Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher

policies. Please cite the published version when available.

Title Introduction to volume 1 & 2: Pidgin and Creole Genesis and Typology

Authors(s) Farquharson, Joseph T.; Migge, Bettina

Publication date 2017-05-24

Publication information Farquharson, J. and Migge, B. (eds.). Pidgins and Creoles: Critical Concepts in Linguistics

Publisher Routledge

Link to online version

https://www.routledge.com/Pidgins-and-Creoles/Farquharson-Migge/p/book/9781138841871

Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/8773

Downloaded 2021-06-10T02:58:15Z

The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access

benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa)

© Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?via=ucd_oa&text=ISBN%3A978-1-13-884187-1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhdl.handle.net%2F10197%2F8773

1

1

Introduction 1: Pidgin and Creole Genesis and Typology Joseph Farquarson (UWI, Mona, Jamaica) & Bettina Migge (University College Dublin, Ireland) There is a very clear reason why genesis is spread over two of these four volumes. Ever since Pidgins and Creoles (P/Cs) came to scholarly attention in the nineteenth century, questions about how they developed and how they compare with other languages have dominated research and debates. This interest has resulted in several theories that try to account for the linguistic and extra-linguistic mechanisms that gave rise to these contact languages, and work that aims to demonstrate the relationships between P/Cs. For reasons of space, this brief introduction to volumes 1 and 2 provides only a mere sketch of some of these theories and perspectives. More comprehensive overviews can be found in Arends et al. (1994) and Kouwenberg and Singler (2008), Mufwene (2001:1-24), Thomason (2001:157-195).

Some scholars see both P/Cs as occurring on one continuum of development (Hall 1962), with the latter being a natural outcome when the former gains native speakers.1 However, not all agree on whether pidginization (cf. Samarin 1971) is a necessary precursor to creolization (McWhorter 2002; Versteegh 1984); a state-of-affairs that is reflected (as we will see below) in whether Pidgins are accorded a role in a theory of genesis or not. A survey of the literature also suggests that the emergence of Creoles has, for most researchers, been the phenomenon that needs explaining. The assumption is that Pidgin genesis is more straightforward.

Many of the early theories of Creole genesis (e.g. Baby Talk Theory, Foreigner Talk Theory) were eurocentric in their approach and focused on reduction and simplification. While questions of simplicity and complexity continue to be of interest to creolists and pidginists (McWhorter 2001a; Ansaldo et al. 2007; Aboh & Smith 2009; Faraclas & Klein 2009; Mufwene 2013), these early theories have been superseded by more sophisticated alternatives. Current theories recognize that both simplification and complexification play a role in the genesis and development of these languages, and that these strategies operate under the influence of substrate and/or superstrate languages, guided by universal principles.

Superstratist approaches, some of the oldest approaches to P/C genesis, foreground the superstrate input. The superstrate refers to the language/varieties spoken by the colonizers or the socially/politically dominant group in the contact situation. Within this paradigm, Creoles are thought to be continuations of their superstrate, and proponents stress that time-relevant nonstandard dialects of the superstrate formed the input and thus should constitute the focus when comparing Creoles with their superstrates. While scholars of all theoretical persuasions agree on the latter point, its application is normally short-circuited by lack of data from the relevant period. The view that the superstrate played an important role in the formation of Creoles has been particularly popular among scholars working on French-lexicon Creoles (e.g. Chaudenson 1986; 2001). Superstratists maintain that non-standard

1 Note that for Bickerton (1981) nativizing a Pidgin does not automatically make it a Creole. A Creole arises from a Pidgin that has only been in existence for one generation.

2

2

varieties of a European/superstrate language were subject to different waves of restructuring, sometimes leading to relatively divergent systems, depending on factors such as changes in demographics, access to speakers of the superstrate, and the sociopolitical dynamics of the society (Chaudenson 1986; 2001; Mufwene 2001). Salikoko Mufwene argues that the earliest ethnolinguistic groups (both superstrate and substrate) on the contact scene had a founder effect (i.e., a norm-establishing influence) on the emergence of the Creole (Mufwene 1996). While the early population determines much of the structure of the Creole, the founder principle does not preclude later groups making an impact on the developing language.

The direct opposite of the foregoing are substratist approaches which give priority to the first languages (L1) of the colonized groups. Substratist approaches became more prominent in order to contest popular and scholarly views (e.g. Bickerton 1983) that the substrate languages of the creators played little or no role in the genesis of Creoles. Substratist approaches vary widely from strong versions where Creoles are essentially seen as continuations of their substrate languages, to weaker versions where the substrate is thought to have played a major but not necessarily a uniform role (Boretzky 1983; Clements 1996; Migge & Goury 2008; Migge 2011). Some substratist work (Alleyne 1971; 1980; Jourdan & Keesing 1997; Mintz 1977) take a more anthropological approach by exploring the socio-cultural and socio-historical contexts in which Creoles emerged. Alleyne has argued that Creoles start out looking more like their substrates but may over time come to resemble their lexifier language more closely due to processes of acculturation. Therefore, Saramaccan, traditionally classified as a radical Creole, because it diverges in many ways from its European input, is considered more “African” than say Trinidadian English Creole (TrinEC), which shares a fair number of properties with non-standard varieties of English. This is due to the fact that Saramaccan was cut off from its lexifier language early in its development, while TrinEC continued to co-exist with its lexifier. By far, the most comprehensive and well-known but also much debated substratist position is Lefebvre’s (1998; 2001a; 201b; 2004) Relexification Hypothesis. The Relexification Hypothesis proposes that in the formation of Creoles, adults take phonetic strings (words) from the lexifier language and plug them into the grammar (especially semantics and morphosyntax) of their L1s. Recently, Lefebvre (cf. 2015) has switched to relabeling in place of relexification,2 and has introduced the term leveling to account for the fact that although Creoles tend to arise in highly multilingual environments, substrate patterns tend to be drawn from one or at most a handful of the available languages. For critiques of the Relexification Hypothesis, see Singler (1996), DeGraff (2002), and McWhorter (2005).

For endogenous Creoles such as those in South Asia, adstrates complicate the search

for substrate features seeing that these Creoles continue to be in contact with their substrate languages. I. Smith (1979b) discusses this for Sri Lanka Portuguese (SLP), Bakker (2006) for both SLP and Sri Lanka Malay (SLM), Ansaldo (2012) for SLM, and Clements (1990) for Korlai. See the introduction to Cardoso et al. (2012) for an overview. 2 Lefebvre (2015:1) defines relabeling as “a process that consists in assigning a lexical entry a new label derived from a phonetic string drawn from another language”.

3

3

Contending with both substratists and superstratists, are the universalists, i.e., scholars who view creolization as a process grounded in universals of language. The chief advocate of the universalist approach to Creole genesis has been Derek Bickerton (1984) whose Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH) treats Creole formation as a special case of first language acquisition. He argues that children growing up on plantations were primarily exposed to the Pidgin developed for basic communication by their parents. The LBH proposes that the impoverished input to which the children were being exposed was not sufficient for them to acquire a full natural language; therefore, the biopogram--a universal blueprint for language--was activated in order to create a maximally efficient language. Bickerton (1981, 1984) claims that recurring features in unrelated Creoles (e.g. SVO word order, order of TMA markers, etc.) provide evidence for the LBH. One of the main features of the LBH is that it sees Creole formation as an abrupt process (i.e., occurring within one generation), and the result of a break in transmission (cf. Thomason & Kaufman 1988) when compared with regular language transmission where children acquire the language of their parents.

Although not many creolists subscribe to the LBH, outside of P/C Studies it is the most well-known approach to creolization and continues to be perpetuated in introductions to sociolingusitics. It has also had a significant impact on the field in terms of the debates it has fostered and the empirical work it has inspired (cf. Veenstra 2008) on the demographic, sociohistorical (Arends 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001; Singler 1992, 1993, 1996, 2006), and linguistic inputs to Creole genesis. For example, Arends (1994) and Singler (1992) have demonstrated that the demographic profile which the LBH assumes is not supported by the available evidence. Crucially, there were far too few children in such contexts, at any given time the African population was much less heterogeneous, and the ratio between Europeans and Africans, and consequently contact patterns between them, were variable across contexts. Owens (1990) also argues that the LBH only accounts for Creoles with specific types of input languages, and so cannot be applied generally. With regard to tense, mood, and aspect (TMA) marking, Winford (2000) has shown that the three categories (anterior tense, irrealis mood, and non-punctual aspect) that Bickerton proposes for his Creole prototype, and the invariable order in which they are proposed to appear, do not hold up for Sranan, one of Bickerton’s prototypical Creoles. Carden and Stewart (1988) also show that several of the linguistic features such as reflexives and anti-reflexives in Haitian Creole developed in the opposite direction of what the LBH would predict, and more recently, Siegel (2008) has argued that not even Hawaii'an Creole, another of Bickerton's LBH prototype really supports the hypothesis.

Outside of the extreme positions taken by the approaches outlined above, there is another line of research that investigates the role of second language acquisition (SLA) in pidginization and creolization (see Schumann 1974; Kouwenberg & Patrick 2003; Siegel 2006 for overviews). At their core, SLA approaches have the same starting point as the Relexification Hypothesis, but propose that few (if any) special processes are required to account for P/C development beyond the ones already at work in regular SLA. Kouwenberg and Patrick (2003:181) claim that SLA and transfer strategies associated with it are relevant

4

4

during the early stages of contact only, after which they cease to be relevant. The strength of SLA approaches is that there is generally no conflict in recognizing the role of the superstrate, substrate and universals, even simultaneously (Schumann 1974; Becker & Veenstra 2003; Clements 2001; Helms-Park 2003; Siegel 2003). More recently, Plag (2008a; 2008b; 2009a; 2009b) has revisited SLA explanations by proposing what he refers to as the interlanguage hypothesis; a claim that “creoles originate as conventionalized interlanguages of an early [developmental] stage” (Plag 2008b:307). Also, Clements (2014) has explored form selection in P/Cs in the context of SLA. Despite the attractiveness of SLA approaches, Sprouse (2010) complains that creolists have not engaged sufficiently with SLA theories in theorizing about genesis.

Although the field has been well served by strong theories such as the LBH and the Relexification Hypothesis, traditionally most creolists tend to prefer more integrative approaches (cf. Baker 1997) where substrate, superstrate and universals of language all contribute to the genesis of P/Cs in different ways and to varying degrees in different components of grammar. The basic assumption is that no one theory can account for everything. In some cases a lot is taken from the substrate or the superstrate and then in other components of grammar the influence of one or the other is absent or minimal. For example, the substrate might be more important in determining how Creoles implement aspectual marking (Winford and Migge 2007; Kouwenberg 2009), while the superstrate might exert a stronger influence in the area of phonotactics. Universals may constrain both in determining the order in which features are adopted and/or adapted. The role of the researcher then is to demonstrate in a principled way which input is relevant when and how.

All theories of genesis depend on the availability and analysis of two particular types of data: sociohistorical and linguistic. In the early days, information on the demographics and the cultural dynamics of the early phases of the societies in which Creoles emerged was scarce but scholars were still cognizant of the need to be guided by the historical data (cf. Le Page 1960). While chasing the demographic data, historians (and sometimes linguists) have uncovered more linguistic data and made discoveries that help to sharpen or disprove the assumptions on which various theories are based. For example, as mentioned above, the work of scholars such as Singler shows that the data do not support the assumptions about demographics assumed by the LBH.

Theory-internal concerns have been the foremost drivers of descriptive work on P/Cs.

This has resulted in an imbalance in the literature where topics such as copulas (McWhorter 1997; Migge 2002), TMA marking (Givón 1982), reduplication, focus, serial verb constructions (Sebba 1987; Seuren 1991; Veenstra 1996) and predicate clefting, and complementation (Plag 1996; Lefebvre & Loranger 2015) are over-described whereas other areas such as relativization (Huttar et al. 2013) have been under-described. It is not surprising that the areas which have received the most attention are those that are most likely to have substrate origin/influence. This imbalance is a product of the fact that much of the work done in the area of morphosyntax has been done in the context of debates between substratists and universalists.

5

5

P/C scholars have worked with both synchronic and diachronic data in their attempts

to establish the origins of these languages. The over-reliance on synchronic data is in part due to the common practice in historical linguistics of using the present to explain the past, but it also speaks to the sparseness of early descriptions of Creole languages. Only a few scholars have exploited reconstruction as a viable alternative (Alleyne 1980; N. Smith 1987). However, the neglect of linguistic reconstruction should not be interpreted as a general rejection of the methods of historical linguistics (cf. Arends 2002), because there is a growing body of work in the area of philology as old(er) texts come to light.

Scholars have been concerned with reconstructing and/or editing these older texts (Winer 1984; Arends and Perl 1995; Mühlhäusler et al. 2003; van d), mining them for relevant linguistic (Hall 1944; Lalla and D’Costa 1990; Lipski 2005; Sabino 1994, 1996; 2012; Baker and Bruyn 1999; Braun 2009; Farquharson 2014; Naro 1978; van den Berg 2007; van den Berg & Arends 2004) and sociolinguistic (Ansaldo and Matthews 2010; Cardoso 2014; Muysken 1995; Grant 1999; Drechsel 2012, 2014; Krämer 2014) data. There is also a complementary body of guidelines on how to handle historical texts for linguistic research (Baker and Winer 1999; Hazael-Massieux 2006). Data from historical texts have been useful for critically assessing theories of genesis with regard to the timeline the theories propose for the emergence of particular features, and determining whether those features were inherited or represent independent development. The study of historical documents has, for example, given rise to the gradualist model of Creole genesis (Carden & Stewart 1988; Arends 1989; 1992) which argues that creolization is not an abrupt process but can stretch over several generations. See Selbach et al. (2009) for discussions of the gradualist model.

Studies on grammaticalization are another spin-off of the work on older texts. Various scholars have explored whether and to what extent grammaticalization plays a role in P/C genesis, or if apparent cases are merely instances of calquing or polysemy copying (Bruyn 1996; 2009). Much of the work in this area concentrates on the influence of the substrate, covering topics such as TMA marking (Keesing 1991; Romaine 1990; Kriegel et al. 2003; Sankoff & Laberge 1973; Siegel 1998; Winford 2006), determiners and relative clauses (Bruyn 1995), demonstratives (Bruyn 1995) and other locative constructions (Yakpo & Bruyn 2015), transitivity (Keesing 1991), plural markers from particular nouns or pronouns (Roberts and Bresnan 2008), and the development of generic speech verbs into (quotative) complementizers (Crowley 1989; Lefebvre & Loranger 2006; Plag 1993; 1995; Meyerhoff 2002; Migge & Winford 2013). Unfortunately, the related area of reanalysis has mostly been dealt with incidentally in the literature (but cf. Kouwenberg 2009).

Although issues of genesis continue to be part of the debate in contemporary P/C studies, over the past two decades, the discipline has been dominated by typological work which probes how these languages should be classified in relation to non-contact languages, and the role their manner of origin plays in how they should be categorised (see Bakker et al. 2011 for overview). We owe this increased interest in typology to the rise in the popularity of language typology in linguistics generally, but in several ways, the interest may be viewed as a continuation of earlier work which sought to establish relatedness among P/Cs (e.g.

6

6

Hancock 1969) or disciplinary practices which classify them based on their lexifier languages or the regions in which they are spoken. There has been a concentration on shared features in these contact languages with a view to determining historical trajectories of diffusion and contact, and genealogical relatedness. These shared features have been drawn from various levels of grammar: phonology (e.g. Smith 1987), lexicon (e.g. Smith 1997; 2015a), and morphosyntax (e.g. Hancock 1969).

One prominent line of investigation aims at demonstrating that there is some amount of intra-regional homogeneity among P/Cs with the same lexifier. To accomplish this, shared features have been used with varying degrees of success to argue in favor of a single starting point and subsequent diffusion from one territory to the next as opposed to multi-genesis (Baker 1987; Hancock 1969; Devonish 2002; and McWhorter 2000). While some creolists now accept diffusion as an explanation for many shared features, there is lack of agreement on how much diffusion should account for and where the starting point should be. On the latter, compare Hancock's (1986) Domestic Hypothesis which places the origin of the English-lexicon Atlantic Creoles (ELACs) along the Upper Guinea Coast of West Africa, with the work of McWhorter (1995; 1996; 2000) who points to the Gold Coast, versus others who believe a Caribbean beginning to be highly probable (Baker 1999; Smith 1987; 2015); but see Bickerton (1998) and Huber (1999) for some arguments against Afro-genesis. Similar work has been done on the French-lexicon Atlantic Creoles (FLACs) of the Caribbean (Parkvall 1995), Papiamentu and its relation to Portuguese Creoles in Africa (Jacobs 2012), the Pidgins of the Pacific area (Baker 1987; Drechsel 2014), and the spread of Kriol in Australia (Munro 2000). There are also more global studies such as Baker and Huber (2001) which look at a large number of P/Cs.

The remaining line of typological research signals the participation of P/C Studies in the big data revolution, and P/Cs have been included in or significantly benefitted from large-scale typological research. For example, the inclusion of Saramaccan (Good 2009a; 2009b) and Seychelles Creole (Michaelis & Rosalie 2009; Michaelis et al. 2009) in the World Loanword Database (WOLD = Haspelmath and Tadmor 2009) has given us an empirical basis for claims about the proportionate lexical contribution of input languages; however, it has also raised an old question about what should be considered loanwords in P/C languages (cf. Alleyne 1980). Also, the publication of large typological databases such as the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS=Haspelmath 2005) has allowed us to retest old claims. This has not been borne out by the data in WALS where SOV languages are more common cross-linguistically than SVO ones (Dryer 2013).

But WALS has also contributed to the debate about whether Creoles are structurally different from non-Creoles (Parkvall 2008; Bakker et al. 2011). The main questions of this debate as outlined by Muysken (1988) are: whether Creoles are (i) simpler than other languages; (ii) more similar to each other than they are to other languages; (iii) or more mixed than other languages. Holm and Patrick's (2007) quasi-parallel coverage of the structure of 18 Creole grammars provided the first step in answering question (ii). Being paper-based, the data in Holm and Patrick (2007) were not easy to manipulate to facilitate the sort of analysis required to answer these questions. Those issues were solved with the

7

7

production of the Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures (APiCS = Michaelis et al. 2013a; 2013b; 2013c), a digital typological database (with companion volumes) that covers 130 structural features (phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic) for 76 P/Cs across the globe. Seeing that APiCs incorporates some of the features and feature values from both Holm and Patrick (2007) and WALS, it allows us to test how similar P/Cs are to each other, and--for some features--how similar they are to non-contact languages. While it is still early days yet, scholarship based on APiCS has already started to appear (Holm 2013; Gil 2014; Bakker 2015; Jungbluth 2015; Velupillai 2015). While welcoming the ascendancy of typology and the potential of large-scale typological databases such as WALS and APiCS, some scholars have admonished caution with regard to the quantity and quality of the data, the assumptions which underly data collection/selection, and the appropriateness of the methods used (e.g. computational phylogenetics) in light of the nature of the data (cf. Kouwenberg 2010a, b).

DeGraff (2003; 2004; 2005) has written against Creole exceptionalism, i.e.,the ideology underpinning many approaches to Creoles that views them as different from other languages. For example, Bickerton through his LBH claimed that Creoles were distinguishable on structural grounds. The argument for Creole distinctness was taken up in full by McWhorter (1998; 2001a; 2001b) who proposed that Creoles are structurally simpler than non-Creoles and that three tell-tale signs (lack of inflectional affixation, lack of contrastive tone, and lack of opaque derivational morphology) set them off as a distinct class of languages. For critical responses to McWhorter’s Creole prototype theory, see the commentaries which appeared in the same issue of Linguistic Typology as McWhorter (2001a) and the papers in Ansaldo et al. (2007). A few other scholars such as Parkvall (2008) and Bakker et al. (2011) support the claims that Creoles are typologically distinct from and less complex than non-Creoles, but contrast with McWhorter in using different methods, different data, and in proposing different defining features. Arguments against distinctness and lower levels of complexity have focused on the difficulty in agreeing on a suitable metric for complexity, the fact that most P/Cs are severely under-described, and that existing criteria tend to admit languages that are not known to be P/Cs. With regard to comparative complexity, Klein (2006; 2011) has shown that Creoles are fairly average with regard to phoneme inventories and permissible syllable types, and Good (2012) argues that Creoles are paradigmatically simple, but syntagmatically average.

Whether they have gained general acceptance in the field or not, the claims, hypotheses, and theories, discussed above have indirectly contributed to the description of structural aspects of P/Cs. This has been driven by the need for data which support or refute particular theories of genesis or claims about P/C typology. Our survey of the literature has revealed particular biases in terms of a preference for (morpho)syntax over other components of grammar, and a further bias towards particular topics within components, for example, prosody (tone, intonation) in phonology and copulas and TMA marking in syntax. Additionally, far more work has been done on Atlantic varieties than on varieties spoken elsewhere. In the following paragraphs, we highlight some of the work that has been done on P/Cs especially in regard to genesis and typology.

8

8

As mentioned before, phonology has received far less attention than morphosyntax in discussions about genesis, and there is a scarcity of comprehensive work on the level of Lefebvre’s (1998) work on Haitian morphosyntax, that looks at the contribution of all input languages to the phonological system of P/Cs (see N. Smith 2008 for an overview). Scholars have generally targeted specific areas such as tone, syllable structure and prosody, mostly with a view to establishing substrate influence. On the assumption that tone would provide convincing evidence for a link between Creoles and substrate languages, it was one of the first aspects of phonology addressed by linguists working on Atlantic Creoles (Berry 1971; Daeleman 1971; Carter 1983; Good 2006; 2009c; Ham 1999; Rivera-Castillo 2011; Rountree 1972; Voorhoeve 1961). Tone continues to be of interest in the typological turn that the field has taken, and Velupillai (2015) shows that there is no Creole with a complex tone system, a few have a simple system (32%) and the majority (68%) has no tone. P/Cs with tone tend to be endogenous ones, still spoken alongside tonal input languages (Faraclas 1996; Huber 1999; Menang 2004).

A fair amount of work has also been done on phoneme inventories, syllable structure,

and phonotactic constraints to test whether P/Cs tend toward a universal default (Clements 2012; Plag & Schramm 2006; Plag & Uffmann 2000; Schramm 2015; Uffmann 2007; 2008; 2009; Klein 2011). Additionally, scholars have looked at a wide range of other prosodic features (Carter 1987; Devonish 1989; 2002; Gooden et al. 2011), comparing Creoles with their substrate languages. More recent scholarship has identified features that have clear substrate origin such as prenasalized stops (Rivera-Castillo 2013; N. Smith 2007; but also Voorhoeve 1959) and implosives (N. Smith & Haabo 2007) in Saramaccan, and the implosive articulation of voiced stops in Jamaican Creole in some environments (Devonish & Harry 2004; Harry 2006).

Unfortunately, morphology and word-formation have only received minimal attention from scholars interested in genesis. This low level of interest has undoubtedly been fed by the belief that P/C languages are structurally poor in these areas. The bulk of existing work in these areas focus on word-formation processes (but cf. Good 2012) that exhibit high productivity in both P/Cs, e.g. compounding (Brousseau 1989a; 1989b; Lefebvre 1998:Chapters 11; Farquharson 2012:Chapter 8), or those which are productive but exotic, e.g. reduplication (e.g. Cassidy 1957; Kouwenberg 2003; Kouwenberg and LaCharité 2003; 2004). Only a few works so far have addressed the origin and historical development of derivational affixes in P/Cs (Lefebvre 1998:Chapter 10; DeGraff 2001; Braun 2009). Research on the morphology of P/Cs has given us insights such as that Pidgins are “in some respects morphologically richer than creoles” (Bakker 2002:3), and that reduplication is near universal in Creoles but near absent in Pidgins (Bakker 2003). See Muysken (2004) for a brief overview of morphology in P/Cs, Holm (2008) for a discussion on the loss of inflectional morphology in creolization, and Keesing’s (1988) work that includes some discussion of morphology in Melanesian pidgins, and Clements and Luís (2015) show that Korlai not only has inflectional morphology, but also exhibits a fair amount of complexity (e.g. allomorphy). The latter forms part of a growing body of research on inflectional

9

9

morphology in the Portuguese Creoles of Asia (Cardoso 2009; Clements 1996; Luís 2008; Nunes 2011).

Treatment of P/C morphosyntax has covered a wide range of topics including multifunctionality (Lefebvre 1988; Bakir 2014) and the supposed tendency of Creoles toward semantic transparency (cf. Lefebvre 2004: Chapter 7 contra Seuren & Wekker (1986), and the number of grammatical constructions that a Creole will possess. Morphosyntax has dominated the attention of scholars and most theories of genesis devote a disproportionate amount of their attention to morphosyntax such as copulas, serial verb constructions, focus and predicate clefting, and TMA marking. Substratists argue that the foregoing features tend to have partial/full models in substrate languages, but superstratists contend that suitable patterns can be found for some of them in the nonstandard dialects of the lexifier that were involved in the contact. This can be illustrated by the debate a couple of decades ago regarding the origin and development of serial verb constructions (SVCs) in the Indian Ocean Creoles (IOCs). The discussion has ranged between questions about whether SVCs really exist in the IOCs (Seuren 1990, Corne et al. 1996), whether their presence should be attributed to the LBH (Bickerton 1989; 1996) or to internal development (in Mauritian Creole), but with possible substrate reinforcement (Syea 2013). Also on SVCs, see the work of Baxter (2009); Déchaîne (1986), Déchaîne & Lefebvre (1986), Muysken & Veenstra (1994), Sebba (1987), Veenstra (1996), Hagemeijer & Ogi (2011), and McWhorter (1992); double object constructions (Bruyn et al. 1999); copulas and other predicative constructions (Baker & Syea 1991; DeGraff 1995; Kouwenberg 1996; Siegel 2000; Winford 1997); issues of word order (Clements 2001; I. Smith 2012); inflectional categories (Neumann-Holzschuh 2006); markers of ergativity (Meakins & O'Shannessy 2010); prepositions (Li 2011); comparative constructions (Hall 1966; Gilman 1972; Valkhoff 1966; Markey 1982; Cardoso 2012), the noun phrase (Aboh & DeGraff 2014; Baptista & Guéron 2007; Grant 2007; Intumbo 2008; Lefebvre 1998), relative clauses (Huttar et al. 2013), TMA marking (Baptista 2002; Migge & Goury 2008; Schröder 2003; Van den Berg & Aboh 2013; Luís 2008; I. Smith 1977; Velupillai 2003; Versteegh 2014; Winford 2002), copula constructions (Arends 1986; Holm 1984; Lipski 2002; McWhorter 1995; Migge 2002) focus and predicate clefting (Aboh 2007; Manfredi & Tosco 2014), valency (Michaelis 2008), and negation (Vitale 1980; Alexandre 1963; Kouwenberg 2000)

Work on the historical development of the lexis of P/Cs was seriously hampered in the early days by the under-documented status of P/Cs and many substrate languages. The situation has improved on both sides with the sporadic appearance of dictionaries for both groups of languages. For P/Cs we have, among others, Araújo and Hagemeijer (2013); Baxter and de Silva (2004); Cassidy and Le Page 1967; Fyle and Jones 1980; D’Offay & Lionnet 1982; Holm and Shilling 1982; Mondesir & Carrington 1992; Bollée 1993-2007; Allsopp 1996; Senna Fernandes and Baxter (2001); Valdman et al. 1998; Volker 2008; Winer 2009). The lexicographic documentation has been complemented by work on etymology and the investigation of semantic continuities.

Although highly relevant, etymology has been under-utilised in the study of P/Cs, but where it has been used, substrate contribution has generally been the focus (but cf. Smith and Cardoso 2004). Of particular note is the pioneering work of Turner (1949) on Africanisms in

10

10

Gullah which demonstrated that Gullah had more material from substrate languages than generally thought. Turner’s book laid the groundwork for successive investigations which sought to identify the specific lexical contribution of substrate languages to Creoles, the volume and nature of that contribution in comparison with the rest of the lexicon, and implications for the genesis of Creoles. Scholars have generally used morphemic retentions from substrate languages as an indicator of deeper structural influence from those languages (cf. Cassidy 1961; Daeleman 1971; Mittelsdorf 1978). A few have addressed methodological issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure that we get data of the highest quality (Cassidy 1986; Schwegler 2000; Farquharson 2012; Mittelsdorf 1978; N. Smith 2015b; 2015c; Smith et al. 1987) on Atlantic varieties, Mühlhäusler (1985) on the etymology of Pacific varieties, Jourdan (2000) on kinship terms in Solomon Islands Pijin, Baker (1993) on lexical Africanisms in the French-lexicon Creoles of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, and the volume edited by Bartens and Baker (2012) which covers various P/Cs. Unfortunately, there are several gaps in the research. For example, calquing/loan translation and other types of ‘camouflaged borrowing’ have only been dealt with in a piecemeal fashion, and not enough scholars have explored the contribution made by substrate languages at the level of semantics. Huttar (1975; 2003); Huttar et al. (2007) are among the few exceptions.

While the field has been well served by the various theories and approaches outlined above, there is now a need for greater integration of interactionally-based frameworks as well as approaches that explore issues of P/C genesis in relation to identity and power dynamics.

References Aboh, Enoch O. (2007). Leftward Focus versus Rightward Focus: the Kwa-Bantu Conspiracy. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 81-104.

Aboh, Enoch and Norval Smith, eds. 2009. Complex processes in new languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Aboh, Enoch O., Michel DeGraff. 2014. Some notes on bare noun phrases in Haitian Creole and Gùngbè: A transatlantic Sprachbund perspective. In The sociolinguistics of grammar. Tor A. Åfarli and Brit Mæhlum (eds.) [Studies in Language Companion Series 154] 203-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ALEXANDRE, P. 1963. Aperçu sommaire sur le Pidgin A.70 du Cameroun. Cahiers D’Etudes Africaines, Paris IIl, 4(12), 577-82 Alleyne, Mervyn. 1971. Acculturation and the cultural matrix of creolization. In Pidginization and creolization of languages, Dell Hymes (ed.), 169-1986. Cambridge: CUP. Alleyne, Mervyn C. 1980. The African Base. In Comparative Afro-American: An Historical-Comparative Study of English-Based Afro-American Dialects of the New World, 136-179. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

11

11

Allsopp, Richard. 1996. Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ansaldo, Umberto, Stephen Matthews, Lisa Lim (eds.). 2007. Deconstructing Creole. [Typological Studies in Language 73] Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ansaldo, Umberto, Stephen Matthews, and Geoff Smith. "China Coast Pidgin: texts and contexts." Journal of Pidgin and Creole languages 25.1 (2010): 63-94. Baker, Philip/Mühlhäusler, Peter (1990), From business to pidgin, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1(1), 87-115. Ansaldo, Umberto. 2012. Metatypy in Sri Lanka Malay. In Singh, R and Sharma, G (Eds.), Annual review of South Asian languages and linguistics 2011, p. 3-16. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Araújo, Gabriel Antunes & Hagemeijer, Tjerk. 2013. Dicionário Santome-Português / Português-Santome. São Paulo: Hedra. Arends, Jacques. 1986. Genesis and development of the equative copula in Sranan. In Muysken, Pieter & Smith, Norval (eds.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis, 103-127. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Arends, Jacques. 1989. Syntactic developments in Sranan: Creolization as a gradual process. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. (PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen). Arends, Jacques. 1992. Towards a Gradualist Model of Creolization. In Atlantic Meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization. Francis Byrne & John Holm. [Creole Language Library, 11] 371-380. Arends, Jacques. 1994. The socio-historical background of creoles. In Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction, Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith (eds.) [Creole Language Library, 15] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15–24. Arends, Jacques. 1995. Demographic factors in the formation of Sranan. In The Early Stages of Creolization. Jacques Arends (ed.), 233–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arends, Jacques. 1996. Demographic Factors in the Formation of Sranan. In The Early Stages of Creolization. Jacques Arends (eds.). [Creole Language Library, 13] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233-??. Arends, Jacques. 2001. Social stratification and network relations in the formation of Sranan. In Creolization and contact, Norval Smith & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), 291-307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

12

12

Arends, J. 2002. The historical study of creoles and the future of creole studies. In Pidgin and Creole linguistics in the twenty-first century, G. Gilbert (ed). New York: Peter Lang. Arends, Jacques, Matthias Perl. 1995. Early Suriname Creole texts: A collection of 18th-century Sranan and Saramaccan documents. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. Arends, Jacques, Pieter Muysken, Norval Smith. 1994. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, Philip. 1987. Historical developments in Chinese Pidgin English and the nature of the relationships between the various Pidgin Englishes of the Pacific region. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2. 163-207. Baker, Philip. 1993 Assessing the African contribution to French-based Creoles. Mufwene, S (ed.), 123-55. Africanisms in Afro-American language varieties. Athens GA: University of Georgia Press. Baker, Philip. 1997. Directionality in pidginization and creolization. In The structure and status of pidgins and creoles, ed. by Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford, 91-109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, Philip, Adrienne Bruyn (eds.) 1999. St Kitts and the Atlantic Creoles:The Texts of Samuel Augustus Mathews in Perspective. [Westminster Creolistics Series 4] London: Battlebridge Publications. Baker, Philip, Magnus Huber. 2001. Atlantic, Pacific, and world-wide features in English-lexicon contact languages. English World-Wide 22:2, 157-208. Baker, Philip, Lise Winer.1999. Separating the wheat from the chaff. In St Kitts and the Atlantic Creoles: The Texts of Samuel Augustus Mathews in Perspective. Philip Baker & Adrienne Bruyn (eds.), 103-122. Baker, Philip & Syea, Anand. 1991. On the copula in Mauritian creole, past and present. In Byrne, Francis & Huebner, Thom (eds.), Development and structures of creole languages, 159-175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bakir, Murtadha J. 2014. The multifunctionality of fii in Gulf Pidgin Arabic. JPCL 29(2), 410-436. Bakker, Peter. 2002. Pidgin inflectional morphology and its implication for creole morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 3-33. Bakker, Peter. 2003. The absence of reduplication in pidgins. In Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2003. Twice as meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other contact languages. 37-46. London: Battlebridge Publications.

13

13

- Bakker, P. 2006. The Sri Lanka Sprachbund: The newcomers Portuguese and Malay. In Y. Matras, A. McMahon & N. Vincent (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, 135–159. New York: Palgrave. Bakker, Peter. 2015. Creoles have no…-- but they do have… JPCL 30(1), 167-176. Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall and Ingo Plag. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. In Creoles and Typology. Special issue of Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26:1 (2011), Edited by Parth Bhatt and Tonjes Veenstra. [Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 26:1] (p. 5) Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall and Ingo Plag. 2013. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. In Creole Languages and Linguistic Typology, Edited by Parth Bhatt and Tonjes Veenstra. [Benjamins Current Topics, 57] (p. 9-45). Baptista, Marlyse. 2002. The syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento varieties. (Linguistik Aktuell.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Baptista, Marlyse, Jacqueline Guéron. 2007. Functional deficiency, ellipsis or innovation in creole languages? A postface. In Noun phrases in Creole languages: A multi-faceted approach. Marlyse Baptista and Jacqueline Guéron (eds.) 471-483. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bartens, Angela, Philip Baker (eds.). 2012. Black Through White. London: Battlebridge Publications. Baxter, Alan. N. 2009. “Causative and facilitative serial verbs in Asian Ibero-romance Creoles – a convergence of substrate and superstrate systems?” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 8(2):65-90. Baxter, Alan N. & de Silva, Patrick. 2004. A dictionary of Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese) - English. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Becker, Angela, Tonjes Veenstra. 2003. The survival of inflectional morphology in French-related Creoles. Second Language Acquisition 25(2), 283-306. Berry, Jack. 1971. Tone and intonation in Sierra Leone Krio. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Dell Hymes (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 285. Bickerton, Derek (1981). Roots of Language. Karoma Publishers. Bickerton, Derek (1983), Creole Languages. Scientific American 249 (8): 116–122. Bickerton, Derek. 1989. Seselwa serialization and its significance. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 4. 155-184.

14

14

Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 72, 173-188. Bickerton, Derek. 1996. Creoles and the bankruptcy of current acquisition theory. Creole languages and language acquisition, edited by Herman Wekker. Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 33-43. Bickerton, Derek. 1998. A sociohistoric examination of Afrogenesis. JPCL 13(1): 63-92. Bollée, Annegret. 1993-2007. Dictionnaire étymologique des créoles de l’Océan Indien, 4 volumes., Hamburg: Buske. Boretzky, N. (1993). The concept of rule, rule borrowing, and substrate influence in creole languages. In Salikoko S. Mufwene (ed.), Africanisms in Afro-American Language Varieties (pp. 74-92). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Braun, Maria. 2009. Word-formation and creolisation: The case of Early Sranan. [Linguistische Arbeiten 517]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brousseau, A.-M. (1989a) ‘Les noms composés en haïtien: pour une définition intrinsèque de tête morphologique’, Revue québécoise de linguistique 18, 2, pp. 11-41. Brousseau, A.-M. (1989b) ‘De nù-fló à po-bouch: hypothèses sur l'origine des composés en haïtien’, Revue canadienne de linguistique 34, 3, pp. 285-313. Brousseau, A.-M., S. Filipovich, and C. Lefebvre (1989) : ‘Morphological Processes in Haitian Creole: the Question of Substratum and Simplification’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 4(1), pp. 1-37. Bruyn, Adrienne. 1995. Grammaticalization in creoles: the development of determiners and relative clauses in Sranan. IFOTT. Bruyn, A. 1996. On identifying instances of grammaticalization in Creole languages. In Changing Meanings, Changing Functions: Papers Relating to Grammaticalization in Contact Languages, P. Baker & A. Syea (eds), 29–46. London: University of Westminster Press. Bruyn, Adrienne. 2009. Grammaticalization in creoles: Ordinary and not-so-ordinary cases. In Language Change in Contact Languages: Grammatical and prosodic considerations. Special Issue of Studies in Language volume 33:2, Edited by J. Clancy Clements and Shelome Gooden. [Studies in Language, 33:2] (pp. 312–337) Bruyn, Adrienne & Muysken, Pieter & Verrips, Maaike (1999), "Double-Object Constructions in the Creole Languages : Development and Acquisition", in : DeGraff, Michel (ed.), Language creation and language change, Cambridge : MIT Press, 329-373.

