Ch

apter1

Relexificationincreolegenesisand

itseffectsonthedevelopmentofthecreole*

ClaireLefebvre

.Introduction

Thereisalargeconsensusofopinionintheliteraturetotheeffectthatcreole

languagesaremixed

languagesin

thatthey

derivesomeoftheirproperties

fromthoseoftheirsubstratumlanguagesandsomeoftheirpropertiesfrom

thoseofthesuperstratumlanguage(cf.Alleyne1981;H

olm

1988;etc.).Several

scholars,however,havenoticedthatthetypeofmixwefindin

creolelan-

guagesisnotrandom.Forexam

ple,Adam

(1883:47)statesthat:

Joseavancer...quelessoi-disantpatoisdelaGuyaneetdelaTrinidad

constitu-

entdes

dialectes

ngro-aryens.

Jentendspar

lquelesngresguinens,

transports

danscescolonies,ontprisau

franaissesmots,maisquayant

conservdansla

mesure

dupossible,leurphontiqueet

leurgram

maire

maternelles...U

netelleform

ationestcoupsurhybride...Lagram

mairenest

autrequelagram

mairegnraledeslanguesdelaGuine.1

SpeakingofHaitian

creole,Sylvain(1936:178)observesthat:

Noussommes

enprsence

dunfranaiscoul

dansle

moule

dela

syntaxe

africaine,ou(...)dunelanguewvocabulairefranais.2

Similarly,in

hisextensive

studyofFrench-based

creoles,Goodman

(1964)

observes,overandoveragain,thatparticularlexicalitem

sinthecreoleshave

aphonologicalrepresentationsimilar

toaFrench

word

butthatthey

share

properties

withcorrespondinglexicalitem

sin

theAfrican

substratum

lan-

guages.Onthebasisofdatadrawnfrom

Ndyuka,Huttar

(1971:684)

also

remarksthattheuseofmorphem

esborrowed

byapidginoracreolelan-

guage(...)from

aEuropeanlanguageoften

divergesfrom

theuse

ofthe

sourcemorphem

einthesourcelanguageandoften

correspondstotheuseof

thecorrespondingword

inthesubstratum

languages.Voorhoeve(1973)

Cla

ire

Lef

ebvr

e

mak

esa

sim

ilar

rem

ark

on

the

bas

isof

Sran

anan

dSa

ram

acca

ndat

a.K

oop-

man

(1986)

com

par

esa

num

ber

ofle

xica

lan

dsy

nta

ctic

pro

per

ties

inH

aiti

an

and

ina

sam

ple

ofW

estA

fric

anla

ngu

ages

(Kru

and

Kw

ala

ngu

ages

,as

wel

las

one

Man

de

and

one

Gur

langu

age)

.H

erco

ncl

usi

on

istw

ofo

ld(K

oopm

an

1986:2

46):

Fir

st,

W.

Afr

ican

langu

ages

shar

em

any

pro

per

ties

amongs

tth

emse

lves

,an

d

seco

ndly

,th

ese

pro

per

ties

whic

hin

clude

both

lexi

calan

dsy

nta

ctic

pro

per

ties

tend

also

tobe

char

acte

rist

icof

Hai

tian

.

Fin

ally

,K

eesi

ng

(1988:1

)w

rite

s:

Ihad

earl

ier

bee

nst

ruck

,w

hen

Ihad

lear

ned

Solo

mons

Pid

gin

inth

e1960s

thro

ugh

the

med

ium

of

Kw

aio,an

indig

enous

langu

age

Ial

read

ysp

oke

fluen

tly,

that

the

lear

nin

gta

skm

ainly

requir

edle

arnin

gPid

gin

equiv

alen

tsof

Kw

aio

morp

hem

es.T

he

synta

xofSo

lom

ons

Pid

gin

was

esse

nti

ally

the

sam

eas

the

synta

x

of

Kw

aio,

...

ther

ew

asa

virt

ual

morp

hem

e-by-

morp

hem

eco

rres

pondan

ce

bet

wee

nK

wai

oan

dPid

gin.

Thes

eobse

rvat

ions

sugg

estth

atcr

eole

langu

ages

are

notfo

rmed

by

anar

bitra

ry

mix

ture

of

the

pro

per

ties

of

the

langu

ages

pre

sent

atth

eti

me

they

are

bei

ng

crea

ted.T

he

pat

tern

that

seem

sto

emer

gefr

om

the

obse

rvat

ions

report

edab

ove

isth

efo

llow

ing:

while

the

phonolo

gica

lfo

rms

of

the

lexi

calen

trie

sof

acr

eole

com

efr

om

super

stra

tum

expre

ssio

ns,

the

sem

anti

can

dsy

nta

ctic

pro

per

ties

of

thes

ele

xica

len

trie

sfo

llow

the

pat

tern

ofth

esu

bst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

.T

his

rais

es

the

ques

tion

ofw

hat

the

pro

cess

whic

hge

ner

ates

such

adiv

isio

nofpro

per

ties

is.O

nth

ebas

isof

Hai

tian

dat

ain

volv

ing

funct

ional

cate

gory

lexi

calen

trie

s,I

argu

eth

atth

em

enta

lpro

cess

of

rele

xifica

tion

acco

unts

for

this

div

isio

nof

pro

per

ties

ina

stra

ightf

orw

ard

way

(see

also

Lef

ebvr

e19

86,

1992

,19

93a,

b,

1998

ban

dre

fere

nce

sth

erei

n;Lef

ebvr

ean

dLum

sden

1989

,19

94).

By

its

very

nat

ure

,how

ever

,re

lexi

fica

tion

cannot

be

the

only

pro

cess

invo

lved

incr

eole

genes

is,ev

enin

the

case

ofa

radic

alcr

eole

such

asH

aiti

an.

As

ispoin

ted

out

inLef

ebvr

ean

dLum

sden

(1994),

rele

xifica

tion

applies

in

creo

lege

nes

isw

hen

the

spea

kers

ofth

esu

bst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

are

targ

etin

gth

e

super

stra

tum

langu

age;

when

thes

esp

eake

rsst

art

targ

etin

gth

ere

lexi

fied

lexi

cons,

that

is,

the

earl

ycr

eole

,th

eyar

eno

longe

rusi

ng

rele

xifica

tion

to

dev

elop

the

creo

le.

Ithas

bee

npro

pose

dth

at,

when

the

spea

kers

of

the

subst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

star

tta

rget

ing

the

rele

xified

lexi

cons,

two

oth

erpro

-

cess

espla

ya

role

inth

edev

elopm

entofth

ecr

eole

:dia

lect

leve

llin

g(c

f.Lum

s-

den

and

Lef

ebvr

e1994)

and

rean

alys

is(c

f.Lef

ebvr

e1984;

Lef

ebvr

ean

d

Rel

exifi

cati

on

inC

reole

genes

is

Lum

sden

1994).

The

dat

are

sult

ing

from

rele

xifica

tion

willbe

show

nto

feed

the

pro

cess

esofdia

lect

leve

llin

gan

dre

anal

ysis

.In

this

chap

ter,

Iillu

stra

tehow

thes

eth

ree

pro

cess

esap

ply

incr

eole

genes

ison

the

bas

isof

Hai

tian

dat

a

invo

lvin

gfu

nct

ional

cate

gory

lexi

cal

entr

ies.

Bef

ore

doin

gso

,I

pro

vide

a

defi

nit

ion

ofth

ese

thre

epro

cess

es.3

.

Rel

exifi

cati

on

The

men

talp

roce

ssofre

lexi

fica

tion

has

bee

nsh

ow

nto

pla

ya

role

inth

ege

nes

is

ofm

ixed

langu

ages

(cf.

e.g.

Muys

ken

1981

).T

his

pro

cess

has

also

bee

nar

gued

topla

ya

centr

alro

lein

creo

lege

nes

is(c

f.Lef

ebvr

e19

86,1

993a

,b;L

efeb

vre

and

Lum

sden

1989

,19

94).

Acc

ord

ing

toLef

ebvr

ean

dLum

sden

s(1

994)

form

al

defi

nit

ion

of

the

pro

cess

,re

lexi

fica

tion

builds

anew

lexi

con

inth

efo

llow

ing

way

.T

he

lexi

calen

trie

softh

ele

xico

ns

ofth

esu

bst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

are

copie

d,

and

the

phonolo

gica

lrep

rese

nta

tionsin

thes

eco

pie

dle

xica

lentr

iesar

ere

pla

ced

wit

hphonolo

gica

lre

pre

senta

tions

der

ived

from

the

phonet

icst

rings

of

the

super

stra

tum

langu

age

or

by

null

form

s.T

he

seco

nd

step

isre

ferr

edto

as

rela

bel

ling.

The

choic

eofth

eper

tinen

tphonet

icst

ring

inth

esu

per

stra

tum

lan-

guag

eto

rela

bel

aco

pie

dle

xica

len

try

isbas

edon

thei

ruse

insp

ecifi

cse

man

tic

and

pra

gmat

icco

nte

xts

such

that

,as

isad

voca

ted

inM

uys

ken

(198

1),

the

sem

antics

ofth

esu

per

stra

tum

stri

ng

must

hav

eso

met

hin

gin

com

mon

with

the

sem

anti

csofth

esu

bst

ratu

mle

xica

len

try

that

isbei

ng

rela

bel

led.

Inth

elite

ratu

reon

creo

lege

nes

is,it

has

bee

npoin

ted

outth

atth

em

aker

s

ofa

creo

ledo

notid

enti

fyth

efu

nct

ional

cate

gory

lexi

calen

trie

s(i

.e.d

eter

min

-

ers,

com

ple

men

tize

rs,te

nse

,m

ood

and

aspec

tm

arke

rs,et

c.)

ofth

esu

per

stra

-

tum

langu

age

(cf.

Lef

ebvr

e1984;

Car

den

and

Stew

art

1988;

Mufw

ene

1991;

Lef

ebvr

ean

dLum

sden

1994;et

c.)

bec

ause

ofth

elim

ited

acce

ssth

atth

eyhav

e

toth

edat

a(c

f.e.

g.T

hom

ason

and

Kau

fman

1991).

InLef

ebvr

ean

dLum

sden

(199

4),i

tis

clai

med

that

the

funct

ional

cate

gory

lexi

cale

ntr

ies

copie

dfr

om

the

subst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

are

rela

bel

led

on

the

bas

isofphonet

icst

rings

ofsu

per

-

stra

tum

lexic

al

cate

gori

es.

Itis

furt

her

clai

med

that

when

rele

xifier

sdo

not

find

any

appro

pri

ate

phonet

icst

ring

inth

esu

per

stra

tum

langu

age,

that

is,a

form

whic

his

both

sem

anti

cally

and

dis

trib

uti

onal

lysu

itab

le,

the

copie

d

funct

ional

cate

gory

lexi

calen

try

may

be

assi

gned

aphonolo

gica

lly

null

stri

ng,

such

that

when

this

lexi

calen

try

isuse

din

anutt

eran

ce,it

isnotpro

nounce

d.

The

form

alre

pre

senta

tion

ofth

epro

cess

ofre

lexi

fica

tion

pro

vided

inLef

ebvr

e

and

Lum

sden

(1994)

isillu

stra

ted

schem

atic

ally

in(1

).4

ClaireLefebvre

(1)

origin

al

lexical

en

try

target

lan

guage

[phonology] i

[sem

anticfeature] k

[syntacticfeature] n

[phoneticstring]

jused

inspecificsemantic

andpragm

aticcon-

texts

creo

le

[phonology] j

or[]

[sem

anticfeature] k

[syntacticfeature] n

(=(1)inLefebvreandLumsden

1994)

LefebvreandLumsdens(1994:10)proposalmakesthefollowingprediction

concerningwordorderincreoles:

Since

relexificationisthefirststep

insecondlanguageacquisition,theoriginal

aim

oftherelexifiersisto

reproduce

thephoneticstrings

ofthesuperstratum

language(...)Sincetherelexifiersintendtoreproducethephoneticstringsofthe

superstratum

language,thecreoleword

order

forlexicalcategorieswillbethe

wordorderoflexicalcategoriesinthesuperstratumlanguage(...).Ontheother

hand,sincetherelexifiersdonotidentifythesuperstratumfunctionalcategories,

thewordorderforcreolefunctionalcategorieswillbethesameasthewordorder

ofthesubstratumcategoriesthattheywererelexified

from.

Thedatapresentedinthischapterwillbeshowntosupporttheaboveclaims.

.Dialectlevelling

Theprocessofdialectlevellinghasbeenobserved

insituationswheredialects

orlanguagesareincontact(cf.e.g.Trudgill1986;Siegel,thisvol.).In

Lums-

den

andLefebvre(1994),itisproposedthatthisprocessplaysaroleinthe

developmentofcreolelanguages.Sincerelexificationisamentalprocess,itis

necessarilyan

individualactivity.Typically,situationswherecreolesarecreat-

edinvolveseveralsubstratumlanguages(cf.Whinnom1971).Thus,although

relexificationfrom

asinglesuperstratum

languageprovidestheearlycreole

communitywithacommonvocabulary(cf.Lumsden

andLefebvre1994),the

relexified

lexiconsfromdifferentsubstratumlanguageswouldnotbehomoge-

neousintheearlycreole.AsLumsden

andLefebvre(1994)proposed,someof

thesedifferencesmightbelevelled

outbytheprocessofdialectlevelling.

RelexificationinCreolegenesis

.Reanalysis

Reanalysisisaprocessthrough

whichaparticularphonologicalform

associated

withonelexicalentrycomes

tobeassociated

withanother

lexicalentry

(Lightfoot1979).Thisprocess,sometimesreferred

toasgram

maticalization(cf.

e.g.Sankoff1990;H

opperandTraugott1993),hasbeenshowntoplayarolein

casesofregularlinguisticchange.Forexam

ple,theprepositionofinEnglishhas

beenreanalyzed

asacase

marker(Chomsky1981).Likewise,accordingto

Kaynes(1981)

analysis,theFrench

form

sanddehaveadoublestatusas

prepositionsandascomplementizers.LefebvreandLumsden

(1994)

propose

that,when

speakerstargetthespeech

ofthecreolecommunity,thatis,theearly

creole,reanalysisplaysaroleinthefurtherdevelopmentofthecreole.They

claim,however,thatintheearlycreolethisprocessappliestoalexicalentry

thathasbeencreatedthrough

relexificationbutassigned

aphonologicallynull

representation(cf.(1)).AsLefebvreandLumsden

(1994:13)putit:

Intheabsenceofvisiblephonologicalsignalsforaparticularfunctionalcategory,

speakers[oftheearlycreole]useperiphrasticconstructionstoclarifyinform

ation

thatisnotbeingsignalled.Speakerswillthen

copythephonologicalform

ofthe

key

elem

entoftheperiphrasticconstructionintothelexicalentryoftheprevi-

ouslyhidden

functionalcategory.Inthisway,reanalysisprovidesan

explicitsignal

foracreolelexicalentrythatwasgenerated

byrelexificationbutdidnotacquire

aphonologicalsignalthrough

relabelling...When

reanalysisassignsthislexical

entryaphonologicalsignal,so

thatitbecomesexplicitinthecreoleexpression,

thecreolelexicalentryisvisiblymorelikethatofthesubstratumlanguage.

Inlightofthistheoreticalbackground,Iwillnowshowhowthesethree

processesareimplementedinthegenesisofHaitian

creole.Ibeginwithphase

1when

adultnativespeakers

ofdifferentsubstratum

languages

target

the

superstratumlanguageandusethementalprocessofrelexificationinorderto

createanew

language.Then

Iillustratetheprocessesthatapplyinthesecond

developmentalphaseofthecreolewhen

thespeakers

target

therelexified

lexicons,thatis,theearlycreole.

.Phas

e:

Adult

nat

ivesp

eaker

sofsu

bst

ratu

mla

ngu

ages

targ

et

thesu

per

stra

tum

langu

age

Thissectionillustrateshowrelexificationappliestofunctionalcategorylexical

entriesduringtheperiodwhen

nativespeakersofsubstratum

languagesare

targetingthesuperstratumlanguage.Caseswherethecopiedlexicalentryisre-

Cla

ire

Lef

ebvr

e

label

led

on

the

bas

isof

asu

per

stra

tum

phonet

icst

ring

and

case

sw

her

eth

e

copie

dle

xica

len

try

isas

sign

eda

phonolo

gica

lly

null

form

willbe

dis

cuss

edin

turn

.

.

Copy

and

rela

bel

on

the

bas

isof

super

stra

tum

phonet

icst

rings

..

The

[+defi

nit

e]det

erm

iner

This

sect

ion

argu

esth

atth

ele

xica

len

try

of

the

Hai

tian

det

erm

iner

has

bee

n

crea

ted

thro

ugh

the

pro

cess

of

rele

xifica

tion.T

he

dat

aan

dan

alys

isre

port

ed

on

inth

isse

ctio

nar

edra

wn

from

Lef

ebvr

e(1

994a

),bas

edon

ase

ries

ofpap

ers

on

the

vari

ous

face

tsof

this

Hai

tian

lexi

cal

entr

y(e

.g.

Lef

ebvr

e1982,

1992,

1996a,

1998a;

Lef

ebvr

ean

dM

assa

m1988).

Hai

tian

creo

lehas

apost

nom

inal

det

erm

iner

la(w

ith

the

phonolo

gica

lly

condit

ioned

allo

morp

hs

a,an

,nan

and

lan),

asillu

stra

ted

in(2

).T

he

pre

sence

ofth

isdet

erm

iner

indic

ates

that

the

info

rmat

ion

conve

yed

by

the

noun

phra

se

ispar

tof

the

shar

edknow

ledge

of

the

par

tici

pan

tsin

the

conve

rsat

ion

(cf.

Fourn

ier

1977;

Lef

ebvr

e1982;

Lef

ebvr

ean

dM

assa

m1988).

The

Hai

tian

det

erm

iner

isnot

mar

ked

for

gender

.

(2)

a.ti

mounn

nan

Hai

tian

child

det

the

child

(in

ques

tion/t

hat

we

know

of)

b.

liv

laH

aiti

an

book

det

the

book

(in

ques

tion/t

hat

we

know

of)

Inco

ntr

ast,

the

Fre

nch

det

erm

iner

appea

rsbef

ore

the

noun,as

show

nin

(3),

and

itis

spec

ified

for

gender

and

num

ber

.Le

ism

ascu

line

singu

lar,

lais

fem

i-

nin

esi

ngu

lar,

les

isplu

ral,

and

lis

aphonolo

gica

lly

condit

ioned

allo

morp

h.

(3)

a.l

enfa

nt

Fre

nch

det

child

the

child

b.

lelivr

e

det

book

the

book

c.la

table

det

table

the

table

Relex

ifica

tionin

Creole

genesis

d.

les

livres/tab

les

detbooks/tables

thebooks/tables

Inco

ntrastwithth

eHaitian

determiner,th

eFrench

determiner

does

notne-

cessarilyiden

tify

old

orknowninform

ation.Accord

ingto

Milner

(1978:23),

thedefi

nitedeterminer

iseith

eran

aphoric,

iden

tifyingan

object

that

alread

y

has

been

men

tioned

,orca

taphoric.

Inth

elatter

case,larticle

annonce

une

relative

ouung

nitifsansquaucu

nemen

tionan

trieu

reneso

itrequise.

TheHaitian

determiner

cannotap

pea

rwithnounsth

athav

eage

neric

or

massinterp

retation,butth

eFrench

determiner

must

appea

rwithsu

chnouns

(cf.M

ilner

1978:2

5).

Thesefactsareillustratedin

(4)an

d(5

),resp

ective

ly.

(4)

Pen

bnpoulasante.

Haitian

bread

goodforhea

lth

Bread

isgo

odforoneshea

lth.(=

(19)in

Lefeb

vre1994a)

(5)*(Le)

pain

estbon

pourla

sant

French

(det)bread

isgo

odfor

dethea

lth

Bread

isgo

odforoneshea

lth.(=

(24)in

Lefeb

vre1994a)

Furthermore,F

rench

has

apartitive

determiner

de+

laor

du(a

contrac

tedform

ofde+

le),

whichap

pea

rswithmassnouns,

asin

(6).

(6)

Jean

aman

gdu

pain.

French

John

au

xea

tde+

lebread

Johnatebread

.(=

(25)in

Lefeb

vre1994a)

Accord

ing

toHaa

se(1

965),

this

partitive

determiner

has

been

attested

in

French

since

thefifteenth

centu

ry.M

ilner

(1978:2

4)points

outth

eex

cept-

ional

charac

terofFrench

with

resp

ectto

this

partitive

determiner

andnotes

that

inmost

langu

ages

thedeterminer

does

notap

pea

rin

contextswhereth

e

French

partitive

determiner

isman

ifested.Haitian

followsth

epattern

ofth

e

majority

oflangu

ages,as

shownin

(7),

theHaitian

counterp

artofth

eFrench

sentence

in(6

).

(7)

Jan

man

jepen

.Haitian

Johnea

tbread

Johnatebread

.

Finally,in

Haitian

,th

ehea

dnounan

dth

edeterminer

may

beseparated

bya

relative

clau

se,as

in(8

).

ClaireLefebvre

(8)

Mounn[

ki

pati]a.

Haitian

man

op

re-proleave

det

Theman

wholeft.(=

(20)inLefebvre1994a)

Bycontrast,in

French,theheadnounandthedeterminermay

notbesep-

arated

byarelativeclause,asshownbytheungram

maticalityofthesentence

in(9).

(9)*Le

[quiest

parti]homme

French

det[who

au

xleave]man

Lit.:The[wholeft]man(=

(26)inLefebvre1994a)

Thedeterminer

inHaitian

creoleandthedeterminer

inFrench

thushave

quitedifferentsemanticandsyntacticproperties,whichindicates

that

the

properties

oftheHaitian

creoledeterminer

arenotderived

from

French.

Moreover,theFrench

determinerdoesnotappeartohavebeenthesourceof

thephonologicalrepresentationoftheHaitian

determinereither.TheFrench

determinerisoften

foundaspartofHaitian

simplenouns,asshownin(10).

(10)

Hai

tian

nou

ns

Cor

resp

ondin

gFre

nch

DPs

larivy

river