In:Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches
Edited by Peter Bakker, Finn Borchsenius, Carsten Levisen and Eeva M. Sippola
[Not in series 211] 2017
► pp. 103–140
Get fulltext
Chapter 6Creole typology II
Typological features of creoles: from early proposals to phylogenetic approaches and comparisons with non-creoles
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 31 May 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.211.06dav
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.211.06dav
Abstract
In the late 1950s, creolists started drawing lists of shared lexical and grammatical properties of creole languages. In this chapter, a number of proposals and features are presented. We show that few of the proposed common properties are in fact shared by all creoles. We also discuss typological studies in which samples of creoles are compared with samples of non-creoles. Creoles, despite their diversity, tend to cluster in a different pattern from non-creoles, even when non-European creoles are added, providing robust evidence for a creole typological profile. Finally, the chapter deals with the neglected area of diachronic aspects of creoles. No systematic surveys comparing language change in creoles and non-creoles have yet been conducted. The pre-existence of a pidgin phase is a plausible explanation for some of the major differences observed between creoles and non-creoles.
Article outline
- 6.1Introduction
- 6.2Claims about typological properties of creoles, 1950s–2000s
- 6.2.1 Taylor (1971)
- 6.2.2 Markey (1982)
- 6.2.3Bickerton (1981, 1984)
- 6.2.4 Baker (2001)
- 6.2.5 Muysken & Law (2001)
-
6.2.6
Holm & Patrick (2007)
- 1.Unmarked verbs
- 2.Anterior (or past) tense
- 3.Progressive aspect
- 4.Habitual marker
- 5.Completive aspect
- 6.Irrealis mode
- 7.Other combinations of verbal markers
- 8.Complementizers
- 9.Dependent clauses
- 10.Negation
- 11.Passive
- 12.Adjectives as verbs?
- 13.The copula
- 14.Serial verbs
- 15.Noun phrase
- 16.Possession
- 17.Pronouns: case distinctions
- 18.Coordinating conjunctions
- 19.Prepositions
- 20.Miscellaneous
- 6.2.7 Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2009)
- 6.2.8 Cysouw (2009)
- 6.2.9Mauritian Creole and proposed creole features (Grant & Guillemin 2012)
- 6.2.10Summary of structural overviews and conclusions
- 6.3Mass comparisons of creoles and non-creoles
- 6.3.1Holm & Patrick’s creole sample among the languages of the world
- 6.3.2WALS features: Non-creoles and creoles
- 6.3.3WALS features and APiCS features compared
- 6.3.4The four WALS features that set creoles apart from non-creoles
- 6.3.5Surinamese creoles, the lexifiers and the Gbe and Kikongo substrates
- 6.3.6Summary mass comparisons
- 6.4Diachrony and creoles
- 6.4.1Pidgins
- 6.4.2Grammaticalization
- 6.4.3Phonological processes
- 6.4.4Speed of change
- 6.4.5Summary: Change
- 6.5Conclusions
Note References
References (66)
Aboh, E. & Ansaldo, U. 2007. The role of typology in language creation: A descriptive take. In Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73], U. Ansaldo, S. Matthews, & L. Lim (eds), 39–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bakker, P. 1987. Autonomous Languages. Signed and Spoken Languages Created by Children in the Light of Bickerton’s Bioprogram Hypothesis [Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 53]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
2014a. Creoles and typology: Problems of sampling and definition. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2): 437–455.
2014b. Creolistics: back to square one? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1): 177–194.
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1): 5–42.
Becker, A. & Veenstra, T. 2003. The survival of inflectional morphology in French-related creoles. Second Language Acquisition 25: 283–306.
Bender, L. 1987. Some possible African creoles: A pilot study. In Pidgin and Creole Languages. Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke, G. G. Gilbert (ed.), 37–60. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Bruyn, A. 1995. Grammaticalization in Creoles: The Development of Determiners and Relative Clauses in Sranan. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Chaudenson, R. 1992. Des îles, des hommes, des langues: Essais sur la créolisation linguistique et culturelle. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Cysouw, M. 2009. APiCS, WALS, and the creole typological profile (if any). Paper presented at the 1st APiCS conference, Leipzig, 5–8 November.
Daval-Markussen, A. 2013. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45(2): 274–295.
2013a. Indefinite articles. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (1 November 2014).
2013b. Negative morphemes. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (5 July 2015)
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2: 35–53.
1984. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grant, A. P. 2009. Admixture, structural transmission, simplicity, and creolisation. In Simplicity and Complexity in Creoles and Pidgins, N. Faraclas & T. B. Klein (eds), 125–152. London: Battlebridge.
Grant, A. & Guillemin, D. 2012. The complex of creole typological features. The case of Mauritian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27(1): 48–104.
1959. Neo-Melanesian and glottochronology. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 265–267.
Hancock, I. F. 1975. Malacca Creole Portuguese: Asian, African Or European? Anthropological Linguistics 17(5): 211–236.
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie B. (eds). 2005. The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures. Oxford: OUP.
Janson. T. 1984. Articles and plural formation in creoles: Change and universals. Lingua 64: 291–323.
Jansson, F., Parkvall, M., & Strimling, P. 2015. Modeling the evolution of creoles. Language Dynamics and Change 5(1): 1–51.
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. 1997. The basic variety. Or: Couldn’t natural language be much simpler? Second Language Research 13: 301–347.
Kortmann, B., Schneider, E., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2007. Berbice Dutch (Creole Dutch). In Comparative Creole Syntax, J. Holm & P. L. Patrick (eds), 25–52. London: Battlebridge.
Markey, T. L. 1982. Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 49 (1): 169–207.
McWhorter, J. H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype. Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818.
2011. Tying up loose ends. The creole prototype after all. Diachronica 28(1): 82–117.
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds). 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Structures. Oxford: OUP.
Mufwene, S. S. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13(1): 83–134.
2015a. Pidgins and creole Languages. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, Vol. 18, J. D. Wright, (ed.), 133–145. Oxford: Elsevier.
2015b. L’émergence des parlers créoles et l’évolution des langues romanes: Faits, mythes et ideologies. Études Créoles 2: 11–39.
Mühlhäusler, P. 1997. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, expanded and revised edn. London: Battlebridge.
Muysken, P. 2015. Conclusion: Feature distribution in the West Africa-Surinam Trans-Atlantic Sprachbund. In Surviving the Middle Passage. The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund, P. C. Muysken, N. Smith & R. D. Borges (eds), 393–408. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Muysken, P. & Law, P. 2001. Creole studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide. Glot International 5(2): 47–57.
Muysken, P. C., Smith, N. & Borges, R. D. (eds). 2015. Surviving the Middle Passage. The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Language Complexity. Typology, Contact, Change, M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds), 265–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Parkvall, M., Jansson, F. & Strimling, P. 2014. Simulating the genesis of Mauritian. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 265–273. .
Pentland, D. H. 1979. Causes of rapid phonological change: The case of Atsina and its relatives. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 99–137.
Robertson, I. 2006. Challenging the definition of creole. In Exploring the Boundaries of Caribbean Creole Languages, H. Simmons-McDonald & I. Robertson (eds), 3–20. Mona, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
Ross, M. D. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, M. Durie & M. D. Ross (eds), 180–217. Oxford: OUP.
Saitou, N. & Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4(4): 406–425.
Smith, N. 2008. Creole phonology. In The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 98–129. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stassen, L. 2013. Predicative possession. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (11 June 2015)
Stolz, T. 1987. Kreolistik und Germanistik: Niederländisch-basierte Sprachformen in Übersee. Linguistische Berichte 110(1): 283–318.
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2009. The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: A quantitative perspective. Lingua 119(1): 1643–1663.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Kouwenberg, Silvia & John Victor Singler
2020. Are creoles a special type of language?. In Advances in contact linguistics [Contact Language Library, 57], ► pp. 107 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. 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.