15

15

Carden, G. & Stewart. 1988. Binding theory, bioprogram, and creolization: Evidence from Haitian Creole. JPCL 3: 1-67. Cardoso, Hugo C. 2009. The Indo-Portuguese Language of Diu. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap. Cardoso, Hugo C. 2012. Luso-Asian comparatives in comparison. In Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative Perspectives. Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter and Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.) [Creole Language Library 46] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 82-123. Cardoso, Hugo C. 2014. ‘Factoring sociolinguistic variation into the history of Indo-Portuguese’. Revista de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola 5: 87-114. Cardoso, Hugo C., Alan N. Baxter, and Mário Pinharanda Nunes. 2012. Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carter, Hazel. 1983. How to Be a Tone Language: Theoretical Considerations Involved in the Classification of Creole Languages as Tonal (or Otherwise). In Studies in Caribbean Language. Lawrence Carrington (ed.) 90-111. St. Augustine, T&T: Society for Caribbean Linguistics. Carter, Hazel. 1987. Suprasegmentals in Guyanese: Some African Comparisons. In Pidgin and Creole Languages. Glenn Gilbert (ed.), 213-263. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press. Cassidy, F. G. (1961b). Lexicographical problems of the Dictionary of Jamaican English. In R. B. L. Page (Ed.), Creole language studies 2 (pp. 17–36). London: Macmillan. Cassidy, Frederic G. 1957. Iteration as a word-forming device in Jamaican folk speech. American Speech 32:1, 49-53. Cassidy, F. G. (1986). Etymology in Caribbean Creoles. In Manfred Görlach & John A. Holm (Eds.), Focus on the Caribbean (pp. 133–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cassidy, F. G., R. B. Le Page. 1967. Dictionary of Jamaican English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chaudenson, Robert (ed.). 1986. Voyage à l’Ilse de France. Port-Louis. Chaudenson, Robert. 2001. (with Salikoko Mufwene), Creolization of language and culture, London: Routledge. Clements, J. Clancy. 1990. Deletion as an indicator of SVO → SOV shift. Language Variation and Change 2: 103-103.

16

16

Clements, J. Clancy 1996.The genesis of a language: the formation and development of Korlai Portuguese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Clements, J. Clancy. 2001. Word order shift and natural L2 acquisition in a Portuguese creole. In Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition, C. Wiltshire and J. Camps (eds.), 73-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clements, J. Clancy (2012): “Notes on the phonology and lexicon of some Indo-Portuguese creoles”, in Cardoso, Hugo C./Baxter, Alan N./Pinharanda Nunes, Mário (eds.): Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 15-46.

Clements, J. Clancy. 2014. Form selection in contact languages: evidence from some Portuguese- and Spanish-lexified contact varieties, in Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact, edited by Patrícia Amaral and Ana Maria Carvalho. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 377-401. Clements, J. Clancy, Ana R. Luís. 2015. Contact intensity and the borrowing of bound morphology in Korlai Indo- Portuguese, in Borrowed Morphology, edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, Nino Amiridze. Berlin and Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, 219-141. Corne, Chris, Coleman, Deirdre & Curnow, Simon. 1996. Clause reduction in asyndetic coordination in Isle de France Creole: The "serial verbs" problem. In Baker, Philip & Syea, Anand (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, 129-154. London: University of Westminster Press. Crowley, Terry. 1989. Say, c’est, and subordiante constructions in Melanesian Pidgin Journal of Pidgin and Creole Language 4: 185-210. Daeleman, Jan. 1971. Kongo words in Saramacca Tongo. In Hymes (ed.), 281-283. Déchaîne, Rose-Marie. 1986. "Opérations sur les structures d'arguments: le cas des constructions sérielles en haïtien." In Travaux de recherche sur le créole haïtien, Université du Québec à Montréal. Déchaîne, Rose-Marie and Claire Lefebvre. 1986. "The grammar of serial constructions." In Rapport de recherche Fon-Haïti, red. by J. Kaye and Lefebvre. Université du Québec à Montréal. DeGraff, Michel. 1995. Predicate-movement, quantification, events and properties. In Manfredi, Victor & Reynolds, Karl (eds.), Niger-Congo syntax and semantics, 69-82. Boston: Boston University: African Studies Center. DeGraff, Michel. 2001. Morphology in Creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology. In Ken Hale: A life in language. Michael Kenstowicz (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53-121. DeGraff, Michel. 2002. Relexification: A reevaluation. Anthropological Linguistics 44(4), 321-414.

17

17

DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against creole exceptionalism. Language 79(2), 391-410. DeGraff, Michel. 2004. Against creole exceptionalism (redux). Language 80(), 834-839. DeGraff, Michel. 2005. Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole exceptionalism. Language in Society 34, 533-591. Devonish, Hubert. 1989. Talking in Tones: A Study of tone in Afro-European Creole Languages. London: Karia Press. Devonish, Hubert. 2002. Talking rhythm stressing tone : The role of prominence in Anglo-West African creole languages. Kingston: Arawak Publications. Devonish, Hubert, Otelemate Harry. 2004. Jamaican Phonology. In A Handbook of Varieties of English 1: Phonology. 441-471. Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. D'Offay, Danielle, Guy Lionnet. 1982. Diksyonner kreol-franse. Dictionnaire créole seychellois-français. Hamburg (Kreolische Bibliothek 2) Drechsel, Emanuel J. 2012. Ethnohistory of speaking: Maritime Polynesian Pidgin in a trilogy of historical-sociolinguistic attestations. In Pidgins and Creoles beyond Africa-Europe Encounters, Isabelle Buchstaller, Anders Holmberg, Mohammad Almoaily (eds.), 7-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Drechsel, Emanuel J. 2014. Language contact in the early colonial Pacific: Maritime Polynesian Pidgin before Pidgin English. New York: cambridge University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of Subject, Object and Verb. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/81, Accessed on 2016-06-18.) Faraclas, Nicholas G. 1996. Nigerian Pidgin. London / New York: Routledge. Faraclas, Nicholas, Thomas B. Klein (eds.). 2009. Simplicity and Complexity in Creoles and Pidgins. London: Battlebridge. Farquharson, Joseph Tito. The African Lexis in Jamaican: Its Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Significance. PhD Diss. University of the West Indies, Mona. 2012. Farquharson, Joseph T. Thomas Russell’s Contribution to Historical Jamaican Grammar. In Europäische Kreolisten des 19. Jahrhunderts/European Creolists in the 19th Century. Krämer, Philipp (ed.). [Kreolische Bibliothek 24] Hamburg: Buske. ???-???

18

18

Fyle, CLIFFORD W., ELDRED D. JONES. 1980. A Krio--English Dictionary. London, Oxford University Press; Freetown, Sierra Leone University Press.

Gil, David. 2014. Sign languages, creoles, and the development of predication. In Measuring grammatical complexity. Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds.) 37-?? New York: Oxford University Press. Gilman, Charles, 1972. The comparative structure in French, English, and Cameroonian Pidgin English: An exercise in linguistic comparison. PhD Diss. Northwestern University. Givón, Talmy. 1982. Tense-aspect-modality: The creole prototype and beyond. In Tense-Aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics. Paul J. Hopper (ed.) [Typological Studies in Language 1] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 135-163. Good, Jeff. 2006. The phonetics of tone in Saramaccan. In Ana Deumert and Stephanie Durrleman (eds.), Structure and variation in language contact. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 9–28.

Good, Jeff. 2009a. Loanwords in Saramaccan. In Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world's languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 918–943.

Good, Jeff. 2009b. Saramaccan vocabulary. In Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds.), World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. 1103 word entries.

Good, Jeff. 2009c. A twice-mixed creole? Tracing the history of a prosodic split in the Saramaccan lexicon. Studies in Language 33:459–498.

Good, Jeff. 2012. Typologizing   grammatical   complexities   or   Why   creoles   may   be  paradigmatically  simple  but  syntagmatically  average.  Journal  of  Pidgin  and  Creole  Languages  27:1–47. Gooden, Shelome, Kathy-Ann Drayton and Mary E. Beckman. 2011. Tone inventories and tune-text alignments: Prosodic variation in ‘hybrid’ prosodic systems. In Language Change in Contact Languages: Grammatical and prosodic considerations, Edited by J. Clancy Clements and Shelome Gooden. [Benjamins Current Topics, 36] (pp. 137–176) Goulden, R. J. 1989. The source of Tok Pisin structures. World Englishes 8:2, 147-156. Grant, Anthony P. 1999. A note on ethnolectal variation in Mathews’ texts. In St Kitts and the Atlantic Creoles:The Texts of Samuel Augustus Mathews in Perspective. [Westminster

Joseph T. Farquharson� 26/5/2016 15:47Comment [1]: Find page.

