LEADER 05492nam 2200685 a 450 001 9910457433203321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-283-32857-7 010 $a9786613328571 010 $a90-272-7941-1 035 $a(CKB)2550000000064143 035 $a(EBL)795709 035 $a(OCoLC)769341884 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001101494 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11710948 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001101494 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11067557 035 $a(PQKB)10981097 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC795709 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL795709 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10509517 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000064143 100 $a19860718d1986 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aSubstrata versus universals in Creole genesis$b[electronic resource] $epapers from the Amsterdam Creole Workshop, April 1985 /$fedited by Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith 210 $aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia $cJ. Benjamins$d1986 215 $a1 online resource (323 p.) 225 1 $aCreole language library ;$vv. 1 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5221-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographies. 327 $aSUBSTRATA VERSUS UNIVERSALS IN CREOLE GENESIS; Editorial page; Title page; Copyright page; Preface; Table of contents; Introduction: Problems in the Identification of Substratum Features in the Creole Languages; Who, What, Where and Why?; The contributions to this volume; Synthesis; REFERENCES; The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis: De?ja? Vu?; REFERENCES; Creoles and West African Languages: a Case of Mistaken Identity?; NOTES; REFERENCES; Bonnet Blanc et Blanc Bonnet: Adjective-Noun Order, Substratum and Language Universals; 1. The problem and some data; 2. Adjective order in Tok Pisin 327 $a3. Substratum vs. other explanations4. Conclusions; NOTES; REFERENCES; Semantic Transparency as a Factor in Creole Genesis; NOTE; REFERENCES; The Domestic Hypothesis, Diffusion and Componentiality. An Account of Atlantic Anglophone Creole Origins; 1. Evidence of a pre-1800 anglophone creole on the Coast; 2. Evidence of long-term British settlement on the Coast; 3. Evidence of domestic unions between Europeans and Africans; 4. Emergence of Creole societies; 5. Role of the grumettoes; 6. Evidence for the age and provenance of Guinea Coast Creole English 327 $a(1) The nature of the English first heard by Africans(2) The linguistic situation in Guinea encountered by the English speakers; (3) The emergence of creolized English from English and African contact; (4) Its further modification by second-language speakers; (5) Its transmission overseas and the development of the Western creoles; 7. Summary; WORKS CONSULTED; Genesisand Development of the Equative Copula in Sranan; 1. The data; 2. The pronominal origin of copular da; 3. The historical development of the equative copula 327 $a4. Substrata and universals in the differentiation of the equative category5. Summary and conclusion; NOTES; APPENDIX: Historical sources used for this study; REFERENCES; The Universalistand Substrate Hypotheses Complement One Another; 1. Why Are We Discussing Only the Universalist and Substrate Hypotheses?; 2. Some High Marks for the Universalist Hypothesis; 3. Is the Substrate Hypothesis All Wrong?; 4. Double Standards regarding Atlantic and Oceanic Pidgins and Creoles?; 5. Couple of Relevant Miscellanea; NOTES; REFERENCES; Universals, Substrata and the Indian Ocean Creoles 327 $a1. Demography and the evolution of Reu and IdF2. Agglutination; 3. The predicate marker system in IdF and other Creoles; 4. An example of Indo-Aryan syntactic influence in Mauritian Creole; 5. Concluding remarks; NOTES; ANNEXE 1; BIBLIOGRAPHY; DoubleNegationand the Genesis of Afrikaans; 1. Preliminary considerations; 2. Afrikaans and other languages once spoken at the Cape; 2.1. Introductory remarks; 2.2. Various views on the development of Afrikaans (Hesseling e.a.); 2.3. The linguistic situation at the Cape from a historical point of view; 2.4. Consequences for research 327 $a3. Double negation in Afrikaans 330 $aTwo of the most prominent hypotheses about why the structures of the Creole languages of the Atlantic and the Pacific differ are the universalist and he substrate hypotheses. The universalist hypothesis claims, essentially, that the particular grammatical properties of Creole languages directly reflect universal aspects of the human language capacity, and thus Creole genesis involves, then, the stripping away of the accretions of language history. The substrate hypothesis claims, on the other hand, that creole genesis results from the confrontation of two systems, the native languages of the c 410 0$aCreole language library ;$vv. 1. 606 $aCreole dialects$vCongresses 606 $aSubstratum (Linguistics)$vCongresses 606 $aLinguistic universals$vCongresses 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aCreole dialects 615 0$aSubstratum (Linguistics) 615 0$aLinguistic universals 676 $a417/.2 701 $aMuysken$b Pieter$0152040 701 $aSmith$b Norval$0156649 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910457433203321 996 $aSubstrata versus universals in Creole genesis$92151707 997 $aUNINA