Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives on Mauritian Creole and Reunion Creole: Standardization, grammar and language use
Edited by Muhsina Alleesaib and Julie Lefort
[Contact Language Library 61] 2025
► pp. 49–95

Chapter 2
Evidence of topic-prominence in Mauritian Creole

A typological shift from French to Creole

This chapter aims to shed light on the function of the morphemes li, sa and se, that licence Topic-prominence in Mauritian Creole. The prevalence of Topic-Comment sentence structure, subjectless sentences, and a limited use of passives in the Creole provide evidence of a typological shift from Subject-prominence to Topic-prominence. This is attributed to the loss of the French functional categories, namely the definite article, the copula, and a Case assigning preposition. The occurrence of bare nouns in argument positions triggered a shift in noun denotation from predicative in French to argumental in the Creole, where bare nouns can function as topics without the need for Case assignment or quantification by an external operator. Topic-prominence is also attested in the noun phrase, where genitive constructions are shown to be Topic-Possessive structures. Finally, the specificity marker la is analyzed as a discourse Topic marker. The analysis provides an insight into processes of creolization and grammaticalization.
Keywords: creolization, grammaticalization, specificity, topic, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Creole typology
    • 1.2Characteristics of subject-prominent and topic-prominent languages
    • 1.3Syntactic framework and assumptions
    • 1.4Organisation of this chapter
  • 2.Subject and topic — definitions and syntactic derivations
    • 2.1What is the subject?
    • 2.2What is the topic?
    • 2.3Thetic and categorical judgements
    • 2.4Deriving the topic
    • 2.5Sentence topic and discourse topic
      • 2.5.1The spread of Topic-prominence — The case of non-standard French
  • 3.The rise of topic prominence in early Mauritian Creole
    • 3.1The loss of the French definite article
      • 3.1.1The interpretation of bare nouns in Mauritian Creole
      • 3.1.2The role of context
      • 3.1.3A comparison of Mauritian Creole and English nouns
      • 3.1.4The Number feature of nouns and the null definite article
    • 3.2The loss of the French copula être
    • 3.3The loss of case assigning preposition de
  • 4.Licensing topic-prominence in the modern Mauritian Creole clause
    • 4.1The resumptive pronouns li/zot
      • 4.1.1The topic marker ‘i’ in Seselwa
    • 4.2Se — demonstrative pronoun or copula?
    • 4.3Different functions of li/zot and se
      • 4.3.1A comparison with Haitian Creole se
      • 4.3.2From pronoun to copula?
    • 4.4The demonstrative pronoun sa
  • 5.Further evidence of topic prominence in Mauritian Creole
    • 5.1Subjectless sentences
    • 5.2Limited use of passives
  • 6.Topic prominence in the Mauritian Creole noun phrase
    • 6.1‘La’ marks specificity and topic in discourse
      • 6.1.1Parallel structures of CP and DP
    • 6.2The rise of Saxon-type genitives
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (128)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.
Aboh, Enoch O. 2004a. The morpho–syntax of complement–head sequences: Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b. Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21. 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Information structuring begins with the numeration. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2(1). 12–41.Google Scholar
Adger, David & Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic inquiry 34(3). 325–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ah–Vee, Alain. 2002a. Evolisyon dinamik lortograf kreol morisyen. In Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.) Langaz kreol zordi, 37–41. Port Louis, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Lartik dan ‘Kwin syantifik’ ki finn paret dan Lagazet Lalit de Klas. In Langaz kreol zordi, Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.), 72–73. Port Louis, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
Alleesaib, Muhsina. 2008. Se–ki en créole mauricien: l’émergence d’un pronom. Modèles Linguistiques Tome XXIX, 57. 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Le groupe nominal en créole mauricien: études syntaxiques (DP syntax in Mauritian). Paris: Université Paris 8, Vincennes–Saint–Denis PhD Dissertation.
Anon. n.d. Parfois mo maginer. Available at: [URL] (last access 3 July 2008).
Auger, Julie. 1995. Les clitiques pronominaux en français parlé informel: une approche morphologique. Revue Quebéciose de Linguistique 24(1). 21–60. Available at: [URL] (last access 1 September 2022). DOI logo
Baissac, Charles. 1880. Z’histoire ene catte qui te ena botes. In Etudes sur le patois créole mauricien, 121–140. Nancy: Imprimerie Berger–Levrault.Google Scholar
. 1888a. Zacot av zirondelle. In Le Folk–lore de l’île Maurice, 269–279. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.Google Scholar
. 1888b. Zistoire dizeif, balié av sagaïe. In Le Folk–lore de l’île Maurice, 163–179. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.Google Scholar
. 1888c. Zistoire Iève av tourtie dans bord basin léroi. In Le Folk–lore de l’Ile Maurice, 3–15. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.Google Scholar
. 1888d. Zistoire Paulin av Pauline. In Le Folk–lore de l’Ile Maurice, 291–331. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip & Vinesh Y. Hookoomsing. 1987. Diksyoner Kreol Morisyen. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non–creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1). 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures vol 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102. 87–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Parth & Tonjes Veenstra. 2013. Introduction. In Parth Bhatt & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creole languages and linguistic typology, 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bollée, Annegret. 1977. Le créole français des Seychelles: Esquisse d’une grammaire — textes — vocabulaire. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie; Bd. 159. Tubingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1978. Reference to Kinds in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1999. No lack of determination: On determinerless noun phrases. Glot International, 4 (3). 3–8.Google Scholar
Carpooran, Arnaud. 2011. Diksioner Morisien. 2nd edn. Mauritius: Les Editions le Printemps.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2006. The Chinese copula shi and its origin: A cognitive–based approach. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 4(1). 131–156.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, Robert. 1981. Textes créoles anciens: La Réunion et Ile Maurice. Comparaison et essai d’analyse. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Binding and Government: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris PublicationsGoogle Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Chrestien, François. 1822. Essais d’un bobre africain. In Robert Furlong & Vicram Ramharai (eds.), Panorama de la littérature mauricienne: La production créolophone. Volume 1: Des origines à l’indépendance, 48–63. Petite Rivière, Mauritius: TIMAM.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. Available at: [URL] (last access 30 December 2023).
Decamp, David. Toward a generative analysis of a post–creole continuum. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 349–370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeGraff, Michel. 1992. The syntax of predication in Haitian. In Proceedings of NELS 22. GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
. 2001. Morphology in creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 53–122. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Against creole exceptionalism. Language 79(2). 391–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Kreyòl Ayisyen, or Haitian Creole (Creole French). In John Holm & Peter L. Patrick (eds.), Comparative Creole Syntax, 101–126. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 2003a. Determiner architecture and phrasal movement in French lexifier creoles. In Josep Quer, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman & Els Verheugd–Daatzelaar (eds.), Romance language and linguistic theory: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 6–8 December 2001, 49–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Haitian Creole se: A copula, a pronoun, both or neither? On the double life of a functional head. In Dany Adone (ed.), Recent developments in creole studies, 135–174. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115(6). 857–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Descroizilles, Henri Charles. 1867. Navire fine engazé. In Robert Furlong & Vicram Ramharai (eds.), Panorama de la littérature mauricienne: La production créolophone. Volume 1: Des origines à l’indépendance, 174–198. Petite Rivière, Mauritius: TIMAM.Google Scholar
Dholah, Veena. 2002. Letid lor proporsyon lekritir an kreol dan Revi Lalit (1988–1992). In Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.), Langaz Kreol zordi: Papers on Kreol, 79–80. Grande Rivière Nord Ouest, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
Dhunny, Zuhayr. 2022. Zourne Internasional Lang Maternel, Dev Virahsawmy: “Zordi, sa lang kreol–la finn vinn iniversel”. Mazavaroo, February 23, 2022. Available at: [URL] (last access August 28 2022).
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freycinet, Louis de. 1827. Voyage autour du monde. In Robert Chaudenson (ed.), Textes créoles anciens: La Réunion et Ile Maurice. Comparaison et essai d’analyse, 100–105. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 2001. Phrase structure. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 374–406. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1996. Is there a FocusP and a TopicP in the Noun Phrase structure? University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6(2). 105–128.Google Scholar
. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax, 95–123. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gopal, Anil Rajendra. 2002. Poezi Kreol apre–lindepandans: Ver enn swa tem pli varye et anrisisman stil. In Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.), Langaz Kreol zordi, 74–78. Grande Rivière Nord Ouest, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
Grant, Anthony & Diana Guillemin. 2012. The complex of creole typological features: The case of Mauritian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27(1). 48–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groëme–Harmon. 2018. On m’a dit que je n’ai pas le profil pour être au Parlement. L’Express.mu, 17 October 2018. Available at: [URL] (last access 2 November 2020].
