Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 193–204

The effects of language ecology on syntactic structure

A look at Kristang and Makista

| SOAS University of London
Kristang and Makista are two related Portuguese-lexified creoles of southeast Asia. While they are generally mutually intelligible, there are differences between them. A look at the contact languages found in Malacca and Macau can give us ideas as to where these differences come from. Building on Ansaldo’s notion of language ecology, this study will look at the histories of Kristang and Makista, and the features that exhibit these differences. These histories will be taken into account when looking at the differences, and evidence suggesting the connection between language ecology and morphosyntactic structures will be presented. The two features discussed are genitive patterns, and cleft constructions.
Keywords: creole, language ecology, Makista, Kristang, substrate
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data sources
  • 3.Competing views in creole studies
  • 4.Historical background
    • 4.1Kristang
    • 4.2Makista
    • 4.3Kristang and Makista
  • 5.Common features
  • 6.Genitive
  • 7.Cleft constructions
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations used
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.10lau
References (39)
References
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2009. Contact languages: Ecology and evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto & Stephen Matthews. 2004. The origins of Macanese reduplication. In Geneviève Escure & Armin Schwegler (eds.), Creoles, Contact and language change: Linguistic and social implications, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arana-Ward, Marie. 1977. A synchronic and diachronic investigation of Macanese: the Portuguese-based creole of Macau. MA thesis, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Arcodia, Giorgio. 2017. On Sinitic influence on Macanese. Language Ecology 1(2). 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avram, Andrei. 2015. Reduplication in Macao Creole Portuguese and its origins. Études créoles 33(2). 27–51.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2014. Creoles and typology: Problems of sampling and definition. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2). 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall & Ingo Plag. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1). 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan. 1988. A grammar of Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2005. Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese) – a long-time survivor seriously endangered. Estudios de sociolingüística 6(1). 1–37.Google Scholar
Baxter, Alan & Augusta Bastos. 2012. A closer look at the post-nominal genitive in Asian Creole Portuguese. In Hugo Cardoso, Alan Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 47–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. New York: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 173–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo, Alan Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.). 2012. Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charpentier, Jean-Michel. 1995. O processo de descrioulização no caso do crioulo macaísta de Macau a passagem dum basilecto para um acrolecto. Papia 4(1). 21–31.Google Scholar
Cheng, Christina Miu Bing. 1999. Macai: A cultural Janus. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy. 1996. The genesis of a language: The formation and development of Korlai Portuguese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against creole exceptionalism. Language 79(2). 391–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of creole exceptionalism. Language in Society 34(4). 533–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Creole exceptionalism and the (mis)education of the creole speaker. In Anne Kleifgen & George Bond (eds.), The languages of Africa and the diaspora: Educating for language awareness, 124–144. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, John & Peter Patrick (eds.). 2007. Comparative creole syntax: Parallel outlines of 18 creole grammars. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Lebel, Alexandre. 2018. Seven ways of saying no: The negation system in Macau Creole Portuguese. Papia 28(2). 157–200.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the world (19th edn.). Dallas: SIL.Google Scholar
Marbeck, Joan Margaret. 1995. Ungua Adanza. Lisbon: Calouse Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McPherson, Kenneth. 1993. The Indian Ocean: A history of people and the sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3). 125–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Defining creole. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ostler, Nicholas. 2005. Empires of the world: A language history of the world. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: typology, contact, change, 265–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinharanda Nunes, Mário. 2008. Os demonstrativos em maquista: uma análise morfosintáctica contrastive. Papia 18. 7–21.Google Scholar
. 2012. Traces of superstrate verb inflection in Makista and other Asian-Portuguese Creoles. In Hugo Cardoso, Alan Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives, 289–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Socio-historical factors in changes in the creole matrix of Makista. In George Wei & Katrine Wong (eds.), Macau – Cultural interaction and literary representation, 25–41. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pinharanda Nunes, Mário & Alan Baxter. 2004. Os marcadores pre-verbais no crioulo de base lexical portuguesa de Macau. Papia 14. 31–46.Google Scholar
Santos Ferreira, José. 1967. Macau sã assi. Macau: Tipografia da Missão Padroado.Google Scholar
. 1973. Qui-nova chencho. Macau: Tipografia da Missão Padroado.Google Scholar
Sit, Victor F. S., Vivian Hui & Gladys Leung. 2012. Macau through 500 years. Singapore: Silkroad Press.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Ela & Graham Thurgood. 1996. Aspect, tense, or aktionsart? The particle ja in Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese). Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 11(1). 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youssef, Valerie. 1988. The language bioprogram hypothesis revisited. Journal of Child Language 15. 451–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. On the confirmation of bioprograms. Journal of Child Language 17. 233–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar