Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Contact Linguistics: In honour of Pieter Muysken
Edited by Norval Smith, Tonjes Veenstra and Enoch O. Aboh
[Contact Language Library 57] 2020
► pp. 85–106

The quest for non-European creoles

Is Kukama (Brazil, Peru) a creole language?

ORCID logo | Aarhus University
Kukama has been classified firstly, as a Tupi-Guarani language, secondly, as a language that has undergone massive contact-induced change, and thirdly, as a creole. These different positions are surveyed against definitions of mixed languages and creoles, and properties of Tupi-Guarani languages. We focus especially on its possible status as a creole language, as there is a need among creolists to expand the range of creoles with a broad set of lexifiers and substrates, especially after recent research has revealed a typological profile for creoles. With typological, historical and historical-comparative arguments, it is concluded that the original grammatical system of Kukama was strongly reduced, and subsequently innovated and expanded with mostly Tupi-Guarani roots, a process parallel to that gone through by accepted creoles. As is commonly the case in creoles, very little beyond the lexicon is inherited from its lexifier, a language close to Tupinamba. However, the Kukama language does not quite fit two proposals for creole prototypes, perhaps because the processes of loss and innovation took place in a much more remote past than for identified creoles. In this paper, it will be discussed whether Kukama is a language that defies classification within the current typology of contact languages, or whether it is deviant within current family classifications.
Keywords: creole languages, Tupi-Guaraní, Kukama, typology, historical linguistics, mixed languages, grammaticalization, creolization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Kukama as a contact language
  • 3.Kukama and the Tupi-Guarani languages
  • 4.Kukama and the typology of creoles
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • Abbreviations used
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.57.03bak
References (54)
References
Bakker, P. 1997. “A Language of our Own”. The Genesis of Michif – The Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2014. Creoles and typology: Problems of sampling and definition. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2): 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Typology of mixed languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 217–253. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Contact and mixed languages. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 201–220. Oxford: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. & Muysken, P. C. 1994. Mixed languages. In Pidgins and Creoles. An Introduction [Creole Language Library 15], J. T. G. Arends, P. C. Muysken & N. S. H. Smith (eds), 41–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. & van der Voort, H. 2017. Polysynthesis and language contact. In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, M. Fortescue, M. Mithun & N. Evans (eds), 408–427. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. 2013. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. In Creole Languages and Linguistic Typology, [Benjamins Current Topics 57] P. Bhatt & T. Veenstra (eds), 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo (Published originally in Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1): 5–42, 2011. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Borchsenius, F., Levisen, C., & Sippola, E. (eds). 2017. Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Gretenkort, T., Parkvall, M. 2018. Dr. Crevaux’ Wayana-Carib Pidgin of the Guyanas: A grammatical sketch. Amérindia: Revue d’Ethnolinguistique Amérindienne 40: 169–220.Google Scholar
Barbosa Lemos, A. 1956. Curso do tupí antigo: Gramática, exercícios, textos. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José.Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Michaelis, S. M. & Haspelmath, M. 2017. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1: 723–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabral, A. S. de A. C. 1995. Contact-induced Language Change in the Western Amazon: The Non-genetic Origin of the Kokama Language. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
1997. Evidências morfológicas para a não-classificação genética do Kokama. Boletim da ABRALIN 21: 152–164.Google Scholar
2000. En qué sentido el kokáma no es una lengua tupí-guaraní. In Actas I Congreso de lenguas indígenas de Sudamérica, II, L. Miranda (ed.), 237–251. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.Google Scholar
2007. New observations on the structure of Kokáma/Omágwa. In Language Endangerment and Endangered Languages: Linguistic and Anthropological Studies with Special Emphasis on the Languages and Cultures of the Andean-Amazonian Border Area, L. W. Wetzels, (ed.), 365–379. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