Guillemin, Diana. 2011a. Mauritian la vs. Seychellois i: Traces of French vs. Bantu influence? Paper presented at the Society of Pidgin & Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Ghana, 2–6 August.
. 2011b. The syntax and semantics of a determiner system: A case study of Mauritian Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Se, li la! That’s it! Mauritian Creole is a Topic-prominent language. Paper presented at the Formal Approaches to Creole Studies 4 (FACS–4) Conference, University of Paris 8, 6–7 November.
. 2014. Marking definiteness or specificity, not necessarily both. Evidence of a principle of economy from Mauritian Creole. In Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin & Diana Guillemin (eds.). Language description informed by theory, 193–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. In the beginning was the noun: Why Creole grammars differ from those of their lexifiers. Paper presented at the Syntax of the World’s Languages VII Conference, Mexico City, 17–19 August.
. In press. Weak and strong determiners: The Specificity Effect and Topic condition. In Martina Wiltschko & Solveiga Armoskaite (eds.), The Oxford handbook of determiners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic–comment structure In M. Hammond, E. Moravczik & J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henri, Fabiola & Anne Abeillé. 2007. The Syntax of Copular Construction in Mauritian. In S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head–Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 130–149. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, John A. & Peter L. Patrick. 2007. Comparative creole syntax. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Hookoomsing, Vinesh Y. 2011. Prefas (1e edition, Fevrye 2009). In Arnaud Carpooran (ed.), Diksioner Morisien 2nd, edn., 4–5. Mauritius: Les Éditions le Printemps.Google Scholar
Huang, C.–T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4). 531–574.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (ed.). 1971. Pidginization and creolization of languages: Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and Definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14. 175–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishane, Tabea & Genoveva Puskás. 2001. Specific is not definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2. 39–54.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1994. Discourse configurational languages: Introduction. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996. Two subject positions in English. The Linguistic Review 13.: 119–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knud, Lambrecht. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in Non–Standard French. (Pragmatics and Beyond, II: 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S–Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 153–185.Google Scholar
La Rédaction. 2003. Morisien dan lekol. L’Express, 19 November 2003. Available at: [URL]. (last access 1 September 2022).
LALIT. 2008. Liv “40 poet” lanse. Lalit de Klas. Available at: [URL] (last access 21 April 2024).
Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.). 2004. Diksyoner kreol angle. Grande Rivière Nord Ouest, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
Legallant, Georges. 2001. Ver enn bibliografi: Sirvol liv an Kreol Morisyen depi lindependans. In Ledikasyon pu Travayer (LPT) (ed.), Langaz Kreol zordi. Colloquium on Mauritian Creole, 51–61. Grand River North West, Mauritius: LPT.Google Scholar
Li, Boya. 2016. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics). Available at: [URL] (last access 21 August 2022].
Li, Charles N. & Sarah Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppi. 1994. Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N–Movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Theory, 25. 609–665.Google Scholar
. 1996. The syntax of N–raising: A Minimalist theory. OTS Working Papers 96(5). Utrecht: University of Utrecht, Research Institute for Language and Speech.Google Scholar
. 2001. The structure of DPs. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maingard, Jan. 2002. Lagrin tambarin: 13 ti zistoires en kreol. Baie du Tombeau, Mauritius: Editions Maurice.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74. 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Defining ‘creole’ as a synchronic term. In Ingrid Neumann Holzschuh & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.), Degrees of restructuring in creole genesis, 85–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5. 125–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Obeegadoo, Steven. 2022. Se bann kitsoz ki finn konplote byin avan. ION News 23 April 2022. Available at: [URL] (last access 21 April 2024).
Papen, Robert A. 1975. A short grammar of Seychellois Creole. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1985. ‘Dependent plurals’ are distinct from ‘bare plurals’. A squib. Available at: [URL] (last access [Accessed 2 June 2007).
