Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Ecology
Vol. 1:2 (2017) ► pp.137–157

Influence of Malayalam on temporal clauses in Malabar Indo-Portuguese

| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | The University of Melbourne

Temporal clauses with the subordinators kandə (< Portuguese quando) and k(w)a in Malabar Indo-Portuguese creole (MIP) are used to express any kind of temporal relation between two clauses, typically sequence or simultaneity. These temporal clauses are ubiquitous in contexts in which Portuguese, the lexifier of MIP, could not employ temporal quando clauses. In this paper, I show that the morphosyntax and semantics of temporal clauses with kandə and k(w)a in MIP differ from corresponding Portuguese strategies, and that these differences can be explained by the influence of Malayalam (Dravidian), the substrate and adstrate language of MIP. One of the most salient properties of Malayalam adverbial subordination present in MIP is clause chaining. I position this study within the debate on creole exceptionalism, and show that the South Asian typological profile of MIP can only be explained within the view that language ecology determines the typology of a creole (Ansaldo 2009).

Keywords: Malabar Indo-Portuguese, creole, Malayalam, Portuguese, temporal clauses, subordination, clause chaining, converbs, language ecology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.TMA marking and types of clause linkage
  • 3. Kandə and k(w)a clauses in comparison with quando clauses
    • 3.1Deranking and chaining
    • 3.2Temporal relations
  • 4.Malayalam influence
  • 5.South Asian typology and ecology
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 12 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.2.02kra
References

Sources

Cardoso, Hugo C.
2006–2015 Oral corpus of Cannanore Indo-Portuguese Creole. Unpublished. [Version received on 2 March 2016.]Google Scholar
2007–2010 Oral corpus of Vypeen [Cochin] Indo-Portuguese Creole. Unpublished. [Version received on 2 March 2016.]Google Scholar
Smith, Ian R.
2013 Sri Lanka Portuguese structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber, eds. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at [URL]; accessed on 18 Jan 2017.
Vicente, Gil
2007 Pranto de Maria Parda. Available online at [URL]; accessed on 29 Apr 2017.
Aboh, Enoch O. and Norval Smith
eds. 2009 Complex Processes in New Languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto
2009 Contact Languages: Ecology and Evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Creole complexity in sociolinguistic perspective. Language Sciences 601: 26–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto and Stephen Matthews
2007 Deconstructing Creole: The rationale. In Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews and Lisa Lim, eds. Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. and T. C. Kumari
1997 Malayalam. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall and Ingo Plag
2011 Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Parth Bhatt and Tonjes Veenstra, eds. Creoles and Typology, Special issue, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1): 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan N.
1996 Portuguese and Creole Portuguese in the Pacific and the Western Pacific rim. In Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler and Darrell T. Tryon, eds. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas Vol. II(1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 299–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
1998 Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Review article of Haspelmath and König, eds. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1995. Linguistic Typology 21: 381–397.Google Scholar
Blasi, Damián E., Susanne Maria Michaelis and Martin Haspelmath
2017 Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1(10): 723-729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C.
2009 The Indo-Portuguese Language of Diu. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2012 Luso-Asian comparatives in comparison. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter and Mário Pinharanda Nunes, eds. Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative Perspectives. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 81–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a The Indo-Portuguese Creoles of the Malabar: Historical cues and questions. In Pius Malekandathil, ed. Minutes of the XIV International Seminar on Indo-Portuguese History. Primus Books.Google Scholar
2014b The case of addressees in Dravido-Portuguese. PAPIA 24(2): 307–342.Google Scholar
2015 Vector verbs in Malabar Indo‐Portuguese. 31st South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Lancaster University, UK 14–16 May 2015.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C., Alan N. Baxter and Mário Pinharanda Nunes
eds. 2012 Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative Perspectives. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy
1996 The Genesis of a Language: The Formation and Development of Korlai Portuguese. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Notes on the phonology and lexicon of some Indo-Portuguese creoles. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter and Mário Pinharanda Nunes, eds. Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative Perspectives. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 15–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy and Andrew J. Koontz-Garboden
2002 Two Indo-Portuguese creoles in contrast. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 17(2): 191–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R.
2005 Converbs. In Keith Brown, ed. Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. III1. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. 145–152.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunha, Luís Filipe and Purificação Silvano
2009 O papel das restrições aspectuais nas relações retóricas: o caso das frases complexas com quando . Textos Seleccionados. XXIV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Lisboa, APL. 239–250.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel
2001 On the origin of Creoles: A Cartesian critique of Neo-Darwinian linguistics. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3): 213–310.Google Scholar
Foley, William A.
1986 The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1995 The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, eds. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–55.Google Scholar
Holm, John
2000 An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A.
2003 The serial verb construction in Malayalam. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan, eds. Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 67–92.Google Scholar
Krajinović, Ana
2015 O sistema verbal dos crioulos indo-portugueses do Malabar. MA dissertation. Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
2016 TMA markers in Malabar Indo-Portuguese: Diachrony and grammaticalisation. Ms.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke, Jungmee Lee, Anastasia Smirnova, and Judith Tonhauser
2009 Cross-linguistic variation in temporal adjunct clauses. In Selected Proceedings of Chronos 8. Available online at [URL]; accessed on 1 May 2017.
Lopes, David
1936 A expansão da língua portuguesa no Oriente, durante os séculos XVI, XVII e XVIII. Barcelos: Portucalense Editora.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana R.
2008 Tense marking and inflectional morphology in Indo-Portuguese creoles. In Susanne Michaelis, ed. Roots of Creole Structures. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John
2001 The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 51: 125–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria
2017 Avoiding bias in comparative creole studies: Stratification by lexifier and substrate. Ms. Available online at [URL]; accessed on 1 May 2017.
Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber
eds. 2013 Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at [URL]; accessed 14 Jan 2017.
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
2001 Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pradeep, K.
2010 Tribute to Cochin Creole Portuguese. The Hindu 26 September 2010 Available at [URL]. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
Schuchardt, Hugo
1889 Beiträge zur Kenntnis des kreolischen Romanisch. VI. Zum Indoportugiesischen von Mahé und Cannanore. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 131: 516–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Siegel, Jeff
2004 Morphological simplicity in pidgins and creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19(1): 139–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Ian R.
1979 Convergence in South Asia: A creole example. Lingua 481: 193–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Norval
1994 An annotated list of creoles, pidgins, and mixed languages. In Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith, eds. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 331–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
1984 A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 542–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
1998 Nomina sunt odiosa: A critique of the converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. Ms, University of Zürich. Available at [URL]; accessed 4 May 2017.