Descriptions of French-Based Creole Languages in Travel Guidebooks

“A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

Philipp Krämer Magdalena von Sicard Viadrina University Frankfurt (Oder) University of Cologne [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract This article examines the descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks for major tourist destinations in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. In a corpus of 63 guidebooks spanning over the past 20 years, we extract elements of metalinguistic discourse about the history and characteristics of Creole languages. We show that guidebooks draw on stereotypical and exoticizing views of these languages which can largely be traced back to colonial times. The analysis highlights three areas of tension which the guidebooks have to handle when trying to provide accurate descriptions while simultaneously answering to the desire for otherness in tourism. Ultimately, the metalinguistic comments in guidebooks are embedded in a logic of commodification of language which is widespread in the context of tourism. Keywords: Creole languages, travel guidebooks, tourism, language ideologies, stereotypes.

1. Introduction Many Creole-speaking countries and territories attract significant numbers of international travellers.1 For most tourists, travelling to these places is one of the very rare occasions to come into close contact with Creole languages; some of them may not even have heard of Creole languages before. Vacationers will most likely communicate with locals in another language such as English or French and not acquire any extensive knowledge of the Creole. Nevertheless, before and during their stay, they can form an idea of what these languages look and sound like. Apart from their direct auditory or visual impressions and conversations with locals, travellers may look for more detailed information. Even in the digital era, classical print guidebooks are still one of the most important sources of information about local life, languages included. In many Creole-speaking societies, linguistic insecurity and standard language ideology remain strong, with considerable consequences for social stratification and educational success (Migge, Léglise & Bartens 2010; Krämer 2017; Stein 2017: 51–53;

1 We would like to thank the editors of the journal and the two anonymous reviewers for their support and their helpful comments on the first version of this paper. This paper also greatly benefitted from the discussions at the 2019 summer conference of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics in Lisbon where we had the occasion to present some preliminarly findings of this project.

Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics, 3(2020), 64–88 “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 65 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

Hüning & Krämer 2018: 10–16). Tourists are often speakers of the former colonial languages in their dominant standard form and as such, they may be seen as carrying a certain authority over the use of the prestigious languages. Especially when in contact with local speakers, their perspective on the local linguistic setup, the properties of Creole languages and their relation with the dominant languages can contribute to either rebalancing power relations or, in the worst case, to entrenching existing hierarchies. The metalinguistic views which tourists reflect when encountering Creole speakers can be an influential contribution to either enhancing or overcoming linguistic insecurity. Having a sound basic knowledge of the local historical, cultural and also linguistic specificities is paramount to a respectful and sensitive behaviour of travellers when interacting with Creole speakers. One decisive factor in this is the fact that guidebooks are usually authored by outsiders, many of them professional travel authors. Such a setting is reminiscent of the earliest metalinguistic sources about Creole languages which were typically written by missionaries and other travellers for a European readership (Chaudenson 1981; Hazaël- Massieux 2008; Valdman 2015: 410; Sousa, Mücke & Krämer 2019: 3–5). As a consequence, the speakers’ voices and perspectives will typically be represented indirectly, if at all. The authority to assess the properties of Creole languages, then, is claimed by non-locals and directed at a non-local public (the same is true for many other evaluations of local characteristics often included in guidebooks, see Peel & Sørensen 2016: 54). This is a significant difference from other efforts in tourism where communities themselves display “cultural distinctiveness”, for example linguistic difference, as part of a bulk of “attractions in which collective identities are represented, interpreted, and potentially constructed through the use of [...] culture” (Pitchford 2008: 3). Travel guidebooks “posit elements of knowledge as relevant” and provide “routines of orientation” according to the authors’ anticipation of their readership’s expectations (Fandrych & Thurmair 2010: 163). Peel and Sørensen (2016: 195–196) report that travellers value the information in guidebooks as reliable and thoroughly researched, making them an authoritative source as opposed to less trustworthy or subjective information to be found online. Since the way readers perceive the language—and in connection with it, its speakers—will be shaped by the way it is described in the guidebook, these sources are worth an in-depth analysis.2 A large body of research is available about the contents, functions and impact of travel guidebooks from many perspectives, stretching from tourism marketing to critical postcolonial analyses. Many works use approaches from linguistics such as corpus methods, concepts from text linguistics or semantics to analyze the books and the way

2 Previous research has shown that the popularity of travel guidebooks for the preparation of a trip differs from one culture to another: German travellers tend to use them more than French and British travellers (Gursoy & Chen 2000: 589), American travellers more than travellers from China (Osti, Turner & King 2009: 68). However, the goal of this article is not to quantify the effective impact of the language descriptions so that we will not take such differences into consideration in our study. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 66 they present places, people and cultures. However, the language descriptions in the books themselves rarely receive specific attention (Cordeiro 2011 is one of the rare exceptions). This paper systematically examines the passages in travel guidebooks which describe Creole languages. The analysis will revolve around two central questions: whether or not the books perpetuate stereotypes about Creoles and to what extent they contribute to notions of otherness (van Gorp 2012). Where appropriate, we will additionally show some lines of historic continuity in the way the languages are depicted. Our analysis sets out to show how the descriptions create several areas of friction between the aspirations to give an accurate account of the languages and the need to present them as part of a promising travel experience. In the conclusion, we will briefly connect the findings to previous research about the role of language in tourism, and more particularly the idea of a “commodification of language” in the travel industry (Heller, Jaworski & Thurlow 2014; Heller, Pujolar & Duchêne 2014). As previous research has shown, in the context of tourism, languages are frequently established as commodities, that is, as elements of commercial transactions. For instance, offering services or products in the customers’ preferred languages can contribute to increased profit. In the case of Creole languages, however, the languages themselves are presented as part of the destination’s specificities and this way integrated in the attributes of the product offered for consumption. Our analysis will show that this has consequences for the impact which the language descriptions can have.

2. Corpus and methodology The corpus under analysis in this article is built up from a total number of 63 books written in English, French, and German (see table 1). These books fit the definition of a travel guidebook as described by Peel and Sørensen (2016: 29): “A travel guidebook is a commercially distributed entity, made for transient non-locals to be used in the field. It contains place representations and is comprehensive as it includes practical information beyond that of a special interest subject. Yet, it is selective, and by evaluating more than just listing it facilitates a selection process. Authority is asserted through sender identity and through the potential to contend ‘official’ information.”3 Our paper focuses on books about territories and countries in which French-based Creole languages are spoken. The majority of the books feature islands in the Indian Ocean while the Caribbean is less represented. This is due to the fact that the French West Indies attract fewer tourists from English- or German-speaking countries than e.g.

3 The last criterion in the definition sets guidebooks apart from publications with a distinct marketing purpose such as brochures distributed by tourist boards and similar institutions. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 67 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

Mauritius or the Seychelles so that guidebooks written in these languages are relatively rare.4 The corpus comprises books from the past 20 years with roughly half of them being the most recent editions in the respective series (see figure 1). Among the books in the corpus, there were 14 pairs composed of the newest edition and an older one of the same type from the early 2000s. This allowed for a comparison of the two versions in order to detect changes in the texts over a certain period of time.

Caribbean Indian Ocean

ana

Ocean

Réunion

Mauritius

Seychelles

Fr. GuiFr.

var. Indianvar.

Martinique

Guadeloupe

var. Caribbean var. GUA MAR GUY KAR SEY MAU REU IO sum

French 5 4 2 4 5 3 1 24

German 1 2 7 7 7 4 28

English 1 4 2 4 10

sum 15 48 63

Table 1. Composition of the corpus. (Number of travel guidebooks by territory and region; “var. Caribbean” and “var. Indian Ocean”: Books which cover several countries/territories in one volume. The abbreviations are used in the codes referencing the sources of quotations from the data; see below for details about the codes).

4 See the statistics for Guadeloupe and Martinique in Raimbaud, Cratère and Trefoloni (2018), for Mauritius in Statistics Mauritius (2019), for the Seychelles in National Bureau of Statistics (n.d.). Many international tourists in e.g. Guadeloupe or Martinique visit the islands as part of a cruise. For this target group, travel guidebooks describing a larger number of islands in the Caribbean are available, with rather brief descriptions for each territory. Due to the widely varying multilingual settings of the region, this type of book usually does not contain extensive descriptions of Creole languages. Therefore, we did not include them in the analysis. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 68

Figure 1. Number of books in the corpus by publication year

The text volume of the language descriptions varies widely from one book to another. In some cases, the subject remains limited to two or three sentences; other authors dedicate several pages to the matter. It is difficult to exactly quantify the length of these chapters across all guidebooks since the relevant sections are not always clearly delimited. Metalinguistic depictions frequently fade into accounts about related subjects such as literature or music. The sample only included those passages which define Creole languages, give historical descriptions, metalinguistic remarks or information about the current sociolinguistic situation. According to Fandrych and Thurmair’s (2011: 62–63) classification of sub-texts in travel guidebooks, these chapters can be classified as “background texts” which provide basic knowledge of the place to be visited, as opposed to, e.g., texts which give advice for specific situations that travellers may encounter. A considerable number of books additionally comprised a section with useful phrases or basic vocabulary, sometimes in connection with, but frequently separate from the metalinguistic description.5 These passages could rather be classified as advice sub-texts and therefore do not fall within the scope of this paper. They certainly could be subject to another analysis, e.g. with regard to the selection of words and phrases, the combination and succession of languages chosen etc. (see Cordeiro 2011: 384–385 for the functions and properties of such chapters in travel guidebooks and phrasebooks for tourists).

5 The French Petit Futé series often includes a multiple page section with vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation guidelines adopted from the Assimil language guides. These parts are not always immediately adjacent to the metalinguistic description, they are visibly demarcated with a different layout and thus remain separate from the authorship of the main text. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 69 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

In our analysis, we follow a discourse analytic, qualitative approach. Our project connects to a larger body of research using critical text analysis, often with a postcolonial orientation, to carve out power relations and imbalances represented in guidebooks intended as “mediators of understanding” for a ‘Western’ public (Peel & Sørensen 2016: 50–52; see Bhattacharyya 1997; Buzinde 2010; Callahan 2011 for concrete examples). In order to facilitate data processing, we extracted the book chapters which describe the local Creole languages and digitized them. With the help of the software F4 Analysis, we annotated the data with hierarchized thematic labels which we subsequently categorized, reviewed and interpreted along the lines of key concepts and recurring motifs in the texts. Our account is structured along the basic discursive elements identified in the texts, starting with a first section about categorizations and labels attributed to Creole languages. The next section will retrace the ways travel guidebooks present the processes and circumstances of creolization. In this part, the notion of mixedness will play a significant role. In the third section, we will examine the aesthetic categories applied to Creole languages and their connections with essentialized characteristics of Creole speakers. In order to make the quotations from our data transparent and to avoid an excessive list of references at the end of the publication, the references for each extract are encoded as follows: the first letter of the code indicates the publication language (D for German, E for English, F for French). The second part of the code stands for the territory described in the guidebook, with the abbreviations given in table 1 above. Following the territory is the year of publication and the publisher of the guidebook. For instance, the code F_MAR_2016_PetitFuté refers to the 2016 edition of the French Petit Futé series about Martinique.

3. Categories and labels When introducing Creoles to travellers who are assumed to be unfamiliar with these languages, authors frequently address the languages’ status. Unlike established dominant standard languages, Creoles provoke a need for categorical specification—a need which is also mirrored in parts of the linguistics community (e.g. the book title Defining Creole, McWhorter 2005). In an attempt to define them in a way accessible to non-specialists, most guidebooks6 characterize Creoles as independent languages, others maintain the categorization as dialects of French. In addition, a multitude of terms are used to provide a classification, including e.g. “mixed language”, “idiom”, “parler”, “patois” or “lingua franca”. In some cases, classifications intersect or even contradict each other when authors stress the character of Creoles as languages in their own right while nevertheless referring to them as dialects elsewhere in the same text or adopting notions with negative connotations such as patois (Boyer 2013). This last term, even though it is

6 As is typical in qualitative research, we take into account the fact that discursive patterns and prototypes of statements have fuzzy boundaries so that we may be able to only give an impression of the extent to which a particular discursive element is represented in the corpus. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 70 rather specific for the French-speaking context, can be found in books written in all three publication languages. While the French texts mostly use the term for demarcation, stating that Creoles are not to be considered patois,7 several English and German books do indeed adopt it in an affirmative way. In this context, the descriptions reflect—sometimes unintentionally—ongoing debates and conflicting language attitudes in Creole-speaking societies: the ideologically charged question of whether or not Creoles are to be considered independent, full-fledged languages is intimately connected to matters of social and official recognition in the relationship between Creole and French. Typically, the categorizing terms are rarely defined or explained in more detail. Readers who are not familiar with concepts like pidgin or patois will either have to look for other sources of information or deduce the terms’ meanings from context. The terminological vagueness occasionally leads to a circular reasoning when such notions are used as quasi- synonymical definitions for Creole languages:

(1) “English is the official language but Kwéyòl, a French-based patois, is spoken widely on both St Lucia and Dominica. It is very similar to the Creole of Martinique and Haiti.” (E_KAR_2017_Footprint: 139)

The label Pidgin is used in a similar way, for example when Réunion Creole is said to be “a form of pigeon-French [sic]” (E_IO_2000_Michelin: 62). Here, the author seems to suggest that Creole is a sub-category of Pidgin whereas others use the term to illustrate the scenario of a Pidgin-to-Creole development. This way, the history and processes of creolization are presented as constitutive for the languages, their categorization and their properties.

4. Processes of creolization Slavery and colonial history as the most important conditions under which creolization took place are present in almost all guidebooks. Many of them focus on the particular circumstances of communication and language acquisition in the early colonial societies. The accounts given by the authors differ in the way they attribute the creolization process to the respective speaker groups that were involved. Some of them state that slaves speaking the same substrate languages were separated on the plantations in order to prevent mutiny.8 In these cases, creolization is presented as an effect of impeded interaction between slaves. Other authors highlight the communication between slaves and colonists, for example when they refer to variants of

7 It is a common strategy of guidebooks to negate and correct what authors anticipated to be the readers’ misconceptions of the destination’s characteristics (Fandrych & Thurmair 2010: 178—179). 8 For a discussion about the historical accuracy of such accounts, see e.g. Chaudenson (1992: 70–79), Fleischmann (2003: xxvi–xxvii), Arends (2008: 313), Stein (2017: 154). “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 71 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks the “foreigner talk” hypothesis to explain how Creoles emerged.9 This way, colonists are presented as primarily responsible for creolization and the formation of Creole languages is seen as a more or less deliberate creation:

(2) ‘When the early French settlers tried to communicate with slaves who often only knew the language of their people, they used a drastically simplified French which they interspersed with words that they picked up from conversations between the slaves.’

“Wenn die frühen französischen Siedler mit Sklaven zu kommunizieren versuchten, die oft nur die Sprache ihrer Volksgruppe beherrschten, benutzten sie ein stark vereinfachtes Französisch, in das sie Wörter einstreuten, die sie aus den Unterhaltungen der Sklaven aufschnappten.” (D_IO_2017_Polyglott_C: 258)

(3) ‘Creole is a language which was born out of the need for communication between white masters and black slaves [...]. It is therefore a common creation of Whites and Blacks.’

“Le créole est une langue qui est née du besoin de communication entre maîtres blancs et esclaves noirs [...] C’est donc une création commune des Blancs et des Noirs.” (F_MAR_2014_Geo: 41)

In this first example, colonists are even pictured as responsible for substrate influence. In other cases, agency is attributed to the slaves or, as the second quotation shows, to both groups alike. Almost all guidebooks give attention to the importance of language acquisition and interaction during the formative period of Creole languages. However, most of them select only very small portions of the complex settings which are still being discussed in creolistics and present them as an exhaustive explanation for creolization (see Stein 2017: 158–160 for a short account of different approaches to agency in creolization). Another scenario of Creole formation which many guidebooks evoke is the notion of relexification, though it is rarely referred to with the term itself:

(4) ‘The grammatical structure of Antillean Creole is African, words stem from the European vocabulary, even if we can recognize some African words despite the phonetic deformations.’

“La structure grammatical du créole antillais est africaine, les mots de vocabulaires européens, même si l’on peut reconnaître des mots africains malgré les déformations phonétiques.” (F_MAR_2016_PetitFuté: 107)

9 See e.g. F_MAR_2005_GEO: 39; F_MAR_2016_PetitFuté: 107; D_REU_2018_Dumont: 76. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 72

(5) ‘One assumes that within one or two generations, the Creole was born this way, based on African languages, with a vocabulary borrowed for a large part from the masters’ and overseers’ language.’

“On pense, qu’en une ou deux générations, le créole est né ainsi, sur la base de langues africaines, avec un vocabulaire emprunté en grande partie à la langue des maîtres et des contremaîtres.” (F_GUA_2002_Routard: 66)

The popularity of this idea probably lies in its potential to be easily simplified for a lay public while it remains contested in linguistics and is presented in a much more elaborate and nuanced way in the literature (Lefebvre 1986, 2011; Valdman 2015: 399– 401, 425–426). The same is true for the idea of a Pidgin-to-Creole development. This shows that we can indeed identify some traces of insights adopted from linguistic research and introduced in the descriptions even though the criteria for the selection of a particular term or approach remain opaque. The bioprogramme hypothesis, for instance, which was put forward by Bickerton (1981) and remained influential in creolistics for a long while, is never alluded to either explicitly or implicitly. As far as the work of linguists is mentioned specifically, guidebooks mostly cite contributions to documentation, standardization and language planning, e.g. the compilation of dictionaries or the development of spelling norms:

(6) ‘Linguist Annegret Bollée from Bamberg University intensively dealt with this problem [a unified spelling] and she edited a Seychellois-French dictionary in collaboration with the Seychellois Guy Lionnet and Danielle d’Offay. Since then, children learn to write their native language according to these rules in elementary schools and the government offers classes in which adults can learn the new rules.’

“Die Linguistin Annegret Bollé [sic] von der Universität Bamberg hat sich mit diesem Problem intensiv auseinandergesetzt und in Zusammenarbeit mit den Seychellois Guy Lionnet und Danielle d’Offay ein Wörterbuch Seychellisch - Französisch herausgegeben. In den Grundschulen lernen die Kinder seither ihre Muttersprache diesen Regeln entsprechend zu schreiben, und die Regierung bietet Kurse an, in denen Erwachsene die neuen Regeln lernen können.” (D_SEY_2018_Dumont: 85)

Since this guidebook was published in Germany, the section was most probably included due to the fact that a German linguist was involved in the language policy and education efforts. While the commitment of educational and scientific institutions in the various countries and territories is acknowledged to some extent in a number of guidebooks, one of them altogether denies the existence of research about Mauritian Creole even though an abundance of works is available: “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 73 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

(7) ‘However, linguists have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a full- fledged language whose grammar has not been subject to research or fixed in schoolbooks.’

“Sprachwissenschaftler sind jedoch inzwischen zu der Erkenntnis gekommen, dass es sich um eine vollwertige Sprache handelt, deren Grammatik nicht erforscht und in Schulbüchern festgehalten ist.” (D_Mau_2017_Dumont, S.: 70)

This particularly drastic example ignores the long-standing research efforts in creolistics, probably in an attempt to make the language seem enigmatic and arcane (see Cordeiro 2011: 382 for similar attempts in guidebooks to make Portuguese seem mysterious). The text also fails to take note of the important changes in the Mauritian educational system as Creole had been introduced in the curriculum five years before the publication of the book.10 This raises the question of editorial processes and updates to the guidebooks which will be discussed below.

5. Mixedness As far as processes of creolization are concerned, the guidebooks touch on widely differing narratives. Yet, an idea upon which almost all of them agree is the supposed mixed character of Creoles. To begin with, this notion is mirrored in the term “mixed language” which is frequently used as one of the defining labels for Creole languages. Mixedness is observed first and foremost in the lexicon. This is unsurprising because languages are often seen, outside of linguistics, as a conglomerate of words:

(8) ‘Creole is spoken almost anywhere, a very peculiar island language, consisting of French elements and word constructs of the various immigrant groups.’

“Gesprochen wird jedoch fast überall kreolisch, eine sehr eigenartige Inselsprache, bestehend aus französischen Elementen und Wortgebilden der unterschiedlichen Einwanderungsgruppen.” (D_REU_2018_Rother)

10 In 2012, Creole was first introduced as an optional subject for primary school students in Mauritius (Ministry of Education and Human Resources 2014: 24). Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 74

(9) ‘It [Seychelles Creole] is composed for 90% of old French, but also interspersed with African, Indian, Malagasy or English words.’11

“Il est composé à 90% de vieux français, mais aussi émaillé de mots africains, indiens, malgaches ou anglais.” (F_SEY_2007_Mondeos, S.: 111)

These excerpts show how language is conceptualized as made up of a constitutive material called “elements” or, often more specifically, words. As a result, the lexicon receives particular attention in the guidebooks, especially its composition based on the substrate and superstrate languages which were involved. There is a clear tendency towards enumerating as many contributing languages as possible.

(10) ‘Creole is a language that developed from the French of the colonial masters and at the same time it is mixed with the words of the Bantu languages, Kiswahili, Malagasy, Hindi, Urdu and English.’

“Kreol ist eine Sprache, die sich aus dem Französischen der Kolonialherren entwickelt hat und gleichzeitig mit den Wörtern der Bantusprachen, Kisuaheli, Madagassisch, Hindi, Urdu und dem Englischen vermischt ist.” (D_SEY_2018_ReiseKnowHow: 119–120)

(11) ‘The language was enriched by elements of Malagasy, Portuguese and Tamil; occasionally Hindu [sic] forms can also be found.’

“Die Sprache wurde angereichert durch Elemente des Madagassischen, des Portugiesischen und des Tamilischen; vereinzelt sind auch Hindu- Formen zu finden.” (D_REU_2015_Iwanowski: 42)

Even though the substrate languages contributed only a smaller amount of the lexemes—a fact which most authors do acknowledge—the enumeration makes their share seem considerably larger than warranted according to established research. Some travel guidebooks stress the role of variation in the French superstrate. They might, for

11 It is indeed well-established that the lexicon of French-based Creoles contains numerous elements which in contemporary French are perceived as archaic. However, the percentage given is not supported by empirical evidence. Depending on the language at hand and the exact criteria, estimates for the share of archaisms in French- based Creoles are usually under one third, more often in the low two-digit percentages or even less (Stein 2017: 86–87). For Seychelles Creole, Bollée (1981: 4, in Stein 2017: 87) indicates that 9.1% of the lexicon can be considered to be archaisms or remnants of dialects. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 75 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks example, specify regional dialects or semantic change from historical stages of French to present language use. In contrast, substrate languages are often lumped together as “African languages” or “dialects” without distinction or nuance, as the following examples show.

(12) ‘It is true that Creole partly originates from the dialects of Normandy, Poitou, or also Picardy.’

“Il est vrai que le créole puise une partie de ses origine dans les patois normands, poitevins ou encore picards” (F_GUA_2017_Routard: 329)

(13) ‘In order to be able to communicate with each other, they invented Creole which borrows largely from the colonizer’s language and from African dialects.’

“Pour pouvoir communiquer entre eux, ils inventèrent le créole, qui emprunte largement à la langue du colonisateur et aux dialectes africains.” (F_GUA_2003_Hachette: 49)

We can observe here how a double standard is applied to the strata: while the superstrate is considered a “language”, the substrates are classified as “dialects”. Such statements are reminiscent of general tendencies, grounded in standard language ideology, to dismiss unstandardized or unwritten languages as “less developed” and deny them the status as legitimate languages altogether. Similar classifications often occurred in colonial approaches to Creole languages and only gradually disappeared in creolistics in the past decades (Krämer 2014: 46–47). In the following example the author even refers to “the African language”, as if there was only one.

(14) ‘In Guadeloupe you can find both terms derived from English like e.g. kònbif (corned beef) or djòb (job) and words taken from African such as koukou-djèdjè (hide-and-seek game) and zanba (devil).’

“Auf Guadeloupe findet man sowohl aus dem Englischen abgeleitete Begriffe, wie z.B. kònbif (corned beef) oder djòb (job), als auch aus dem Afrikanischen übernommene Wörter, wie z.B. koukou-djèdjè (Versteckspiel) und zanba (Teufel).” (D_KAR_2015_ Polyglott: 67)

The diachronic dimension is discussed—if at all—for the French superstrate only. Language change in the substrate languages, the relevance of historical stages in their development, is not mentioned at all. At the same time, we have to admit that even in current Creole linguistics, the diachrony of the substrate languages themselves is not very frequently discussed either and many languages of Africa or the historico-linguistic backgrounds of slaves remain seriously understudied compared to the body of research Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 76 available for the dominant European languages.12 The guidebook’s tendency to ignore the history of African languages altogether reflects a long-standing view of Africans as a people without history or culture (Nederveen Pieterse 1992: 34–35; see Epelde 2004: 174–175 for a similar bias in the historical description of India in the Lonely Planet). The notion that their languages would undergo change as well and show the same diachronic dynamics as European languages is eclipsed in the descriptions. Astonishingly, some guidebooks like the Dumont 2018 edition about the Seychelles attempt to be very specific with quantifications of the different influences in the lexicon13, listing which exact percentage of the creole vocabulary supposedly stems from which language and which percentage of French-derived words are not in use in today’s French. Again, these enumerations can be attributed to the conception of language as essentially being made up of words: in order to make clear what a “mixed language” looks like, the most exact and transparent way is to give a percentage of the elements which it is composed of. Perhaps this ostensible precision is also meant to show a serious, scientific and objective approach to language. As Fandrych and Thurmair (2010: 177) show, guidebooks frequently present “factual, quantifiable knowledge [...] embedded in narrative-historicizing or describing passages”. The proportions of the two writing strategies depend on the style of the respective guidebook. While some authors try to provide their readers with numbers and facts, others seem to prefer connecting with their readers on a more emotional level. Where this second strategy is used, we will find descriptions on a much more impressionistic level, e.g. drawing on aesthetic categories.

6. Aesthetics Numerous travel guidebooks claim that Creoles know a particularly high number of onomatopoetic or figurative expressions, considering this to be one of the most striking features of the lexicon. In total, across the corpus and the three publication languages, we found 28 instances where terms such as ‘imagery’ or ‘imagé(e/s)’, ‘bildhaft’ or

12 Cardoso (2008: 43–44) is right to advise against the term European languages as the geographical notion may have an alienating effect for speakers outside of Europe: French or English belong to the speech communities in the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean and many other parts of the world in the same way they belong to the European speakers. Bearing this in mind, we maintain the term in this paper for two reasons: 1. As outlined above, the European standard varieties of these languages often still hold a strong prestige (this is true for French more than for English), and 2. the terminology in our context underlines the reality of tourism with speakers coming from outside and bringing certain linguistic practices with them. It is certainly true, however, that the use of this label entails a considerable level of simplification. 13 Examples can be found in the following guidebooks: D_SEY_2018_Dumont: 84; D_SEY_2007_Dumont: 69–70; F_SEY_2007_Mondeos: 111; E_IO_2000_Michelin: 386. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 77 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

‘picturesque’ are used as characterizations of the Creole languages or their lexicon.14 Whether or not it is indeed the case that the total frequency of metaphorical images is higher in Creole languages than in other languages remains pure speculation at this point.15 Many authors make a connection between the supposed simplicity of the grammar and the alleged richness of metaphorical language use.

(15) ‘In terms of grammar, the Creole language may not be very complicated, but the lexicon has a great wealth of pictorial paraphrases.’

“Das Kreolische mag zwar in der Grammatik nicht so kompliziert sein, doch auf der lexikalischen Ebene weist es einen großen Reichtum an bildhaften Umschreibungen auf.” (D_REU_2018_Dumont: 77)

The authors seem to suggest that the two dimensions balance each other out. These statements are reminiscent of historical texts which present Creole speakers as childlike and therefore more imaginative but less intellectual than speakers of European languages. Alfred Corre (1890: 262), for example, portrays Black people as an “infantile race” that allegedly has a particular taste for proverbs to give their thoughts a figurative form (see von Sicard 2014 for an account of the colonial perspective on Creole proverbs). The aesthetic qualities of Creole languages are praised in a variety of ways, not only in terms of imagery, but also in connection with other sensory experiences. Here, the authors themselves make extensive use of a wide range of metaphors. Some allude to taste in describing Creole languages, calling them “savoury” (seven occurrences in the corpus) or “delicious” (three occurrences), others make use of more specific metaphors with food as their source domain:

(16) ‘[Creole] is the icing on the cake of the trip’ [lit.: ‘the cherry on the cake’]

“[Le créole] est la cerise sur le gâteau du voyage” (F_GUA_2002_Routard : 66)

14 These include the passage quoted in the title of this paper where Mauritian Creole is described as “a picturesque language, humorous and very pliable” (E_MAU_2009_Globetrotter: 26). 15 To the best of our knowledge, no studies are available which would prove this claim about Creole languages. It is certainly true that there are differences across languages or cultures with regard to the frequency of particular sets of metaphorical domains (Deignan 2003). However, this does not allow for a generalization about the overall use of metaphors. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 78

Other senses like smell and vision can also appear in travel guidebooks. The Petit Futé characterizes Seychellois Creole as “full of smells and colours” [“foisonnant d’odeurs et de couleurs” (F_SEY_2011.12_PetitFuté: 88)]. The sense the most often alluded to is hearing, especially by using expressions referring to music or musicality. The corpus contains 24 instances of such descriptions, all of them implying that Creole languages are equipped with an inherent musicality.

(17) ‘Diverse rhythms and intonations compose a picturesque and melodious potpourri.’

“[R]ythmes et intonations diverses composent un pot-pourri pittoresque et mélodieux.” (F_SEY_2000_PetitFuté: 140)

(18) ‘It is based on French, but it sounds more emotional, a bit like singing.’

“Es basiert auf dem Französischen, klingt aber emotionaler, ein wenig wie gesungen.” (D_REU_2015_ReiseKnowHow: 127)

While some authors limit the scope of their narrative to the language alone, other authors even establish a link between the supposed musicality of Creole languages and the assumed general character or mentality of Creole speakers. They are portrayed as a homogenous group, and the languages they speak as a window into their mind. The idea that Africans and descendants of Africans allegedly have a unique innate musical talent is a stereotype that came about in colonial times and seems to be perpetuated to this day. As William G. Roy notes “music was one of the first specifically human capacities that whites noted about slaves, leading to the persistent stereotype that blacks have a natural affinity for music.” (Roy 2010: 21; see also, Levine 1977: 5–6; Haynes 2013: 36) Common stereotypes hold “that black people are musically and rhythmically gifted, can dance well, are cheerful, and are as it were closer to nature [...].” (Nederveen Pieterse 1992: 12) All of these aforementioned elements are represented, to differing degrees and in varying selection, in a large number of the language descriptions in our corpus.

(19) ‘You don’t grasp the Creole language that easily. It is a question of rhythm, feeling, repartee, in short, of naturalness, that only Creoles have.’

“[V]ous n’attrapez pas la langue créole comme ça. C’est une question de rythme, de feeling, de répartie, bref du naturel, que seuls les créoles ont.” (F_REU_2018_PetitFuté : 94)

The idea that people of non-European descent are destined to live in harmony with nature can be traced back to the image of the African wilderness inhabited by savage African men, a notion picked up and widely circulated by 19th century colonial “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 79 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks explorers and missionaries (Nederveen Pieterse 1992: 117). Likewise, the “naturalness” of Creole languages had already been propagated by creolists like Lucien Adam (1883) und Julien Vinson (1883: 17–18; see also Krämer 2014: 95). Georges Haurigot wrote about the inhabitants and the oral literature of French Guiana:

(20) ‘Superstitious, naive, and remaining close to nature, negroes, in all the countries they inhabit, hold a veritable treasure trove of legends, tales and typical sayings.’

“Superstitieux, naïfs, restés voisins de l’état de nature, les nègres, dans tous les pays qu'ils habitent, détiennent un véritable trésor de légendes, de contes, de dictons typiques.” (Haurigot 1893: 1)

Drawing on notions like musicality or naturalness, the travel guidebooks construct a sort of essence of Creole languages and their speakers. This essence also comprises generalized imagined character traits:

(21) ‘This ‘parler’ is a wonderful embodiment of the resolutely cheerful and playful character of the local people.’

“Ce ‘parler’ traduit merveilleusement le caractère résolument gai et enjoué du peuple de l’endroit” (F_SEY_2000_SeychellesAujourdHui : 68)

For a long time, stereotypical characterizations of Black people included ideas such as an alleged tendency to inherent cheerfulness (Boskin 1986: 46–48, 54). Hallie (1969: 120) describes Sambo, one of the most omnipresent and long-standing clichés in US- American culture, as “the eternal child, the eternal dependent, happy though given unaccountable moods of depression, lazy, enjoying the banjo and the dance, passionately religious, but passive in most other things—a rather spirited but lazy, overgrown child.” The French had their Bamboula, who is “usually depicted as a cheerful African but not the cleverest” (Nederveen Pieterse 1992: 161). In a similar vein, the German Sarotti-Mohr is presented as sweet and childlike as well (Zeller 2008: 221). Elements of these stereotypes are still perpetuated today, amongst others in travel guidebooks from around the world. As we can see, these images are not newly invented but rather a revisitation of old exoticizing conceptions of both the languages and their speakers.

Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 80

7. Perpetuation and editing processes As the preceding paragraphs have shown, travel guidebooks can contribute to an exoticizing discourse about Creole languages and their speakers. They frequently adopt established (mis-)conceptions and present them as facts. Peel and Sørensen (2016: 8) point to an important desideratum in research about travel guidebooks when they observe that “[t]here is little extant analysis of the intrinsic structure of the guidebook, particularly in relation to change and consistency in the information provided. It may be expected that guidebooks are prone to sameness in structure, a trait exacerbated in the context of a guidebook series to a single destination.” We cannot offer an in-depth diachronic study of our corpus at this point, however, we are able to illustrate a general tendency in our data: the editing processes of the guidebooks are indeed an important factor in the perpetuation of stereotypical representations. While smaller bits of information like opening hours of tourist attractions or prices of hotels and restaurants are updated on a regular basis, the sections presenting general information about the countries and societies remain largely unchanged over a significant period of time. The corpus comprised a total of 14 pairs of guidebooks from the same publisher, often written by the same author(s), in which one was the most recent edition available and the other an older edition within the time span of the past 20 years. The interval between the two editions ranged from 2 years in one case to a maximum of 16 years for two pairs; the majority of the pairs were at least 10 years apart. As an example, a comparison of the Routard editions for Guadeloupe from 2002 and 2017 can illustrate the intricacies of the reworking processes:

(22) ‘Also the born-and-bred békés16 ‘Also the born-and-bred békés speak with a Creole accent, and it speak with a Creole accent, and may seem peculiar to visitors of this may seem peculiar to less the island to hear it come out of accustomed visitors of the island. the mouth of a ravishing creature with a light skin tone, blonde hair and blue eyes. But while you may think that the English speak with a hot potato in their mouth, the Creoles rather seem to have honey on their tongue. And all this is underscored by And all this is underscored by gestures, raspy laughs and gestures, raspy laughs and figurative expressions which are figurative expressions which redolent of the old Overseas remind you of the old Overseas France.’ France.’

16 In the French West Indies (and particularly in Martinique), the term béké refers to a descendant of the first European colonizers in the islands. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 81 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

“Les békés pure souche parlent “Les békés pure souche parlent aussi avec l'accent créole, et cela aussi avec l’accent créole, et cela peut paraître insolite aux visiteurs peut paraître insolite aux visiteurs de l’île de l’entendre sortir de la de l’île peu habitués. bouche d’une ravissante créature au teint clair, aux cheveux blonds et aux yeux bleus. Mais si l’on peut penser que les Anglais parlent avec une patate chaude dans la bouche, les créoles, eux, auraient plutôt du miel sur la langue. Et pour ponctuer tout cela, des Et pour ponctuer tout cela, des gestes, des rires rocailleux, des gestes, des rires rocailleux, des expressions imagées qui fleurent expressions imagées qui évoquent bon la Vieille France d’outre- la Vieille France d’outre-mer.” mer.” (F_GUA_2002_Routard: (F_GUA_2017_Routard: 329– 66) 330)

In the newer version, some markedly racializing and sexualizing passages were omitted. The text from 2017 does not elaborate any more on the appearance of an “atypical” speaker. Notwithstanding, the current edition still maintains references to a connection between language and the ethnic composition of the society. The reader is expected to be familiar with the term béké (explained elsewhere in the book) in order to be able to decipher the implicature that one might be surprised when hearing a light- skinned person speak Creole. The last part of the text section also retains the aestheticizing depiction of the language, its portrayal as being particularly figurative and the connection to the alleged jollity of the speakers, established by declaring laughs a distinctive feature of the speech community. Despite noticeable abbreviations of the text —due to a more critical attitude towards its contents or the mere need to restrict the length of the chapter—most of the conceptual foundations of the language description remain unchanged and unquestioned.

8. Discussion: three areas of tension The interpretation of the language descriptions in travel guidebooks showed three areas of tension within the texts. First, we find that most authors object to the idea of Creoles as inferior and they do stress that they are fully-fledged languages. In an encouraging way this can demonstrate to linguists that some of their work can indeed trickle down to guidebook writers. Yet, many of them still very much rely on antiquated ideas, sometimes even clichés which go back to colonial conceptions of language and race. Many guidebooks make use of expressions with positive connotations, e.g. they present Creoles as charming, picturesque, musical and natural. Such characterizations can easily be perceived as condescending or patronizing. We can find similar concepts in many Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 82 texts from colonial authors like Charles Baissac (1880), Louis Ducrocq (1902) or Georges Haurigot (1893) where the conceptual divide of natural vs civilized or playful vs serious implies an inherent power hierarchy. While such statements may be meant to show appreciation for the languages, they contribute to an effect of “paradoxical recognition” (Dreesen 2014; Krämer 2017: 133): the act of stressing the value of Creole languages on these levels, in a context where the metalinguistic conceptions of the colonial past still resonate, implicitly reconfirms the seemingly justified superior status of the dominant standard languages as the only means of communication suitable for settings in which a “picturesque” or “charming” way of speaking would be inappropriate. Although it might seem at first glance that in these descriptions the other (in this case: Creole speakers) are valued, this exoticizing, stereotyping fashion “serves to comfort the Self in its feeling of superiority” (Staszak 2009: 43). As Staszak (2009: 46) argues further, “the otherness of the exotic is not the brute and brutal otherness of the first encounter; it is the bland otherness, staged and transformed into merchandise, on the colonial world offered up as a spectacle, as in orientalist paintings, human zoos…[...].” Guidebooks are not aiming to frighten or shock their readers; much more likely, their purpose is to connect to the images we might already have in our minds, selling us the satisfaction of our fantasies (see Bhattacharyya 1997 for similar findings in a critical analysis of the Lonely Planet about India). They are meant to prepare the reader for an experience of difference while avoiding the risk of discomforting them by openly challenging their self-perception. With the descriptions of Creoles connecting to long-standing stereotypes about the languages and their speakers, the reader can see their expectations confirmed and find exactly the type of difference they were hoping for. At the same time, their view of their own language as a “normal” one, conforming with the linguistic ideology which is dominant in most travellers’ home societies, will not be put into question by the way Creole languages are presented in the guidebooks. The second area of friction, connected to the first one, lies in the fact that it is indeed a difficult task to describe (Creole) languages to non-linguists and to be nuanced at the same time. Especially in a publication which offers limited space for a detailed and exact account, simplification will be necessary to a certain degree. Users of travel guidebooks expect them to be relatively concise and to present relevant information in a manner which saves them the time or effort to research it themselves. One of the reasons why printed travel guides are still popular in comparison to online sources lies in the fact that the published product offers a readily available selection of information (Peel & Sørensen 2016: 192–193). For most subjects in travel guidebooks, it is a challenge for authors to give a brief yet complete account which avoids unnecessary specialized terminology and which is, ideally, both informative and entertaining to read. One instrument to achieve this goal is aestheticization as a means to connect to the reader’s intuition; once again at the cost of connecting to long-standing stereotypes. It is important to realize that generalizations can have very significant effects: with collectivizing or essentializing descriptions, Creoles are portrayed as entirely different from the tourist’s home languages. The speakers, then, are not recognized as individuals but as representatives of a homogeneous community which is set apart from the visitors. An essentialized image of the other would therefore imply that there is a stable and “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 83 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks homogenous “we” in this dichotomous relationship.17 As we have seen above, many guidebooks move past this dilemma by nuancing the European linguistic influence, e.g. when they mention dialectal variation in French while oftentimes maintaining a fairly superficial, if not generalizing image of the substrate languages. As a third area of tension, we have to recognize that effects of othering and exoticizing may be highly problematic, but also desirable to a certain extent: otherness is an essential part of the tourist experience (van Gorp 2012: 6). The travel destination is supposed to be different from the tourist’s home country and culture and the interest of travel can lie in this very experience. We can assume that the way Creole languages are presented is intended to amplify this experience. While communication is still ensured through the dominant presence of French or English, Creoles are used as a decoration to increase the country’s attractiveness. In a sense, they become a selling point for the tourist destination. If such experiences occur under conditions of equality, they can be beneficial for both the visitors and the visited. Increased awareness may help to enhance the visibility of marginalized communities and reduce the stigmatization of languages associated with colonial oppression. Yet, the discursive elements in the language descriptions of guidebooks provide a potential for encounters in which tourists may not consider Creole speakers as fully on a par with themselves, at least as far as their linguistic repertoire or practices are concerned.

9. Conclusion: Creoles as commodities and responsibilities for creolistics As Heller, Pujolar, and Duchêne (2014: 426) show, the “commodification of language” is particularly visible in tourism where “the packaging of cultural forms or practices— including languages—as products for tourist consumption” is a common practice. While in the case of Creoles, the languages themselves are not necessarily the economic goods which are valued, acquired or “consumed” on a market, they do serve as a means to increase the value of the primary good on offer: they add to the tourist destination’s authentic character (Heller, Pujolar & Duchêne 2014: 552).18 In globalized tourism, the notion of authenticity is a key factor valued by tourists and service providers alike. Along with other cultural phenomena such as music, dance, food or architecture, Creoles are exhibited in the guidebooks as tokens of authentic distinction. The emphasis on the dissimilarity between Creoles and languages better known to many tourists, such

17 Insisting on differences between “us” and “them” creates a delicate potential which can ultimately be exploited for racism and exclusion (see the very detailed analysis by Tzetan Todorov (1989) under the title Nous et les autres: ‘Us and the others’). In his fairly early works on racism, Memmi (1968: 197) rightly states, though: “Ce n’est pas la différence qui appelle toujours le racisme, c’est le racisme qui utilise la différence.” [It is not difference which brings about racism, it is racism which makes use of difference.] 18 In this respect, French-based Creoles differ from Palenquero, a Spanish-based Creole in Colombia which has grown into the role of a tourist attraction in itself as visitors— who may or may not have a particular affinity to studying the language in more detail— request to experience the linguistic heritage of the community, or are actively offered this experience by speakers themselves (Schwegler 2011: 455; Lipski 2016: 51). Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 84 as French or English, adds to this impression. One perspective for future research would be to investigate tourists’ direct impressions of Creole languages and how they relate to those given in guidebooks or, with other words, to what extent their perceptions of the languages are indeed influenced or shaped by the discourse adopted in the books. All of the tensions mentioned above are inherent to guidebooks as such and are part of the reality of tourism in post-colonial societies. Managing these tensions is a difficult task for the authors. Hence, they were present across our corpus with little difference in terms of the books’ languages (English, French, or German) or publishers. Next to the authors, the creolistics community also has a responsibility. It is up to linguists and activists to provide advice and to make research-based information about the languages they study accessible in a way that it is of use for a broader public outside of academia. While it is justified that knowledge transfer and especially the work towards a reduction of linguistic insecurity and negative language attitudes primarily address the Creole- speaking communities themselves, similar efforts should also target the “Global North”. Only then will it be possible that the commodification of local languages—provided that speakers themselves deem it desirable—can indeed yield positive effects for the community as travellers and locals meet on equal terms. The responsibility to overcome long-standing prejudice and stereotypes should not lie exclusively with the speech communities themselves, especially if one takes into account that a considerable part of the relevant attitudes are effects of a mindset brought to the Creole-speaking societies in the context of colonialism (Hüning & Krämer 2018). Findings such as the ones presented in this paper may serve as a basis for a critical revision of guidebooks by their authors or publishers. Particularly, researchers living and working in the societies where the dominant colonial languages are spoken should help correct misconceptions about Creole languages in their immediate surroundings while at the same time encouraging the authors to include local voices in their accounts. Finally, Peel and Sørensen (2016: 5) note that “[t]ourism texts in general, and travel guidebooks in particular, are not necessarily passively accepted by the user, but are met with varying levels of resistance and diverse interpretations.” Hence, the travellers themselves bear a certain level of responsibility as critical readers who may want to avoid adopting the most exoticizing and essentializing arguments from the books.

References Adam, Lucien. 1883. Les idiomes négro-aryen et maléo-aryen. Essai d’hybridologie linguistique. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie. Arends, Jacques. 2008. A demographic perspective on creole formation. In Kouwenberg, Silvia & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and Creole studies, 309–331. Malden et al.: Wiley-Blackwell. Baissac, Charles. 1880. Etude sur le patois créole mauricien. Nancy: Berger-Levrault et Cie. Bhattacharyya, Deborah P. 1997. Mediating India: An analysis of a guidebook. Annals of Tourism Research 24(2). 371–389. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language, Reprint 2016. Berlin: Language Science Press. “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 85 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

Bollée, Annegret. 1981. Le vocabulaire du créole haïtien et du créole seychellois: une comparaison. Paper presented at the 3rd Colloque International des Etudes Créoles, St. Lucia, May 1981. Boskin, Joseph. 1986. Sambo: The rise and demise of an American jester. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boyer, Henri. 2013. ‘Patois’ : le déni français de glossonyme. In Kremnitz, Georg (ed.), Histoire sociale des langues de France, 169–177. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Buzinde, Christine N. 2010. Discursive constructions of the plantation past within a travel guidebook. Journal of Heritage Tourism 5(3). 219–235. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2010.508525. Callahan, David. 2011. Consuming and erasing Portugal in the Lonely Planet Guide to East Timor. Postcolonial Studies 14(1). 95–109. DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2011.542117. Cardoso, Hugo. 2008. The meaning of ‘European’: The challenge of high contact varieties for linguistic taxonomy. Sophia Journal of European Studies 1. 31–54. Chaudenson, Robert. 1981. Textes créoles anciens. (La Réunion et Ile Maurice) Comparaison et essai d’analyse. Hamburg: Buske. Chaudenson, Robert. 1992. Des îles, des hommes, des langues. Langues créoles - cultures créoles. Paris: L’Harmattan. Cordeiro, Maria João. 2011. Portuguese ‘to go’: language representations in tourist guides. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(4). 377–388. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2011.613476. Corre, Alfred. 1890. Nos créoles. Paris: Albert Savine. Deignan, Alice. 2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol 18(4). 255–271. Dreesen, Philipp. 2014. Verbal acts of paradoxical recognition in territorial matters during the German colonialism. Second Bremen Conference on Language and Literature in Colonial and Postcolonial Contexts (BCLL#2), Bremen 11/5/2014. www.philippdreesen.de/Dreesen_Paradoxical_Recognition.pdf. (29 May, 2020). Ducrocq, Louis. 1902. Idiome enfantin d’une race enfantine. Le créole de l’Ile de France. Revue de Lille XIIIe année, tome V (1901–1902), Mai 1902. 439–458. Epelde, Kathleen A. 2004. Travel guidebooks to India: A century and a half of orientalism. Wollongong: University of Wollongong PhD thesis. Fandrych, Christian & Maria Thurmair. 2010. Orientierung im Kulturraum: Reiseführer und Audio-Guides. In Marcella Costa & Bernd Müller-Jacquier (eds.), Deutschland als Fremde Kultur: Vermittlungsverfahren in Touristenführungen. 163–188. Munich: Iudicium. Fandrych, Christian & Maria Thurmair. 2011. Textsorten im Deutschen: linguistische Analysen aus sprachdidaktischer Sicht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Fleischmann, Ulrich. 2003. The sociocultural and linguistic profile of a concept. In Gordon Collier & Ulrich Fleischmann (eds.), A pepper-pot of cultures. Aspects of creolization in the Caribbean, xv–xxxvi. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 86