19

19

Creolistics Series 4] Philip Baker & Adrienne Bruyn (eds.). London: Battlebridge Publications, 123-128. Grant, Anthony. 2007. Some aspects of NPs in Mindanao Chabacano: Structural and historical considerations. In Noun phrases in Creole languages: A multi-faceted approach. Marlyse Baptista and Jacqueline Guéron (eds.) 173-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hagemeijer, Tjerk and Ogie, Ota. 2011. Èdó influence on Santome: Evidence from verb serialisation. In Creole, their substrates, and language typology. Claire Lefebvre (ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37-60. Hall Jr., Robert A. (1944), Chinese Pidgin English grammar and texts, Journal of the American Oriental Society 64, 95-113. Hall Jr., Robert A. 1962. The life cycle of pidgin languages. Lingua 11, 151-156. Hall, Jr., Robert A. 1966. Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ham, William H. 1999. Tone Sandhi in Saramaccan: A case of substrate transfer? JPCL 14(1): 45-91. Hancock, Ian. 1969. The English-derived Atlantic Creoles: A provisional comparison. African Language Review 8.7–72. Hancock, Ian. 1986. The domestic hypothesis, diffusion and componentiality: An account of Atlantic Anglophone creole origins. In Muysken and Smith 1986, 71–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harry, Otelemate. 2006. Jamaican Creole. Journal of the International Phonetics Association 36:1, 125-131. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, Bernard Comrie (eds.) 2005 The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin, Uri Tadmor. 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Hazael-Massieux, Marie-Christine. 2006. Using and interpreting historical texts to analyze the formation and development of Creole languages. In History, Society and Variation: In Honor of Albert Valdman. J. Clancy Clements, Thomas A. Klinger, Deborah Piston-Hatlen, Kevin J. Rottet (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29-46. Helms-Park, Rena. 2003. Transfer in SLA and Creoles: The implications of causative serial verbs in the interlanguage of Vietnamese ESL learners. Second Language Acquisition 25(2), 211-244.

20

20

Holm, John. 1981. Sociolinguistic history and the creolist. In Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies. Arnold R. Highfield, Albert Valdman (eds.) Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. Holm, John A. 1984. Variability of the copula in Black English and its creole kin. American Speech 59: 291-309. Holm, John A. 2008. Creolization and the fate of inflections. In Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dirk & Salas Palomo, Rosa (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, 299-324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holm, John. 2013. Copulas in Atlantic creoles and other languages. PAPIA 23(2), 223-234. Holm, John A., Peter L. Patrick (eds.) 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. (London: Battlebridge Press) Holm, John A. & Watt Shilling, Alison. 1982. Dictionary of Bahamian English. Lexik House Publishers, Huber, Magnus. 1999. Atlantic English Creoles and the Lower Guinea Coast: A case against Afro-genesis. In Spreading the word: The issues of diffusion among the Atlantic Creoles, Magnus Huber & Mikael Parkvall (eds.), 81-110. London: University of Westminster Press. Huttar, George L. 1975. Sources of creole semantic structures. Language 51.3.684-95. Huttar, George L. 2003. Scales of basicness in semantic domains and their application to creolization. SIL International Publications in Linguistics. Huttar, George L. 2009. Development of a creole lexicon. In Gradual Creolization: Studies celebrating Jacques Arends. Rachel Selbach, Hugo C. Cardoso and Margot van den Berg (eds.) [Creole Language Library, 34] (pp. 173–188) Huttar, George L., James Essegbey and Felix K. Ameka. 2007. Gbe and other West African sources of Suriname creole semantic structures: Implications for creole genesis. In Substrate Influence in Creole Formation. Special Issue of Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 22:1 (2007), Edited by Bettina Migge and Norval Smith. [Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 22:1] (pp. 57–72)

Huttar,, George L., Enoch O. Aboh, Felix K. Ameka. 2013. Relative clauses in Suriname creoles and Gbe languages. Lingua 129, 96-123. Huttar, George L., Enoch O. Aboh & Felix K. Ameka (2013). Relative clauses in Suriname creoles and Gbe languages. Lingua, 129, 96-123. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.009

21

21

Intumbo, Incanha. 2008. Balanta, Guiné-Bissau Creole Portuguese and Portuguese: A comparison of the noun phrase. In Roots of Creole Structures: Weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Susanne Michaelis (ed.) [Creole Language Library 33] 263–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jacobs, Bart. 2012. Origins of a Creole: The History of Papiamentu and Its African Ties. Berlin: De Gruyter. Jourdan, Christine. 2000. “My nephew is my aunt”: Features and transformations in kinship terminology in Solomon Islands Pijin. In Processes of Language contact, Jeff Siegel (ed.), 99-121. Montreal: Fides. Jourdan, Christine & Keesing, Roger. 1997. From Fisin to Pijin: Creolization in process in the Solomon Islands. Language in Society 26: 401-420. Jungbluth, Konstanze. 2015. Creoles. In Manual of deixis in Romance languages. Konstanze Jungbluth, Federica Da Milano (eds.) 332-356. Berlin: DeGruyter. Keesing, Roger M. 1988. Melanesian Pidgin and the Oceanic substrate. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Keesing, Roger, 1991. Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In: Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Elisabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315-342. Klein, Thomas. 2006. Creole phonology typology: Phoneme inventory size, vowel quality distinctions and stop consonant series. In The Structure of Creole Words: Segmental, Syllabic and Morphological Aspects. Parth Bhatt & Ingo Plag (eds.) [Linguistische Arbeiten 505] Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 3-21. Klein, Thomas. 2011. Diversity and complexity in the typology of syllables in Creole languages. JPCL Kouwenberg, Silvia. 1996. The relationship between adjectives and verbs, with special reference to Berbice Dutch Creole. In Caribbean language issues old and new: Papers in honour of Professor Mervyn Alleyne on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press, 27-40. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2000. Loss in Berbice Dutch Creole negative constructions. Linguistics 38(5), 889-923. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2003. Twice as meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other contact languages. London: Battlebridge Publications. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2009. The invisible hand in creole genesis: Reanalysis in the formation of Berbice Dutch. In Complex processes in new languages. Enoch O. Aboh and Norval Smith (eds.) [Creole Language Library 35] 115-158.

22

22

Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2010a. Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part 1. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 25:1, pp. 173–186. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2010b. Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part 2. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25:2,(pp. 359–380) Kouwenberg, Silvia, Darlene LaCharité. 2004. Echoes of Africa: Reduplication in Caribbean Creole and Niger-Congo languages. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19:2, 285-331. Kouwenberg, Silvia and Darlene LaCharité. 2003. The meaning of ‘more of the same’: Iconicity in reduplication and the evidence for substrate transfer in the Genesis of Caribbean Creole languages. In Kouwenberg (ed.), 7-18. Kouwenberg, Silvia, Peter L. Patrick. 2003. Introduction. Second Language Acquisition 25(2), 175-184. Kouwenberg, Silvia, John Victor Singler. 2008. The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Krämer, Philipp. 2014. Ausgewählte Arbeiten der Kreolistik des 19. Jahrhunderts/Selected Works from 19th Century Creolistics: Emilio Teza, Thomas Russell, Erik Pontoppidan, Adolpho Coelho. [Kreolische Bibliothek 24] Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Kriegel, Sibylle, Michaelis, Susanne & Pfaender. 2003. Modalité et grammaticalisation: le cas des créoles français. In Grammaticalisation et réanalyse. Approches de la variation et français, Sybille Kriegel (ed.), 165-192. CNRS Editions. Lalla; Barbara, Jean D'Costa. 1990. Language in Exile: Three Hundred Years of Jamaican Creole. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Lefebvre, Claire. 1988. Multifunctionality and variation among grammars: The case of the determiner in Haitian and in Fongbe. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 13. 93-150. Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar (Cambridge studies in linguistics 88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefebvre, Claire. 2001a. Relexification in creole genesis and its effects on the development of the creole. Creolization and Contact. Norval Smith and Tonjes Veenstra (eds.) [Creole Language Library 23] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–42. Lefebvre, Claire. 2001b. The interplay of relexification and levelling in creole genesis and development. Linguistics 39:3, 371-408.

23

23

Lefebvre, Claire. 2004. Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lefebvre, Claire (ed.). 2011. Creoles, their Substrates, and Language Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lefebvre, Claire. 2014. Issues in the study of pidgin and creole languages. [Studies in Language 70] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lefebvre, Claire. 2015. Relabeling in language genesis. New York: Oxford University Press. Lefebvre, Claire & Loranger, Virginie. 2006. On the properties of Saramaccan fu: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 21(2): 275–335. Le Page, Robert B. (ed.) 1960a Editor, Creole Language Studies I . London: Macmillan. Li, Michelle. 2011. Origins of a preposition: Chinese Pidgin English long and its implications for pidgin grammar. Journal of Language Contact 4(2): 269-294. Lipski, John. (2002): “Génesis y evolución de la cópula en los criollos afro-ibéricos”, in: Moñino, Yves/Schwegler, Armin (eds.): Palenque, Cartagena y Afro-Caribe: historia y lengua. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 65-101. Lipski, John. 2005. A history of Afro-Hispanic language: Five centuries, five continents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennsylvania State University. Luís, Ana R. 2008. Tense marking and inflectional morphology in Indo-Portuguese creoles. In Roots of Creole Structures: Weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Susanne Michaelis (ed.) [Creole Language Library 33] 83–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manfredi, Stefano and Mauro Tosco. 2014. The morphosyntax and prosody of topic and focus in Juba Arabic. JPCL 29:2, 319-351. Matthews, Stephen/Li, Michelle (2012), Portuguese pidgin and Chinese Pidgin English in the Canton trade, in: Hugo C. Cardoso/Alan N. Baxter/Mário Pinharanda Nunes (edd.), Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives, 263-287., Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Markey, Thomas. 1982. Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 49, 169-207. McWhorter, John. 1992. Substratal Influence in Saramaccan Serial Verb Constructions. JPCL 7:1, 1-53.

