The Puzzling Case of Chabacano: Creolization, Substrate, Mixing and Secondary Contact*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures Volume 19 (2008), 142–157 The Puzzling Case of Chabacano: Creolization, Substrate, Mixing and Secondary Contact* Patrick O. Steinkrüger ZAS (Centre for General Linguistics, Berlin) It is the aim of this paper to discuss some external and internal aspects of the varieties of Chabacano in the Philippines. The historical background of Chabacano will be considered (e.g. Andaya, 1993) and selected morphosyntactic features of Zamboangueño and Ternateño will be compared with other creoles in Asia which have a Malayo-Portuguese background and even other Spanish- based Creoles in the Atlantic. Three main features are investigated, namely; the pronominal system (e.g. Ternateño shows more similarities with Indo-Portuguese and Macaísta than with Zamboangueño), differential object-marking with the particle kun in Zamboangueño and Ternateño, and the function and form of the preverbal tma-markers (ta-, ya-, ay- in Zamboangueño and ta-, (y)a-, di- in Ternateño). It turns out that the Chabacano varieties are without question related to other Portuguese-based creoles in Asia and that their current structure can only be explained by a multidimensional approach considering all the different contact situations in the past and in the present. 1. Preliminary remarks If we investigate the origin of Chabacano, we must go beyond the current facts that its lexicon consists mainly of Spanish vocabulary and that its geographical distribution is restricted to the Philippines. Instead we must go back to the early colonial contacts in Asia in the 16th and 17th centuries when Portuguese and Malay — or more precisely, restructured forms of those languages — were used by Asians and Europeans to communicate. ‘The only languages which achieved any currency as lingue franche in the Eastern Seas during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were Portuguese and Malay, and most European traders, including the English, made use of Portuguese.’(Whinnom 1956:7) Certainly Malay was already used in Manila and Central Philippines before the arrival of the Spanish (Wolff 1989). Compared to Portuguese, Spanish never had the same impact in SE-Asia (Baxter 1996, Lipski, Müllhäusler and Duthin 1996) and its use was restricted to the Philippines and Guam. The putative forerunner of Chabacano is a Portuguese-based pidgin from Ternate in the Moluccas. In 1521 the Spanish arrived in Tidore and in 1529, with the treaty of Saragossa, they sold the islands to the Portuguese. In 1606, when the Dutch already controlled the islands, the Spanish forces captured the former Portuguese fort and * Acknowledgments go to John Wolff for his detailed comments on a previous version of this paper; also many thanks to Boštjan Dvořák and Peter Slomanson. Of course, all errors remain mine. The Puzzling Case of Chabacano 143 deported the Ternate Sultan and his entourage to Manila. In 1607 the Dutch came back to Ternate where they, with the help of Ternateans, built a fort in Malayo. The island was divided between the two powers: the Spaniards were allied with Tidore and the Dutch with their Ternatean allies (see Andaya 1993:140ff for more details). Taking into account that the former Spanish colony was regularly connected with other Portuguese possessions in Asia, we shouldn’t be surprised why to this day Chabacano and the Luso-Asiatic creoles share many structural features: ‘The similarities in grammar and syntax, and even vocabulary of the Spanish contact vernaculars in the Philippines and Indo-Portuguese, are so many [...] that we can be quite certain that Ternateño [in the Moluccas] did develop out of the common Portuguese pidgin of the Eastern Seas.’ (Whinnom 1956:21) In the following sections, I will compare three of these common structural features, adding to the argument that Chabacano and other Luso-Asiatic varieties really have a lot in common and that the Philippine features are probably quite recent. 2. Personal pronouns The internal and paradigmatic structure of Chabacano personal pronouns shows the historical connection of the Philippines with other regions in the world, especially with Portuguese possessions in Asia. The pronouns also demonstrate that a clear cut distinction between Portuguese and Spanish during the 16th and the 17th centuries is problematic for their restructured layers.1 For example vosotros ‘you (Pl)’ did not exist in Portuguese, but is obviously the protoform of this pronoun in the Portuguese-based creoles in Malacca, Macau and India. The subject pronouns of the following Iberoromance–based creoles will be compared in the following table (in this order): Ternateño (T), Caviteño (C), Macaísta (M) (Santos Ferreira 1978:23), Papia Kristang (PK) (Baxter 1988:52–53), Indo– Portuguese (Norteiro) (IP) (Dalgado 1906:154–155), Papiamentu (PP) (Munteanu 1996:295), Palenquero (P) (Pérez Tejedor 2004:56) and Zamboangueño (Z). I list only the full forms, not weak or cliticized forms: Table 1. Free subject pronouns in Iberoromance–based creoles singular T C M PK IP PP P Z yo yo iou yo eu mi yo (i)yo bo, tédi vos vôs bos ós bo bo (e)bós, tu, ustéd éli éle ele eli éll(a) ele ele éle 1 Already during the 15th century, the Reconnaissance-language, which is probably the forerunner of all Portuguese–based pidgins, was in constant contact with Spanish. (See some examples in Naro (1978), pp. 322–323; 324; 325.) 144 Patrick O. Steinkrüger plural T C M PK IP PP P Z mihótro nisós nôs nus nós nos suto kitá (incl.) kamé (excl.) tédi(s) vusós vosôtro bolotu usôt boso enú (polite), kamó, ustédes utére lohótro ilós ilôtro olotu illôt nan ané silá Furthermore, other Creoles in Asia with a Portuguese lexical base show the same structure, e.g. the ones in Bidau (Dili, East Timor) and Tugu (Jakarta, Indonesia). (See Baxter, 1990:11–12, and for Indo–Portuguese, the compilation in Clements, 1996:3). With the exceptions of Palenquero2 and Zamboangueño, where the whole set of the plural is taken from Niger–Congo3 and Malayo–Polynesian respectively, we can assume that the proto–paradigm of Iberoromance–based creoles in Asia was the following: Table 2. Hypothetical proto–paradigm of free subject pronouns in Iberoromance–based creoles singular plural yo/mi ‘I’ nosotros/misotros ‘we’ vos ‘you’ vosotros ‘you (pl)’ ele ‘s/he’ (e)losotros ‘they’ It seems that Whinnom was right that a “[…]mixed Portuguese–Spanish Pidgin[…]” (1956:9) was the base of Chabacano. And the clear–cut terms “Spanish– based” or “Portuguese–based” do not accurately convey the linguistic situation of the 16th and 17th centuries in the Iberian colonies and maybe the Iberian Peninsula in general.4 All Romance-based creoles in Asia show a reflex of –otros or similiar as a plural marker of the pronouns — even the French–based creole of Réunion in the Indian Ocean (here the paradigm is not, zot and zot; from Stein,1984:66).5 This is reminds us of the structure of plural pronouns in some Eastern varieties of Malay 2 Palenquero has a totally different history from the other creoles in Asia. 3 Unlike in Asia, most Afro-Portuguese creoles show a reflex of [n] in its plural pronouns. This is certainly an African influence, since this phoneme occurs in many languages on the continent, such as in Afroasiatic plural pronouns and as a plural marker of certain noun classes in Niger–Congo (Heine & Nurse 2000:88,40). In West–Atlantic languages of Niger– Congo such as Wolof, the phoneme is even present in the whole set of plural pronouns, both subject and object pronouns (Ngom 2003:41–43). 4 See, for example, the relatively high number of Portuguese and even Catalan words in Judeospanish. 5 Furthermore, Réunion is the only of the French–based creoles in the Indian Ocean which shows a certain amount of words of Indo-Portuguese origin (Corne 1999: 68; 71) and the only French–based creole with an object-marker for pronouns, namely a ‘to’ (cf. Stein 1984: 66). The Puzzling Case of Chabacano 145 where orang is added to the singular pronoun fulfilling the same function. But a more striking detail is the observation that this occurs in Ternate–Manado (John Wolff, p.c.)6 a variety spoken in the Moluccas. Here the Portuguese-based pidgin originated which later was imported to the Philippines. 3. Differential object marking (DOM) in Chabacano One striking feature of Chabacano morphosyntax is the marking of objects with the lexical item ‘with’ which is phonologically kon or kung. It is the element itself, and also its distribution, which attract the linguist’s interest. As for the origin of the marker, there are several theories in the literature including my own view, which is point 1 in the list below. In the following, we shall revisit some arguments and observations concerning the object marker kon in Chabacano. On the origin of this marker, there are the following arguments, which are not always contradictory. (1) (Partial) Spanish origin: In the 16th and 17th century some comitative objects were marked with con, such as with the verbs ver ‘see’ or matar ‘kill’. Chabacano, which arose during this time, could have grammaticalized this marker. (2) Luso-Asiatic origin: In many Luso-Asiatic creoles (e.g. Malacca, Macau, Batavia/Jakarta etc.) com is an object marker.7 As in Chabacano, ku in Papia Kristang marks “accusative, recipient, comitative, instrumental and goal.” (Baxter 1988:167). Only the comitative in Chabacano is expressed by kumpanyéro and ubán and not by kon. Once again, this is not surprising, since at least until around 1800, the Philippines had constant contact with Portuguese possessions in Asia. The place of origin could be South India from where it spread over to other creoles in Asia (hypothesis by Koontz–Garboden & Clements). (3) Hokkien–Chinese8 via Malay origin: Baxter (1995) argues that at least in the Portuguese–based creole of Malacca, ku was functionally influenced by the Bazaar Malaysama ‘with’.