From possessive pronoun to emphatic determiner: ‘So’ in Mauritian Creole 1 DIANA GUILLEMIN University of Queensland Abstract This paper argues that at a particular stage in the genesis of Mauritian Creole (MC), the 3sg possessive pronoun so , inherited from the French son , was used as a definite determiner as well as a possessive pronoun. It was used when there was a need to single out a unique element in the discourse, or to introduce a new referent which was to become the focus of attention. So was mostly used with genitive constructions, where a phonologically null determiner, represented as δ, was equally grammatical, as shown in (1) and (2). In both instances, the modified NP is singular and [+definite]: (1) So frère ça mamzelle là (Baissac 1888:155) DET brother DEM girl SP The brother of this young girl "Le frère de la jeune fille" 2 (Baissac 1888 :154) (2) ène loulou dire δ mari ça femme là (Baissac 1888:157) a wolf tell husband DEM woman SP A wolf says to the husband of this woman "Un des loups dit au mari" (de cette femme) (Baissac 1888 :156) This use of the possessive pronoun form is not grammatical in French. However, I argue that, in the early creole, the genitive construction in fact licensed its use as a determiner, when a new referent was being introduced in the discourse. This use of so with genitive constructions is no longer grammatical in modern MC, but this particle continues to be used as an emphatic determiner, where it now modifies both singular and plural NPs. 1. Introduction 1.1 From French to creole Early in the genesis of the creole, the French definite articles le/la incorporated into a large number of the nouns that they modified, e.g.: · La table (the table) → latab (table) · Le coeur (the heart) → leker (heart) · Du sable ((some) sand) → disab (sand) It seems that the French determiners, which serve to mark the semantic contrasts of (in)definiteness and singular vs. plural were not recognized as separate morphemes, but were taken to be an integral part of the nouns that they modified (Chaudenson 1981, 1 Baker 1984, Grant 1995, Strandquist, 2005) 3. Not all nouns ended up with an incorporated article, but the French determiner system collapsed, and the immediate consequence was that, in the early creole, all nouns were bare, yielding ambiguous interpretations between [±definite] singular and [±definite] plural, as shown: (3) Papa, vous y.en.a femme, ou.bien vous tout cèle? 4 (Pitot 1805) father 2.SG.F have wife or 2.SG.F all alone Father, do you have a wife, or are you on your own? Papa, vous avez une femme, ou bien vous êtes tout seul? (4) Zène fille couri lacase léroi (Baissac 1888:141) Young girl run house king The young girl runs to the king’s palace "La jeune fille court au palais du roi" (Baissac 1888 :140) (5) Loulous 5 trouve ça la.forêt là; qui zaute va faire? (Baissac 1888:175) Wolves find DEM forest SP COMP 3PL MOD do The wolves find this forest; what will they do? "Les loups rencontrent la forêt, que vont-ils faire?" (Baissac 1888:174) (6) Zotte mette éne bande coutirières dan louvraze: 3PL put a group dressmaker in work: They put a number of dressmakers to work: "On met un régiment de couturières à l’ouvrage: coude robes, coude cimises, (Baissac 1888:365) sew dresse, sew shirt, (they) sew dresses, (they) sew shirts, elles cousent des robes, des chemises" (Baissac 1888 :364) · In (3), the bare noun femme is [–definite] singular · In (4), the bare NPs zène fille and lacase léroi are [+definite] singular · In (5), loulous is [+definite] plural · In (6), coutirières , robes, and cimises are [–definite] plural In the early creole, the interpretation of nouns must have been simply derived from the context. However, over a period of some 150 years, from the mid 18 th century to the end of the 19 th century, new functional items emerged to mark the semantic contrasts of (in)definite and singular vs. plural, namely: · The singular indefinite determiner enn , derived from the French un/une . This morpheme occurs early in the 19 th century, to unambiguously mark nouns as singular and [–definite]. · The post nominal specificity marker la , most likely derived from the French locative adverb là (here, there), also starts to occur around 1820. · The plural marker bann , derived from the French bande ('group') does not grammaticalize until the end of the 19 th century. This morpheme, which immediately precedes the nouns that it modifies, is unspecified for the feature [±definiteness]. 2 However, modern MC continues to admit bare nouns in various syntactic configurations, yielding a variety or interpretations, as shown: (7) Ena lisyen dan lakaz have dog in house There are dogs in the house Il y a des chiens dans la maison In this existential construction, which admits only indefinites (Milsark 1979), the bare NP lisyen is [–definite] plural. The other bare noun, lakaz , which is the complement of a preposition, is [+definite] singular. The definiteness feature is evidence that a null determiner ( δ) projects, with the feature [+definite], and marks its complement NP accordingly. Thus, while the bare noun lisyen is an NP, the bare noun lakaz is a DP. It is a referential noun phrase, which, in the above context, must have a discourse antecedent, or be part of the shared knowledge of all discourse participants. Note that δ forces a singular interpretation of the noun. The determinative use of so in the early creole occurs at a specific stage in the development of the determiner system, more precisely, in the second half of the 19 th century, prior to the full grammaticalization of the plural marker bann . Its use is associated with the feature [+definite], and, like the null definite determiner δ, so also forces a singular interpretation of the NP that it modifies. 1.2 Organization of this paper In Section 2 I look at the determinative use of so in the early creole, and Section 3 compares the use of this morpheme to that of null δ, to determine what it brings to the interpretation of the noun phrase. Section 4 looks at the different environments that license the use of a definite determiner, in order to determine the difference between δ and so. Section 5 looks at the use of so in modern MC, where it is now only used as an emphatic determiner. Section 6 presents data from other languages of the world, where a possessive pronoun is used as a determiner and Section 7 concludes this paper. 2. So in the early creole The first determinative use of the possessive pronoun appears in the first official imprint, in the creole language, of the Proclamation for the emancipation of the slaves in 1835, where it still has the French form, son : (8) zautre tous va perdi son nom Esclaves (Nicolay, 1835) 2PL all MOD lose DET name slaves You will all lose the name Slaves Vous perdrez tous le nom d'Esclaves In the creole versions of the Bible (1888, 1892), the French definite article is translated as so , while Baissac (1888) consistently translates this creole particle into a definite article le/la , as shown in the following examples: 3 (9) é to va appel so nom Jan (1892: 4) and 2.SG MOD call DET name John and you will name him John (lit: give him the name John) "et tu lui donneras le nom de Jean" (1955 Ch.I, l.13 p.1533) (10) Napas lapeine pour coné ça qui pour arrivé NEG hard to know that COMP MOD happen It is not hard to guess what will happen "Il n’est pas difficile de deviner ce qui doit arriver dans so finition mo zistoire (Baissac 1888: 329) in DET end 1SG.POSS story at the end of my story à la fin de mon histoire." (Baissac 1888 :328) (11) So frère ça mamzelle là (Baissac 1888:155) DET brother DEM girl SP The brother of this young girl "Le frère de la jeune fille" (12) Paulin ti son frère Pauline, Pauline ti son seir Paulin (Baissac 1888:291) Paulin TNS DET brother Pauline, Pauline TNS DET sister Paulin Pauline was the brother of Pauline, Pauline was the sister of Paulin "Pauline était frère de Pauline, Pauline était soeur de Paulin" (Baissac 1888 :290) It would not be possible in English or French to use the 3sg singular possessive pronoun in any of these contexts, as shown in (13) a., b. and c.: (13) a. *his name John *son nom de John b. *its end of my story *sa fin de mon histoire c. *her brother of this girl *son frère de cette jeune fille In modern MC, bare NPs would be grammatical in (10), (11) and (12), yielding the same singular [+definite] interpretation, namely: (14) a. dan finisyon mo zistwar at the end of my story b. frer sa mamzel la the brother of this young girl c. Paulin ti frer Pauline, Paulin ti ser Paulin Pauline was the brother of Pauline, Pauline was the sister of Paulin 4 Given that null δ was performing a similar function of marking definiteness and singularity, what precisely does so bring to the interpretation of the noun phrase? 3. So versus the null determiner The use of the 3sg possessive pronoun as a determiner has been documented in other languages of the world by Fraurud, who notes that its ‘essential semantic/pragmatic property has to do not with possessivity but with referentiality and, more specifically, with focus of attention’ (2001:260, italics in original)6.