Author: dkpark2
-
February 23 (Syea 2025)
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.
-
February 10 (Walkden 2019)
Citation: Walkden, G. (2019). The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.888
The discussion of this paper focused on the uses of the term ‘uniformitarianism’ as it applies to debates within Creolistics and language contact. The discussions focused on three main points: (i) Exceptionalism and Uniformitarianism, (ii) Methodological Uniformitarianism Issues, and (iii) What is uniform under uniformitarian views?
First, exceptionalism seems to take on different meanings within the literature. Many creolists cite Peter Bakker as an exceptionalist, while he identifies as a Uniformitarian. Bakker noted that many creolists associate exceptionalism with simplicity or ‘less-ness,’ a view which he does not support. Rather, his approach notes structural similarities that set Creole languages apart, but not via simplicity. Thus, creolists could consider abandoning the term ‘exceptionalist’ as a lot of the typical associations with exceptionalism do not have modern supporters.
Although we may expect the associations with Methodological Uniformitarianism to be unproblematic (most debates would focus around Substantive Uniformitarianism), we discussed potential debates regarding some forms of Methodological Uniformitarianism. In particular, certain sociolinguistic situations may not make sense to assume to be the same in the present as in the past. For example, with the use of newer technologies, it is unclear if social conditions can be considered ‘constant’. We left this question open for further discussion and research.
Finally, we considered what is uniform under different creole genesis perspectives. For example, under Bakker’s uniformitarian view, the idea is that certain elements of the ecology are uniform in Creole genesis (e.g. the coming together of diverse languages and the need to communicate between these groups). This view was challenged under the consideration that some Creole languages may have a clearly documented pidgin phases, where other seem to have developed quickly: thus, there are different creole genesis paths. However, this difference does not seem to make a difference in the structural similarities identified by Bakker’s work. Bakker countered this point by suggesting that all creole languages must have passed through some kind of ‘simplification process’ regardless of the time frame, so the processes are comparable under this perspective. Overall, this discussion shows the importance of uniformitarians being clear about what elements they hold to be constant, to better foster relevant discussions, echoing one of Walkden’s calls to action.
Overall, this discussion raised several important discussions linked to the use of uniformitarianism both in Creolistics and Linguistics more generally. Although these discussions should be considered further, this meeting lead to fruitful discussions about the different uses of uniformitarianism in creolistics, and prescribes clear discussion of vocabulary and the exact assumptions of any given uniformitarian perspective.