Article published in:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
Vol. 29:1 (2014) ► pp. 49–85

Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in creoles

| University of New England (Australia) and Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies
| KU Leuven
| University of Freiburg
Creoles (here including expanded pidgins) are commonly viewed as being more analytic than their lexifiers and other languages in terms of grammatical marking. The purpose of the study reported in this article was to examine the validity of this view by measuring the frequency of analytic (and synthetic) markers in corpora of two different English-lexified creoles — Tok Pisin and Hawai‘i Creole — and comparing the quantitative results with those for other language varieties. To measure token frequency, 1,000 randomly selected words in each creole corpus were tagged with regard to word class, and categorized as being analytic, synthetic, both analytic and synthetic, or purely lexical. On this basis, an Analyticity Index and a Syntheticity Index were calculated. These were first compared to indices for other languages and then to L1 varieties of English (e.g. standard British and American English and British dialects) and L2 varieties (e.g. Singapore English and Hong Kong English). Type frequency was determined by the size of the inventories of analytic and synthetic markers used in the corpora, and similar comparisons were made.The results show that in terms of both token and type frequency of grammatical markers, the creoles are not more analytic than the other varieties. However, they are significantly less synthetic, resulting in much higher ratios of analytic to synthetic marking. An explanation for this finding relates to the particular strategy for grammatical expansion used by individuals when the creoles were developing.
Keywords: Tok Pisin, Hawai‘i Creole, corpus, synthetic, analytic, creole, frequency
Published online: 07 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.29.1.02sie
References

References

Aboh, Enoch O.
2009 Simplicity, simplification, complexity and complexification: Where have all the interfaces gone? In Enoch O. Aboh & Norval Smith (eds.), Complex processes in new languages , 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arends, Jacques
2001 Simple grammars, complex languages. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3). 180–182.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy & Lou Burnard
1998  The BNC handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip
1995 Motivation in creole genesis. In Philip Baker (ed.), From contact to creole and beyond , 3–15. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
1997 Directionality in pidginization and creolization. In Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford (eds.), The structure and status of pidgins and creoles , 91–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 No creolisation without prior pidginisation. In Terry Crowley & Jeff Siegel (eds.), Studies in creole linguistics in memory of Chris Corne, 1942-1999 (Te Reo 44) , 31–50. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
2000  Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use . Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Bussmann, Hadumod, Gregory Trauth & Kerstin Kazzazi
1996  Routledge Dictionary of language and linguistics . New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis
1987  Grammatical relations in a radical creole: Verb complementation in Saramaccan . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaudenson, Robert
2001  Creolization of language and culture (revised in collaboration with Salikoko S. Mufwene) . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Craats, Ineke van de, Norbert Corver & Roeland van Hout
2000 Conservation of grammatical knowledge: On the acquisition of possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch. Linguistics 38. 221–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrei
1992 The evidence for analytic and synthetic developments in English. In Matti Rissannen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics , 25–41. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel
1999 Creolization, language change, and language acquisition: An epilogue. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development , 473–543. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Morphology and word order in ‘creolization’ and beyond. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax , 293–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2007 Clitics in English. English Studies 88. 574–600. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, John J., Edward C. Holliman & Jane McDaniel
1992 SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. IEEE International Conference on Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP-92 , 517–520.
Greenbaum, Sidney
(ed.) 1996  Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English . Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1960 A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3). 178–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1954 Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–231.Google Scholar
Holm, John & Peter L. Patrick
(eds.) 2007  Comparative creole syntax: Parallel outlines of 18 creole grammars . London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Inoue, Aya
2007 Copula patterns in Hawai‘i Creole: Creole origin and decreolization. In Magnus Huber & Viveka Velupillai (eds.), Synchronic and diachronic perspectives on contact languages , 199–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, Eric
1995 Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15. 125–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue
1997 The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13. 301–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter
2003  Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection . Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2008 Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change , 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip
1994  Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar . London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
McWhorter, John
2007  Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars . Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber
(eds.) 2013  Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online . Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://​apicsonline​.info​/languages​/64.
Miestamo, Matti
2009 Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable , 80–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike
1980  Tolai and Tok Pisin: The influence of the substratum on the development of New Guinea Pidgin . Canberra: Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics B-73). Google Scholar
Morales, Rodney
1988  The speed of darkness . Honolulu: Bamboo Ridge Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
2001  The ecology of language evolution . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Norval Smith
1995 The study of pidgin and creole languages. In Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds.), Pidgins and creoles: An introduction , 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2009 Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as a variable concept , 110–125 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael
2008 The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change , 265–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne
1988  Pidgin and creole languages . London: Longman. Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921  Language: An introduction to the study of speech . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin
1990  Analyticity and syntheticity: A diachronic perspective with special reference to Romance languages . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. & Herman Wekker
1986 Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis , 57–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Jeff
2003 Substrate influence in creoles and the role of transfer in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25. 185–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008  The emergence of pidgin and creole languages . Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 Accounting for analyticity in creoles. In Bernd Kortmann & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact , 35–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Geoff P.
2002  Growing up with Tok Pisin: Contact, creolization, and change in Papua New Guinea’s national language . London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2009 Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21(3). 319–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Nuria Hernández
2007  Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects Sampler (‘FRED-S’) . URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-opus-28598 . Freiburg: University of Freiburg. http://​www​.freidok​.uni​-freiburg​.de​/volltexte​/2859/ (20 September 2013.)
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Bernd Kortmann
2009 Between simplification and complexification: Non-standard varieties of English around the world. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable , 64–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
2011 Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Joybrato Mukherjee & Marianne Hundt (eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap , 167–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert L.
1993  A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics . London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman
1996 Creolization and the acquisition of English as a second language. In Herman Wekker (ed.), Creole languages and language acquisition , 139–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

No author info given
2015.  In Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages [Creole Language Library, 48], Crossref logo
Bakker, Peter
2016. Creoles as hybrid languages. <i>WORD</i> 62:4 ► pp. 228 ff. Crossref logo
Blasi, Damián E., Susanne Maria Michaelis & Martin Haspelmath
2017. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1:10 ► pp. 723 ff. Crossref logo
Bogolyubova, Olga, Polina Panicheva, Roman Tikhonov, Viktor Ivanov & Yanina Ledovaya
2018. Dark personalities on Facebook: Harmful online behaviors and language. Computers in Human Behavior 78 ► pp. 151 ff. Crossref logo
Good, Jeff
2015. Paradigmatic complexity in pidgins and creoles. Word Structure 8:2 ► pp. 184 ff. Crossref logo
Haspelmath, Martin & Susanne Maria Michaelis
2017.  In Language Variation - European Perspectives VI [Studies in Language Variation, 19], ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Kouwenberg, Silvia & John Victor Singler
2018. Creolization in Context: Historical and Typological Perspectives. Annual Review of Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Röthlisberger, Melanie & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2019.  In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Röthlisberger, Melanie & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2020.  In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo
Siegel, Jeff
2015. The role of substrate transfer in the development of grammatical morphology in language contact varieties. Word Structure 8:2 ► pp. 160 ff. Crossref logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Melanie Röthlisberger
2019.  In The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes, ► pp. 534 ff. Crossref logo
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019.  In Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax, Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2021. 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.