2011. Different histories, different results: The origin and development of two Amazonian languages. Papia 21: 9–22.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. 2019. Speech communities, language varieties, and typology: Acquisitional history and pidgin and creole typology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 34(2): 377–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Da Cruz, A. 2011. Fonologia e gramática do Nheengatú: A língua geral falada pelos povos Baré, Warekena e Baniwa. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A. 2014. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45(2): 274–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, W. 1990. More Evidence for an Internal Classification of Tupí-Guaraní Languages. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M. (eds). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Eriksen, L. & Galucio, A. V. 2014. The Tupian expansion. In The Native languages of South America: Origins, Development, Typology, P. C. Muysken & L. M. O’Connor (eds), 177–199. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Farquharson, J. T. 2007. Creole morphology revisited. In Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73], U. Ansaldo, S. Matthews & L. Lim (eds), 21–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faust, N. W. 1972. Gramática cocama: Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma cocama [Lingüística Peruana 6]. Yarinacocha: Ministerio de Educación – Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds). 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Holm, J. A. & Patrick, P. L. (eds). 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 4, D. Derbyshire & G. Pullum (eds), 489–618. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, M. K. 2005. Conversing in Colony: The Brasílica and the Vulgar in Portuguese America, 1500–1759. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Lemle, M. 1971. Internal classification of the Tupi-Guarani linguistic family. In Tupi Studies I, D. Bendor-Samuel (ed.), 107–129. Norman OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are Creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2): 125–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011. Tying up loose ends: The creole prototype after all. Diachronica 28: 82–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. The Creole Debate. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meakins, F. 2016. Mixed languages. In M. Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michael, L. 2014. On the pre-Columbian origin of Proto-Omagua-Kokama. Journal of Language Contact 7: 309–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michael, L. & O’Hagan, Z. 2016. A linguistic analysis of Old Omagua ecclesiastical texts. Cadernos de Etnolingüística. Cadernos de Etnolingüística: Série Monografias 4.Google Scholar
Michael, L., Chousou-Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Wauters, V., Meira, S., & O’Hagan, Z. 2015. A Bayesian phylogenetic classification of Tupí-Guaraní. LIAMES 15(2): 193–221.Google Scholar
Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Holman, E. W., Sauppe, S., Brown, P., Hammarström, H., Belyaev, O., List, J.-M., Bakker, D., Egorov, D., Urban, U., Mailhammer, R., Dryer, M. S., Korovina, E., Beck, D., Geyer, H., Epps, P., Grant, A. P. & Valenzuela, P. 2013. ASJP World Language Trees of Lexical Similarity: Version 4 (October 2013).Google Scholar
Muysken, P. C. 2012. Contacts between indigenous languages in South America. In The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide, L. Campbell & V. Grondona (eds), 235–258. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Conclusion: Feature distribution in the West Africa-Surinam Trans-Atlantic Sprachbund. In Surviving the Middle Passage. The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund, P. C. Muysken & N. S. H. Smith, in collaboration with R. D. Borges (eds), 393–408. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, Z. 2011. Proto-Omagua-Kokama: Grammatical Sketch and Prehistory. BA thesis, University of California, Berkeley. <[URL]> (24 April 2020).
O’Hagan, Z., Michael, L. & Vallejos, R. 2013. Hacia la reconstrucción morfológica del proto-omagua-kokama. Conference on Indigenous languages of Latin America VI, October 25, Austin. <[URL]> (24 April 2020).
Rodrigues, A. D. 1958. Classification of Tupi-Guarani. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3): 231–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984/5. Relações internas na família lingüística Tupi-Guarani. Revista de Antropología 27–28: 33–53.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, A. D. & Cabral, A. S. de A. C. 2003. Evidências de crioulização abrupta em Kokáma? PAPIA: Revista Brasileira de Estudos Crioulos e Similares 13: 180–186.Google Scholar
2012. Tupían. In The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide, L. Campbell & V. Grondona (eds), 495–574. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, C. O. 1998. Comparative and Internal Reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics. An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2009. The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: A quantitative perspective. Lingua 119: 1643–1663. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vallejos, R. 2016. A Grammar of Kukama-Kukamiria: A Language from the Amazon. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallejos, R. & Murayari, R. M. 2015. Diccionario Kukama-Kukamiria Castellano. Lima: Programa de Formación de Maestros Bilingües de la Amazonía Peruana-FORMABIAP y AIDESEP.Google Scholar
Walker, R. S., Wichmann, S., Mailund, T. & Atkisson, C. J. 2012. Cultural phylogenetics of the Tupi language family in Lowland South America. PLoS ONE 7(4): e35025. DOI logoGoogle Scholar