The Phonology of Contact: Creole Sound Change in Context E-Ching Ng 2015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT The phonology of contact: Creole sound change in context E-Ching Ng 2015 This dissertation identifies three previously unexplained typological differences between creoles, other types of language contact, and ‘normal’ sound change. (1) The merger gap: French /y/ merges with /i/ in all creoles worldwide, whereas merger with /u/ is also well- attested in other forms of language contact. The rarity of /u/ outcomes in French creoles is unexplained, especially because they are well attested in French varieties spoken in West Africa. (2) The assimilation gap: In creoles the quality of the stressed vowel often spreads to unstressed vowels, e.g. Spanish dedo > Papiamentu /dede/ ‘finger’. Strikingly, we do not find the opposite in creoles, but it is well attested among non-creoles, e.g. German umlaut and Romance metaphony. (3) The epenthesis gap: Word-final consonants are often preserved in language contact by means of vowel insertion (epenthesis), e.g. English big > Sranan bigi, but in normal language transmission this sound change is said not to occur word-finally. These three case studies make it possible to test various theories of sound change on new data, by relating language contact outcomes to the phonetics of non-native perception and second language speech production. I also explore the implications of social interactions and historical developments unique to creolisation, with comparisons to other language contact situations. Based on the typological gaps identified here, I propose that sociohistorical context, e.g. age of learner or nature of input, is critical in determining linguistic outcomes. Like phonetic variation, it can be biased in ways which produce asymmetries in sound change. Specifically, in language contact dominated by adult second language acquisition, we find transmission biases towards phonological rather than perceptual matching, overcompen- sation for perceptual weakness, and overgeneralisation of domain-final prominence. The Phonology of Contact: Creole sound change in context A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by E-Ching Ng Dissertation Director: Stephen R. Anderson May 2015 © 2015 by E-Ching Ng All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ............................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................7 Abbreviations................................................................................................................9 1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 10 1.1. The transmission bias hypothesis ..........................................................................10 1.2. Analysis of sound change........................................................................................ 13 1.2.1. Mechanisms of sound change...................................................................... 13 1.2.2. The actuation problem ................................................................................. 14 1.2.3. Formalisations ............................................................................................... 15 1.3. Types of transmission.............................................................................................. 18 1.3.1. Unbroken L1 transmission........................................................................... 18 1.3.2. Creolisation.................................................................................................... 21 1.3.3. Second language acquisition (L2 acquisition) ...........................................24 1.3.4. Loanword adaptation....................................................................................26 1.4. Literature review ......................................................................................................28 1.4.1. Thomason and Kaufman’s framework.......................................................28 1.4.2. Bickerton’s language bioprogram hypothesis............................................32 1.4.3. McWhorter’s creole prototype hypothesis.................................................34 1.4.4. Esoteric vs. exoteric communication..........................................................37 1.4.5. Summary: Literature review.........................................................................43 1.5. Conclusion............................................................................................................... 44 2. The Merger Gap in Creoles vs. Other Contact...................................................... 45 2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................45 2.2. Database ....................................................................................................................47 2.2.1. French creoles................................................................................................47 2.2.2. French in other language contact situations..............................................50 2.3. Previous proposals................................................................................................... 53 2.4. Analysis .....................................................................................................................56 2.5. Extending the proposal .......................................................................................... 60 2.5.1. The phonological bias hypothesis .............................................................. 60 2.5.2. Predictions for other transmission types ...................................................61 2.6. Conclusion................................................................................................................65 3. The Assimilation Gap in Creoles vs. L1 Transmission .........................................66 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 66 3.2. Data............................................................................................................................68 3.2.1. Vowel assimilation in non-creoles..............................................................68 3.2.2. Vowel assimilation in creolisation ..............................................................70 3.3. Previous proposals ...................................................................................................78 3.3.1. Coarticulation................................................................................................79 3.3.2. Listener-oriented cue enhancement ...........................................................84 3.3.3. Chain-shift-like vowel movement...............................................................85 3.3.4. Perceptual compensation............................................................................. 91 3.3.5. Substrate transfer?.........................................................................................95 3.4. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 99 3.4.1. Stress, substrates and lexifiers....................................................................100 3.4.2. L2 perceptual compensation......................................................................102 3.4.3. Weak-trigger assimilation is blocked in creolisation..............................104 3.5. Extending the analysis........................................................................................... 105 3.5.1. The contact compensation hypotheses..................................................... 105 3.5.2. Predictions for creole dissimilation ..........................................................106 3.5.3. Predictions for ‘uproot tall poppies’ effects in creoles............................108 3.5.4. Predictions for other contact situations ...................................................109 3.5.5. The contact overcompensation hypothesis............................................... 111 3.6. Conclusion...............................................................................................................113 4. The Epenthesis Gap in L1 Transmission vs. Contact........................................... 115 4.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................115 4.2. Database ...................................................................................................................117 4.2.1. Paragoge attributed to language contact...................................................117 4.2.2. Paragoge attributed to L1 sound change................................................... 122 4.3. Generalisations....................................................................................................... 124 4.4. Previous proposals..................................................................................................131 4.4.1. Previous accounts on the epenthesis gap ..................................................131 4.4.2. Other proposals for specific transmission types.......................................132 4.5. Analysis ....................................................................................................................135