Social entrenchment influences the amount of areal borrowing in contact languages

Abstract

Aims and objectives: Social factors in language contact are not well understood. This study seeks to establish and explain the role of social entrenchment in the evolution of contact languages. It also aims to contribute to a broader perspective on areality that can account for social and linguistic factors in contact outcomes involving all languages present in multilingual ecologies, including contact languages. Methodology: The copula system was singled out for a detailed analysis. A corpus of primary data of the three African English-lexifier contact languages, Pichi, Cameroon Pidgin, and Ghanaian Pidgin, their ancestor Krio, and of their African adstrates (Bube, Mokpe, Akan) and European superstrates (Spanish, English) was investigated and compared. Data and analysis: Relevant features were selected for a dissimilarity matrix. A quantitative analysis was done with SplitsTree4. The resulting distance matrix and phylogenetic network were investigated for signals of genealogical transmission and areal diffusion and interpreted on their social background. Findings/conclusions: The copula systems of the three contact languages carry a genealogical signal of their ancestor Krio as well as an areal signal from the adstrates and superstrates spoken in their respective ecologies. The amount of areal borrowing increases in the order Pichi < Cameroon Pidgin < Ghanaian Pidgin, reflective of the depth of social entrenchment of each variety from left to right. Originality: Previous studies do not describe the copula systems of the English-lexifier contact languages of Africa and the Caribbean at a similar level of granularity and mostly focus on their emergence during creolization. This study attempts to explain their subsequent areal differentiation and links it to differences in social ecologies. Significance/implications: Areal borrowing can lead to significant departures from genealogically inherited structures within a short time if social entrenchment is shallow. Conversely, even languages of wider communication can remain remarkably stable if social entrenchment is deep.

The indigenization of Ghanaian Pidgin English

“…(32) below). In other WAPs this is also the case for dé but not for the nominal copula (Ayafor & Green, 2017;Mazzoli, 2013;Yakpo, 2022).…”

“…The clause featuring bì ‘ cop’ in (17) and the clause in (18) featuring dé ‘be at’ are both specified for −factative by the potential mood marker gò ‘ pot.’ Both forms are freely combinable with TAM markers and the negative particle nó , contrary to equivalent forms in Akan (see (31) and (32) below). In other WAPs this is also the case for dé but not for the nominal copula (Ayafor & Green, 2017; Mazzoli, 2013; Yakpo, 2022). À (nó) gò bì lɔ́yà. 1sg.sbj neg pot cop lawyer‘One day, I'll (not) be a lawyer.’ (Ghanaian Pidgin) À (nó) gò dé Hǒ mòró. 1sg.sbj neg pot be.at place tomorrow‘I'll (not) be in Ho tomorrow.’ (Ghanaian Pidgin) Ghanaian Pidgin is an aspect and mood‐prominent language like Akan and the other Kwa languages of Ghana (Ameka & Kropp Dakubu, 2008) as well as all WAP and Krio varieties (Faraclas, 1987; Yakpo, 2019, pp.…”

“…For example, to my knowledge Naijá does not use 'make' with nominal and property lexemes although speakers of Yoruba, one of its main adstrates, employ 'make' for these purposes (Sachnine, 1997). One possible cause is that Ghanaian Pidgin is characterized by a shallower 'social entrenchment' (Yakpo, 2022). Ghanaian Pidgin does not function as a vernacular (home) language, contrary to all other WAPs.…”

“…Huber (1999, pp. 234–236) dedicates a section to copula expression in Ghanaian Pidgin and Yakpo (2022) discusses aspects of the system in comparison with other varieties of West African Pidgin and Krio. No previous study has, however, dealt with Pidgin copulas at a similar level of detail as the present one, nor interpreted the system in the context of the broader areal typology and language ecology of Ghana.…”