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh–in–situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Prayag, Touria. 2020. Cassam Uteem: ‘I thought the pa mwa sa li sa era was over with SAJ leaving the stage but it doesn’t seem to be so’. In L’Express May 21 2020. Available at: [URL] (last access 8 September 2022).
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite–this NPs. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 231–250. Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross–linguistic evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 37. 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1985. The syntactic forms of predication. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Roy, Isabelle & Roy Schlonsky. 2019. Aspects of the syntax of ce in French copular sentences. In María J. Arche, Antonio Fábregas & Rafael Marín (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages, 153–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2019. Weak vs. strong definite articles: Meaning and form across languages. In Ana Aguilar–Guevara, Julia Pozas Loyo & Violeta Vázquez–Rojas Maldonado (eds.), Definiteness across languages, 1–37. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Seetharamdoo, Rubina. 2021. Kan dimuon pe zoure lor Tik Tok. ION News July 8 2021. Available at: [URL] (last access 12 September 2022).
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 701–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, Specifiers, and X–Bar Theory. In Mark Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 232–262. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Syea, Anand. 1996. The development of a marker of definiteness in Mauritian Creole. In Philip Baker & Anand Syea (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, 171–186. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Null subject in Mauritian Creole and the pro–drop parameter. In Francis Byrne & John Holm (eds.), Atlantic meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization, 91–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2013a. On the structure and development of Saxon–type genitives in Mauritian Creole and the processes of creole formation. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(1). 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. The syntax of Mauritian Creole. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, 167–189. Szaged: JATE.Google Scholar
. 1989. Noun phrases and clauses: Is DP analogous to CP? In John Payne (ed.), The structure of noun phrases, 151–180. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Noun Phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian 27, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Douglas. 1971. Grammatical and lexical affinities of creoles. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 293–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. Los Angeles, University of California PhD dissertation.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1981. Sentence topic and discourse topic. In Teun A van Dijk, Studies in the pragmatics of discourse, chapter 4, 177–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Name, Addison. 1869–1870. Contributions to creole grammar. Transactions of the American Philological Association I. 123–167.Google Scholar
Véronique, Daniel. 1984. Typologie du prédicat et formes du passif en Mauricien. Travaux du Cercle linguistique d’Aix–en–Provence, Travaux 2, Le Passif, 53–74.Google Scholar
Virahsawmy, Dev. n.d.a. Torti ek zoli tifi. Available at: [URL] (last access 23 September 23 2022).
. n.d.b. Zame li pa ti koz manti. Available at: [URL] (last access 23 September 2022).
Virahsawmy, D. 2003. Morisien dan lekol. L’Express, 19 November, 2003. Available at: [URL] (last access 18 March 2022).
Virahsawmy, Dev. 2004. Aprann lir ek ekrir Morisien. Rose–Hill, Mauritius: Cygnature Publications.Google Scholar
. 2013a. Enn seleksion ti pies teat. Available at: [URL] (last access 1 November 2020).
. 2013b. Morisien dan lekol. L’Express 19 Nov. 2003. Available at: [URL] (last access 28 Aug. 2021).
. 2017a. Baz zanimo (Animal farm by George Orwell). Available at: [URL] (last access 2 September 2022).
. 2017b. Enn ta senn dan vid (Much ado about nothing). Available at: [URL] (last access 20 November 2020).
. 2017c. Lamour perdi, lamour gagne. Available at: [URL] (last access 20 September 2022).
. 2017d. Set kouzen ek set kouzinn. In Tizistwar Baissac, Volim 2, Rakonte par Dev Virahsawmy. Available at: [URL] (last access 20 September 2023).
. 2017e. Zistwar bonnfam ek voler. In Tizistwar Baissac, Volim 2, Rakonte par Dev Virasahsawmy. Available at: [URL] (last access 20 September 2023).
. 2017f. Zistwar Kolofann. In Tizistwar Bassac, Volim 1, Rakonte par Dev Virahsawmy. Available at: [URL] (last access 1 November 2023).
. 2017g. Zistwar yev ek torti dan bor basen lerwa. In Tizistwar Baissac, Volim 1, Rakonte par Dev Virahsawmy. Available at: [URL] (last access 25 October 2020).
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19. 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Barry C.–Y. 2010. Null subject revisited. In Lauren Eby Clemens & Chi–Ming Louis Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (AACCL–22) and the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL–18), 408–416. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar