Citation: Syea, A. (2025). Indo-aryan influence in Mauritian creole. Contact Language Library, 135–183. https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.61.05sye
The discussion of Anand Syea’s (2025) Indo-Aryan Influence in Mauritian Creole provided discussion points both for Mauritian Creole, as well as wider discussions related to language contact. First, short discussion ensued regarding the “passive-like /topic constructions,” and the Serial Verb Constructions. These discussions presented issues related to potential variation amongst speakers, and how these differences are accounted for under the contact perspective. This led to a wider discussion of language contact and change, raising questions like, (i) What methodology can be used for ‘proving’ language change resulting from contact, (ii) Are certain features more likely to be transferred in language contact, and (iii) How does non-attestation play a role in such studies.
First, the “passive-like/topic constructions” reported in Syea’s data appears to be subject to variation when it comes to the placement of the wh-words in questions. This leads to the question how many of the reported properties are variable, and why. If this work were to be continued, we would like to explore the other properties of such constructions, how they compare to the Indo-Aryan languages, and the variation available in speakers. This could provide clearer evidence as to the potential influence Indo-Aryan had on Mauritian Creole (and potentially if certain varieties were not affected). Second, with regards to Serial Verb Constructions, certain data was not discussed leaving questions about the development of such features. For instance, Veenstra & Muysken (2017) report that in certain polarity situations, the second pronoun is not available in Serial Verb Constructions. It is unclear if Syea would suggest that certain speakers have not been affected by the Indo-Aryan influence, that this marks a new development (if so what triggered it), etc. Overall, a continuation of this study could approach these issues by attempting to understand the current variation available in Mauritius.
On a wider scale, this discussion led to methodological concerns. While Syea’s study seems to reflect a good methodological process, it was suggested that looking at court records may be an interesting source to access more historical data. By expanding our corpora, especially with accounts that are required to be accurate, we can get a better (but still limited) view of older states of the language. Additionally, linguists should give a nuanced picture of the situation, including a discussion of all potential influences: transferred features may be the result of feature convergence, which should also be given consideration. Another question of interest is considering whether certain features are more susceptible to transfer. There is some literature that suggests features working at the syntax-pragmatic interface are more likely to transfer (potentially aligning with the “topic-like constructions” discussed in Syea’s article). Finally, the question of the non-attestation of certain structures was discussed. Because of the limited corpora and their potential biases, it is important for historical work to consider the fact that non-attestation does not mean that a certain structure was not present in the language. For this reason, it is hard to come to definitive answers when it comes to feature transfer in the history of a language.
Overall, this article raised interesting questions about the language change due to contact in Mauritius specifically. This also allowed discussion of more general methodological questions in the study of language contact and feature transfer.