Chapter published in:
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. 108158
References

References

Aboh, E. O.
2016Creole distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31.2: 400–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W.
2001Introduction. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. Dixon (eds), 1–26. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. & Matthews, S. J.
2001Typical creoles and simple languages: The case of Sinitic (Commentary on McWhorter, 2001). Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 311–325.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U., Matthews, S. J. & Lim, L.
(eds) 2007Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arends, J. T. G.
2017Language and Slavery. A Social and Linguistic History of the Suriname Creoles [Creole Language Library 52]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P.
2014aCreoles and typology. Problems of sampling and definition [Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2): 437–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bCreolistics. Back to square one [Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1): 177–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016You got Gungbe, but we got the numbers: Feature pools show that creoles are still typologically distinct (A response to Aboh, 2016). Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2): 419–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I.
2011Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26.1: 5–42. Reprinted 2013, in Creole Languages and Linguistic Typology, P. Bhatt & T. Veenstra (eds), 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Borchsenius, F., Levisen, C. & Sippola, E.
(eds) 2017Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baptista, M., Mello, H. & Suzuki, M.
2007Kabuverdianu, or Cape Verdean, and Kriyol, or Guinea-Bissau (Creole Portuguese). In Holm & Patrick (eds), 53–82.Google Scholar
Barbançon, F., Evans, S. N., Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. & Warnow, T.
2013An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods. Diachronica 30(2): 143–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binger, L.-G.
1886Essai sur la langue Bambara, parlée dans le Kaarta et dans le Bélédougou, suivi d’un vocabulaire. Paris: Maisonneuve frères et Leclerc.Google Scholar
Bird, C. S. & Kanté, M.
1976An ka bamanankan kalan: Intermediate Bambara. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Michaelis, S. M. & Haspelmath, M.
2017Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1: 723–729. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H.
2016Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. PNAS 113(39): 10818–10823. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C.
2018Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 281–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. & Atkinson, Q.
2012Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88: 817–845. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chatelain, H.
1888/1889Kimbundu grammar: Grammatica elementar do kimbundu ou lingua de Angola. Geneva: Typ. de C. Schuchardt. Reprinted 1964, Ridgewood NJ: Gregg Press. https://​babel​.hathitrust​.org/> (26 April 2020).
1894Folk-tales of Angola. Fifty Tales, with Ki-mbundu text, literal English translation, introduction, and notes. New York NY: Houghton Mifflin, for the American Folk-Lore Society. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christaller, J. G.
1875A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language called Tshi [Chwee, Twi], Based on the Akuapem Dialect with Reference to the Other (Akan and Fante) Dialects. Basel: Basel Evangelical Missionary Society. Republished 1964 Ridgewood NJ: Gregg Press. https://​catalog​.hathitrust​.org/> (26 April 2020).
Danielsen, S., Dunn, M. J. & Muysken, P. C.
2011The spread of the Arawakan languages: A view from structural phylogenetics. In Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory, A. Hornborg & J. D. Hill (eds), 173–195. Boulder CO: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A.
2013First step towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 274–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A. & Bakker, P.
2011A phylogenetics-network approach to the classification of English-based Atlantic creoles. English World-Wide 32(2): 115–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Creole typology II: Typological features of creoles: From early proposals to phylogenetic approaches and comparisons with non-creoles. In Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches, P. Bakker, F. Borchsenius, C. Levisen & E. Sippola (eds), 103–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, M., Bass, T. & Berwick, R.
2013Computational phylogenetics, creole languages, and family values. Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists, Geneva.
Dunn, M. J.
2015Language phylogenies. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 190–211. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. J., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. G.
2011Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature. Research Letters 473: 79–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M.
(eds) 2013The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://​wals​.info> (26 April 2020)
Ellis, P. D.
2010The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O.
2007Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Norde, M. & Perridon, H.
(eds) 2004Up and Down the Cline. The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fon Sing, G.
2017Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles. Language Ecology 1(1): 44–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fon Sing, G. & Leoue, J.
2012Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles. Paper presented at the 9th Creolistics Workshop: Contact languages in a global context: Past and present, Aarhus University.
Good, J.
2004Split prosody and creole simplicity. The case of Saramaccan. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3: 11–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, I. F.
1987A preliminary classification of the anglophone Atlantic creoles with syntactic data from thirty-three representative dialects. In Pidgin and Creole Languages. Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke, G. Gilbert (ed.), 264–333. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
2004How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics? Review article of Aikhenvald & Dixon 2001. Studies in Language 28(1): 209–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W.
1966Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. A.
2007Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), v–xi.Google Scholar
Holm, J. A. & Patrick, P. L.
(eds) 2007Comparative Creole Syntax. Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Kearney, M.
2002Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: Mistaken assumptions and conclusions. Systematic Biology 51(3): 369–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M. & Clark, J. M.
2003Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils. A critical review. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 263–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S.
2004The grammatical function of Papiamentu tone. In Creole Languages and Portuguese, N. S. H. Smith (ed.). Special issue of Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3(2): 55–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part 2 [Guest Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25(2): 359–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. & Singler, J. V.
2011Pidgins and creoles. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 283–300. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S., Singler, J. V. & Mitchell, S.
2015The quality of the output is determined by the quality of the input: Methodological issues in new computational approaches to creole typology. Paper presented at the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Summer Meeting, Graz.
Kusters, W. & Muysken, P. C.
2001The complexities of arguing about complexity. Commentary on McWhorter, 2001. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 182–185.Google Scholar
Maia, A. da S.
1964Lições de gramática de quimbundo: Portugués e banto, dialecto omumbuim. Cucujães: Escola Tipográfica.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H.
1998Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 125–166.Google Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M.
(eds) 2013The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Oxford: OUP. http://​apics​-online​.info/> (26 April 2020).
Murphy, K.
2002Using power analysis to evaluate and improve research. In Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, S. G. Rogelberg (ed.), 119–137. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. C.
1988aAre creoles a special type of language? In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications, F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), 285–301. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1988bLexical restructuring in creole genesis. In Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprach-kontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10.-10.10.1987 an der Universität Essen, N. Boretzky, W. Enninger & T. Stolz (eds), 193–210. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2008Creole studies and multilingualism. In Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 287–308. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. & Warnow, T.
2005Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81(2): 382–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. & Warnow, T.
2008Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 760–820.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, T. H. & Rosenberg, M.
2007How should gaps be treated in parsimony? A comparison of approaches using simulation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 817–826. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Page, R. D. M. & Holmes, E. C.
1998Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parkvall, M.
2008The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Language Complexity. Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds), 265–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P. L.
2007Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), xi–xii.Google Scholar
Patterson, C.
1988The impact of evolutionary theories on systematics. In Prospects in Systematics, D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), 59–91. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Penny, D.
2013Rewriting evolution – “Been there, done that”. Genome Biology and Evolution 5(5): 819–821. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M.
1997Social networks and kinds of speech-community event. In Archaeology and Language R. M. Blench & M. Spriggs (eds), 209–261. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 11–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W.
1990The cline of creoleness in English-oriented creoles and semi-creoles of the Caribbean. English World-Wide 11(1): 79–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Singler, J. V.
(ed.) 1990Pidgin and Creole Tense/Mood/Aspect Systems [Creole Language Library 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G.
2001Language Contact. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vandamme, A.-M.
2009Basic concepts of molecular evolution. In The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, 2nd edn, P. Lemey, M. Salemi & A.-M. Vandamme (eds), 3–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. C. & Giribet, G.
2016Molecular data in systematics: a promise fulfilled, a future beckoning. In The future of phylogenetic systematics: The legacy of Willi Hennig, D. Williams, M. Schmitt & Q. Wheeler (eds), 329–343. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J.
2003Incomplete taxa, incomplete characters, and phylogenetic accuracy: Is there a missing data problem? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 297–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. & Moen, D. S.
2008Missing data and the accuracy of Bayesian phylogenetics. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46(3): 307–314.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. & Lieberman, B. S.
2011Phylogenetics. Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd edn. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, M.
1995Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Systematic Biology 44: 501–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. & Ebach, M. C.
2014Patterson’s curse, molecular homology, and the data matrix. In The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics, A. Hamilton (ed.), 151–188. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Winford, D.
2003An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008Atlantic creole syntax. In Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 19–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar