Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
Vol. 36:2 (2021) ► pp.298–335

Convergence in the Malabar

The case of Indo-Portuguese

 | Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
The Indo-Portuguese creole languages that formed along the former Malabar Coast of southwestern India, currently seriously endangered, are arguably the oldest of all Asian-Portuguese creoles. Recent documentation efforts in Cannanore and the Cochin area have revealed a language that is strikingly similar to its substrate/adstrate Malayalam in several fundamental domains of grammar, often contradicting previous records from the late 19th-century and the input of its main lexifier, Portuguese. In this article, this is shown by comparing Malabar Indo-Portuguese with both Malayalam and Portuguese with respect to features in the domains of word order (head-final syntax and harmonic syntactic patterns) and case-marking (the distribution of the oblique case). Based on older records and certain synchronic linguistic features of the Malabar Creoles, this article proposes that the observed isomorphism between modern Malabar Indo-Portuguese and Malayalam has to be explained as the product of either a gradual process of convergence, or the resolution of historical competition between Dravidian-like and Portuguese-like features.
Keywords: Indo-Portuguese, Malabar Indo-Portuguese, Malayalam, convergence, word order, case, diachrony
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dravidian features in Malabar Indo-Portuguese
    • 2.1Head-final syntax
      • 2.1.1OV word order
      • 2.1.2Postposed NP-markers
      • 2.1.3Structure of genitive noun phrases
      • 2.1.4Clause-final adverbial subordinators
      • 2.1.5Word order in comparative constructions
      • 2.1.6Discussion
    • 2.2The oblique case
      • 2.2.1Direct objects
      • 2.2.2Indirect objects
      • 2.2.3Other arguments
      • 2.2.4Discussion
  • 3.Diachronic scenarios
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 14 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00077.car
References (76)
References
Abbi, Anvita. 2001. A manual of linguistic field work and structures of Indian languages. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Abbi, Anvita & Devi Gopalakrishnan. 1991. Semantics of explicator compound verbs in South Asian languages. Language Sciences 13(2). 161–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anquetil-Duperron, Abraham Hyacinthe. 1786. Des recherches historiques et géographiques sur l’Inde. In Jean Bernoulli (ed.), Description historique et géographique de l’Inde, vol. II1. Berlin: Imprimerie de Pierre Bourdeaux.Google Scholar
Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2006. The Sri Lanka Sprachbund: The newcomers Portuguese and Malay. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective, 135–159. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan N. 1988. A grammar of Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese) (Pacific Linguistics. Series B; no. 95). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1995. Um importante sincretismo no português crioulo de Malaca: A preposição multifuncional ku . In Cilene da Cunha Pereira & Paulo Dias Pereira (eds.), Miscelânea de estudos linguísticos, filológicos e literários in memoriam Celso Cunha, 15–33. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.Google Scholar
1996. Portuguese and Creole Portuguese in the Pacific and Western Pacific rim. In S. A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler & D. T. Tyron (eds.), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, 299–338. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan N. & Augusta Bastos. 2012. A closer look at the post-nominal genitive in Asian Creole Portuguese. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 47–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. In G. Aygen, C. Bowern & C. Quinn (eds.), Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 91. 1–49.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Aditi Lahiri. 2013. Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs. Lingua 1351. 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calindro, Ana Regina Vaz. 2017. O acusativo preposicionado na história do Portugueês: O caso dos verbos psicológicos. Revista da Academia Brasileira de Filologia 211. 33–44.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C. 2006. Challenges to Indo-Portuguese across India. In R. Elangayan et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the FEL X, 23–30. Mysore: Central Institute for Indian Languages.Google Scholar
2006–2015. Corpus of Cannanore Indo-Portuguese speech. Unpublished, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
2007–2010. Corpus of Vypeen [Cochin] Indo-Portuguese speech. Unpublished, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
2009. The Indo-Portuguese language of Diu. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2012. Luso-Asian comparatives in comparison. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 81–123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a. Factoring sociolinguistic variation into the history of Indo-Portuguese. Revista de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola 51. 87–114.Google Scholar
2014b. The case of addressees in Dravido-Portuguese. Papia 24(2). 307–342.Google Scholar
2015a. Corpus of Calicut Indo-Portuguese speech. Unpublished, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
2015b. Vector verbs in Malabar Indo-Portuguese. Paper presented at the 31st South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable (SALA-31), University of Lancaster, UK, May 15th.
2016. O português em contacto na Ásia e no Pacífico. In Ana Maria Martins & Ernestina Carrilho (eds.), Manual de linguística portuguesa, 68–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Manuscritos portugueses do Arquivo Regional de Ernakulam, Índia (sécs. XVII-XIX). Paper presented at the IV CILH – Congresso International de Linguística Histórica, University of Lisbon, Portugal, July 20th.
2019a. The Indo-Portuguese creoles of the Malabar: Historical cues and questions. In Pius Malekandathil, Lotika Varadarajan & Amar Farooqi (eds.), India, the Portuguese, and maritime interactions, vol. 21 [ Religion, language and cultural expression ], 345–373. New Delhi: Primus Books.Google Scholar
2019b. The synchrony and diachrony of an Asian-Portuguese causal morpheme. Journal of Ibero-Romance Creoles 9(1). 27–54.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C., Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes. 2012. Introduction. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 1–14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C., Mahesh Radhakrishnan, Patrícia Costa & Rui Pereira. 2019. Documenting modern Sri Lanka Portuguese. In Mário Pinharanda-Nunes & Hugo C. Cardoso (eds.), Documentation and maintenance of contact languages from South Asia to East Asia [Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication nr. 19], 1–33. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C. & Patrícia Costa. 2021. Synchronic variation in Sri Lanka Portuguese personal pronouns. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 36(1). 77–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaudenson, Robert. 1979. Les créoles français. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy. 1990. Deletion as an indicator of SVO → SOV shift. Language Variation and Change 21. 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. The genesis of a language: The formation and development of Korlai Portuguese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Evidência para a existência de um pidgin português asiático. In Ernesto d’Andrade, Dulce Pereira & Maria Antónia Mota (eds.), Crioulos de base lexical portuguesa, 185–200. Braga: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
. 2009. The linguistic legacy of Spanish and Portuguese; Colonial expansion and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Notes on the phonology and lexicon of some Indo-Portuguese creoles. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 15–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath & Balthasar Bickel. (2008). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (3 September, 2019.)
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalgado, Sebastião Rodolfo. 1913. Influência do vocabulário português em línguas asiáticas (abrangendo cerca de cinquenta idiomas). Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade.Google Scholar
Döhla, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Diachronic convergence and divergence in differential object marking between Spanish and Portuguese. In Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder & Karoline Kühl (eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 621. 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Word order. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11, 2nd ed., 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 321. 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, Luís Ivens. 1987. Portuguese creoles of West Africa and Asia. In Glenn Gilbert (ed.), Pidgin and creole languages: Essays in memory of John E. Reinecke, 337–360. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Krajinović, Ana. 2015. O sistema verbal dos crioulos indo-portugueses do Malabar. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa MA dissertation.
. 2018. Malabar Indo-Portuguese: Structure and origins of the verbal system. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Lopes, David. 1936. A expansão da língua portuguesa no Oriente, durante os séculos XVI, XVII e XVIII. Barcelos: Portucalense Editora.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matos, L. 1968. O português – língua franca no Oriente. In Adriano Moreira (ed.), Colóquios sobre as províncias do Oriente, 13–23. Lisbon: Junta de Investigações Ultramarinas.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. & Tara Mohanan. 1990. Dative subjects in Malayalam: Semantic information in syntax. In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 43–57. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mücke, Johannes & Hugo Cardoso. 2014. The correspondence between Angelus Francis Xaver Maffei and Hugo Schuchardt. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Hugo Schuchardt Archiv (2007-). [URL]. (3 September, 2019.)
Raposo, Eduardo, Maria Fernanda Bacelar, Maria Antónia Mota, Luísa Segura & Amália Mendes. 2013. Gramática do Português, vol. II1. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Rosa, Maria Lurdes. 2008. Historical archives of the Diocese of Cochin: Its contents and the major possible fields of research. Anais de História de Além-Mar 91. 423–431.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, Barbara. 2002. O acusativo preposicional na história da língua portuguesa. In Brian F. Head, José Teixeira, Aida S. Lemos, Anabela L. de Barros & António Pereira (eds.), História da língua e história da gramática, 405–419. Braga: Universidade do Minho/ILCH.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1882. Kreolische Studien II. Über das Indoportugiesische von Cochim. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (Philosophisch-historische Klasse) 1021. 799–816.Google Scholar
. 1883. Kreolische Studien VI. Über das Indoportugiesische von Mangalore. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (Philosophisch-historische Klasse) 105(III). 882–904.Google Scholar
. 1889a. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des creolischen Romanisich. V. Allgemeineres über das Indoportugiesische (Asioportugiesische). Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 131. 476–516.Google Scholar
. 1889b. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des kreolischen Romanisch: VI. Zum Indoportugiesischen von Mahé und Cannanore. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 131. 516–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Ian R. 1977. Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese phonology. Ithaca NY: Cornell University PhD dissertation.
1979. Convergence in South Asia: A creole example. Lingua 48(2–3). 193–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Measuring substrate influence; Word order features in Ibero-Asian Creoles. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 125–148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Sri Lanka Portuguese. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The survey of pidgin and creole languages, vol. 21 (Portuguese-based, Spanish-based, and French-based Languages), 111–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013b. Sri Lanka Portuguese structure dataset. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole languages online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (15 June, 2020.)
2016. The earliest grammars of Sri Lanka Portuguese. Papia 26(2). 237–281.Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri V. 2008. Typological characteristics of South Asian languages. In Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and S. N. Sridhar (eds.), Language in South Asia, 49–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case markedness. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 249–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Teyssier, Paul. 2005. A língua de Gil Vicente. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional – Casa da Moeda.Google Scholar
Thomaz, Luís Filipe. 1985. A língua portuguesa em Timor. In Congresso sobre a situação actual da língua portuguesa no mundo – Actas, 313–338. Lisbon: Instituto de Cultura e Língua Portuguesa.Google Scholar
Tomás, Maria Isabel. 1992. Os crioulos portugueses do Oriente: Uma bibliografia. Macau: Instituto Cultural de Macau.Google Scholar
Verma, M. K. & K. P. Mohanan (eds.). 1990. Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Parkvall, Mikael & Bart Jacobs
2023. Returning a maverick creole to the fold: the Berbice Dutch enigma revisited. Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 177 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.