Gorp, Bouke van. 2012: Guidebooks and the representation of ‘other’ places. In Murat Kasimoğlu & Handan Aydin (eds.), Strategies for tourism industry - micro and macro perspectives, 3–32. Rijeka: InTech. Gursoy, Dogan & Joseph S. Chen. 2000. Competitive analysis of cross cultural information search behavior. Tourism Management 21. 583–590. Hallie, Philip Paul. 1969. The paradox of cruelty. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Haurigot, Georges. 1893. Littérature orale de la Guyane française. Paris: Librairie Larousse. Haynes, Jo. 2013. Music, difference, and the residue of race. New York: Routledge. Hazaël-Massieux, Marie-Christine. 2008. Textes anciens en créole français de la Caraïbe: histoire et analyse. Paris: Publibook. Heller, Monica, Adam Jaworski & Crispin Thurlow. 2014. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and tourism - mobility, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(4). 425–458. Heller, Monica, Joan Pujolar & Alexandre Duchêne. 2014. Linguistic commodification in tourism. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(4). 539–566. Hüning, Matthias & Philipp Krämer. 2018. Standardsprachenideologie als Exportprodukt - Zur Rolle europäischer Standardsprachen in postkolonialen Kontexten. In Birte Kellermeier-Rehbein, Matthias Schulz & Doris Stolberg (eds.), Sprache und (Post)Kolonialismus - Linguistische und interdisziplinäre Aspekte, 1– 24. Berlin: De Gruyter. Krämer, Philipp. 2014. Die französische Kreolistik im 19. Jahrhundert. Rassismus und Determinismus in der kolonialen Philologie. Hamburg: Buske. Krämer, Philipp. 2017. Delegitimising Creoles and multiethnolects: Stereotypes and (mis-)conceptions of language in online debates. Caribbean Studies 45(1–2). 107– 142. Lefebvre, Claire. 1986. Relexification in Creole genesis revisited: The case of Haitian Creole. In Pieter Muysken & Noval Smith (eds.), Universals versus substratum influence in Creole genesis, 279–301. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lefebvre, Claire. 2011. The contribution of relexification, grammaticalization, and reanalysis to Creole genesis and development. In J. Clancy Clements & Shelome Gooden (eds.), Language change in contact languages. Grammatical and prosodic considerations, 19–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Levine, Lawrence W. 1977. Black culture and black consciousness: Afro-American folk thought from slavery to freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lipski, John. 2016. Lengua suto e ngande [our language is great]: Emerging discourse markers in revitalized Palenquero (Afro-Colombian Spanish Creole). Revista de Estudios Colombianos 47. 49–56. McWhorter, John. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Memmi, Albert. 1968. L’homme dominé. Paris: Gallimard. Migge, Bettina, Isabelle Léglise & Angela Bartens. 2010. Creoles in education. A discussion of pertinent issues. In Bettina Migge, Isabelle Léglise & Angela Bartens “A picturesque language, humorous and very pliable”: 87 descriptions of French-based Creole languages in travel guidebooks

(eds.), Creoles in education. An appraisal of current programs and projects, 1–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ministry of Education and Human Resources. 2014. Education reforms in action. Port Louis: 2014. http://ministry-education.govmu.org/English/Documents/EDUCATION %20REPORT%20in%20Action%2002.9.14.pdf (29 May, 2020). National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Seychelles. n.d. Visitor Arrivals Annual Summary. Victoria: NBS. https://www.nbs.gov.sc/statistics/tourism (29 May, 2020). Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 1992. White on black. Images of Africa and blacks in western popular culture. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Osti, Linda, Lindsay W. Turner & Brian King. 2009: Cultural differences in travel guidebooks information search. Journal of Vacation Marketing 15(1). 63–78. Peel, Victoria & Anders Sørensen. 2016. Exploring the use and impact of travel guidebooks. Bristol et al.: Channel View. Pitchford, Susan. 2008. Identity tourism. Imaging and imagining the nation. Bingley: Emerald. Raimbaud, Baptiste, Floraline Cratère & Dominique Trefoloni. 2018. Le tourisme aux Antilles: A la reconquête d’une plus grande clientèle. Basse-Terre: Insee Guadeloupe. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3651505 (29 May, 2020). Roy, William G. 2010. Reds, whites, and blues: Social movements, folk music, and race in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schwegler, Armin. 2011. Palenque (Colombia): Multilingualism in an extraordinary social and historical context. In Manuel Díaz-Campos (ed.), The handbook of hispanic sociolinguistics, 446–471. Malden, MA et al.: Wiley Blackwell. Sicard, Magdalena von. 2014. Die kreolische Oralliteratur – Eine Kultur des Widerstandes? In Krämer, Philipp (ed.), Ausgewählte Arbeiten der Kreolistik des 19. Jahrhunderts. Emilio Teza Thomas Russell, Erik Pontoppidan, Adolpho Coelho, 123–142. Hamburg: Buske. Sousa, Silvio Moreira de, Johannes Mücke & Philipp Krämer. 2019. A history of creole studies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.387. Staszak, Jean-François. 2009. Other/otherness. In Rob Kitchin & Nigel Thrift (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography: A 12-Volume Set, 43–47. Oxford: Elsevier Science. http://statsmauritius.govmu.org/English/StatsbySubj/Documents /Digest/Tourism/Digest_Tourism_Yr18.pdf (29 May, 2020). Statistics Mauritius. 2019. Digest of International Travel and Tourism Statistics 2018, Vol. 45. Port Louis: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Stein, Peter. 2017. Kreolisch und Französisch, 2nd edn., in cooperation with Katrin Mutz. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1989. Nous et les autres. La réflexion française sur la diversité humaine. Paris: Le Seuil. Van Gorp, Bouke (see Gorp). Von Sicard, Magdalena (see Sicard). Philipp Krämer & Magdalena von Sicard 88

Valdman, Albert. 2015. Haitian Creole. Structure, variation, status, origin. Sheffield & Bristol, CT: Equinox. Vinson, Auguste. 1883. Les origines du patois de l’île Bourbon. Présenté et annoté par Monique Payet. Saint-Denis de La Réunion 2006: Association Tangol (Langue Créole de La Réunion. Textes Anciens, Vol. 1). Zeller, Joachim. 2008. Bilderschule der Herrenmenschen: koloniale Reklamesammelbilder. Berlin: Ch. Links.