Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
Vol. 35:2 (2020) ► pp.218–252

Transparency and language contact

The case of Haitian Creole, French, and Fongbe

| University of Maryland, College ParkUSA
When communicating speakers map meaning onto form. It would thus seem obvious for languages to show a one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form, but this is often not the case. This perfect mapping, i.e. transparency, is indeed continuously violated in natural languages, giving rise to zero-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-one opaque correspondences between meaning and form. However, transparency is a mutating feature, which can be influenced by language contact. In this scenario languages tend to evolve and lose some of their opaque features, becoming more transparent. This study investigates transparency in a very specific contact situation, namely that of a creole, Haitian Creole, and its sub- and superstrate languages, Fongbe and French, within the Functional Discourse Grammar framework. We predict Haitian Creole to be more transparent than French and Fongbe and investigate twenty opacity features, divided into four categories, namely Redundancy (one-to-many), Fusion (many-to-one), Discontinuity (one meaning is split in two or more forms,) and Form-based Form (forms with no semantic counterpart: zero-to-one). The results indeed prove our prediction to be borne out: Haitian Creole only presents five opacity features out of twenty, while French presents nineteen and Fongbe nine. Furthermore, the opacity features of Haitian Creole are also present in the other two languages.
Keywords: Haitian Creole, Fongbe, French, transparency, language contact, Functional Discourse Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transparency
    • 2.1Functional Discourse Grammar
    • 2.2Transparency in FDG
    • 2.3Transparency and creoles
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Redundancy
      • 3.1.1Clausal Agreement and Cross-Reference
      • 3.1.2Phrasal agreement
      • 3.1.3Concord
      • 3.1.4Tense copying
    • 3.2Discontinuity
      • 3.2.1Extraposition and/or Extraction
      • 3.2.2Raising
      • 3.2.3Circumfixes and circumpositions
      • 3.2.4Infixes
      • 3.2.5Non-parallel alignment
    • 3.3Fusion
      • 3.3.1Cumulation of TAME and case
      • 3.3.2Morphologically conditioned stem alternation: Suppletion
      • 3.3.3Morphologically conditioned stem alternation: Irregular stem formation
    • 3.4Form-based form
      • 3.4.1Grammatical gender
      • 3.4.2Syntactic alignment
      • 3.4.3Nominal expletives
      • 3.4.4Influence of complexity in word order or heavy shift
      • 3.4.5Predominantly head marking
      • 3.4.6Morphophonologically conditioned stem alternation
      • 3.4.7Morpho(phono)logically conditioned affix alternation or conjugation and declension
    • 3.5Summary of all transparency features
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Redundancy
    • 4.2Discontinuity
    • 4.3Fusion
    • 4.4Form-based form
    • 4.5Summary
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00060.seg
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Dan I. Slobin. 1985. Acquisition of Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin (ed), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. The data, 839–878. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques, Pieter Muysken, & Norval Smith. 1995. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2009. Gender assignment and gender agreement. Morphology 181: 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall & Ingo Plag. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1). 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology (Second Edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook Of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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(10). 723–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, Elma, Daniela Polišenská, & Fred Weerman. 2008. Articles, adjectives and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research 241. 297–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonenfant, Jacques L. 2011. History of Haitian Creole: from Pidgin to Lingua Franca and English Influence on the Language. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning 4(11). 27–34.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, William D. & Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2001. Kreyòl Ayisien. In John Holm & Peter L. Patrick (eds.), Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge Pubblications.Google Scholar
Dereau, Léon. 1995. Cours de Kikongo. Namur: Wesmael-Charlier.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Barbara Stiebels. 2012. Iconicity*. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 379–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese: On the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht-Holland/Cinnaminson-USA: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall, Chantal Lyche & Trudel Meisenburg. 2012. Phonological Variation in French, Illustrations from Three Continents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaude, Herby. 2012. Aspects de la syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Paris: Anibwé.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1966. Pidgin and Creoles Languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems and morphological types, ACLC Working Papers 2(1). 31–48.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 41. 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 110–114.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Lachlan J. Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: a Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 56–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire, Hélène Magliore-Holly, & Nanie Piou. 1982. Syntaxe de l’Haïtien. USA: Karoma Publishers INC.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brousseau. 2002. A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leufkens, Sterre. 2013. The transparency of creoles, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28 (2). 323–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transparency in Language: A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure, PLoS ONE 5 (1). 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWorther, John H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: vindicating a typological class. Language 74, No. 4. 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 51. 125–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics, In Kerge Krista & Maria Maren Sepper (eds.), FinEst Linguistics: Conference Proceeding of The Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics May 6–7 2004, Eesti Filoloogia Osakonna Toimtited 81, 11–26. Tallinn: TLÜGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13:1. 83–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Pidgin and Creole Languages. International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Second Edition). 133–145. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omar, Margaret. 1973. The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a native language. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia. A South Munda language. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter & Herman Wekker. 1986. Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Muysken, Pieter & Norval Smith (eds.), Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and history. In John Macnamara (ed.), Language Learning and Language Thought. New York: Academic Press. 185–214.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistics complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, Albert. 2015. Haitian Creole: Structure, Variation, Status, Origin. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Velde, Freek van de. 2012. PP extraction and extraposition in Functional Discourse Grammar, Language Sciences 341. 433–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alexiadou, Artemis
2024. Double plural marking and the building blocks of nominals. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Seguin, Luisa
2020. Language contact in the Balkan Sprachbund. Language Ecology 4:2 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.