Cover not available
Part of
Pidgins and Creoles beyond Africa-Europe Encounters
Edited by Isabelle Buchstaller, Anders Holmberg and Mohammad Almoaily
[Creole Language Library 47] 2014
► pp. 85–100

How non-Indo-European is Fanakalo pidgin?

Selected understudied structures in a Bantu-lexified pidgin with Germanic substrates

| University of Cape Town
Fanakalo is a southern African pidgin whose main lexifier is Zulu, a non-Indo-European language, and whose genesis lies with Europeans as “imperfect learners” and Africans as “superstrate speakers” in the 19th CE. The question can therefore be raised whether this reversal of social relations and the identity of those who were doing the initial language learning and pidgin creation resulted in a typological reversal too (compared to, say, Caribbean contact varieties). The answer appears to be in the affirmative. The question can also be raised how non-Indo-European this pidgin is. This time the answer is less clear: while the vocabulary is largely from Southern Bantu, its grammar resembles a basic English, or – more plausibly – a basic analytic SVO code.
Published online: 29 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.47.05mes
References (27)
References
Adendorff, R. 1995. Fanakalo in South Africa. In Language and Social History: Studies in South African Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 176–192. Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. 1983. Introduction. In Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition, R. Andersen (ed.), 1–42. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. 2003. The absence of reduplication in pidgins. In. 2003. Twice as Meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and Other Contact Languages [Westminister Creole Series], S. Kouwenberg & P. Baker (eds), 37–46. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bold, J.D. 1977[1951]. Fanagalo: Phrase Book, Grammar and Dictionary, 10th edn. Johannesburg: Ernest Stanton.Google Scholar
Calloway, Rev. C. 1868. Nursery Tales, Traditions, and Histories of the Zulus. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Cole, D.T. 1953. Fanagalo and the Bantu Languages in South Africa. African Studies 12:1–9.Google Scholar
De Klerk, V. 2006. Corpus Linguistics and World Englishes: A Study of Xhosa English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Doke, C.M. 1937. Language. In The Bantu-Speaking Tribes of South Africa, I. Schapera (ed.), 309–331. Cape Town: Maskew Miller.Google Scholar
. 1959. Language pioneers of the nineteenth century. African Studies 18(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doke, C.M. & Vilakazi, B.W. 1972. Zulu-English Dictionary. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
Du Plessis, J.A. & Visser, M. 1992. Xhosa Syntax. Pretoria: Via Afrika.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles, Vol 1: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hopkin-Jenkins, K. 1947. Basic Bantu. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Mayne, R. 1947. Conversational Zulu for the Home. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter and Shooter.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 1989. The origins of Fanagalo. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics 4(2): 211–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Words across worlds: Aspects of language contact and language learning in the Eastern Cape, 1800–1850. African Studies 57(1): 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Is there reduplication in Fanakalo? In Twice as Meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and Other Contact Languages [Westminister Creole Series], S. Kouwenberg & P. Baker (eds), 301–307. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
. 2007. Differentiating pidgin from early interlanguage: A comparison of Pidgin Nguni (Fanakalo) and interlanguage varieties of Xhosa and Zulu. South African Journal of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25(1): 75–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, J. 1816. Report to the London Missionary Society. Transactions of the London Missionary Society IV: 278–93.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. & Sharma, D. 2009. AAVE/Creole copula absence: A critique of the imperfect learning hypothesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24(1): 53–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singler, J.V. (ed). 1990. Pidgin and Creole Tense/Mood/Aspect Systems [Creole Language Library 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taljaard, P.C. & Bosch, S.E. 1988. Handbook of isiZulu. Pretoria: van Schaik.Google Scholar
Trapp, O. 1908. Die Isikula-Sprache in Natal, Südafrika. Anthropos 3: 508–11.Google Scholar
Van der Kemp, J.T. 1799. Specimen of the Kaffir language. Transactions of the [London] Missionary Society 1: 442–459.Google Scholar
Whinnom, K. 1971. Linguistic hybridization and the special case of pidgins and creoles. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (ed.), 91–115. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

H. Ekkehard Wolff
2019. The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, DOI logo
Hurst, Ellen
2018. Fanakalo. In The Social and Political History of Southern Africa's Languages, ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Mesthrie, Rajend
2017. Pidginization versus second language acquisition. In Language Contact in Africa and the African Diaspora in the Americas [Creole Language Library, 53], ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.