Anda di halaman 1dari 38
THOMAS L. MARKEY AFRIKAANS: CREOLE OR NON-CREOLE? ‘One of the best known and more frequently debated ethnolinguistic controversies is that over whether or not Afrikaans is a creole, a “true” creole, or a partially creolized language, or merely 2 “massive contact language” comparable to, say, Maltese or Yiddish. In terms of settlement history, relative chronology, and relationship to its superstrate (Dutch), Afrikaans has been compared to Canadian French: The Cape was settled in 1652, Québec in 1608; Afrikaans is further removed from (or less similar to) Standard Durch than Québecois or Acadian is to Standard French. This comparison is unenlightening if the issue in question is that of the extent of creolization (or creolization at all). There are essentially three theories as to the origin of Afrikaans: 1) change due to foreign influence (e.g. Low German, French, Hotentor) on Dutch input, but not outright creolization; 2) change due to a creole- producing situation that arose between Dutch-speaking whites and their Malayo-Portuguese-speaking slaves, but with only partial creolizations and 3) change due to the spontaneous, discontinuous, and natural develop- ‘ment of particular (North Holland) dialectal features and inherent tenden- cies in Dutch grammatical structure, but no creolization. References to the copious literature on these three hypotheses are amply provided in JOHN E. Remvrcxe et al. (1975, p. 322-37), cf. Dirk Cxt, HESSELING (1979, p. 1-22). The first view is examplified by Dantet Bosman, the second by D. Cu. Hesse inc, and the third by G. G. Kuoexe. The first is eclectic and, hence, evasive. The second has met with general hostility, while the third lauds the “‘miracle of Afrikaans”, denies linguistic miscegenation, and is exclusively eurocentric: it represents the politically-tinged party line of white supremacy. The above hypotheses were articulated at a time when we knew consi- derably less about creoles and creolization than we do now. All suffer from a lack of theoretical insight and a basis for comparison. Determina- tion of whether or not Modern Afrikaans is a creole must first be based on a rigid and adequate definition of “creole”. Second, comparison must be made between those features that are universally, or vircually universally, present in creoles so defined and like features in Afrikaans. Quite simply, a fact that has so far cluded the hypothesizers, in order for Afrikaans to ‘eel be Diol wd Lneuni aban, He 2 (1982) Fran Suet Vr Gab, B-si00 Wauden 170 Tromas L. Manner qualify as a creole, it must attest the features that define creoles as creoles, irrespective of vast geographical separation and differences in inputs. To label creoles “contact languages” is vacuous: all languages are con- tact languages. To call all languages creoles is equally fatuous: there are marked typological and generic differences between, say, Haitian Creole French and Post-Conquest English. Stratified creoles, in CHARLES-James N. BAILEY’s (1974) definition of stratification, are characterized by three or more input languages, far greater relexification than in either diffusion (ie. dissemination of change in a single language community) or fusion (i.e. the recombination of two and only two input languages resulting from an initial, transitory diglossic contact situation), and a general lack of “compartmentalization”, with the possible exception of the acrolectal node of a continuum. Compartmentalization is typical of fusion languages (e.g. Yiddish) and denotes the nonintegration of an item(s) along with the process(es) that item covers and the relation(s) it defines'. Compartmenta- lization defines reserved relations. An example is reservation of the He- brew-Aramaic desinence ~im to form the plural of words of Hebrew- Aramaic origin (and only lexemes with this pedigree) in Yiddish. An example of phonetological compartmentalization is provided by Swahili where final vowels are not shifted to ~i in the negative present of verbs derived from Arabic. Thus, in creoles we do not find, say, 2 putatively Kwa marker reserved only for lexemes that also putatively stem from Kwa. On the syntactic level, compartmentalization denotes the reserved relation between a form from L; in the formation of a syntactic construc- tion from that input and only that input, i.e., the non-integration of both form and rule. In addition to three plus inputs, rampant relexification, and general absence of compartmentalization, stratified creoles are characterized by grammatical restructuring that proceeds by reduction, expansion, and simplification along developmental continua’, Grammar (and grammati- cal) is here defined as syntax and regular morphology to the exclusion of "For farther details on compartmentlization, sce‘T, L, Maney (19813). An example of acylecealcompartenaltaton i apparety provided by Sranan As normally the Gio or creole, Senay Toga ah Fedeatos of sure copula Refoe aaeves However, when an adjecure is an unedapred (end. presumably scent) borrowing ror Date the copula is wvally expressed by Lrcve de: ide endows am enthuse de overtuigd ‘he/she/its convinced Durch input calls forth acalque on the Dutch construc. Sion: Darch regularly ha a pre-adjecive copula. For deta sett. Ly Manna (orthcom- rhs dfnion of asec stems rm Pezex MUwuniusex (1979). carefully docu mented study that serves to clarify many ofthe reigning misconceptions in creolistics. Afrikaans: Creole or Non-Creole? im phonetology and lexicon. Creoles are also uniquely distinguished by dis- ruption of grammatical input-patterns on every linguistic level, They are typified by discontinuity and have their own new creations, but they also display phenomena inherited from source languages. All languages bor- row grammar, dissolve grammar, and generate grammar. Whereas gram- matical borrowing and dissolution are commonplace, generation of gram- matical, particularly syntactic, innovations is not. Creation of a novel word-marker relation (e.g. the secondary cases of Tocharian) is more frequent than creation of novel statements of syntactic order (c.g. ‘spon- taneous” creation of ergativity). Thus, the syntactic innovations of creoles are highly significant in their typological definition. Creolization is characterized by catastrophic, non-uniformitarian chan- ge, where catastrophic is not to be confused with chaotic. Uniformitarian change (e.g. unconditionally 2 > ei > ai > oi) reflects continuity, while catastrophic change reflects discontinuity. As an example of nonunifor- mitarian change, note the historical development of number marking in Tok Pisin as the language evolved from a rudimentary jargon to a stable and then an expanded pidgin and finally creolized with the acquisition of native speakers’. Tok Pisin begins with a numberless jargon stage. In the stabilization phase, superstrate markers (Engl. -s, Germ. -en) were largely abandoned in favor of three competing pluralizers: ol, olgeta, -pela < Engl. all, altogether, fellow respectively. At this stage, plural marking was optional, though favored by certain semantic values and syntactic environ- ments: nouns specified [+Human] and in subject position were most fa- vored, while those specified |—Human, — Animate, +Mass] after preposi- tions were least favored, In the expansion phase, pluralization spread to more grammatical environments. In the creolization phase, the competing pluralizers were semantically and functionally distinguished: of ‘nominal plural, olgeta ‘al? -pela ‘pronominal plural’. Differences in surface marking became associated with differences in meaning and function. ‘With respect to the emergence of pluralization, then, Tok Pisin initially displayed reduction as a numberless jargon and abandoned input-markers. Having selected or generated pluralizers in the stabilization phase, these pluralizers were functionally extended and distinguished in the expansion phase, and were finally regularized (or simplified) in the creolization 2 ‘The following sccount is abstracted from P, MUsttAUSLER (1980, 1981). Tok Pisin {also known as Melanesian Pidgin English, New Guinea Pidgin or Neo’ Melanesian) isthe national lingua franca of New Guinea. It is to be distinguished from Bich(e) lamar, or Bislama, in the British Solomons and the New Hebrides, also (apparently) to some excent in New Caledonia in the mid-ninetcenth century.