1. The Phonology and Morphology of Creole Languges: Simple or Complex Norval Smith ACLC/Theoretical Linguistics University of Amsterdam

2. Structure of talk Phonology 1.Saramaccan consonant system & Sranan consonant system 2.Saramaccan vowel system Morphology 1.Definiteness and number in Sranan 2.Perfective and imperfective in Sranan

3. Saramaccan Consonants pttjkkwkp bddjggwgb  mnnj fs   ? vz wlj23-26

4. Fon Consonants tckkp djggb fs  vz  b  m  n    21

5. kp vs. kw Sar 1Sar 218 th c.source kpéfakwéfakwefaPtg. coifa kpéikwéikwêri, kwêliEng. square ahalakpákpaaherapápa ahalakpákpa Fon hlakpakpa kpan kpanFon kpa

6. gb vs. gw Sar 1Sar 218 th c.source gbambagwambakwambaK. gwamba gbaninígwaninígwaninì gbegbé bebèh F. gb  gb  * gb  l  gb  l  bloblo F. gbl  *Sranan bebé

7. b vs.  DutchSara.gloss blaas  aási 'bladder, balloon' balk  áiki 'cross-beam' brak(en) baláki 'bring up' blommetje bolómítji 'flower' N.B. obvious late borrowings from Sranan

8. d vs.  English Saramaccan gloss down + go  'go down' dead  'dead' drink  'drink' (n.) dig  'dig'

9. Sranan Consonants Lacks the “exotic” substrate segments of Saramaccan. Implosives appear as ordinary voiced stops /kp, gb/ are nearly always /p, b/ Lacks #mb, nd, ndj, ŋg clusters of Kikongo. Why? Due presumably to the hundreds of years of contact with Dutch.

10. Saramaccan diphthongs In English/Portuguese vocabulary originally only morpheme-finally. Non-final English/Portuguese diphthongs reduced to monophthongs         

11. Fon Vowel sequences In Fon vocabulary only syllable-finally u+i>wiui o+i>we/wioe/ui  +i>w  /wi  some of the patterns

12. English noun plurals > Surinam EnglishSara.NdyukaSranangloss shoessusususususushoe clotheskoosukoosikrosicloth newsnjunsunyunsunyunsunews yamsnjamisinyamisiyamsiyam pathspasipasipasipath earsjesiyesiyesiear ants(h)ansiant bricksbriksibrick ashesasisiasisiasisiash(es)

13. Egg(s) EnglishNdyukaSranangloss eggs---eksiegg eggigi---egg

14. Why general plural suffix loss? Reason probably availability of more salient pre-head structures. 1.the boat[+def] 2.that boat[+def, +dem, -plur] 3.the boats[+def, +plur] 4.them boats[+def, +dem, +plur]

15. Next stage 1.the boat> Ø 2.that boat>da boto(> a boto) 3.the boats> Ø 4.them boats>dem boto Superstrate wins out!

16. No English past tense suffix Important: English “past tense” verbs are actually perfective. Why NO regular “past tense” form in –ed?

17. Some irregular cases. EnglishSrananNdyukaSara.gloss brokebrokobooko  ooko‘break’ sunk(singi)(singi)sungu‘sink’ lostlasilasilasi ‘lose, lost’

18. Solution 1.Bare stem sign of perfective for most verbs in Gbe. 2.English “past tense” marker therefore completely redundant 3.This is a substrate feature.

19. Imperfective English has a complex form: –Cop + Num/Pers V + ing Fon equally complex: –LocCop [(O) V  ] Nom Both come down to: –Cop V FinalElement

20. Other Gbe imperfectives 1.final null form in Gun and Tofin (nominalization) 2.ordinary VP in Xwela 3.etc.

21. Sranan imperfective Present-day Sranan has: –ImperfMkr V[e V] Older Sranan: –ImperfMkr V[de V]

22. The origin 1.We see that the earlier form of the imperfective marker was de. 2.This is homonymous with the locative copula de. 3.Therefore we can hypothesize that the original structure was actually: LocCop V

23. Sranan locative copula The locative copula in Sranan (and other Surinam creoles) derives from the English word there, presumably – in its copular use – something like ‘be there (at)’. Why was this chosen rather than an actual form of the verb “be”? In fact the suppletive nature of “be” with its weak enclitic stems ‘s, ‘m, ‘re would have rendered it eminently unsuitable for this purpose.

24. What happened to -ing -ing was just as redundant as all the various wildly different post-verbal markers in the various Gbe lects. It was therefore unnecessary – the locative copula was sufficient, an obvious substrate feature.

25. Conclusion Nothing inherently either complex or simple about creole grammar. Most phenomena can be explained as the effects of substratal, adstratal, or superstratal influence. In other words due to contact between languages.