DigitalResources SIL eBook 25 ® The Classification of the English-Lexifier Creole Languages Spoken in Grenada, Guyana, St. Vincent, and Tobago Using a Comparison of the Markers of Some Key Grammatical Features: A Tool for Determining the Potential to Share and/or Adapt Literary Development Materials David Joseph Holbrook The Classification of the English-Lexifier Creole Languages Spoken in Grenada, Guyana, St. Vincent, and Tobago Using a Comparison of the Markers of Some Key Grammatical Features: A Tool for Determining the Potential to Share and/or Adapt Literary Development Materials David Joseph Holbrook SIL International ® 2012 SIL e-Books 25 2012 SIL International ® ISBN: 978-1-55671-268-5 ISSN: 1934-2470 Fair-Use Policy: Books published in the SIL e-Books (SILEB) series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of charge (within fair-use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s). Series Editor George Huttar Volume Editor Dirk Kievit Managing Editor Bonnie Brown Compositor Margaret González Abstract This study examines the four English-lexifier creole languages spoken in Grenada, Guyana, St. Vincent, and Tobago. These languages are classified using a comparison of some of the markers of key grammatical features identified as being typical of pidgin and creole languages. The classification is based on a scoring system that takes into account the potential problems in translation due to differences in the mapping of semantic notions. This scoring system allows for a quantification of the data being compared, which provides a relative score for the potential intelligibility and acceptability of sharing literary material from one creole to another. Basing the classification on key grammatical markers allows for the use of this classification in determining if it is possible to conduct Machine Assisted Human Translation (MAHT) of literary materials developed in one creole to another (i.e., adaptation). Using the markers to classify and group these languages provides further information in the MAHT process. The markers of the grammatical features can be input into the MAHT tool (the computer programme) even before the translation process is begun. This classification tool has implications in the areas of the classification of creole languages based on historical and sociohistorical events, the spread of grammatical features among English-lexifier creoles, decreolisation, variation studies, and literary development. Keywords: David Joseph Holbrook; creole languages; Grenadian Creole; Guyanese Creole; Tobagonian Creole; Vincentian Creole; translation; classification of languages; literary development; grammar. iii Contents Abstract 1 Introduction The Problem Purpose of the Study Factors to Consider Why These Four Creoles Comparison of Grammars Synchronic Examination Intelligibility Acceptability Not a “Common Ground Dialect” Phonology and Orthography Selection of Grammatical Markers More Than Verbal Markers One Does Not Equal All Creole Language Origins Communication: The Heart of it All Sharing and Adapting: Some Differences Significance of the Study 2 Review of Literature Translation Machine Translation and Computer-Assisted Translation Contributions of Previous Research Research focusing on language universals and creole languages Research focusing on the relationship of second language acquisition and creole languages Research into genetic relationships of creole languages Comparative research of creole languages: creoles of different lexical bases Comparative research of creole languages: English-lexifier creoles Research into individual English-lexifier creole languages Selection of Grammatical Features Literary Development of Grenadian, Guyanese, Tobagonian, and Vincentian The Future 3 Methods and Design Scope and Limitations Selection of Subjects and Variables in Data Gathering Elicitation of Data Types of Discourse and Data Elicited The Creole Continuum—Problems for Data Selection Review of Data Scoring of Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Design of the scoring system Description of the scoring system 4 Comparison of Grammatical Markers Personal Pronouns Personal Pronouns Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Scores Possessive Pronouns Possessive Pronouns Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Scores All Possessive Pronominal Markers PIA Scores Reflexive Pronouns Reflexive Pronouns Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Scores iv v All Personal Pronominal Markers PIA Scores Determiners (Articles and Demonstrative Pronouns) Determiner Markers Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Scores Plural Marking on Nouns Plural Markers Potential Intelligibility/Acceptability (PIA) Scores Noun Phrase Markers Combined PIA Scores Non-Stative Verb Markers Non-stative Verb Markers PIA Scores Stative Verb Markers Equational statives Fronted copula for purpose of focus Existential statives Past and future marking of statives Stative Verb Markers PIA Scores Serial Verbs Serial Verb Markers PIA Scores Negation Negation Markers PIA Scores Modals Modal Markers PIA Scores Relative Clause Markers Relative Clause Markers PIA Scores Quotation Formulas Quotation Formula PIA Scores All Verbal Elements Combined PIA Scores Prepositions Individual Prepositional semantic meanings Compound Prepositions Semantic Meanings Grouping of Prepositions Based on Semantic Meanings Preposition PIA scores All Markers PIA Scores Alternative scoring: all markers without prepositional semantic meanings Prepositions: another look PIA scoring for alternative preposition markers and semantic meanings PIA scoring: all markers with alternative preposition scores 5 Conclusion Other obtainable information Total number of markers Future research Appendix References 1 Introduction The Problem One of the goals for any organisation is to carry out its function in as efficient a manner as possible, making the best use of the time, resources, and personnel available. This has been true for SIL International (SIL), whose goal is to make available to as many people as possible the literary development1 materials produced in projects where they have had significant involvement in the production of those materials. SIL is very interested in determining if materials that they produce in one creole language of the Caribbean (or any other region where they work for that matter) can be shared with or adapted to any other territories with a similar creole language. The problem is that the grouping or clustering of the creole languages of the Caribbean, specifically the English-lexifier creoles in this study, has not been given specific enough attention by researchers up to this time. Much of the classificational research of English-lexifier creoles of the Caribbean has either focused mainly or solely on the verbal system or has taken a more sociohistorical rather than linguistic approach. A linguistic approach is necessary in the context of this study to determine the grouping or clustering of languages. It is the specific linguistic structures of grammatical features and the morphemes that are used to mark those features that will be key in determining if written materials in one creole can be shared with or adapted to another. More than just the verbal system markers need to be taken into consideration in order to significantly group these languages linguistically. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to develop a tool that can be used to help identify where written materials produced in one Caribbean English-lexifier creole language might be easily shared with or adapted to other similar creole languages. The tool that is needed is one that will linguistically group (i.e., classify) the English-lexifier creole languages of the Caribbean. The tool developed in this study examines and compares the lexical similarity and total number of markers of some key grammatical features of these creole languages and assigns a score to each comparison. The higher the score, the greater the similarity of the lexical items and total number of markers used to mark the grammatical features of each creole language under examination. This is not a measure of intelligibility or a measure of the acceptability of written materials produced in one creole when shared with another. Intelligibility and acceptability can, however, be inferred from this. It should be expected that when there is a greater similarity of lexical items and total number of markers under examination, then there would be a greater degree of intelligibility and a greater potential for written materials produced in one creole language to be acceptable for use by speakers of the other creole language. Thus, this grouping is for the purpose of determining the potential to share or adapt literary development materials. It is not an exact measure. The tool is designed to provide a way to score the potential for the unidirectional sharing and/or adapting of written materials. It is a system for scoring the relative similarity and difference in a selected set of markers of key grammatical features of the creole languages under consideration. Both the concepts of the potential intelligibility of these languages and the potential acceptability of written materials produced when shared with or adapted