Nubi. In P. Maurer & T.Stolz (Eds.), Varia creolica. Bochum: Brockmeyer.

Parkvall, M. (2000). Out of Africa. African influences in Atlantic Creoles. London:Battlebridge.

Plag, I. & M. Schramm, forthcoming. Early Creole syllable structure: A cross-linguisticsurvey of the earliest attested varieties of Saramaccan, Sranan, St. Kitts andJamaican. In P. Bhatt & I. Plag (Eds.), The structure of Creole words: Segmental,syllabic and morphological aspects. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Post, M. (1995). Fa d’Ambu. In J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds.), Pidgins andCreoles. An introduction (pp. 191-204). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Romaine, S. (1988). Pidgin and Creole languages. London: Longman.Rountree, S. C. (1972). The phonological structure of stems in Saramaccan. In J. E.

Grimes (Ed.), Languages of the Guianas (pp. 22-27). Norman, Oklahoma:Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Sabino, R. (1990). Towards a phonology of Negerhollands: An analysis of phonologicalvariation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Sabino, R. (1993). On onsets: Explaining Negerhollands initial clusters. In F. Byrne & J.Holm (Eds.), Atlantic meets Pacific. A global view of pidginization andcreolization (pp. 37-44). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sebba, M. (1997): Contact languages. Pidgins and Creoles. London: Macmillan.Smith, G. (2002). Growing up with Tok Pisin. Contact, creolization and change in Papua

New Guinea’s national language. London: Battlebridge.Smith, I. R. (1977). Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese phonology. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Cornell University.Stolz, T. (1986). Gibt es das kreolische Sprachwandelmodell? Vergleichende Grammatik

des Negerholländischen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Swift, L. B. & E. W. A. Zola (1963). Kituba basic course. Washington, D.C.: Foreign

Service Institute.Thurgood, E., & G. Thurgood (1996). Aspect, tense, or Aktionsart? The particle ja in

Kristang (Malaacca Creole Portuguese). Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages11(1), 45-70.

Tryon, D. (1987). Bislama. In introduction to the national language of Vanuatu. PacificLinguistics (D-72). Canberra: Australian National University.

Valdman, A. (1978). Le créole: structure, statut et origine. Paris: Klinksieck.Valdman. A. (1981). Haitian Creole – English –French dictionary. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University, Creole Institue.Valkhoff, M. (1966). Studies in Portuguese and Creole. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand

University Press.Verhaar, J. (1995): Toward a reference grammar of Tok Pisin: An experiment in corpus

linguistics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Volker, C. (1982): An introduction to Rabaul Creole German (Unserdeutsch).

Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Queensland.Walker, J. & W. Samarin (1997). Sango phonology. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Phonologies of

Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus) vol. 2 (pp. 861-880). Winona Lake,Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

37

Whinnom, K. (1956). Spanish contact vernaculars in the Philippine islands. Hong KongUniversity Press.