24

24

McWhorter, John H. 1995. Looking into the void : Zero copula in the creole mesolect. American Speech 70. 339-360. McWhorter, John H. 1997. Towards a new model of creole genesis. New York: Peter Lang. McWhorter, John. 2000. The Missing Spanish Creoles: Recovering the Birth of Plantation Contact Languages. Los Angeles: University of California Press. McWhorter, John H. 2001a. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5:2-3, 125-166. McWhorter, John. 2001b. Defining “creole” as a synchronic term. In Degrees of restructuring in Creole languages, Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh & Edgar Schneider (eds.), 85-123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McWhorter, John. 2002. The rest of the story: Restoring pidginization to creole genesis theory. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 17:1, 1–48.

McWhorter, John. 2005. Review of Issues in the study of pidgin and creole languages. JPCL 20(1), 211-218. McWhorter, John H. 2006. Revisiting the creole prototype: Signs of antiquity in older languages. In Studies in contact linguistics: Essays in honor of Glenn G. Gilbert. Glenn G. Gilbert, Janet M. Fuller, Linda L. Thornburg (eds.) 253-267. New York: Peter Lang. Meakins, Felicity & O'Shannessy, Carmel. 2010. Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua 120. 1693–1713. Menang, Thaddeus. 2004. Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): Phonology. ( In Schneider, E.W., K. Burridge, B. Kortmann, R. Mesthrie & C. Upton (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English I: Phonology, 902-917. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2002. All the same? The emergence of complementizers in Bislama. In Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (Typological Studies in Language 52), Tom Güldeman & Manfred Roncador (eds.), 341-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Michaelis, Susanne. 2008. Valency patterns in Seychelles Creole: Where do they come from? In Roots of Creole Structures: Weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Susanne Michaelis (ed.) [Creole Language Library 33] 225–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Michaelis, Susanne with Marcel Rosalie. 2009. Loanwords in Seychelles Creole. In: Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.). Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter 2009, 215-230.

25

25

Michaelis, Susanne with Rosalie, Marcel & Muhme, Katrin. 2009. Seychelles Creole vocabulary. In: Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus] (eds.). 2013a. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus] (eds.). 2013b. The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Volumes 1-3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michaelis, Susanne Maria & Maurer, Philippe & Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus] (Eds.). 2013c. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Migge, Bettina. 2002. The Origin of the Copulas (d/n)a and de in the Eastern Maroon Creole. Diachronica 19. 81-133. Migge, Bettina, Laurence Goury. 2008. Between contact and internal development: Towards a multi-layered explanation for the development of the TMA system in the creoles of Suriname. In Roots of Creole Structures: Weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Susanne Michaelis (ed.) [Creole Language Library 33] 300-331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Migge, Bettina, Donald Winford. 2013. Fact-type complements in Gbe and the Surinamese Creoles. Lingua 129, 9-31. Mittelsdorf, S. (1978). African retentions in Jamaican Creole: A reassessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University. McWhorter, John. 2002. The rest of the story: Restoring pidginization to creole genesis theory. JPCL 17(1): 1-48. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2002. All the same? The emergence of complementizers in Bislama. In Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (Typological Studies in Language 52), Tom Güldeman & Manfred Roncador (eds.), 341-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mintz, Sidney. 1977. The socio-historical background to Pidginization and Creolization. In Pidginization and creolization of languages, Dell Hymes (ed.) 481-496. Cambridge: CUP. Mondesir, Jones E. (comp.) and Carrington, Lawrence D. (ed.). 1992. Dictionary of St. Lucian Creole. Part 1: Kwéyòl - English. Part 2: English - Kwéyòl. In Mondesir, Jones E. (comp.) and Carrington, Lawrence D. (eds.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

26

26

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1996. The Founder Principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13. 83-134. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2009 Kituba, Kileta, or Kikongo? What’s in a name? Le nom des langues III. Le nom des langues en Afrique sub-saharienne : pratiques dénominations, catégorisations. Naming Languages in Sub-Saharan Africa: Practices, Names, Categorisations (sous la direction de C. de Féral), Louvain-la-Neuve, Peeters, BCILL 124, 2009, p. 211-222. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2013. Simplicity and Complexity in Creoles and Pidgins: What’s the Metric? Journal of Language Contact 6, 161-179. Mühlhäusler, P. 1985. Etymologising and Tok Pisin. In Handbook of Tok Pisin (New Guinea. S. A. Wurm and P. Mühlhäusler (eds.) [Pacific Linguistics C70] Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 177-219.

Mühlhäusler, Peter, Thomas Edward Dutton, Suzanne Romaine. 2003. Tok Pisin Texts: From the Beginning to the Present. [Varieties of English Around the World T9] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Munro, Jen. 2000. Kriol on the move: A case of language spread and shift in Northern Australia. In Processes of language contact: Studies from Australia and the South Pacific Jeff Siegel (ed.), 245-270. Collections Champs linguistiques (Quebec): Saint-Laurent: Fibes. Muysken, P. C. 1988. Are Creoles a special type of language? In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey 2. F. Newmeyer (ed.) Cambridge: CUP, 285-301. Muysken, Pieter 1995. Studying variation in older texts: Negerhollands. JPCL 10(2) 335-347. Muysken, Pieter, Tonjes Veenstra. 1994. Serial verbs. Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction Edited by Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith [Creole Language Library 15] pp. 289–301 Muysken, P. (2004). Pidginization, creoliation, and language death. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, and S. S. W. Kesselheim (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology, pp. 1653–1661. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Naro, Anthony J. 1978. A study on the origins of pidginization. Language 54.2: 314-347. Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid. 2006. Gender in French creoles : The story of a loser. In Clements, J. Clancy ; Klingler, Thomas A., Piston-Hatlen, Deborah & Rottet, Kevin J. (eds.), Source: History, society and variation: In honour of Albert Valdman, 251-277.

27

27

Nunes, Mário. 2011. Estudo da Expressão Morfo-Sintáctica das Categorias de Tempo, Modo e Aspecto em Maquista. PhD dissertation, University of Macau. Owens, Jonathan. 1990. East African Nubi: Bioprogam vs. inheritance. Diachronica 7: 217- 250. Parkvall, Mikael. 1995. The role of St. Kitts in a new scenario of French Creole genesis. In From Contact to Creole and Beyond. Philip Baker (ed.) 41-62. London: University of Westminster Press. Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change, Edited by Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson. [Studies in Language Companion Series, 94] (pp. 265–285) Plag, I. (1993). Sentential complementation in Sranan. On the formation of an English-based creole language. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Plag, I. (1995). The emergence of taki as a complementizer in Sranan: On substrate influence, universals, and gradual creolization. In J. Arends (Ed.), The early stages of creolization (pp. 113-148). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Plag, Ingo. 2008a. Creoles as interlanguages: Inflectional morphology. JPCL 23(1), 114-135. Plag, Ingo. 2008b. Creoles as interlanguages: Syntactic structures. JPCL 23(2), 307-328. Plag, Ingo. 2009a. Creoles as interlanguages: Phonology. JPCL 24(1), 119-138. Plag, Ingo. 2009b. Creoles as interlanguages: Word-formation. JPCL 24(2), 339-362. Plag, Ingo & Schramm, Mareile. 2006. Early creole syllable structure: A cross-linguistic survey of the earliest attested varieties of Saramaccan, Sranan, St. Kitts and Jamaican. In Bhatt, Parth & Plag, Ingo (eds.), The structure of creole words: Segmental, syllabic and morphological aspects, 131-150. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Plag, Ingo & Christian Uffmann. 2000. Phonological restructuring in creole: the development

of paragoge in Sranan. In Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.), Degrees

of Restructuring in Creole Languages (Creole Language Library vol. 22). Amsterdam:

Benjamins. 309-336.

Rivera-Castillo, Yolanda. 1998. Tone and stress in Papiamentu: The contribution of a

constraint-based analysis to the problem of creole genesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole

Languages 13:2, (pp. 297–334)

28

28

Rivera-Castillo, Yolanda. 2013. A Monophonemic Analysis of Prenasalized Consonants in Saramaccan. Revista de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola 4, 1-25. Roberts, Sarah J., & Bresnan, J. (2008). Retained Inflectional Morphology in Pidgins: A Typological Study, Romaine, S. (1988). Contributions from pidgin and creole studies to a sociolinguistic theory of language change. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 71, 59-66. Romaine, S. (1990). Change and variation in the use of bai in young children's creolized Tok Pisin in Morobe Province. Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin: Proceedings of the First International Conference of Pidgins and Creoles in Melanesia, 345-373. Rountree, S. Catherine. 1972. Saramaccan Tone in Relation to Intonation and Grammar. Lingua 29, 308-325. Sabino, Robin. 2012. Language Contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his Jacket. Leiden: Brill. Sabino, Robin. 1994. They just fade away: Language Death and the loss of Phonological Variation. Language in Society 24(4): 495-526. Sabino, Robin. 1996. A peak at death: Assessing continuity and change in an underdocumented language. Language Variation and Change 8(1): 41-61. Sabino, Robin. 2012. Language Contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack His Jacket. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Samarin, William J. 1971. Salient and substantive pidginization. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Dell Hymes (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117-140. Sankoff, Gillian, & Laberge, Suzanne. (1973). On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. Kivung, 6, 32-47. Schramm, Mareile. 2015. The Emergence of Creole Syllable Structure: A Cross-linguistic Study. [Linguistische Arbeiten 554] Berlin: De Gruyter. Schröder, Anne. 2003. Aspect in Cameroon Pidgin English. In Lucko, Peter and Peter, Lothar and Wolf, Hans-Georg (eds.), Studies in African Varieties of English, 83-100. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

29

29

Schumann, John H. 1978. THE RELATIONSHIP OF PIDGINIZATION, CREOLIZATION AND DECREOLIZATION TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. Language Learning 28(2), 367-379. Schumann, John H. 1974. The Implications of Interlanguage, Pidginization and Creolization for the Study of Adult Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 8(2), 145-152. Schwegler, Armin. 2000. The African Vocabulary of Palenque (Colombia). Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 15:2, (pp. 241–312) Sebba, Mark 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs: An investigation into serialisation in Sranan and other languages. [CLL 2] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Selbach, Rachel, Hugo C. Cardoso and Margot van den Berg (eds.) 2009. Gradual Creolization: Studies celebrating Jacques Arends. [Creole Language Library 34] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Senna Fernandes, Miguel & Baxter, Alan N. 2001. Maquista chapado - vocabulário e expressões do crioulo português de Macau. 1st ed. Macau: Instituto Internacional de Macau. Seuren, Pieter. 1990. Still no serials in Seselwa. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 5.2: 271–292. Seuren, Pieter. 1991. The definition of serial verbs. In Development and structure of creole languages: Essays in honor of Derek Bickerton. Francis Byrne & Thom Huebner (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 193-205. Seuren, Pieter & Herman Wekker (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Muysken & Smith (eds.). In Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds.) Amsterdam: Benjamins, 57–70. Siegel, Jeff. 1998. Substrate reinforcement and dialectal differences in Melanesian Pidgin. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2(3), 347-373. Siegel, Jeff. 2000. Substrate Influence in Hawai’i Creole English. Language in Society 29 (2), 197-236. Siegel, Jeff. 2003. Substrate influence in Creoles and the role of transfer in second language acquisition. Second Language Acquisition 25(2), 185-209. Siegel, Jeff. (2006). Links between SLA and creole studies: Past and present. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (Eds.), L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis 15-46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Siegel, J. 2008. The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30

30

Singler, John Victor. 1992. Nativization and Pidgin/Creole Genesis: A reply to Bickerton. JPCL 7(2): 319-333. Singler, John V. 1993. The African presence in Caribbean French colonies in the seventeenth century documentary evidence. Travaux de recherche sur le créole haïtien 16-17. Singler, John Victor. 1996. Theories of Creole genesis, sociohistorical considerations, and the evaluation of evidence: The case of Haitian Creole and the Relexification Hypothesis. JPCL 11:2, 185-230. Singler, John Victor. 2006. Children and creole genesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 21:1, 157–173. Smith, Geoff P. (2002). Growing Up With Tok Pisin: Contact, Creolization, and Change in Papua New Guinea's National Language. London: Battlebridge Publications. Smith, Ian R. 1977. Sri Lanka Portuguese Creole phonology. Cornell University. Cornell University. (Ph.D dissertation, Cornell University. Smith, Ian R. 1979a. Substrata vs. universals in the formation of Sri Lanka Portuguese. Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics 2: 183-200. Smith, Ian R. 1979b. Convergence in South Asia: a creole example. Lingua 48: 193-222.

Smith, Ian R. 2012. Measuring substrate influence; Word order features in Ibero-Asian Creoles, in Ibero-Asian Creoles. Comparative perspectives, H.C. Cardoso, A.N. Baxter and M. Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Amesterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–148.

Smith, Norval. 1987. The Genesis of the Creole Languages of Surinam. PhD Diss, University of Amsterdam. Smith, Norval. 1997. Ingredient X: The common core of African words in the Atlantic creoles. Paper delivered to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Westminster, London, June. Smith, Norval. 2008. Creole Phonology. In The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, Silvia Kouwenberg & John V. Singler (eds.), 98- 129. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Smith, Norval. 2015a. Ingredient X: The shared African lexical element in the English-lexifier Atlantic Creoles, and the theory of rapid creolization. In Pieter C. Muysken & Norval Smith (Eds.), Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 275) (pp. 67-106). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smith, Norval. 2015b. A preliminary list of probable Gbe lexical items in the Surinam Creoles. In P.C. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds.), Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 275) (pp. 463-476). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

31

31

Smith, Norval. 2015c. A preliminary list of probable Kikongo (KiKoongo) lexical items in the Surinam Creoles. In P.C. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds.), Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 275) (pp. 417-462). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smith, Norval, Ian Robertson, and Kay Williamson. 1987. The Ijo element in Berbice Dutch. Language in Society 16.49-90. Smith, Norval, Vinije Haabo. 2007. The Saramaccan Implosives: Tools for Linguistic Archaeology? JPCL 22:1, 101-122. Smith, N. & H.C. Cardoso. 2004. A new look at the Portuguese element in Saramaccan. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3.2. Sprouse, Rex A. 2010.The invisibility of SLA theory in mainstream creole linguistics. Second Language Research 26(2), 261-277. Syea, Anand. 2013. Serial Verb Constructions in Indian Ocean French Creoles (IOCs): Substrate, universal, or an independent diachronic development? JPCL 28(1), 13-64. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Contact Languages I: Pidgins and Creoles. In Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah Grey, Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, University of California Press, 147-199. Tryon, Darrell T., Jean-Michel Charpentier. 2004. Pacific Pidgins and Creoles: Origins, growth and development. []Trends in Linguistics 12] Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Uffmann, Christian. 2007. Vowel Epenthesis in Loanword Adaptation (Linguistische

Arbeiten 510). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Uffmann, Christian. 2008. Vowel epenthesis and creole syllable structure. In Susanne

Michaelis (ed.), Creoles Between Substrates and Superstrates (Creole Language Library vol.

35). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 123-152.

Uffmann, Christian. 2009. Creole consonant inventories: how simple? In Nicholas Faraclas &

Thomas Klein (eds.), Simplicity and Complexity in Creole and Pidgin Languages. London:

Battlebridge. 81-106.

32

32

Uffmann, Christian. 2009. Vowel epenthesis and creole syllable structure. In Roots of creole structures: weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates, Susanne Michaelis (ed.), 123-152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valdman, Albert, Klingler, Thomas A., Marshall, Margot M. & Rotter, Kevin J. 1998. Dictionary of Louisiana Creole. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Valkhoff, Maurice F. 1966. Studies in Portuguese and Creole: With Special reference to South Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University. Van den Berg, M.C. & E.O. Aboh (2013). Done already? A comparison of completive

markers in the Gbe languages and Sranan Tongo. Lingua, 129, 150-172. doi:

10.1016/j.lingua.2013.02.010

Van den Berg, Margot, Jacques Arends. 2004. Court records as a source of authentic early Sranan. In Creoles, Contact, and Language Change: Linguistic and social implications, Geneviève Escure and Armin Schwegler (eds.). [Creole Language Library, 27] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–34. Veenstra, Tonjes. 1996. Serial verbs in Saramaccan: predication and creole genesis. Dordrecht: ICG Printing. Veenstra, Tonjes. 2008. Pidgin/creole genesis: the impact of the language bioprogram hypothesis. In The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, 219-241. Silvia Kouwenberg & John Singler (eds.). London: Blackwell. Velupillai, Viveka Lalitha. 2003. Hawai'i Creole English: A typological analysis of the tense-mood-aspect system. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Velupillai, Viveka, 2015. Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages. An Introduction. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pidginization and creolization: The case of Arabic. [Current Issues in

LInguistic Theory 33] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Versteegh, Kees. 2014. Speaking of the past: The development of past time reference in Arabic pidgins. JPCL 29:2, 211-231. Vitale, Anthony J. 1980. Kisetla: linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of a pidgin Swahili of Kenya. Anthropological Linguistics 22 (2): 47-65. Volker, C. A. (2008). Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin English Dictionary. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

33

33

Voorhoeve, Jan. 1981. Multifunctionality as a derivational problem. In Pieter C. Muysken (ed.) 25-34. Voorhoeve, Jan, 1961. Le ton et la grammaire dans le Saramaccan. Word 17, 146-163. Winer, Lise. 1984. Early Trinidadian English Creole: The Spectator Texts. English World-Wide 5:2, 181-210. Winer, Lise. 2009. Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad and Tobago. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press Winford, Donald. 2000. Property items and predication in Sranan. JPCL 12:2, 237-301. Winford, Donald. 2002. Tense and aspect in Sranan and the creole prototype. In McWhorter, John (ed.), Language change and language contact in pidgins and creoles, 383-442. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Winford, Don. 2006. “The restructuring of tense/aspect systems in creole formation.” In Ana Deumert & Stephanie Durrleman (eds.) Structure and Variation in Language Contact, 85-110. Creole Language Library Series 29. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Winford, Donald & Migge, Bettina. 2007. Substrate influence in the emergence of the tense and aspect system in the Creoles of Suriname. Journal of Pidgin and Creole languages (John Benjamins) 22 (1): 73-99. Yakpo, Kofi, Adrienne Bruyn. 2015. Trans-Atlantic patterns: the relexification of locative constructions in Sranan. In Muysken, P & Smith, N (Eds.), Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund. 135-174. Berlin: De Gruyter