Transparency and language contact
The case of Haitian Creole, French, and Fongbe
When communicating speakers map meaning onto form. It would thus seem obvious for languages to show a one-to-one
correspondence between meaning and form, but this is often not the case. This perfect mapping, i.e. transparency, is indeed continuously
violated in natural languages, giving rise to zero-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-one opaque correspondences between meaning and form.
However, transparency is a mutating feature, which can be influenced by language contact. In this scenario languages tend to evolve and lose
some of their opaque features, becoming more transparent. This study investigates transparency in a very specific contact situation, namely
that of a creole, Haitian Creole, and its sub- and superstrate languages, Fongbe and French, within the Functional Discourse Grammar
framework. We predict Haitian Creole to be more transparent than French and Fongbe and investigate twenty opacity features, divided into
four categories, namely Redundancy (one-to-many), Fusion (many-to-one), Discontinuity (one meaning is split in two or more forms,) and
Form-based Form (forms with no semantic counterpart: zero-to-one). The results indeed prove our prediction to be borne out: Haitian Creole
only presents five opacity features out of twenty, while French presents nineteen and Fongbe nine. Furthermore, the opacity features of
Haitian Creole are also present in the other two languages.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Transparency
- 2.1Functional Discourse Grammar
- 2.2Transparency in FDG
- 2.3Transparency and creoles
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Redundancy
- 3.1.1Clausal Agreement and Cross-Reference
- 3.1.2Phrasal agreement
- 3.1.3Concord
- 3.1.4Tense copying
- 3.2Discontinuity
- 3.2.1Extraposition and/or Extraction
- 3.2.2Raising
- 3.2.3Circumfixes and circumpositions
- 3.2.4Infixes
- 3.2.5Non-parallel alignment
- 3.3Fusion
- 3.3.1Cumulation of TAME and case
- 3.3.2Morphologically conditioned stem alternation: Suppletion
- 3.3.3Morphologically conditioned stem alternation: Irregular stem formation
- 3.4Form-based form
- 3.4.1Grammatical gender
- 3.4.2Syntactic alignment
- 3.4.3Nominal expletives
- 3.4.4Influence of complexity in word order or heavy shift
- 3.4.5Predominantly head marking
- 3.4.6Morphophonologically conditioned stem alternation
- 3.4.7Morpho(phono)logically conditioned affix alternation or conjugation and declension
- 3.5Summary of all transparency features
- 4.Results
- 4.1Redundancy
- 4.2Discontinuity
- 4.3Fusion
- 4.4Form-based form
- 4.5Summary
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (49)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Dan I. Slobin. 1985. Acquisition of Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin (ed), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. The data, 839–878. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arends, Jacques, Pieter Muysken, & Norval Smith. 1995. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Audring, Jenny. 2009. Gender assignment and gender agreement. Morphology 181: 93–116. 

Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology (Second Edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook Of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blasi, D. E., Michaelis, S. M., & Haspelmath, M. 2017. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1(10). 723–729. 

Blom, Elma, Daniela Polišenská, & Fred Weerman. 2008. Articles, adjectives and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research 241. 297–331. 

Bonenfant, Jacques L. 2011. History of Haitian Creole: from Pidgin to Lingua Franca and English Influence on the Language. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning 4(11). 27–34.
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, William D. & Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 

DeGraff, Michel. 2001. Kreyòl Ayisien. In John Holm & Peter L. Patrick (eds.), Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge Pubblications.
Dereau, Léon. 1995. Cours de Kikongo. Namur: Wesmael-Charlier.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Downing, Laura J. & Barbara Stiebels. 2012. Iconicity*. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 379–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese: On the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht-Holland/Cinnaminson-USA: Foris Publications.
Glaude, Herby. 2012. Aspects de la syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Paris: Anibwé.
Hall, Robert A. 1966. Pidgin and Creoles Languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hengeveld, Kees. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems and morphological types, ACLC Working Papers 2(1). 31–48.
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011a. Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 41. 1–22.
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011b. Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 110–114.
Hengeveld, Kees & Lachlan J. Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: a Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst.
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 56–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Lefebvre, Claire, Hélène Magliore-Holly, & Nanie Piou. 1982. Syntaxe de l’Haïtien. USA: Karoma Publishers INC.
Lefebvre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brousseau. 2002. A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Leufkens, Sterre. 2015. Transparency in Language: A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT.
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure, PLoS ONE 5 (1). 1–10. 

McWorther, John H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: vindicating a typological class. Language 74, No. 4. 788–818. 

McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 51. 125–166. 

McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 

Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics, In Kerge Krista & Maria Maren Sepper (eds.), FinEst Linguistics: Conference Proceeding of The Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics May 6–7 2004, Eesti Filoloogia Osakonna Toimtited 81, 11–26. Tallinn: TLÜ
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2015. Pidgin and Creole Languages. International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Second Edition). 133–145. Oxford: Elsevier. 

Omar, Margaret. 1973. The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a native language. The Hague: Mouton. 

Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia. A South Munda language. Leiden: Brill. 

Siegel, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and history. In John Macnamara (ed.), Language Learning and Language Thought. New York: Academic Press. 185–214.
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistics complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Valdman, Albert. 2015. Haitian Creole: Structure, Variation, Status, Origin. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Velde, Freek van de. 2012. PP extraction and extraposition in Functional Discourse Grammar, Language Sciences 341. 433–454. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Alexiadou, Artemis
2024.
Double plural marking and the building blocks of nominals.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.