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. 107158
References (77)
References
Aboh, E. O. 2016. Creole distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31.2: 400–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. 2001. Introduction. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. Dixon (eds), 1–26. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. & Matthews, S. J. 2001. Typical 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) 2007. Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arends, J. T. G. 2017. Language and Slavery. A Social and Linguistic History of the Suriname Creoles [Creole Language Library 52]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. 2014a. Creoles and typology. Problems of sampling and definition [Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2): 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. Creolistics. Back to square one [Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1): 177–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. 2011. Creoles 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P., Borchsenius, F., Levisen, C. & Sippola, E. (eds). 2017. Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baptista, M., Mello, H. & Suzuki, M. 2007. Kabuverdianu, 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. 2013. An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods. Diachronica 30(2): 143–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binger, L.-G. 1886. Essai 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. 1976. An ka bamanankan kalan: Intermediate Bambara. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.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
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H. 2016. Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. PNAS 113(39): 10818–10823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. 2018. Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 281–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. & Atkinson, Q. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88: 817–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatelain, H. 1888/1889. Kimbundu grammar: Grammatica elementar do kimbundu ou lingua de Angola. Geneva: Typ. de C. Schuchardt. Reprinted 1964, Ridgewood NJ: Gregg Press. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
1894. Folk-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christaller, J. G. 1875. A 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. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
Danielsen, S., Dunn, M. J. & Muysken, P. C. 2011. The 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. 2013. First step towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 274–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daval-Markussen, A. & Bakker, P. 2011. A phylogenetics-network approach to the classification of English-based Atlantic creoles. English World-Wide 32(2): 115–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Creole 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, M., Bass, T. & Berwick, R. 2013. Computational phylogenetics, creole languages, and family values. Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists, Geneva.
Dunn, M. J. 2015. Language 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. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature. Research Letters 473: 79–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (26 April 2020)
Ellis, P. D. 2010. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Norde, M. & Perridon, H. (eds) 2004. Up and Down the Cline. The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fon Sing, G. 2017. Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles. Language Ecology 1(1): 44–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fon Sing, G. & Leoue, J. 2012. Creoles 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. 2004. Split prosody and creole simplicity. The case of Saramaccan. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3: 11–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancock, I. F. 1987. A 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
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. A. 2007. Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), v–xi.Google Scholar
Holm, J. A. & Patrick, P. L. (eds) 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax. Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Kearney, M. 2002. Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: Mistaken assumptions and conclusions. Systematic Biology 51(3): 369–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M. & Clark, J. M. 2003. Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils. A critical review. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 263–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. 2004. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part 2 [Guest Column]. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25(2): 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. & Singler, J. V. 2011. Pidgins and creoles. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 283–300. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, S., Singler, J. V. & Mitchell, S. 2015. The 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. 2001. The complexities of arguing about complexity. Commentary on McWhorter, 2001. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 182–185.Google Scholar
Maia, A. da S. 1964. Lições de gramática de quimbundo: Portugués e banto, dialecto omumbuim. Cucujães: Escola Tipográfica.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. The 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) 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Oxford: OUP. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
Murphy, K. 2002. Using 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. 1988a. Are 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
1988b. Lexical 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
2008. Creole 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. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81(2): 382–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. & Warnow, T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 760–820.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, T. H. & Rosenberg, M. 2007. How should gaps be treated in parsimony? A comparison of approaches using simulation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 817–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R. D. M. & Holmes, E. C. 1998. Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parkvall, M. 2008. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P. L. 2007. Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), xi–xii.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1988. The impact of evolutionary theories on systematics. In Prospects in Systematics, D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), 59–91. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Penny, D. 2013. Rewriting evolution – “Been there, done that”. Genome Biology and Evolution 5(5): 819–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event. In Archaeology and Language R. M. Blench & M. Spriggs (eds), 209–261. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007. Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 11–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 1990. The cline of creoleness in English-oriented creoles and semi-creoles of the Caribbean. English World-Wide 11(1): 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singler, J. V. (ed.). 1990. Pidgin and Creole Tense/Mood/Aspect Systems [Creole Language Library 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vandamme, A.-M. 2009. Basic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. C. & Giribet, G. 2016. Molecular 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. 2003. Incomplete taxa, incomplete characters, and phylogenetic accuracy: Is there a missing data problem? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 297–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. & Moen, D. S. 2008. Missing data and the accuracy of Bayesian phylogenetics. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46(3): 307–314.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. & Lieberman, B. S. 2011. Phylogenetics. Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd edn. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, M. 1995. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Systematic Biology 44: 501–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. & Ebach, M. C. 2014. Patterson’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. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008. Atlantic creole syntax. In Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 19–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar