UNCORRECTED PROOF UNCORRECTED PROOF

1 downloads 0 Views 341KB Size Report
member of the Ngumpin-Yapa subgroup of the Pama-Nyungan family ( ... Note that throughout this paper, Gurindji elements are given in italics and Kriol, in ... The Gurindji Kriol data are drawn from my corpus of 80 h of recordings of ... Inflectional morphology is also accorded a special place in studies of ...... catch get-PST.
Morphology DOI 10.1007/s11525-010-9163-4 ORIGINAL PAPER

Felicity Meakins

Received: 01 January 2010/Accepted: 23 April 2010 ! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

PR OO F

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection: evidence from northern Australia

Abstract Gurindji Kriol is a north Australian mixed language which combines lexical and structural elements from Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan), and Kriol (Englishlexifier). One of the more striking features of the grammar of Gurindji Kriol is the presence of the Gurindji case paradigm including ergative and dative case-markers within a Kriol verbal frame. Given the fragility of inflectional morphology in other language contact situations, particularly contextual inflections such as structural case markers, this situation bears closer scrunity. This paper argues that the presence of Gurindji case morphology is the result of pervasive code-switching practices which immediately preceded the genesis of the mixed language. As the codeswitching stabilised into a mixed language, case-marking was integrated into predicate argument structure of Gurindji Kriol via nominal adjunct structures. Yet, these case markers were not absorbed unscathed. Although the Gurindji Kriol case paradigm bears a close resemblance to its Gurindji source in form, these case markers have not been perfectly replicated in function and distribution. Contact with Kriol functional equivalents such as prepositions and word order have altered the function and distribution of these case markers. The last part of this paper examines the shift that has occurred in Gurindji-derived case morphology in Gurindji Kriol.

18 19

Keywords Borrowing ! Code-switching ! Mixed language ! Gurindji Kriol ! Inflectional morphology ! Contextual inflection ! Case marker

UN CO RR EC TE D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

F. Meakins (&) School of Languages and Comparative Cultures, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/felicity-meakins/

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Abbreviations ABL ALL AUX COM DAT DU DYAD ERG FOC FUT IMPF INC LOC NEG O OBL PAUC PERF

Ablative Allative Auxiliary Comitative Dative Dual Kinship pair Ergative Focus Future Imperfect Inclusive Locative Negative Object Oblique Paucal Perfect Plural Progressive Present Past Question nominal Subject Singular Tag question Topic Transitive First person Second person Third person Morpheme break Clitic break Acting on

PR OO F

20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

PL

PROG PRS PST QN S

SG

TAG TOP TR

1 2 3 = >

1 Introduction 56 57 58 59 60 61

Inflectional morphology has a special status in studies of language contact. In comparison with other lexical or morphological material, the transfer of inflectional morphology from one language to another is exceptional in its rarity. I use the term ‘transfer’ to include phenomena which other people have termed ‘borrowing’, ‘replication’, ‘copying’ and ‘diffusion’. I also include ‘insertional code-switching’ (cf. Muysken 2000) which occurs intra-sententially and differs from borrowing only

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

by degree. Similar restrictions seem to apply to inflectional morphology in both of these contact processes. It always occupies the lowest rung on borrowability hierarchies (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2007; Gardani 2008; Heath 1978; Matras and Sakel 2007; Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Weinreich 1974[1953]) and is rarely inserted into another language’s morpho-syntactic frame in code-switching (Muysken 2000; Myers-Scotton 2002). Nonetheless examples of inflectional transfer do exist. In a survey of inflectional borrowings in European languages, Gardani (2008) observes numerous cases where inflectional morphemes have been borrowed and are used productively on native words in the recipient language. Whilst Gardani observes that this type of borrowing is possible albeit rare, he suggests that the distinction between contextual and inherent inflection (cf. Booij 1994, 1996, 2007) is relevant in determining the likelihood of transfer. In Gardani’s study, inherent inflections such as number and gender marking on nouns and TAM marking on verbs which are not sensitive to syntactic context are more frequently borrowed than contextual inflections which include structural cases in the NP, and person, number and gender marking on verbs. Indeed this observation is borne out in other crosslinguistic studies of transferability (e.g. Aikhenvald and Dixon 2007; Matras and Sakel 2007). Gurindji Kriol, a mixed language spoken in northern Australia, presents a counter-example to Gardani’s generalisation. The structure and lexicon of Gurindji Kriol is based on two distinct sources—(i) Gurindji which is a highly endangered member of the Ngumpin-Yapa subgroup of the Pama-Nyungan family (McConvell 1996); and (ii) Kriol which is an English-lexifier creole language spoken across northern Australia (Hudson 1983a; Munro 2000; Sandefur 1979). Gurindji-derived case-markers including contextual inflections such as ergative and dative suffixes have been transferred wholesale into a Kriol grammatical frame. The result is a structural split between the NP and VP systems. Kriol marks verbal inflectional categories, including tense and mood auxiliaries, and transitive and aspect morphemes; and Gurindji provides the nominal frame, including derivational morphology and, importantly for this study, the complete case paradigm of ergative, dative, comitative, locative, allative and ablative case marking (Charola 2002; McConvell 2002; McConvell and Meakins 2005; Meakins 2007, 2008a, 2009, 2010; Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005, to appear). This degree of mixing has resulted in a composite morpho-syntactic frame which cannot be described as predominantly Gurindji or Kriol, hence its categorisation as a mixed language. An example of this composite structure is given below. Gurindji case markers including ergative, dative and locative suffixes and a dative pronoun are found in the same clause as the Kriol-derived past tense marker bin and the transitive marker -it. Note that throughout this paper, Gurindji elements are given in italics and Kriol, in plain font. The case-markers under investigation are bolded.

104 105 106

(1)

PR OO F

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

det gel-tu i bin gib-it nyanuny kapuku-yu wartan-ta. the girl-ERG 3SG.S PST give-TR 3SG.DAT sister-DAT hand-LOC ‘‘The girl gave (it) to her sister in (her) hand.’’

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

This example demonstrates the degree to which Gurindji-derived case markers have integrated into the mixed language clause. The use of inflection is completely productive and does not depend on the language of the stem. For example, in (1), the Gurindji-derived ergative marker -tu attaches to the stem of a Kriol word gel (girl). More remarkable is the fact that a Kriol-derived verb gibit (give) subcategorises for an ergative subject. Regular Kriol is a nominative-accusative language, yet in Gurindji Kriol, Kriol-derived ditransitive and transitive verbs are found with ergative-marked subjects, an argument structure which is derived from Gurindji. Yet the presence of these case-markers only forms a part of the story of language contact. Although the case forms are derived from Gurindji, they do not perfectly replicate the functions and distributions of their Gurindji counterparts. For example, the use of the ergative marker in (1) is optional in Gurindji Kriol where it is obligatory in Gurindji and has also acquired discourse functions in Gurindji Kriol (Meakins 2009; Meakins and O’Shannessy to appear). The aim of this paper is two-fold—(i) to provide an explanation for the transfer of Gurindji case-marking into a Kriol verbal frame (Sect. 3.3), and (ii) to discuss functional and distributional changes in the case-marking which have occurred in the process of transfer (Sect. 4). First I demonstrate that the transfer of the Gurindji case paradigm was the result of pervasive code-switching practices between Gurindji and Kriol which preceded the formation of the mixed language (McConvell 1985, 1988; McConvell and Meakins 2005). Kriol provided the matrix clause for code-switching, however this did not exclude Gurindji case-marking from the mix. Case-marking was present, though only found on Gurindji nominal adjuncts. I label these nominals trojan horse structures because they aided the transfer of case-marking into the Kriol matrix language without the conscious decision of speakers, as often occurs in borrowing or code-switching. Once the case-marking was present in the mix, it was extended to nouns of Kriol origin and the case-marked nominals were integrated into the predicate argument structure of the Gurindji Kriol clause. This process created a ‘composite’ matrix language (cf. Myers-Scotton 2003): one where both Gurindji and Kriol contributed to the structure of the clause. The mixed language today is characterised by this structural mix. Yet, the Gurindji case paradigm was not copied perfectly in Gurindji Kriol. Contact with Kriol functional equivalents such as prepositions and word order altered the function and distribution of these case markers, and continuing contact with Kriol has ensured more influence. This paper examines four case-markers in different functional domains in Gurindji Kriol—locative marking and inanimate goals (Sect. 4.1); dative marking and possessive constructions (Sect. 4.2); ergative marking and argument disambiguation (Sect. 4.3); and dative marking and animate goals and indirect objects (Sect. 4.4). The Gurindji Kriol data are drawn from my corpus of 80 h of recordings of peer and child-directed conversation, free and picture-prompt narrative (e.g. Frog stories) and picture-match elicitation games. The Gurindji examples come from my corpus of 23 h of procedural and narrative texts and McConvell’s (1996) sketch grammar of Gurindji. Kriol data are drawn from some of my few recordings of the Kriol variety spoken west of Katherine (see Fig. 1), and Sandefur’s (1979) Kriol grammar and Munro’s (2005) thesis which are based on

PR OO F

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Roper River Kriol, a variety found east of Katherine. Additional Kriol material comes from Diwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation (see acknowledgements). Finally the Gurindji–Kriol code-switching data from the 1970s were collected by Patrick McConvell. I begin by placing the transfer of the Gurindji case paradigm into the context of cross-linguistic studies of inflectional morphology and transfer.

159

2 Inflectional morphology and transfer

160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

The status of inflectional morphology in studies of borrowing and code-switching has received much attention due to the apparent difficulty in transferring this type of morphology into another language. For example various cross-linguistic surveys of languages in contact have produced borrowability scales or hierarchies based on the relative in/ability of lexical and grammatical material to be borrowed (Haugen 1950; Matras 2007; Moravcsik 1978; Muysken 1981a; Singh 1982; Whitney 1881). Instances of lexical borrowings are abundant compared with grammatical borrowings and, within this category, the transfer of inflectional morphology is rare. Inflectional morphology is also accorded a special place in studies of code-switching. This type of morphology, particularly verbal inflection, is sometimes used to identify the dominant language of code-switching (Klavans 1983; Myers-Scotton 1993a; Treffers-Daller 1994), and structural constraints on code-switching often include a prohibition of ‘inflectional switches’, that is switches involving transfers of inflectional morphology (Muysken 2000; Myers-Scotton 2002). This section examines this work and then looks more closely at the behaviour of a specific type of inflectional morphology which has been called contextual inflection in the more general morphological literature (cf. Booij 1994, 1996, 2007) and late system morphemes in the code-switching literature (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, b). The study of transfer patterns and constraints began as early as 1881 with Whitney who created a hierarchy of borrowing according to grammatical categories. Nouns were considered the most susceptible to borrowing, followed by other parts of speech, suffixes, inflections and finally sounds (Whitney 1881). In this scale, Whitney did not preclude the possibility of borrowing inflectional morphology, however he did suggest that it was extremely unlikely. Similar views were expressed later (see e.g. Sapir 1927). In particular, Haugen (1950) conducted a study of borrowings in Norwegian and Swedish in the United States and found that nouns were the least resistant to borrowing followed by verbs, adjectives and interjections. He did not include morphology on this scale, however he concluded that ‘‘the more structural a feature is, the less likely it is to be borrowed’’ (1950, p. 225). Singh’s (1982) study of English borrowings into Hindi also produced a similar hierarchy: nouns[adjectives[verbs[prepositions, as did Muysken’s (1981b) study of Spanish borrowings into Quechua. Muysken’s scale is more detailed but reflects the patterns of previous scales, with lexical elements dominating the heavily borrowed end of the scale: nouns[adjectives[verbs[prepositions[coordinating conjunctions[quantifiers[ determiners[free pronouns[clitic pronouns[subordinating conjunctions. A final borrowing scale can be found in the work of Thomason and Kaufman (1988, 2001).

PR OO F

153 154 155 156 157 158

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Their scale differs from others before them in that it is based on the degree of contact rather than structural features, nonetheless it correlates very neatly with previous observations about the degree of borrowing of structural features. Under Thomason and Kaufman’s (1988, pp. 37–47) model, extensive and prolonged community bilingualism is considered a necessary condition for borrowing structural elements of a language, such as inflectional morphology. The borrowing scales discussed above are frequency-based, that is they are based on the number of lexical or grammatical borrowings observed within particular situations of language contact. Other hierarchies posit an implicational relationship between categories where one linguistic category can only be borrowed if another has already been borrowed. An example of this type of scale comes from a study of borrowability which was included in Greenberg’s language universals program. Moravscik (1978) posits six constraints on borrowing which constitute an implicational hierarchy. She suggests that non-lexical items will not be borrowed unless some lexical items have already been borrowed (lexical[functional), borrowed lexical items such as verbs will only be observed in a language if borrowed nouns are already present (nouns[other lexical items), and that ‘‘no inflectional affixes can belong to the set of properties borrowed from a language unless at least one derivational affix also belongs to the set’’ (derivational>inflectional) (1978, p. 112). Again, Moravcsik does not exclude the possibility of borrowing inflectional morphology, however it is presented as extremely unlikely. Similar observations have been made for instances of insertional code-switching. Myers-Scotton’s (1993a, b, 1998a, b, 2000; Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, b) notion of the Matrix Language and the 4-M model has been influential in constraint-based theories of code-switching. The Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model of codeswitching deals specifically with the behaviour of different types of morphemes in code-switching, and in particular, inflectional morphology. This model is based on two oppositions—the matrix language versus the embedded language, and content versus system morphemes. The matrix language is the dominant language which sets the grammatical frame for the code-switching, and the embedded language contributes content morphemes within this frame (1998a, p. 291). Myers-Scotton divides morphemes into content and system morphemes, which basically match the lexical and grammatical categories discussed in the work on borrowing. Content morphemes participate in the thematic grid of the utterance. They assign or receive thematic roles, where system morphemes do not (1993b, pp. 98–99). Prototypical examples are nouns and verbs. System morphemes are more functional in nature and include inflectional morphology. Within this morphological framework, Myers-Scotton (1993a, p. 83) predicts that all system morphemes and therefore inflectional morphology will only come from the matrix language in code-switching.1 This constraint is called the System Morpheme Principle. Myers-Scotton’s predictions about the behaviour of inflectional morphology in code-switching is largely upheld by data. In her own work on Swahili-English code-switching she finds that, where Swahili is the matrix

FL01 FL02 FL03 FL04

1

PR OO F

196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

This principle requires the identification of a matrix language. Unfortunately the identification of the matrix language is based on the language that contributes the grammatical frame for the code-switching which becomes somewhat circular. See Myers-Scotton (2002, p. 59) for arguments against the circularity of the System Morpheme Principle and identification of the matrix language.

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

language, only English content words are inserted into a grammatical frame which consists of Swahili inflectional affixes. Muysken (2000, pp. 155–156) observes similar patterns of mixing between Dutch and various languages including Malay, Sranan, Chinese and Turkish which act as matrix languages. On the whole, Dutch only contributes content words to these code-switching combinations. Despite the predictions made by borrowing hierarchies and code-switching constraints, the transfer of inflectional morphology has been observed and these cases require some explanation. For example, verb inflections can be borrowed. Mednyj Aleut, (Mednyj Island, Bering Strait) has copied the entire Russian finite verbal morphology including portmanteau morphemes which express tense, number and person (Thomason 1997, pp. 457–459). The extent of this borrowing has led to its classification as a mixed language. Pakendorf (2009) describes a less dramatic case where Sebjan-Ku¨o¨l Even (Siberia) has borrowed the Sakha assertive-presumptive mood paradigm plus associated subject agreement suffixes. Cases where verb inflection has been transferred can also be found in situations of codeswitching. Muysken (2000, pp. 173–176) finds that past and present participle forms are often switched although they tend to come from the same language as the inserted verb. Inflectional transfer also occurs within the nominal domain. For example, it is not uncommon to find cases of plural marker borrowings which have been extended to non-native words. Gardani (2008) gives a number of examples of borrowings of this type between Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages such as Turkish plural marking into Albanian, Greek into Aromunian and Arabic into New Persian. Studies of code-switching have also found that it is not unusual for plural markers to be switched, although in most of these cases, the plural marker accompanies the noun from the embedded language and does not mark nouns from the matrix language. What remains unusual is the transference of case morphology. In a cross-linguistic study of 27 pairs of languages, Matras (2007, p. 42) finds no instances where case-markers are borrowed, although equivalent functional categories which are marked by adpositions are susceptible to borrowing. In this respect the manner by which particular functions are expressed rather than the function itself seems to be at issue. Nonetheless some instances of this type of borrowing do exist. Gurindji Kriol is one such exception with the borrowing of case morphology into Kriol (Sect. 3.2). Similarly Light Warlpiri (Australia) has borrowed the complete Warlpiri case marking paradigm into Kriol (along with significant lexical material and derivational morphology), and has been also classified as a mixed language as a result (Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005, to appear; O’Shannessy 2008, 2009). Sri Lanka Malay presents a different but related case where a trade variety of Malay has developed case suffixes from Malay prepositions as a result of contact with Tamil and Sinhala which are dependent-marking languages (Aboh and Ansaldo 2007; Smith and Paauw 2006). This situation has been described as ‘conversion’ or ‘metatypy’ (Bakker 2003, p. 116) but it can also be thought of as borrowing a structure from Tamil and Sinhala while maintaining the native phonological material.

PR OO F

238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

In an earlier study of language contact between traditional Australian languages in Arnhem Land, Heath (1978, p. 105) also observes numerous examples of borrowed case suffixes. As a result he suggests some factors which affect the ‘borrowability’ of inflectional morphology (Heath 1978, pp. 105–107).2

287 288 289 290 291 292

1. Morpheme syllabicity (morphemes that are independently pronounceable), 2. The sharpness of boundaries between morphemes, 3. The unifunctionality of morphemes (e.g. not portmanteau morphs), 4. The categorical clarity of morphemes (broader environment is not required to discern function), and the 5. Analogical freedom from other morphemic systems in the same language

293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324

These constraints describe the conditions under which inflectional morphology may be transferred from one language to another. What they do not explain is why different types of inflectional morphology behave differently in language contact, specifically why transfers of case marking are highly unusual in comparison with, for example, plural marking. Gardani (2008) hypothesises that the degree to which an inflectional morpheme interacts with other parts of the grammar may hold some clues as to the differences in borrowability. He uses Booij’s (1994, 1996, 2007) distinction between contextual and inherent morphology to make this point. Contextual morphology is determined by the syntactic contexts in which it occurs. Its role is to mark the relationship between a head and a dependent in a syntactic relationship of either government or agreement. Structural case is a good example. Where a language marks case, the verb assigns case to its arguments (subject, object and indirect object). Another type of case, semantic case, belongs to the category of inherent inflection. This type of inflection is determined by the information a speaker wishes to convey and is exemplified by local case markers such as the locative, allative and ablative. Gardani (2008) suggests that inherent morphology is more likely to be borrowed than contextual morphology because it is not dependent on other parts of the grammar. A similar intuition can be found in Myers-Scotton’s 4M model. Her functional category of morpheme which she calls a system morpheme is further divided into early and late system morphemes. Early system morphemes do not assign or receive thematic roles, however they pattern with the content, adding extra meaning to the head of a phrase. These morphemes also depend on the head of their maximal projection for their syntactic role (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, p. 1063). Examples of early system morphemes in English include the determiner and the plural marker (Myers-Scotton 2003, p. 77). In this respect, inherent inflections would belong in Myers-Scotton’s category of early system morpheme. Late system morphemes do not convey conceptual information, rather grammatical information is contained in these morphemes. Crucially they are structurally assigned outside of their maximal projections to indicate relations between elements in the CP rather than lower level phrases. There are two different types of late system morphemes:

FL01 FL02

2 For more discussion of borrowing constraints see Weinreich (1974 [1953], pp. 34–35) and Winford’s (2003, pp. 92–96) comments on both Weinreich and Heath’s sets of constraints.

PR OO F

283 284 285 286

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

bridge system morphemes and outsider system morphemes. The difference between these two morphemes lies in where they receive their assignment. Bridge system morphemes depend on information from within their immediate maximal projection, whereas outsider system morphemes rely on a source outside of their immediate maximal projections (Myers-Scotton 2003, pp. 78–79). Examples from English of bridge system morphemes are the expletive it, and of in possessive constructions such as the foot of the hill. Outsider system morphemes include what Booij calls contextual inflection, for example subject–verb agreement markers and case morphology (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, pp. 1065–1066). Myers-Scotton makes predictions for code-switching that are similar to the ones that Gardani makes for borrowing. She suggests that system morphemes, particularly outsider system morphemes such as case-marking are blocked from participating in code-switching because they rely on the larger syntactic context. The predictions made by Gardani and Myers-Scotton about inflectional morphology must be considered probabilistic rather than absolute. Clearly this type of inflectional morphology can be transferred given particular circumstances, as is shown by Heath’s examples of case marking transfer and the presence of casemarking in the two Australian mixed languages Gurindji Kriol and Light Warlpiri. Additionally the transfer of person numbering with other verb inflections seen in Mednyj Aleut and Sebjan-Ku¨o¨l Even may also be considered cases of contextual inflection or late system morpheme transfer. Given that this type of transfer is rare but can occur, the circumstances of transfer must be considered. The rest of this paper is a case study of Gurindji Kriol and the wholesale borrowing of Gurindji case-marking into Kriol. The linguistic practices at the time of contact are shown to be important to this contact story, as is the grammatical status of case-marked nominals.

351

3 Gurindji Kriol

352

3.1 Background

353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366

Gurindji Kriol is spoken by Gurindji people who live in northern Australia at Kalkaringi and Daguragu which are Aboriginal communities located within the traditional lands of the Gurindji. Gurindji Kriol has also spread north to Pigeon Hole and Yarralin which are home to Bilinarra and Ngarinyman people predominantly. Traditionally they were speakers of Bilinarra and Ngarinyman, which are mutually intelligible with Gurindji. These communities are shown in Fig. 1. Gurindji Kriol is the main language of younger people at Kalkaringi. It is being acquired by children rather than traditional Gurindji and it is used by all people under the age of approximately 35 years as their main everyday language. Gurindji is now only spoken by older generations and is severely endangered in this respect. Even when older people use Gurindji it is often in code-switching with Kriol. Kriol is increasingly the first language of most Aboriginal people across northern Australia except in large parts of Arnhem Land and the Daly River region where traditional languages remain strong (see Fig. 1). All Gurindji people speak Kriol to

PR OO F

325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

UN CO RR EC TE D

PR OO F

Author Proof

F. Meakins

Fig. 1 Kalkaringi and surrounding area

367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374

varying extents when they visit Kriol-speaking areas to the north, for example Katherine and Timber Creek (see Fig. 1). Standard Australian English is the language of the school, media and government services but it plays little role in people’s home lives (Meakins, 2008a, pp. 287–295). Gurindji Kriol is derived from contact between non-indigenous colonisers and the Gurindji people. From the early 1900s onwards, Gurindji people were put to work on cattle stations in slave-like conditions. The lingua franca of the cattle stations was an English-based pidgin which was brought by the colonisers and

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

imported Aboriginal labour from more eastern cattle stations. The station owners and Aboriginal workforce used this pidgin to communicate with each other, however the communicative domain of the pidgin shifted to be used amongst the Gurindji and it is likely that it nativised in this context. This process occurred on many stations and missions across northern Australia and these nativised forms of pidgin English are now known collectively as ‘Kriol’. In many of these situations, Kriol became the main language of Aboriginal groups, replacing the traditional languages (Meakins 2008b). In the case of the Gurindji, a mixed language emerged. In the 1970s, McConvell (1998) observed that code-switching between Kriol and Gurindji had become the dominant language practice of Gurindji people (see also Sect. 3.3). Thirty years later these mixing practices have stabilised into an autonomous language system (McConvell 2008; McConvell and Meakins 2005; Meakins 2007). The youth of Gurindji Kriol, McConvell’s documentation of linguistic practices of Gurindji people at the time of genesis and the richly documented sociopolitical history of Gurindji people all provide excellent empirical evidence for theories of language contact processes such as borrowing, code-switching, mixed language formation and the nativisation of linguistic codes.

392

3.2 Inflectional morphology in Gurindji Kriol

393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418

The result of the fusion between Gurindji and Kriol is a language which is lexically and structurally very mixed. In terms of the lexicon, Gurindji provides words for body parts, plants, traditional artefacts, motion, bodily functions and impact. Words for basic verbs, colours, higher numerals and modern artefacts are derived from Kriol. Both languages contribute words for people, kin, food, animals and lower numerals. For example, in the domain of kinship terms, Gurindji contributes the words for grandparents, siblings, cousins and in-law relations while Kriol contributes words for mother, father, aunt, uncle, husband and wife. In some cases, synonymous forms also exist, for example speakers use both fij (\Kriol) and yawu (\Gurindji) for ‘fish’, and baitim (\Kriol) and katurl (\Gurindji) for ‘bite’. This level of mixing is also reflected in the structure. Word order, TAM markers, negation, pronouns, interrogative pronouns, determiners, coordinate conjunctions and relative pronouns are derived from Kriol. Gurindji contributes inflectional and derivational morphology in the nominal domain, emphatic and possessive pronouns, demonstratives, subordinate structures, interjections and directionals (Meakins to appear). Kriol and Gurindji elements in the mixed language also maintain the phonological inventories and processes of their source language. For example Kriolderived words maintain a five vowel system and Gurindji-derived words, a three vowel contrast (Jones et al. in progress). The end result is a language which is so mixed that no clear historical lineage is apparent. It is not clear whether to regard Gurindji Kriol as a daughter of Gurindji or a daughter of Kriol. In this respect it can be classified as a mixed language (Thomason 2001, 2003; Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Of particular interest to this paper is the presence of Gurindji inflectional morphology within a Kriol verbal frame. This division of labour between nominal and verbal systems has also been observed in Michif which is a French-Cree mixed

PR OO F

375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

language spoken in Canada (Bakker 1997) and Light Warlpiri which is a WarlpiriKriol/English mixed language spoken in Lajamanu, an Australian Aboriginal community close to Kalkaringi (Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005, to appear; O’Shannessy 2008, 2009, also see Fig. 1). Bakker (2003, p. 124) calls these types of mixed languages V–N mixed languages. They are rare: most mixed languages exhibit a split between the grammar and lexicon. For example, Media Lengua is a mixed language spoken in Central Ecuador where the morpho-syntactic frame of the language is essentially Quechua and therefore agglutinating, but with around 90% of its stems replaced by Spanish forms (Muysken 1981b, 1997). In the case of Gurindji Kriol, Kriol provides the verb architecture. Some inflectional morphology is apparent including transitive and aspect suffixes, but a majority of verb syntax is marked by free morphemes, including tense and mood auxiliaries. Gurindji-derived case morphology including ergative, dative, comitative, locative, allative and ablative suffixes shapes the nominal structure. The composite nature of the morpho-syntax of Gurindji Kriol is further demonstrated by the ease with which lexical material from one language is integrated into the syntactic domain of the other language. For example, although Gurindji provides the case morphology, nouns may be of Kriol origin.3 Similarly verbs from Gurindji are fully integrated into the Kriol morpho-syntactic frame. Moreover Kriol-derived transitive verbs can subcategorise for an ergative-marked subject, despite being derived from a nominative-accusative language. The following excerpt of Gurindji Kriol exemplifies this composite structure:4

442

(2)

(FM07_a041: LS: Narrative: GK)5

443 444 445

(a)

dat pujikat-Ø bin grab-im im, tipart ngakparn-ma. the cat-NO.ERG PST grab-TR 3SG.O jump frog-TOP ‘‘The cat grabbed him (but) the frog jumped away.’’

446 447 448

(b)

i bin grab-im hold-im na ngakparn-ma pujikat-tu-ma. 3SG.S PST grab-TR hold-TR FOC frog-TOP cat-ERG-TOP ‘‘(But) the cat grabbed the frog (again) and held him.’’

449 450 451

(c)

karu bin jik tetul-jawung nyila-ngka-rni bakit-ta child PST emerge turtle-COM that-LOC-only bucket-LOC ‘‘The kid appeared with the turtle right in that bucket.’’

FL01 FL02 FL03 FL04

3 For example, in a study of the effect of various factors on the appearance of the ergative marker, Meakins (2009) found that the language of the stem of the transitive subject did not affect the use of the ergative marker. Kriol-derived stems were just as likely to receive ergative marking as Gurindji-derived stems.

FL01 FL02

4 The Gurindji elements are given in italics, and plain font is used for Kriol elements. Bolded elements are the case-markers under investigation.

FL01 FL02 FL03 FL04 FL05

5 Examples are referenced in this style (Recording Reference e.g. FM07_a041: Speaker Initials e.g. LS: Genre e.g. narrative, conversation, or picture elicitation: Language e.g. GK [Gurindji Kriol], Gurindji or Kriol). Picture elicitation was elicitation performed by Gurindji research assistants using picture prompt tasks. A number of narratives were told to the ‘Frog, where are you?’ book (Mayer 1994 [1969]) which is well known from many other studies. These examples are referenced as ‘Frog story’.

PR OO F

419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

(d)

ngakparn im jeya warlaku-ngku wal im hant-im frog 3SG there dog-ERG well 3SG chase-TR ‘‘The frog is there (because) the dog chased away the cat.’’

im 3SG

pujikat cat

455 456 457

(e)

dei gubek na Jetulmen-ta 3PL return FOC Kalkaringi-LOC ‘‘They return to Kalkaringi now.’’

458 459 460

(f)

warlaku ngakparn makin karu-yu wartan-ta. dog frog lie child-DAT hand-LOC ‘‘The dog and the frog are lying on the kid’s arm.’’

461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492

This example demonstrates the way in which Gurindji-derived case markers have fused with the Kriol verbal frame in Gurindji Kriol. Although Kriol is a relatively uninflected language, inflectional categories such as tense are marked using Kriol forms, for example bin (past). Also in evidence are the Gurindjiderived ergative, locative, dative and comitative case suffixes. The presence of the ergative case marker is particularly striking. As was observed in Sect. 2, although instances of the transfer of inflectional morphology have been observed, it is usually restricted to inherent inflection. In Gurindji Kriol, not only are inherent inflections present in the form of locative, allative and ablative casemarking, but also contextual inflections including ergative and dative case markers. Both of these case-markers are subcategorised for by a verb (or a nominal in the case of dative marking in possessive constructions) and in this respect their presence is reliant on the syntax of the clause rather than their immediate environment. Despite the presence of these case markers, they are not direct replicas of the case-markers found in Gurindji. For example, where the ergative marker is obligatory for all subjects of transitive clauses in Gurindji, it is only variably applied in Gurindji Kriol. As shown in (2)(a) and (b), the same clause is repeated but the ergative marker is only used in the second instance where the subject is postverbal. The locative marker also shows some shift. In Gurindji, locative marking is restricted to locative expressions and an allative marker is used to mark goals, however in Gurindji Kriol the locative marker is increasingly being used to mark goals as well as locations by teenage speakers. A final example of the imperfect replication of Gurindji case markers in Gurindji Kriol can be found in dative marking and possessive constructions. Gurindji distinguishes between inalienable and alienable possessive constructions. Alienable nouns are related using the dative marker and inalienable nouns such as body parts are related through simple juxtaposition with no overt marking. In Gurindji Kriol, this distinction has been lost in the speech of teenagers. All possessive constructions are marked dative including inalienable relations. For example, in (f) above, the relationship between the child and his hand is expressed with a dative suffix.

PR OO F

452 453 454

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

These changes in the function and distribution of Gurindji-derived case marking will be discussed further in Sect. 4.6 I argue that they are the result of contact with Kriol functional equivalents such as word order and prepositions. Before discussing these changes in the Gurindji-derived case-marking, I propose a process by which the Gurindji-derived case morphology fused with the Kriol verb structure in the first place.

499

3.3 The development of the composite morpho-syntactic frame of Gurindji Kriol

500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519

Given the fragility of inflectional morphology in situations of language contact, in particular contextual inflection, the question is how the Gurindji case paradigm came to be present in a Kriol verb frame. In this section I argue that the individual grammars of Gurindji and Kriol were brought into close contact through pervasive code-switching practices, and it is in the patterns of code-switching that the development of the composite morphosyntactic structure of the Gurindji Kriol can be found. This section uses evidence from code-switching to suggest the mechanisms by which the structure of Gurindji Kriol emerged. McConvell (1985, 1988) observes that code-switching between Kriol and Gurindji was the dominant language practice of Gurindji people in the 1970s, and McConvell and Meakins (2005) argue that Gurindji Kriol found its origins in this code-switching. In this respect, clues for the source of Gurindji-derived casemarking and its integration into the clause structure of Gurindji Kriol can be found in the patterns of the 1970s code-switching. The code-switching from the 1970s used both Gurindji and Kriol as the grammatical frame of switching, that is the matrix language.7 Here I identify the matrix language on the basis of verb inflection (cf. Klavans 1983; Treffers-Daller 1994). The language which provides the verb inflection is identified as the matrix language: in the case of Gurindji, this is the inflecting verb8 and in the case of Kriol these are the free TAM markers and progressive inflection.9 Code-switching occurs when elements from the other

FL01 FL02 FL03 FL04 FL05 FL06 FL07 FL08 FL09

6 It must be noted that as well as functional and distributional changes, the Gurindji case-markers have undergone allomorphic reduction which is common to situations of language shift. The ergative and locative case markers in Gurindji have seven allomorphs. Two allomorphs are associated with the vowelfinal stems and depend on the number of syllables in the stem. The remaining five allomorphs attach to consonant-final stems and distinguish place of articulation: peripheral (bilabial or velar), coronal, palatal and retroflex; and manner: liquid. Gurindji Kriol has reduced this system to a two-way distinction between consonant and vowel-final stems. Dative, allative and ablative case markers show less dramatic allomorphic reduction. For more information on allomorphic reduction see Meakins (2007): ergative (p. 369), dative (p. 373), locative (p. 378), allative (p. 381) and ablative (p. 383).

FL01 FL02

7 The ‘matrix’ language is essentially the same as the term ‘recipient’ language which is used in the borrowing literature.

FL01 FL02 FL03 FL04 FL05

8

The Gurindji verb is a complex predicate which consists of two verbs: (i) an obligatory inflecting verb which is semantically-bleached and provides TAM information, and (ii) an optional uninflected verb called a coverb which provides the main semantics of the complex predicate (McConvell 1994, 1996; Meakins 2010). Complex predicates of this sort are an areal feature of north Australian languages (both Pama-Nyungan and non-Pama-Nyungan) (Schultze-Berndt 2002; McGregor 2002; Amberger et al. 2010).

FL01 FL02 FL03

9 The Kriol VP consists of one or two auxiliary verbs which express TAM categories and a main verb which may be marked for transitivity and aspect (Hudson 1983b; Meakins 2010; Munro 2000; Sandefur 1979).

PR OO F

493 494 495 496 497 498

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

520 521 522 523

language insert into the matrix language. Regardless of whether the matrix language is Gurindji or Kriol, commonly inserted elements included nominals (arguments and locative complements), tag questions, discourse markers and verbs (Meakins 2007, p. 154). These differences in matrix language are demonstrated in (3) and (4).

525 526 527 528

(3)

529 530 531 532

(4)

533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550

In (3) the matrix language is identified as Gurindji on the basis of verbal inflection karrwa-rnana (have-PRS.IMPER). The object nominal pokitnaif (pocket-knife) is inserted into this Gurindji matrix. (4) demonstrates the opposite where Kriol can be identified as the matrix language due to the presence of the Kriol past tense marker bin. A Gurindji direct object kartak-walija (buckets) is inserted into the Kriol frame. Although Gurindji and Kriol were both used as the matrix language in Gurindji– Kriol code-switching in the 1970s, Kriol was more dominant. McConvell and Meakins (2005, p. 19) show that 73% of mixed utterances used Kriol as the matrix language such as was shown in (4). Indeed, Kriol became the basis of the VP in the mixed language with Gurindji verbal inflection now never found. Yet even where Kriol provided the verbal frame for code-switching, Gurindji case morphology was not blocked, though blocking would be predicted by Myers-Scotton’s (2002) System Morpheme Principle (Sect. 2). Thus the presence of Gurindji case morphology was already unusual in the 1970s given the predictions of the System Morpheme Principle (and indeed most borrowing hierarchies). Examples below show the use of an ergative marker marking a transitive subject in (5), dative markers marking an indirect object in (6) and an allative marker marking a goal complement in (7).

552 553 554 555

(5)

kaa-rni-mpal said orait yutubala kat-im ngaji-rlang-kulu. east-UP-ACROSS side alright 2DU cut-TR father-DYAD-ERG ‘‘You two, father & son, cut it across the east (side of the cow).’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data)

556 557 558

(6)

gib-it langa im murlu-wu Malingu-wu. give-TR PREP 3SG this-DAT NAME-DAT ‘‘Give it to this Malingu.’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data)

559 560 561 562

(7)

wi gu karrawarra pinka-kurra intit? 1PL.S go east river-ALL TAG ‘‘We’ll go east to the river, won’t we?’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data)

pokitnaif karrwa-rnana pocket-knife have-PRS.IMPER ‘‘Do you have a pocket knife?’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data: Gurindji matrix language)

PR OO F

walima QN

wi neba bin bring-im kartak-walija. 1PL.S NEG PST bring-TRN container-PAUC ‘‘We didn’t bring any buckets.’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data: Kriol matrix language)

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

These code-switching patterns resemble the structure of the present-day mixed language. For example, the structure of (8) which is a mixed language clause looks similar to (5) which is a code-switched clause from the 1970s. Both contain Kriol verbs, verbal inflections and pronouns, and Gurindji derivational and case morphology in the NP.

569 570 571 572 573

(8)

574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604

Yet differences between the code-switching and mixed language are apparent. Despite the close resemblance of the code-switching and mixed language, Gurindji Kriol is not merely code-switching. Arguments for its status as an autonomous language system include the high level of inter-speaker consistency, acquisition by children, the development of unique forms and independent development of Gurindji and Kriol-derived forms which are not reflected in the source languages. For a detailed discussion of this issue see Meakins (to appear). It is in the differences in the patterns of case-marked nominals in the codeswitching and the mixed language that the development of the composite morphosyntactic frame can be surmised. First, the behaviour of case-marked nominals in Gurindji–Kriol code-switching where a Kriol matrix language is used differs subtly from equivalents found in the mixed language. Case-marked nominals are nonobligatory in both the mixed language and the code-switching but, where they occur in the code-switching, they are cross-referenced with a pronoun. This cross-referencing contrasts with non-case-marked nominals (direct objects e.g. (4) above and subjects of intransitive clauses) which do not occur with co-referential pronouns. The problem seems to be one of typological congruence. Kriol provides the matrix language and Kriol nominals are not case-marked. In this respect, non-case-marked Gurindji nominals are typologically congruent to Kriol nominals and can be directly inserted into the matrix clause, as shown in (4). On the other hand, Gurindji casemarked nominals (subjects of transitive clauses, indirect objects) are not congruent with Kriol nominals and are blocked from the clause, as a result. Nonetheless Gurindji case-marked nominals were not excluded from the codeswitching. Instead they were incorporated into code-switched clauses using an adjunct structure which closely mimics the structure of Gurindji. Nominals in non-configurational languages, such as Gurindji, are argued to have the status of adjuncts rather than arguments in the generative literature. A number of properties of these languages provide evidence for this argument—pragmatically determined word order, discontinuous noun phrases, and the common omission of nominals coupled with the obligatory presence of bound pronouns. In this respect, bound pronouns are considered the true arguments of a clause (Jelinek 1984; Laughren 1988, 1989; Speas 1990).10

FL01 FL02

10 Note that several arguments against this approach have come from the LFG literature (Austin and Bresnan 1996; Nordlinger 1998; Simpson 1991).

PR OO F

563 564 565 566 567

an skul-ta-ma jei bin hab-im sport and school-LOC-TOP 3PL.S PST have-TR sport karu-walija-ngku. child-PAUC-ERG ‘‘And the kids had sport at school.’’ (2006 Gurindji Kriol mixed language)

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

These features also apply to the code-switched clauses even where Kriol provides the matrix language. For example in (5), ngaji-rlang-kulu (father and son) is crossreferenced by the pronoun yutubala (you two), and the presence of the case-marked nominal is not required for the grammaticality of the clause. Many case-marked nominals are still found in these adjunct structures in the mixed language. For instance, 55% of all ergative-marked transitive subjects have co-referential pronouns, as shown in (8) above and in (9) below (Meakins 2009, p. 78).11 They are also non-obligatory, however, case-marked nominals are also integrated into the predicate argument structure of the mixed language clause. The result is a ‘composite’ matrix language where both Gurindji and Kriol contribute structural features to the clauses. For example in (10) warlaku (dog) can be analysed as the argument of the verb, because no co-referential pronoun is present.

618 619 620 621

(9)

622 623 624 625

(10)

626 627 628 629 630 631 632

Another important point of difference between the behaviour of case-marking in code-switching and in the mixed language is the use of Gurindji case-marking on Kriol nouns. As was discussed in Sects. 1 and 3.2, there are no restrictions on combinations of Kriol stems and Gurindji case marking in the mixed language. For example, in (11), a Kriol transitive subject man (man) is found with a Gurindji ergative marker and a Kriol noun jiya (chair) takes a Gurindji locative marker in the final NP.

634 635 636 637

(11)

638 639 640 641 642

In contrast, this pattern is rare in the 1970s code-switching data. In (5), (6) and (7), Gurindji case-marking is found in conjunction with Gurindji nominal stems. Where Kriol nouns are found, Kriol prepositions are used instead. For example in (12), the Kriol noun sheid (shade) is not marked with a Gurindji locative marker, instead the Kriol locative preposition langa is used.

FL01 FL02 FL03

11 This figures are based on an analysis of a dataset consisting of 1917 transitive clauses with overt A arguments from 39 female speakers. The dataset consists of conversations and narratives, as well as picture-match elicitation tasks (Meakins 2009, p. 60).

PR OO F

605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616

an warlaku-ngku i bin bait-im det and dog-ERG 3SG.S PST bite-TR the ‘‘And the dog (it) bit the old man on the hand.’’ (FHM082: AC: Elicitation pictures: GK) warlaku-ngku bait-im im marluka dog-ERG bite-TR 3SG.O old.man ‘‘The dog bites the old man on the foot.’’ (FHM072: AR: Picture elicitation: GK)

marluka old.man

wartan-ta. hand-LOC

fut-ta. foot-LOC

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

det man-tu i bin jak aiskrim the man-ERG 3SG.S PST make.fall icecream ‘‘The man spilt the icecream on the chair.’’ (FHM053: SS: Picture elicitation: GK)

jiya-ngka. chair-LOC

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

644 645 646 647

(12)

648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664

These subtle differences in the behaviour of Gurindji case-marking in the 1970s code-switching and the present-day mixed language provide clues as to the integration of case-marking into the mixed language. The integration process involved a number of stages. To begin with, the grammars of Gurindji and Kriol were brought into intimate contact through the pervasive code-switching practices of the 1970s. Case-marking entered the mix via case-marked Gurindji nominal adjuncts which behaved like trojan horses in that they allowed case-markers in without a conscious decision being made by speakers. This process involved two steps. First, these casemarkers were extended to all nouns regardless of whether they were of Gurindji or Kriol origin. The second part of the picture involves the integration of case-markers from adjunct structures into full argument positions. In the code-switching, casemarked nominals were always found in conjunction with a co-referential pronoun. Again, at some point in the formation of the mixed language, these case-marked nominals were fully integrated into the predicate argument structure of the Gurindji Kriol clause as evidenced by the absence of a coreferential pronoun. The result was a ‘composite’ matrix language where the structure of the clause is neither dominated by Kriol nor Gurindji.

665

4 Changes in case marking in Gurindji Kriol

666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684

Section 3.3 provided the first part of the contact story with regards to Gurindjiderived case markers and their role in the development of the composite morphosyntactic frame which characterises Gurindji Kriol. The second part of this developmental story involves changes in their distribution and function which have occurred during this process of integration and after. The result is that the case markers present in Gurindji Kriol are not carbon copies of their Gurindji sources. I argue that these changes are the result of contact and competition with Kriol functional equivalents such as prepositions and word order. Changes in the form and function of the Gurindji-derived case-markers can be seen across the different generations of Gurindji Kriol speakers. As was discussed in Sect. 3.1, this mixed language is only around 30 years old, therefore it seems reasonable to hypothesise that nativisation occurred within the generation of adults who are now in their 30s. In their speech, the full paradigm of Gurindji case-markers can be observed, with their functionality largely reflecting that found in Gurindji, with a notable exception of the ergative marker. It is in the speech of teenagers that shifts in the function and distribution of the casemarkers are most apparent. Continuing contact with Kriol, which is the lingua franca of the areas to the north of Kalkaringi, has meant continuing influence on the mixed language.

yala-ngka. that-LOC

PR OO F

wi wana put-im langa sheid karrawarra 1PL.S want.to put-TR LOC shade east ‘‘We want to put it in the shade, in the east there.’’ (1970s code-switching, McConvell data)

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Inherent case-markers such as the allative, ablative and locative case-markers have been affected little by contact with Kriol. Some effects can be seen in the speech of teenagers and children such as the extension of the locative marker to marking inanimate goals (Sect. 4.1). Contextual inflections show more evidence of contact-induced change. The dative marker marks possessive constructions, however the in/alienable distinction found in Gurindji has been lost by teenagers (Sect. 4.2). The ergative marker’s role in argument marking has been largely supplanted by word order and it now marks information structure (Sect. 4.3). This change can already be seen in the speech of 30 year olds and therefore probably occurred at genesis when Gurindji case-marking came into contact with Kriol word order. Perhaps the most dramatic change can be seen in the domain of animate goals and indirect objects. 30 year old Gurindji Kriol speakers use dative marking in the manner found in Gurindji, which is evidence of its initial borrowing. Nonetheless this case form is disappearing in the speech of teenagers. Teenagers now use a Kriol preposition, yet not the one used to mark animate goals and indirect objects in Kriol. Kriol uses a locative preposition whereas Gurindji Kriol speakers use a dative preposition. It appears that the Gurindji distribution of the dative marking has remained though now a Kriol form is used (Sect. 4.4).

703

4.1 Locative marking and inanimate goals

704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716

Gurindji-derived spatial case markers including locative, allative and ablative suffixes are used in Gurindji Kriol with only some changes seen in the speech of teenagers. The domain of goal marking of inanimate locations demonstrates the main change. Where Gurindji distinguishes between goals and locations (goals are marked allative and locations are marked locative), Gurindji Kriol has extended the locative marker to both domains. I suggest that redistribution of the locative marker has occurred under the influence of the Kriol preposition langa (\along) which is used to mark both inanimate goals and locations. Thus the use of the locative case suffix to mark goals is the result of mapping the Gurindji locative case form onto a Kriol pattern. In Gurindji, inanimate goals and locations are differentiated by case marking. For example, the goal of the locomotion event in (13) and the target of the ballistic motion event in (14) are both marked allative, whereas the location of the dog, karnti (tree), is marking locative in (15).

718 719 720 721

(13)

jurlak ngu walirrip ya-nana marru-ngkurra. bird AUX circle.down go-PRS house-ALL ‘‘The bird circles downwards towards the house.’’ (VD: FHM146: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

722 723 724 725

(14)

ngawa-ngkurra waj yuwa-nana wumara. water-ALL throw put-PRS rock ‘‘He throws the rock into the water.’’ (FHM146: VD: Allative pictures: Gurindji)

PR OO F

685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

726 727 728 729

(15)

730 731 732 733 734

Kriol, on the other hand, does not distinguish between goals and locations. Instead they are both indicated by the same locative preposition, langa or la (short form). For example in (16) the goal kemp (\camp, house/home) is marked by the same preposition as that found in (17) which marks the location where the dog is sleeping, faya (fire).

736 737 738 739

(16)

det gel wok-bek la kemp. the gel walk-back LOC house ‘‘The girl walked back to the house.’’ (DAC texts: JJ: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

740 741 742 743

(17)

dis dog im jilip-bat wansaid la this dog 3SG sleep-PROG next LOC ‘‘The dog sleeps next to the fire.’’ (FHM096: CN: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753

Gurindji Kriol uses a number of strategies to mark inanimate goals and locations. Among older speakers of Gurindji Kriol (26–35 year olds), the Gurindji casemarkers are used in the same distributional pattern as that found in Gurindji—the locative suffix marks locations and the allative suffix marks goals. A different pattern has emerged among teenage speakers. These speakers continue to mark locations with the Gurindji locative marker, however they also extend this case suffix to goal marking. For example the Gurindji-derived locative suffix is used to mark the location of the dog in (18), but also the goal in (19) and the target of the ballistic motion event in (20), despite the fact that the allative marker is the only form used in Gurindji.

755 756 757

(18)

warlaku i¼m makin faya-ngka wansaid. dog 3SG¼PRS.PROG sleep fire-LOC next.to ‘‘The dog sleeps next to the fire.’’ (FHM067: LE: Picture elicitation: GK)

758 759 760

(19)

jei bin rarraj motika-ngka. 3PL.S PST run car-LOC ‘‘They ran to the car.’’ (FHM137: VB: Narrative: GK)

761 762 763

(20)

i bin jak-im tubala ngawa-ngka. 3SG.S PST throw-TR 2DU water-LOC ‘‘He threw those two into the water.’’ (FM061.D: LE: Frog story: GK)

764 765

The use of the Gurindji-derived locative case-suffix to encode inanimate goals in Gurindji Kriol is curious given that the locative case-suffix does not mark inanimate

PR OO F

warlaku makin karrinyana karnti-ka. dog sleep be.PRS tree-LOC ‘‘The dog sleeps under the tree.’’ (FHM098: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

faya. fire

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

goals in Gurindji. This distinction was probably adopted into Gurindji Kriol intact as evidenced by the older speakers continued use of the Gurindji pattern. The Kriol influence came later. What seems to have occurred is a form-function remapping whereby the Gurindji form has been mapped onto a Kriol distribution. Thus though the distributional feature is adopted from Kriol, the actual form comes from Gurindji.

772

4.2 Dative marking and inalienable possessive constructions

773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803

Possessive relationships in Gurindji Kriol are marked with the Gurindji-derived dative marker which is suffixed to the dependent (possessor). This marking strategy is used regardless of whether the head (possessed) is an owned object or a body part relation. This use across these different categories is surprising given that in both Gurindji and Kriol, the relationship between body parts and their whole is indicated through simple juxtaposition. In this respect, a class of inalienable nouns which includes body parts and some other nominals such as bodily products and shadows is distinguished from an alienable class of nouns in Gurindji and Kriol. This distinction has almost been lost in the speech of teenage Gurindji Kriol speakers. In this section I suggest that language contact has had no direct effect on the loss of the in/alienable distinction, but rather it has sped up a process of change which is common cross-linguistically. Like most Australian languages, Gurindji distinguishes relationships between entities using two distinct possessive constructions (McConvell 1996, pp. 92–94). The first type of possession marks inalienable relationships, ‘‘an indissoluble connection between two entities’’ (Chappell and McGregor 1995, p. 4). In Gurindji, these part-whole relationships involve inherent or unchangeable relationships between the possessor and possessed, such as the relationship between animate entities and their body parts, the product of their bodily excrements and their shadows/reflections. While inalienable constructions mark an intrinsic relationship between two entities, physical separability and free association is represented in alienable structures. Grammatically there is a typological tendency for alienable nouns (either the head or possessor) to be marked, often morphologically, and inalienable nouns to be unmarked (Heine 1997, p. 172). This marking distinction is common in Australian languages (Dixon 1980, p. 293; Nichols 1992, p. 118), and Gurindji is no exception. Alienability in Gurindji is expressed by a possessor phrase consisting of a head and a dependent dative-marked nominal, which encodes the role of the possessor, as in (21). On the other hand, inalienable possessive constructions in Gurindji are morphologically unmarked, as shown in (22). In both constructions, the head and dependent may appear in either order and as discontinuous constituents, for example in (22).

805 806 807 808

(21)

PR OO F

766 767 768 769 770 771

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

kartipa-wu yumi kula-n kalp ma-nani .. whitefella-DAT law NEG-2SG.S catch get-PST.IMPF ‘‘You haven’t caught up with White Australian law.’’ (McConvell 1996: 114)

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

809 810 811 812

(22)

813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820

Kriol also distinguishes between alienable and inalienable possession. Alienable possessive constructions involve a head noun and a prepositional phrase encoding the possessor, as shown in (23). The head noun and PP may occur in either order and a dative preposition (which has a number of forms depending the variety of Kriol) heads the PP. Like Gurindji, Kriol marks inalienable possession through simple juxtaposition. For example in (24) the relationship between the kangaroo and its head is indicated by juxtaposition. This construction is used to mark kinship relationships as well as the categories found in Gurindji.

822 823 824 825

(23)

826 827 828 829

(24)

830 831 832 833

In Gurindji Kriol alienable possessive constructions are expressed in the same manner as Gurindji with a dependent-marked nominal. The order of the possessor and possessum is also variable. In (25) the nominal ngakparn (frog) is marked dative which indicates a possessive relationship with hawuj (house).

835 836 837

(25)

838 839 840

In the case of inalienable constructions, the application of dative marker is variable as shown in (26), where the relevant nominals are simply juxtaposed, and in (27) where a dative marker is used.

842 843 844 845

(26)

kajirri-ngku pirrk-karra kengkaru majul. woman-ERG pull.out-PROG kangaroo stomach ‘‘The woman is pulling out the kangaroo’s guts.’’ (FHM038: CE: Picture elicitation: GK)

846 847 848 849

(27)

kajirri-ngku i¼m kat-im jawurt old.woman-ERG 3SG.S¼PRS.PROG cut-TR tail ‘‘The old woman cuts off the kangaroo’s tail.’’ (FHM143: LS: Picture elicitation: GK)

PR OO F

wartan paya-rni ngu ngumpit warlaku-lu. hand bite-PST.PER AUX man dog-ERG ‘‘The dog bit the man’s hand.’’ (FHM146: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

detlot boi bin stil-im [bla olgamen] those boy PST steal-TR DAT old.woman ‘‘All of the boys stole the old woman’s car.’’ (FHM167: JD: Elicitation pictures: Kriol)

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

[motika] car

det kamel im lik-im-bat det kengkaru the camel 3SG lick-TR-PROG the kangaroo ‘‘The camel licks the kangaroo’s head.’’ (FHM096: SY: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

hed. head

i bin kirt det ngakparn-ku hawuj-ma. 3SG.S PST break the frog-DAT house-TOP ‘‘He broke the frog’s home (the bottle).’’ (FHM145: CA: Frog story: GK)

kengkaru-yu. kangaroo-DAT

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

As was seen in the use of the locative case suffix to mark goals, the application of the dative marker depends on the age of the speaker. 26–35 year old Gurindji Kriol speakers use the dative marker 55% of the time to mark relationships between body parts and their owners, whereas teenagers use the dative marker almost categorically (94.5%) making little distinction between alienable and inalienable possession.12 Thus whilst Gurindji and Kriol both distinguish two classes of (alienable and inalienable) nominals in possessive constructions, teenage speakers of Gurindji Kriol have lost this distinction. It is likely that the case form and alienable function was adopted in the process of the formation of the mixed language but this contrast has slowly been lost over the life of the mixed language. The loss of the alienable and inalienable distinction cannot be attributed to Kriol in this case because Kriol marks a similar distinction. Instead it seems to be a part of a natural process of language change which has been sped up by language contact. This loss has also been observed in other cases of postcolonial language contact in Australia where traditional language possessive or dative markers are still in use, for example Light Warlpiri (Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005), Wumpurrarni English (Disbray and Simpson 2005), Arabana, Paakantyi (Hercus 2005) and Areyonga Teenage Pitjantjatjara (Langlois 2004).

868

4.3 Functional shift in the use of the ergative marker

869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888

Changes in the function of the ergative marker can also been seen. No age-related differences are found in this domain which suggests that the change occurred at the genesis of Gurindji Kriol. Gurindji Kriol has adopted the argument marking systems from both source languages; case marking, specifically the ergative marker, from Gurindji, and SVO word order from Kriol. These two systems of argument marking were brought into contact and competition in the formation of the mixed language with three results: (i) word order has emerged as the dominant system in the mixed language, (ii) ergative marking is optional, and (iii) the ergative marker has taken on discourse functions, specifically to accord discourse prominence to the agentivity of a nominal. McGregor defines optional ergative marking as, ‘‘the situation in which, in specifiable lexical or grammatical environments, a case marking morpheme [. . .] may be either present or absent from an NP of a specifiable type without affecting the grammatical role borne by that NP’’ (McGregor to appear). Often the ergative marker in optional ergative languages takes on discourse functions. This has been the case for a number of Australian languages (see McGregor to appear for an overview). Gurindji Kriol differs from these languages because optional ergativity is the result of language contact, not a feature internal to the language. This section looks more closely at the contact between the argument marking systems in Gurindji and Kriol and its results in Gurindji Kriol. For a fuller description of this contact scenario see Meakins and O’Shannessy (to appear) and Meakins (2009).

FL01 FL02 FL03

12 These figures are based on an analysis of a dataset consisting of 1,517 attributive possessive constructions from 40 female speakers. The dataset consists of conversations and narratives, as well as picture-match elicitation tasks (Meakins 2007, p. 211).

PR OO F

850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Gurindji is a morphologically ergative language where the nominals pattern according to an ergative-absolutive system, and ergative marking is obligatory. The system follows a commonly observed pattern in Australian languages (Dixon 1994). Nominal arguments are distinguished by case marking—A13 (transitive subject) is always marked ergative, while S (intransitive subject) and O (transitive object) are unmarked (McConvell 1996, p. 56). Word order is pragmatically determined in Gurindji with elements in focus occurring sentence-initially (Meakins 2009, p. 65). (28) is an example of a transitive sentence. The subject warlaku (dog) is marked ergative and the object marluka (old man) remains unmarked. The intransitive subject in (29) (repeated from (15)), warlaku (dog), patterns with the transitive object in (28) by being unmarked.

901 902 903

(28)

marluka paya-rni ngu warluku-lu. old.man bite-PST AUX dog-ERG ‘‘The dog bit the old man.’’ (FHM098: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

904 905 906 907

(29)

warlaku makin karrinyana karnti-ka. dog sleep be.PRS tree-LOC ‘‘The dog sleeps under the tree.’’ (FHM098: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915

In contrast with Gurindji, morphological case distinctions are only realised in the pronoun system in Kriol. Rather word order is the main means of distinguishing the argument roles of nominals. As in English, Kriol is a predominantly SVO language with departures from this word order marking information structure. When the A argument is a nominal, it is distinguished from the O argument by appearing before the verb. Similarly intransitive subjects occur preverbally. For example below dog is the subject of a transitive sentence in (30) and an intransitive sentence in (31) and in both cases it appears before the verb.

917 918 919 920

(30)

921 922 923 924

(31)

925 926 927

In Gurindji Kriol, the argument marking system is the sum of the contact and competition between the Gurindji and Kriol systems. Meakins (2009) argues that the case system from Gurindji and word order from Kriol were recognised as

FL01 FL02

13 I use Dixon’s (1979) syntactico-semantic distinctions of A (transitive subject), S (intransitive subject) and O (transitive object).

PR OO F

889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

det dog im bait-im det olman the dog 3SG bite-TR the old.man ‘‘The dog bit the old man on the arm.’’ (FHM096: CN: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

la

LOC

dis dog im jilip-bat wansaid la this dog 3SG sleep-PROG next.to LOC ‘‘The dog is sleeping next to the fire.’’ (FHM096: CN: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

arm arm

faya. fire

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

functional equivalents and competition between these systems ensued. The first outcome of this competition was the dominance of SVO word order, with 87.5% of A nominals now occurring preverbally. The second result is the optionality of the ergative marker. Unlike in Gurindji, transitive subjects are not categorically marked ergative in Gurindji Kriol, with only 66.5% of A nominals receiving an ergative suffix (Meakins 2009, p. 67).14 The likelihood that an ergative marker is used increases if the A nominal is inanimate, found post-verbally or found in conjunction with a co-referential pronoun or all three of these conditions are met (Meakins 2009, p. 79). For example in (32) the transitive subject faya (fire) is inanimate, occurs after the verb purtuj (set alight) and is cross-referenced by a third singular subject pronoun i. The ergative marker is required to identify the A argument because it occurs post-verbally. In this respect the ergative marker maintains some of its syntactic function.

942 943 944

(32)

945 946 947 948 949 950

Nonetheless 62.6% of transitive subjects occur preverbally with an ergative marker where word order would be enough to disambiguate the arguments (Meakins 2009, p. 70). For example in (33) two events take place simultaneously—an owl attacks a boy and a swarm of bees attack a dog. The same semi-transitive15 verb kuli (attack) is used in both clauses and the A nominals both occur preverbally. Nonetheless the agent is unmarked in the first clause, and marked in the second clause.

952 953 954 955 956 957 958

(33)

959 960 961 962 963 964 965

This use or non-use of the ergative marker contrasts the two agents. Both agents are presented as aggressors, but the bees’ behaviour is emphasised and contrasted with the owl’s aggressiveness through the use of the ergative marker—where the owl attacks the boy, the bees really ‘go for’ the dog. Meakins (2009) analyses the use of the ergative marker in these contexts as according prominence to the agentivity of the subject. In this respect, it retains some of the more semantic features of the ergative marker.

FL01 FL02 FL03

14 These figures are based on an analysis of a dataset consisting of 1917 transitive clauses with overt A arguments from 39 female speakers. The dataset consists of conversations and narratives, as well as picture-match elicitation tasks (Meakins 2009, p. 60).

FL01

15

PR OO F

928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940

i bin purtuj mi faya-ngku 3SG.S PST set.alight 1SG.O fire-ERG ‘‘The flames set me alight.’’ (FM057.C: SO: Narrative: GK)

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

a.

b.

det mukmuk bin kuli la ¼ im the owl PST attack OBL ¼ 3SG.O ‘The owl attacked (the boy).’ dem bi-ngku kuli la ¼ im det warlaku-warla. those bee-ERG attack OBL ¼ 3SG.O the dog-CONTRAST ‘(And) the bees really went for the dog instead.’ (FHM157: KS: Frog story: GK) (Meakins 2009, p. 82)

A semi-transitive verb here is defined as one which has a dative object.

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Thus, though the Gurindji ergative marker has been adopted into Gurindji Kriol, its function does not closely reflect that of Gurindji. The main function of the ergative marker in Gurindji is argument disambiguation, however this use of the ergative marker is only marginal in Gurindji Kriol. Instead Kriol-derived SVO word order is the main system used to distinguish arguments. The ergative marker only functions in a diminished capacity as an argument marker, for example, where deviations from the pragmatically-unmarked SVO pattern occur. The result of this reduced syntactic functionality has been optional ergativity and a shift to discourse functions.

975

4.4 Dative marking of indirect objects and animate goals

976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989

The most dramatic change in the use of a Gurindji-derived case-marker in Gurindji Kriol is found in the domain of animate goals and indirect objects. Here the Gurindji dative marker was borrowed into Gurindji Kriol as evidenced by its use by 30 years olds, however teenage speakers show a different pattern of usage. They use the dative preposition from Kriol where Kriol would use a locative preposition in the same function. Although the form is derived from Kriol, the use of the dative preposition is an influence from Gurindji, which is why the use of a preposition would not be considered merely code-switching. Gurindji and older Gurindji Kriol speakers mark indirect objects and animate goals with a dative case suffix. Thus for teenage speakers of Gurindji Kriol, though the form is from Kriol, the dative feature has been retained from Gurindji. In this respect the preposition shows a dual influence from the source languages. Gurindji uses the dative marker in a number of functions including marking indirect objects and animate goals, as shown in (34) and (35), respectively.

991 992 993

(34)

nyila ngu-rla wamala-wu ma-rnana jarrakap. that AUX-3DAT girl-DAT talk-PRS talk ‘‘That one is talking to the girl.’’ (FHM035: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

994 995 996 997

(35)

yapart ngu-rla ya-nana kajirri-wu makin-ta-wu, sneak AUX-3DAT go-PRS old.woman-DAT sleep-LOC-DAT ‘‘The snake sneaks up on the old woman who is sleeping.’’ (FHM146: VD: Picture elicitation: Gurindji)

PR OO F

966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

wari. snake

998 999 1000 1001

Kriol uses locative prepositions in the same functional domains. In (36) the verb tok (talk) subcategorises for a dative object which is expressed within a PP headed by a locative preposition. The form is the same discussed for inanimate goals in Sect. 4.1. Similarly, in (37) the goal is indicated by a locative preposition.

1003 1004 1005 1006

(36)

dis olgaman im tok-in la this old.woman 3SG talk-PROG LOC ‘‘This old women is talking to the girl.’’ (FHM096: SY: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

det the

yanggel. girl

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

(37)

1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017

Kriol does contain a separate dative preposition—bo (\for) or bla(nga) (\belong), depending on the variety, but it is not used to mark these functions. It is found in possessive constructions, as shown in Sect. 4.2, and other constructions such as benefactive or purposive constructions (Munro 2005). The use of the Gurindji dative marker by 30 year old speakers of Gurindji Kriol reflects that of their Gurindji-speaking parents and grandparents. It is used to mark indirect objects and animate goals, as shown in (38) and (39).16

1019 1020 1021

(38)

i¼m kiyap la¼im nyanuny kapuku-yu na. 3SG.S¼PRS.PROG whisper OBL¼3SG.O 3SG.DAT sister-DAT FOC ‘‘She whispers to her sister.’’ (FHM100: SS: Picture elicitation: GK)

1022 1023 1024 1025

(39)

nyila jinek i¼m gon yapart la¼im that snake 3SG.S¼PRS.PROG go sneak.up OBL¼3SG.O ‘‘That snake sneaks up on the old woman.’’ (FHM125: LE: Picture elicitation: GK)

1026 1027 1028

A different form of marking is found in teenage speakers who express indirect objects and animate goals using a Kriol-derived dative preposition, as demonstrated in (40) and (41).

1030 1031 1032

(40)

nyanuny mami bin tok bo nyanuny karu. 3SG.DAT mother PST talk DAT 3SG.DAT child ‘‘The mother talks to her child.’’ (FHM002: AC: Picture elicitation: GK)

1033 1034 1035 1036

(41)

det jinek-tu i bin yapart the snake-ERG 3SG.S PST sneak.up ‘‘The snake sneaks up on the old man.’’ (FHM101: TA: Picture elicitation: GK)

1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044

What seems to have occurred in these domains is a form-function remapping. The Kriol locative preposition and Gurindji dative marker were recognised as being functionally equivalent and came into contact, probably after the formation of the mixed language given that older speakers of Gurindji Kriol continue to use the dative marker. Thus, subsequent to mixed language genesis, a Kriol form was borrowed back but with influence from Gurindji. Instead of the locative preposition, a dative preposition was used. In this respect, the only thing that remains of the Gurindji dative marker, which is an example of contextual inflection, is its

FL01 FL02

det dog bin ran la det ol man an the dog PST run LOC the old man and ‘‘The dog ran up to the old man and bit him.’’ (FHM096: SY: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

bait-im bite-TR

im. 3SG

PR OO F

1007 1008 1009 1010

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

bo

DAT

det the

kajirri-yu. woman-DAT

marluka. old.man

16 The case-marked nominal is also optionally cross-referenced by an oblique-marked pronoun la¼im (OBL¼3SG.O) which reflects a structure found in Gurindji ngu¼rla (auxiliary ¼ 3DAT).

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

functional spread. The form has all but gone in the speech of younger generations, but the functional distribution remains.

1047

5 Conclusion

1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077

In Gurindji Kriol, the presence of inflectional morphology in the form of Gurindjiderived case marking is particularly noteworthy given that Kriol provides the verbal frame including tense and mood auxiliaries, and transitive and aspect markers. Inflectional morphology, particularly contextual inflections such as syntactic case markers, are rarely borrowed or inserted in instances of code-switching. The direction of transfer has been from Gurindji into Kriol as evidenced by the dominance of Kriol in the code-switching practices of the Gurindji in the 1970s. This paper has shown how, given the right linguistic practices and particular features of the languages in contact, such transfers can occur. Gurindji Kriol was shown to have been derived from code-switching which was the dominant linguistic practice of Gurindji people in the 1970s. The behaviour of case-marked nominals in this code-switching provides clues as to their integration into the mixed language. They occurred in the code-switching as adjuncts, a pattern which is reflected in Gurindji and other Australian languages. Case-marking also only occurred on Gurindji nominals. I have termed these case-marked nominal adjuncts as trojan horse structures because they facilitated the transfer of the case-markers. Thus, in the process of the formation of the mixed language, case-marking extended to Kriol nouns and the case-marked nominals were integrated into the predicate argument structure of the mixed language. As a result the clause structure of Gurindji Kriol is a composite of its source languages. Kriol had some influence on the realisation of Gurindji case-marking at the time of genesis. This influence continues in the speech of teenagers who are also speakers of Kriol which is the lingua franca of most Aboriginal people in north of Australia. Little effect can be observed in inherent case-markers. Ablative, allative, locative and comitative case-markers have remained true to their Gurindji sources except in the realm inanimate goal marking. The real influence from Kriol has been felt most by the syntactic case-markers, the ergative and dative case markers, which are examples of contextual inflection. Here functional shift has occurred, distinctions have been lost and in one instance, the form has been lost leaving just functional traces from Gurindji.

1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088

Acknowledgements Thanks to the Rachel Nordlinger, Jane Simpson, Patrick McConvell, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Nick Evans, Mary Laughren and Pieter Muysken for their comments on the various incarnations of this paper. I am also indebted to Erika Charola who introduced me to the people at Kalkaringi in the first place and a number of Gurindji informants who assisted with the data collection including Samantha Smiler Nangala, Cassandra Algy Nimarra, Rosy, Lisa and Leanne Smiler Nangari, Cecelia Edwards Nangari and Anne-Maree and Ronaleen Reynolds Namija (Gurindji Kriol); Violet Donald Nanaku, Biddy Wavehill Nangala and Topsy Dodd Nangari (Gurindji). I am also grateful to Diwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation and in particular Lauren Campbell and Greg Dickson’s work with Queenie Brennan, Brenda Forbes and John Joshua which helped fill in some gaps in the Kriol literature on goal constructions. The work for this paper was funded by the Aboriginal Child Language (ACLA) project (http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html)

PR OO F

1045 1046

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

(P.I. Gillian Wigglesworth, Jane Simpson and Patrick McConvell, University of Melbourne), the Victoria River District DOBES project (http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES) (P.I. Eva Schultze-Berndt, University of Manchester) and the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project (http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/ index.php?projid=159) (P.I. Felicity Meakins, University of Manchester).

1093

References

1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143

Aboh, E., & Ansaldo, U. (2007). The role of typology in language creation. In U. Ansaldo, S. Matthews, & L. Lim (Eds.), Deconstructing Creole (pp. 39–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Dixon, R. M. W. (2007). Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amberger, M., Baker, B., & Harvey, M. (Eds.) (2010). Complex predicates: Cross- linguistic perspectives on event structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, P., & Bresnan, J. (1996). Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 215–268. Bakker, P. (1997). A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis (Vol. 10). New York: Oxford University Press. Bakker, P. (2003). Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (pp. 107–150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. (1994). Against split morphology. Yearbook of Morphology, 1993, 27–50. Booij, G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology, 1995, 1–16. Booij, G. (2007). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chappell, H., & McGregor, W. (1995). Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 3–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Charola, E. (2002). The verb phrase structure of Gurindji Kriol. Unpublished Honours, Melbourne University, Melbourne. Disbray, S., & Simpson, J. (2005). The expression of possessive in Wumpurrarni English, Tennant Creek. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 4(2), 65–85. Dixon, R. M. W. (1980). The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardani, F. (2008). Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26. Heath, J. (1978). Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land (Vol. 13). Canberra: AIAS. Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hercus, L. (2005). The influence of English on possessive systems as shown in two Aboriginal languages, Arabana (northern SA) and Paakantyi (Darling River, NSW). Monash University Linguistics Papers, 4(2), 29–42. Hudson, J. (1983a). Grammatical and semantic aspects of Fitzroy Valley Kriol. Darwin: SIL. Hudson, J. (1983b). Transitivity and aspect in the Kriol verb. Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (A-65) 3, 161–175. Jelinek, E. (1984). Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 39–76. Jones, C., Meakins, F., & Buchan, H. (in progress). Citation-speech vowels in Gurindji Kriol and local Australian English. Klavans, J. (1983). The syntax of code switching: Spanish and English. In L. D. King & C. A. Matey (Eds.), Selected papers from the 13th linguistic symposium on romance languages (pp. 213–232). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Langlois, A. (2004). Alive and Kicking: Areyonga Teenage Pitjantjatjara. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Laughren, M. (1988). Toward a lexical representation of Warlpiri verbs. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic relations (pp. 215–242). New York: Academic Press. Laughren, M. (1989). The configurationality parameter and Warlpiri. In L. Maracz & P. Muysken (Eds.), Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries (pp. 319–353). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.

PR OO F

1089 1090 1091 1092

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Matras, Y. (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 31–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Matras, Y., & Sakel, J. (2007). Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mayer, M. (1994 [1969]). Frog, where are you? China: Puffin. McConvell, P. (1985). Domains and codeswitching among bilingual Aborigines. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Australia, meeting place of languages (Vol. C-92, pp. 95–125). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McConvell, P. (1988). Mix-im-up: Aboriginal codeswitching old and new. In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. McConvell, P. (1996). Gurindji grammar. Unpublished manuscript, Canberra. McConvell, P. (2002). Mix-im-up speech and emergent mixed languages in Indigenous Australia. Texas Linguistic Forum (Proceedings from the 9th Annual Symposium about Language and Society), 44(2), 328–349. McConvell, P. (2008). Mixed languages as outcomes of code-switching: Recent examples from Australia and their implications. Journal of Language Contact, 2, 187–212. McConvell, P., & Meakins, F. (2005). Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 9–30. McGregor, W. (2002). Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. McGregor, W. (to appear). Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua. Meakins, F. (2007). Case marking in contact: The development and function of case morphology in Gurindji Kriol, an Australian mixed language. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Meakins, F. (2008a). Unravelling languages: Multilingualism and language contact in Kalkaringi. In J. Simpson & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Children’s language and multilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school (pp. 247–264). New York: Continuum. Meakins, F. (2008b). Land, language and identity: The socio-political origins of Gurindji Kriol. In M. Meyerhoff & N. Nagy (Eds.), Social lives in language (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meakins, F. (2009). The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker in one Australian mixed language. In J. Barddal & S. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case (pp. 59–91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meakins, F. (2010). The development of asymmetrical serial verb constructions in an Australian mixed language. Linguistic Typology, 14(1), 1–38. Meakins, F. (to appear). Which Mix?—code-switching or a mixed language—Gurindji Kriol. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Meakins, F., & O’Shannessy, C. (2005). Possessing variation: Age and inalienability related variables in the possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 4(2), 43–63. Meakins, F., & O’Shannessy, C. (to appear). Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua. Moravcsik, E. (1978). Universals of language contact. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. 1 method and theory (pp. 95–122). Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Munro, J. (2000). Kriol on the move: A case of language spread and shift in Northern Australia. In J. Siegel (Ed.), Processes of language contact: Studies from Australia and the South Pacific (pp. 245–270). Saint-Laurent (Quebec): Fides. Munro, J. (2005). Substrate language influence in Kriol: The application of transfer constraints to language contact in Northern Australia. Unpublished PhD, University of New England, Armidale. Muysken, P. (1981a). Generative studies on Creole languages. Dordrecht, Holland, Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications. Muysken, P. (1981b). Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In A. Highfield & A. Valdman (Eds.), Historicity and variation in Creole studies (pp. 52–78). Ann Arbor: Karoma. Muysken, P. (1997). Media lengua. In S. G. Thompson, Contact languages: A wider perspective (pp. 365–426). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

PR OO F

1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

F. Meakins

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993b). Social motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1998a). A way to dusty death: The Matrix Language turnover hypothesis. In L. A. Grenoble & L. J. Whaley (Eds.), Endangered languages: Language loss and community response (pp. 289–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1998b). Codes and consequences: Choosing linguistic varieties. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (2000). What matters: The out of sight in mixed languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(2), 119–121. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (2003). What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (pp. 73–106). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2000a). Four types of morpheme: Evidence from aphasia, code switching, and second-language acquisition. Linguistics, 38(6), 1053–1100. Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2000b). Testing the 4-M model: An introduction. Journal of Bilingualism, 4(1), 1–8. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nordlinger, R. (1998). Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. O’Shannessy, C. (2005). Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 31–57. O’Shannessy, C. (2008). Children’s production of their heritage language and a new mixed language. In J. Simpson & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Children’s language and multilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school (pp. 261–282). New York: Continuum. O’Shannessy, C. (2009). Language variation and change in a north Australian Indigenous community. In D. Preston & J. Stanford (Eds.), Variationist approaches to indigenous minority languages (pp. 419–439). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pakendorf, B. (2009). Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: An E¨ven dialect in contact wiht Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact, 2, 85–110. Sandefur, J. (1979). An Australian Creole in the northern territory: A description of Ngukurr- Bamyili Dialects (Part 1). Darwin: SIL. Sapir, E. (1927). Language. New York. Schultze-Berndt, E. (2002). Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages: Synchronic and diachronic correlates. Yearbook of Morphology, 2003, 145–177. Simpson, J. (1991). Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer. Singh, R. (1982). On some ‘redundant compounds’ in Modern Hindi. Lingua, 56, 345–351. Smith, I., & Paauw, S. (2006). Sri Lanka Malay: Creole or convert. In A. Deumart & S. Durrleman. (Ed.) Structure and variation in language contact (pp. 159–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Speas, M. (1990). Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer. Thomason, S. (1997). Mednyj Aleut. In S. G. Thomason (Ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective (pp. 449–468). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thomason, S. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh, Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press, Georgetown University Press. Thomason, S. (2003). Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (pp. 21–40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Treffers-Daller, J. (1994). Mixing two languages: French-Dutch contact in a comparative perspective Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weinreich, U. (1974 [1953]). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton. Whitney, W. D. (1881). On mixture in language. TAPA, 12, 5–26. Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, USA: Blackwell.

PR OO F

1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257

UN CO RR EC TE D

Author Proof

Borrowing contextual inflection

123 Journal Article No. MS Code

: Small-Ext 11525 : 9163 : JOMO90

Dispatch : 6-5-2010

Pages : 31

h LE h CP

h TYPESET h DISK