Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages - Volume 27, Issue 1, 2012

An important theme in work attempting to situate creoles with respect to non-creoles typologically is the extent to which it can be said that creole grammars are relatively simple from a cross-linguistic perspective. Work arguing for and against this position has generally focused on an examination of the synchronic grammars of creoles in order to show that they are either simple or complex in one way or another. By contrast, there has not been a detailed examination of two important related questions: How can we typologize grammatical complexities themselves? And, once we have typologized them, will we find that different types of complexities are affected differently during creolization? This paper examines these questions and proposes that distinguishing between complexities derived from paradigmatic structure as opposed to syntagmatic structure may yield important insights into apparent patterns of simplicity within creoles, in particular with respect to which complexities we might expect to be readily transferred from source languages into an emerging creole.

This paper presents morphosyntactic and sentential information on Mauritian Creole (MC), a French-lexifier creole which has been underrepresented in many studies of Creole morphosyntactic typology. Typological features from Holm & Patrick (2007), Bickerton (1981, 1984), Taylor (1971, 1977), Markey (1982), and Dryer (1992), most of which have previously been assembled as being diagnostic of a language’s creole status, are presented here with examples from contemporary MC. MC sentences from sets of comparative creolistic sentences in Hancock (1975, 1987) are presented in Appendix A. The material demonstrates abundantly that MC exhibits the vast majority of features which have been deemed typical of creole languages over the past four decades.

Gurindji Kriol is a contact variety spoken in northern Australia which has been identified as a mixed language. Yet its status as an autonomous language system must be questioned for three reasons — (i) it continues to be spoken alongside its source languages, Gurindji and Kriol, (ii) it has a close diachronic and synchronic relationship to code-switching between Gurindji and Kriol, and (iii) its structure bears a strong resemblance to patterns found in this code-switching. Nonetheless in this paper I present criteria which support the claim of ‘language-hood’ for Gurindji Kriol. I demonstrate that Gurindji Kriol (i) is a stable language variety (it has child language learners and a high degree of inter-speaker consistency), (ii) has developed independent forms and structural subsystems which have not been adopted back into the source languages, and (iii) contains structural features from both languages which is rare in other language contact varieties including Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. I also present a number of structural indicators which can be used to distinguish Gurindji Kriol mixed language clauses from code-switched clauses.