Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-17T11:39:30.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two types of language contact involving English Creoles

Why Krio (Sierra Leone) has evolved more towards English than its relative Pichi (Equatorial Guinea) towards Spanish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Kofi Yakpo*
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong
*

Extract

The two African English-lexifier Creole languages Krio (Sierra Leone) and Pichi (Equatorial Guinea) are closely related. A close look at specific aspects of their grammar, however, shows divergence due to differing contact ecologies since their split in the 19th century. Krio has been spoken alongside its lexifier (the main lexicon-providing language) and superstrate (the socially dominant colonial language) English since its beginnings and Pichi alongside its superstrate Spanish for almost two centuries, but not alongside English. Resulting differences in contact outcomes transpire in the expression of tense, aspect, and mood, and the use of prepositions for the marking of participants. In these two areas, Krio has converged more with English than Pichi with Spanish because existing overlaps between Creole and lexifier forms have facilitated transfer from English. There is therefore evidence for different contact outcomes in Creoles depending on whether they continue to be in contact with a superstrate that is simultaneously the lexifier (in this case English), or not. No previous work has compared Krio and Pichi nor looked at these two Creole languages from the viewpoint of their differing linguistic ecologies and their resulting differentiation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bickerton, D. 1973. ‘On the nature of a Creole continuum.’ Language, 49(3), 640669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordal Steien, G. & Yakpo, K. 2020. ‘Romancing with tone: On the outcomes of prosodic contact.’ Language, 96(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. 2006. ‘Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination A typological study.’ In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (Typological Studies in Language, 66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1928. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.03cre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, H. 2003. ‘Defining the outcome of language contact: Old English and Old Norse.’ Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 57, 4057.Google Scholar
De Granda, G. 1985. Estudios de Lingüística Afro-Románica. Valladolid, España: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Essegbey, J. 2015. ‘Verb semantics and argument structure in Gbe and Sranan.’ In Muysken, P. & Smith, N. (eds.), Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa–Surinam Sprachbund (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs [TiLSM], 275). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 175206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraclas, N. G. 1996. Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Finney, M. A. 2013. ‘Krio.’ In Michaelis, S., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds.), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages: English-based and Dutch-based Languages (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 157166. https://apics-online.info/surveys/15Google Scholar
Fyfe, C. 1962. A History of Sierra Leone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fyle, C. M. 2004. ‘The Yoruba diaspora in Sierra Leone's Krio society.’ In Falola, T. & Childs, M. D. (eds.), The Yoruba Diaspora in the Atlantic World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 366382.Google Scholar
Gaetano, B. 2005. ‘Dialect/standard convergence, mixing, and models of language contact: the case of Italy.’ In Auer, P., Hinskens, F. & Kerswill, P. (eds.), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8195.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. F. 1969. ‘A provisional comparison of the English-based Atlantic creoles.’ African Language Review, 8, 772.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. F. 1987. ‘A preliminary classification of Anglophone Atlantic creoles, with syntactic data from thirty-three representative dialects.’ In Gilbert, G. G. (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Languages: Essays in Memory of John Reinecke. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, pp. 264333.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. F. 2017. ‘A pan-Creole innovation?Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 32(1), 159169. https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.32.1.06hanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, M. 1999. Ghanaian Pidgin English in its West African Context: a Sociohistorical and Structural Analysis (Varieties of English Around the World, G24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. 2002. ‘Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework.’ In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. (eds.), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External, and Extra-linguistic Factors (Vol. 86). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 285314.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G. J. 2015. ‘A psycholinguistic perspective on code-switching: Lexical, structural and socio-interactive processes.’ In Stell, G. & Yakpo, K. (eds.), Codeswitching between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives (Linguae et Litterae, 43). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 3969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krio Corpus Project. 2003. The Krio Corpus Project. Umeå University, Krio Corpus Project. https://www.umu.se/en/research/projects/the-krio-corpus-project/ (Accessed December 6, 2020).Google Scholar
Law, D. 2013. ‘Inherited similarity and contact-induced change in Mayan Languages.’ Journal of Language Contact, 6(2), 271299. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-00602004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, M. 1992. ‘Technology, trade and “a race of native capitalists”: The Krio diaspora of West Africa and the steamship, 1852-95.’ The Journal of African History, 33(3), 421440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martino, E. 2012. ‘Clandestine recruitment networks in the Bight of Biafra: Fernando Pó's answer to the labour question, 1926–1945.International Review of Social History, 57(S20), 3972. https://doi.org//10.1017/S0020859012000417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayeux, O. 2019. Rethinking Decreolization: Language Contact and Change in Louisiana Creole. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/294526 (Accessed February 13, 2021). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.41629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. 1996. ‘The founder principle in Creole genesis.’ Diachronica, 13, 83134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkengasong, N. 2016. A Grammar of Cameroonian Pidgin. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Schröder, A. 2013. ‘Cameroon Pidgin.’ In Michaelis, S., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds.), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages: English-based and Dutch-based Languages (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185193. https://apics-online.info/surveys/18 (Accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Smith, N 2017. ‘Krio as the Western Maroon Creole language of Jamaica, and the /na/ isogloss.’ In Cutler, C., Vrzić, Z. & Angermeyer, P. (eds.), Creole Language Library (53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251274. https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.53.11smiGoogle Scholar
Sundiata, I. K. 1990. Equatorial Guinea: Colonialism, State Terror, and the Search for Stability. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Taylor–Pearce, E. 1989. Bad Man Bεtε Pas εmti Os (Krio Publications, Series 6). Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, M. L. O. 2008. A Grammar of Eton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wyse, A. 1989. The Krio of Sierra Leone: An Interpretive History. London: C. Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
Yakpo, K. 2013a. ‘Pichi.’ In Michaelis, S., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds.), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures: English-based and Dutch-based Languages (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 194205. https://apics-online.info/surveys/19 (Accessed June 9, 2020).Google Scholar
Yakpo, K. 2013b. ‘Wayward daughter: Language contact in the emergence of Pichi (Equatorial Guinea).’ Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 34(2), 275299. https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2013-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakpo, K. 2017. ‘Towards a model of language contact and change in the English-lexifier creoles of Africa and the Caribbean.’ English World-Wide, 38(1), 5076. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.38.1.04yakCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakpo, K. 2019a. A Grammar of Pichi (Studies in Diversity Linguistics, 23). Berlin: Language Science Press. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/85 (Accessed March 27, 2020). https://doi.org//10.5281/zenodo.2546450Google Scholar
Yakpo, K. 2019b. ‘Inheritance, contact, convergence: Pronominal allomorphy in the African English-lexifier Creoles.’ English World-Wide, 40(2), 201225. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00028.yakCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakpo, K. & Muysken, P. (eds.) 2017. Boundaries and Bridges: Language Contact in Multilingual Ecologies (Language Contact and Bilingualism [LCB], 14). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org//10.1515/9781614514886Google Scholar
Yakpo, K. & Smith, N. 2020. ‘The Atlantic.’ In Ansaldo, U. & Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Languages (Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics, 25) (1st edn.) London: Routledge, pp. 179198. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003107224-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakubovich, I. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar