2011. Borrowing contextual inflection: evidence from northern Australia

1 23

Morphology ISSN 1871-5621Volume 21Number 1 Morphology (2010) 21:57-87DOI 10.1007/s11525-010-9163-4

Borrowing contextual inflection: evidencefrom northern Australia

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright andall rights are held exclusively by SpringerScience+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprintis for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If youwish to self-archive your work, please use theaccepted author’s version for posting to yourown website or your institution’s repository.You may further deposit the accepted author’sversion on a funder’s repository at a funder’srequest, provided it is not made publiclyavailable until 12 months after publication.

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

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

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

123

Morphology (2011) 21:57–87DOI 10.1007/s11525-010-9163-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Borrowing contextual inflection: evidencefrom northern Australia

Felicity Meakins

Received: 01 January 2010 / Accepted: 23 April 2010 / Published online: 5 June 2010! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Author's personal copy

AbbreviationsABL AblativeALL AllativeAUX AuxiliaryCOM ComitativeDAT DativeDU DualDYAD Kinship pairERG ErgativeFOC FocusFUT FutureIMPF ImperfectINC InclusiveLOC LocativeNEG NegativeO ObjectOBL ObliquePAUC PaucalPERF PerfectPL PluralPROG ProgressivePRS PresentPST PastQN Question nominalS SubjectSG SingularTAG Tag questionTOP TopicTR Transitive1 First person2 Second person3 Third person- Morpheme break= Clitic break> Acting on

1 Introduction

Inflectional morphology has a special status in studies of language contact. Incomparison with other lexical or morphological material, the transfer of inflectionalmorphology 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

58 F. Meakins

123


by degree. Similar restrictions seem to apply to inflectional morphology in both ofthese contact processes. It always occupies the lowest rung on borrowability hier-archies (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2007; Gardani 2008; Heath 1978; Matras and Sakel2007; Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Weinreich 1974[1953]) and is rarely insertedinto 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 inflec-tional borrowings in European languages, Gardani (2008) observes numerouscases where inflectional morphemes have been borrowed and are used produc-tively on native words in the recipient language. Whilst Gardani observes that thistype of borrowing is possible albeit rare, he suggests that the distinction betweencontextual and inherent inflection (cf. Booij 1994, 1996, 2007) is relevant indetermining the likelihood of transfer. In Gardani’s study, inherent inflectionssuch as number and gender marking on nouns and TAM marking on verbs whichare not sensitive to syntactic context are more frequently borrowed than contex-tual inflections which include structural cases in the NP, and person, number andgender marking on verbs. Indeed this observation is borne out in other cross-linguistic studies of transferability (e.g. Aikhenvald and Dixon 2007; Matras andSakel 2007).

Gurindji Kriol, a mixed language spoken in northern Australia, presents acounter-example to Gardani’s generalisation. The structure and lexicon of GurindjiKriol is based on two distinct sources—(i) Gurindji which is a highly endangeredmember of the Ngumpin-Yapa subgroup of the Pama-Nyungan family (McConvell1996); and (ii) Kriol which is an English-lexifier creole language spoken acrossnorthern Australia (Hudson 1983a; Munro 2000; Sandefur 1979). Gurindji-derivedcase-markers including contextual inflections such as ergative and dative suffixeshave been transferred wholesale into a Kriol grammatical frame. The result is astructural split between the NP and VP systems. Kriol marks verbal inflectionalcategories, including tense and mood auxiliaries, and transitive and aspect mor-phemes; and Gurindji provides the nominal frame, including derivational mor-phology 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, 2010). This degree of mixing has resulted in acomposite morpho-syntactic frame which cannot be described as predominantlyGurindji or Kriol, hence its categorisation as a mixed language.

An example of this composite structure is given below. Gurindji case markersincluding ergative, dative and locative suffixes and a dative pronoun are found in thesame 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, inplain font. The case-markers under investigation are bolded.

(1) 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.’’

Borrowing contextual inflection 59

123


This example demonstrates the degree to which Gurindji-derived case markers haveintegrated into the mixed language clause. The use of inflection is completelyproductive and does not depend on the language of the stem. For example, in (1), theGurindji-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 foran ergative subject. Regular Kriol is a nominative-accusative language, yet inGurindji Kriol, Kriol-derived ditransitive and transitive verbs are found withergative-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 languagecontact. Although the case forms are derived from Gurindji, they do not perfectlyreplicate 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 isobligatory in Gurindji and has also acquired discourse functions in Gurindji Kriol(Meakins 2009; Meakins and O’Shannessy 2010).

The aim of this paper is two-fold—(i) to provide an explanation for the transfer ofGurindji case-marking into a Kriol verbal frame (Sect. 3.3), and (ii) to discussfunctional and distributional changes in the case-marking which have occurred in theprocess of transfer (Sect. 4). First I demonstrate that the transfer of the Gurindji caseparadigm was the result of pervasive code-switching practices between Gurindji andKriol 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 waspresent, though only found on Gurindji nominal adjuncts. I label these nominalstrojan horse structures because they aided the transfer of case-marking into the Kriolmatrix language without the conscious decision of speakers, as often occurs inborrowing or code-switching. Once the case-marking was present in the mix, it wasextended to nouns of Kriol origin and the case-marked nominals were integrated intothe predicate argument structure of the Gurindji Kriol clause. This process created a‘composite’ matrix language (cf. Myers-Scotton 2003): one where both Gurindji andKriol contributed to the structure of the clause. The mixed language today is char-acterised 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 orderaltered the function and distribution of these case markers, and continuing contactwith Kriol has ensured more influence. This paper examines four case-markers indifferent functional domains in Gurindji Kriol—locative marking and inanimategoals (Sect. 4.1); dative marking and possessive constructions (Sect. 4.2); ergativemarking and argument disambiguation (Sect. 4.3); and dative marking and animategoals and indirect objects (Sect. 4.4).

The Gurindji Kriol data are drawn from my corpus of 80 hours of recordings ofpeer and child-directed conversation, free and picture-prompt narrative (e.g. Frogstories) and picture-match elicitation games. The Gurindji examples come frommy corpus of 23 hours of procedural and narrative texts and McConvell’s (1996)sketch grammar of Gurindji. Kriol data are drawn from some of my fewrecordings of the Kriol variety spoken west of Katherine (see Fig. 1), andSandefur’s (1979) Kriol grammar and Munro’s (2005) thesis which are based on

60 F. Meakins

123


Roper River Kriol, a variety found east of Katherine. Additional Kriol materialcomes from Diwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation (see acknowledgements).Finally the Gurindji–Kriol code-switching data from the 1970s were collected byPatrick McConvell.

I begin by placing the transfer of the Gurindji case paradigm into the context ofcross-linguistic studies of inflectional morphology and transfer.

2 Inflectional morphology and transfer

The status of inflectional morphology in studies of borrowing and code-switching hasreceived much attention due to the apparent difficulty in transferring this type ofmorphology into another language. For example various cross-linguistic surveys oflanguages in contact have produced borrowability scales or hierarchies based onthe relative in/ability of lexical and grammatical material to be borrowed (Haugen1950; Matras 2007; Moravcsik 1978; Muysken 1981a; Singh 1982; Whitney 1881).Instances of lexical borrowings are abundant compared with grammatical borrow-ings 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 identifythe dominant language of code-switching (Klavans 1983; Myers-Scotton 1993a;Treffers-Daller 1994), and structural constraints on code-switching often include aprohibition of ‘inflectional switches’, that is switches involving transfers of inflec-tional morphology (Muysken 2000; Myers-Scotton 2002). This section examines thiswork and then looks more closely at the behaviour of a specific type of inflectionalmorphology which has been called contextual inflection in the more general mor-phological literature (cf. Booij 1994, 1996, 2007) and late system morphemes in thecode-switching literature (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, b).

The study of transfer patterns and constraints began as early as 1881 with Whitneywho created a hierarchy of borrowing according to grammatical categories. Nounswere considered the most susceptible to borrowing, followed by other parts of speech,suffixes, inflections and finally sounds (Whitney 1881). In this scale, Whitney did notpreclude the possibility of borrowing inflectional morphology, however he did sug-gest that it was extremely unlikely. Similar views were expressed later (see e.g. Sapir1927). In particular, Haugen (1950) conducted a study of borrowings in Norwegianand Swedish in the United States and found that nouns were the least resistant toborrowing followed by verbs, adjectives and interjections. He did not include mor-phology on this scale, however he concluded that ‘‘the more structural a feature is, theless likely it is to be borrowed’’ (1950, p. 225). Singh’s (1982) study of Englishborrowings into Hindi also produced a similar hierarchy: nouns[adjec-tives[verbs[prepositions, as did Muysken’s (1981b) study of Spanish borrowingsinto Quechua. Muysken’s scale is more detailed but reflects the patterns of previousscales, 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 finalborrowing scale can be found in the work of Thomason and Kaufman (1988).


123


Their scale differs from others before them in that it is based on the degree of contactrather than structural features, nonetheless it correlates very neatly with previousobservations about the degree of borrowing of structural features. Under Thomasonand Kaufman’s (1988, pp. 37–47) model, extensive and prolonged communitybilingualism is considered a necessary condition for borrowing structural elements ofa language, such as inflectional morphology.

The borrowing scales discussed above are frequency-based, that is they are basedon the number of lexical or grammatical borrowings observed within particularsituations of language contact. Other hierarchies posit an implicational relationshipbetween categories where one linguistic category can only be borrowed if anotherhas already been borrowed. An example of this type of scale comes from a study ofborrowability which was included in Greenberg’s language universals program.Moravcsik (1978) posits six constraints on borrowing which constitute an impli-cational hierarchy. She suggests that non-lexical items will not be borrowed unlesssome lexical items have already been borrowed (lexical[functional), borrowedlexical items such as verbs will only be observed in a language if borrowed nounsare already present (nouns[other lexical items), and that ‘‘no inflectional affixes canbelong to the set of properties borrowed from a language unless at least one deri-vational affix also belongs to the set’’ (derivational>inflectional) (1978, p. 112).Again, Moravcsik does not exclude the possibility of borrowing inflectional mor-phology, 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) notionof the Matrix Language and the 4-M model has been influential in constraint-basedtheories of code-switching. The Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model of code-switching deals specifically with the behaviour of different types of morphemes incode-switching, and in particular, inflectional morphology. This model is based ontwo oppositions—the matrix language versus the embedded language, and contentversus system morphemes. The matrix language is the dominant language which setsthe grammatical frame for the code-switching, and the embedded language contrib-utes content morphemes within this frame (1998a, p. 291). Myers-Scotton dividesmorphemes into content and system morphemes, which basically match the lexicaland grammatical categories discussed in the work on borrowing. Content morphemesparticipate in the thematic grid of the utterance. They assign or receive thematic roles,where systemmorphemes do not (1993b, pp. 98–99). Prototypical examples are nounsand verbs. System morphemes are more functional in nature and include inflectionalmorphology. Within this morphological framework, Myers-Scotton (1993a, p. 83)predicts that all system morphemes and therefore inflectional morphology will onlycome from the matrix language in code-switching.1 This constraint is called theSystem Morpheme Principle. Myers-Scotton’s predictions about the behaviour ofinflectional morphology in code-switching is largely upheld by data. In her ownwork on Swahili-English code-switching she finds that, where Swahili is the matrix

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

62 F. Meakins

123


language, only English content words are inserted into a grammatical frame whichconsists of Swahili inflectional affixes. Muysken (2000, pp. 155–156) observessimilar patterns of mixing between Dutch and various languages including Malay,Sranan, Chinese and Turkish which act asmatrix languages. On the whole, Dutch onlycontributes content words to these code-switching combinations.

Despite the predictions made by borrowing hierarchies and code-switchingconstraints, the transfer of inflectional morphology has been observed and thesecases require some explanation. For example, verb inflections can be borrowed.Mednyj Aleut (Mednyj Island, Bering Strait) has copied the entire Russian finiteverbal morphology including portmanteau morphemes which express tense, numberand person (Thomason 1997, pp. 457–459). The extent of this borrowing has led toits classification as a mixed language. Pakendorf (2009) describes a less dramaticcase where Sebjan-Kuol Even (Siberia) has borrowed the Sakha assertive-pre-sumptive mood paradigm plus associated subject agreement suffixes. Cases whereverb inflection has been transferred can also be found in situations of code-switching. Muysken (2000, pp. 173–176) finds that past and present participle formsare often switched although they tend to come from the same language as theinserted verb.

Inflectional transfer also occurs within the nominal domain. For example, it is notuncommon to find cases of plural marker borrowings which have been extended tonon-native words. Gardani (2008) gives a number of examples of borrowings of thistype between Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages such as Turkishplural 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 tobe switched, although in most of these cases, the plural marker accompaniesthe noun from the embedded language and does not mark nouns from the matrixlanguage.

What remains unusual is the transference of case morphology. In a cross-lin-guistic study of 27 pairs of languages, Matras (2007, p. 42) finds no instances wherecase-markers are borrowed, although equivalent functional categories which aremarked by adpositions are susceptible to borrowing. In this respect the manner bywhich particular functions are expressed rather than the function itself seems to beat issue. Nonetheless some instances of this type of borrowing do exist. GurindjiKriol is one such exception with the borrowing of case morphology into Kriol(Sect. 3.2). Similarly Light Warlpiri (Australia) has borrowed the complete Warlpiricase marking paradigm into Kriol (along with significant lexical material and der-ivational morphology), and has been also classified as a mixed language as a result(Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005, 2010; O’Shannessy 2005, 2008, 2009). Sri LankaMalay presents a different but related case where a trade variety of Malay hasdeveloped case suffixes from Malay prepositions as a result of contact with Tamiland 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 astructure from Tamil and Sinhala while maintaining the native phonologicalmaterial.


123


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

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 todiscern function), and the

5. Analogical freedom from other morphemic systems in the same language

These constraints describe the conditions under which inflectional morphology maybe transferred from one language to another. What they do not explain is whydifferent 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 morphemeinteracts with other parts of the grammar may hold some clues as to the differencesin borrowability. He uses Booij’s (1994, 1996, 2007) distinction between contextualand inherent morphology to make this point. Contextual morphology is determinedby the syntactic contexts in which it occurs. Its role is to mark the relationshipbetween a head and a dependent in a syntactic relationship of either government oragreement. Structural case is a good example. Where a language marks case, theverb assigns case to its arguments (subject, object and indirect object). Another typeof case, semantic case, belongs to the category of inherent inflection. This type ofinflection is determined by the information a speaker wishes to convey and isexemplified by local case markers such as the locative, allative and ablative.Gardani (2008) suggests that inherent morphology is more likely to be borrowedthan contextual morphology because it is not dependent on other parts of thegrammar.

A similar intuition can be found in Myers-Scotton’s 4-M model. Her functionalcategory of morpheme which she calls a system morpheme is further divided intoearly and late system morphemes. Early system morphemes do not assign or receivethematic roles, however they pattern with the content, adding extra meaning to thehead of a phrase. These morphemes also depend on the head of their maximalprojection for their syntactic role (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, p. 1063).Examples of early system morphemes in English include the determiner and theplural marker (Myers-Scotton 2003, p. 77). In this respect, inherent inflectionswould belong in Myers-Scotton’s category of early system morpheme. Late systemmorphemes do not convey conceptual information, rather grammatical informationis contained in these morphemes. Crucially they are structurally assigned outside oftheir maximal projections to indicate relations between elements in the CP ratherthan lower level phrases. There are two different types of late system morphemes:

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.

64 F. Meakins

123


bridge system morphemes and outsider system morphemes. The difference betweenthese two morphemes lies in where they receive their assignment. Bridge systemmorphemes depend on information from within their immediate maximal projec-tion, whereas outsider system morphemes rely on a source outside of their imme-diate maximal projections (Myers-Scotton 2003, pp. 78–79). Examples fromEnglish of bridge system morphemes are the expletive it, and of in possessiveconstructions such as the foot of the hill. Outsider system morphemes include whatBooij calls contextual inflection, for example subject–verb agreement markers andcase morphology (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2000a, pp. 1065–1066). Myers-Scottonmakes predictions for code-switching that are similar to the ones that Gardani makesfor borrowing. She suggests that system morphemes, particularly outsider systemmorphemes such as case-marking are blocked from participating in code-switchingbecause they rely on the larger syntactic context.

The predictions made by Gardani and Myers-Scotton about inflectional mor-phology must be considered probabilistic rather than absolute. Clearly this type ofinflectional morphology can be transferred given particular circumstances, as isshown by Heath’s examples of case marking transfer and the presence of case-marking in the two Australian mixed languages Gurindji Kriol and Light Warlpiri.Additionally the transfer of person numbering with other verb inflections seen inMednyj Aleut and Sebjan-Kuol Even may also be considered cases of contextualinflection or late system morpheme transfer. Given that this type of transfer is rarebut can occur, the circumstances of transfer must be considered. The rest of thispaper is a case study of Gurindji Kriol and the wholesale borrowing of Gurindjicase-marking into Kriol. The linguistic practices at the time of contact are shown tobe important to this contact story, as is the grammatical status of case-markednominals.

3 Gurindji Kriol

3.1 Background

Gurindji Kriol is spoken by Gurindji people who live in northern Australia atKalkaringi and Daguragu which are Aboriginal communities located within thetraditional lands of the Gurindji. Gurindji Kriol has also spread north to Pigeon Holeand Yarralin which are home to Bilinarra and Ngarinyman people predominantly.Traditionally they were speakers of Bilinarra and Ngarinyman, which are mutuallyintelligible with Gurindji. These communities are shown in Fig. 1.

Gurindji Kriol is the main language of younger people at Kalkaringi. It is beingacquired by children rather than traditional Gurindji and it is used by all peopleunder the age of approximately 35 years as their main everyday language. Gurindjiis 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. Kriolis increasingly the first language of most Aboriginal people across northernAustralia except in large parts of Arnhem Land and the Daly River region wheretraditional languages remain strong (see Fig. 1). All Gurindji people speak Kriol to


123


varying extents when they visit Kriol-speaking areas to the north, for exampleKatherine and Timber Creek (see Fig. 1). Standard Australian English is the lan-guage of the school, media and government services but it plays little role inpeople’s home lives (Meakins, 2008a, pp. 287–295).

Gurindji Kriol is derived from contact between non-indigenous colonisers andthe Gurindji people. From the early 1900s onwards, Gurindji people were put towork on cattle stations in slave-like conditions. The lingua franca of the cattlestations was an English-based pidgin which was brought by the colonisers and

Fig. 1 Kalkaringi and surrounding area

66 F. Meakins

123


imported Aboriginal labour from more eastern cattle stations. The station ownersand Aboriginal workforce used this pidgin to communicate with each other, how-ever the communicative domain of the pidgin shifted to be used amongst theGurindji and it is likely that it nativised in this context. This process occurred onmany stations and missions across northern Australia and these nativised forms ofpidgin English are now known collectively as ‘Kriol’. In many of these situations,Kriol became the main language of Aboriginal groups, replacing the traditionallanguages (Meakins 2008b). In the case of the Gurindji, a mixed language emerged.McConvell (1988) observed that in the 1970s, code-switching between Kriol andGurindji had become the dominant language practice of Gurindji people (see alsoSect. 3.3). Thirty years later these mixing practices have stabilised into an auton-omous language system (McConvell 2008; McConvell and Meakins 2005; Meakins2007). The youth of Gurindji Kriol, McConvell’s documentation of linguisticpractices of Gurindji people at the time of genesis and the richly documented socio-political history of Gurindji people all provide excellent empirical evidence fortheories of language contact processes such as borrowing, code-switching, mixedlanguage formation and the nativisation of linguistic codes.

3.2 Inflectional morphology in Gurindji Kriol

The result of the fusion between Gurindji and Kriol is a language which is lexicallyand structurally very mixed. In terms of the lexicon, Gurindji provides words forbody parts, plants, traditional artefacts, motion, bodily functions and impact. Wordsfor basic verbs, colours, higher numerals and modern artefacts are derived fromKriol. Both languages contribute words for people, kin, food, animals and lowernumerals. For example, in the domain of kinship terms, Gurindji contributes thewords for grandparents, siblings, cousins and in-law relations while Kriol contrib-utes words for mother, father, aunt, uncle, husband and wife. In some cases, syn-onymous forms also exist, for example speakers use both fij (\Kriol) and yawu(\Gurindji) for ‘fish’, and baitim (\Kriol) and katurl (\Gurindji) for ‘bite’. Thislevel of mixing is also reflected in the structure. Word order, TAM markers,negation, pronouns, interrogative pronouns, determiners, coordinate conjunctionsand relative pronouns are derived from Kriol. Gurindji contributes inflectional andderivational morphology in the nominal domain, emphatic and possessive pronouns,demonstratives, subordinate structures, interjections and directionals (Meakins toappear). Kriol and Gurindji elements in the mixed language also maintain thephonological inventories and processes of their source language. For example Kriol-derived words maintain a five vowel system and Gurindji-derived words, a threevowel contrast (Jones et al. in progress). The end result is a language which is somixed that no clear historical lineage is apparent. It is not clear whether to regardGurindji Kriol as a daughter of Gurindji or a daughter of Kriol. In this respect it canbe classified as a mixed language (Thomason 2001, 2003; Thomason and Kaufman1988).

Of particular interest to this paper is the presence of Gurindji inflectional mor-phology within a Kriol verbal frame. This division of labour between nominal andverbal systems has also been observed in Michif which is a French-Cree mixed


123


language spoken in Canada (Bakker 1997) and Light Warlpiri which is a Warlpiri-Kriol/English mixed language spoken in Lajamanu, an Australian Aboriginal com-munity close to Kalkaringi (Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005, 2010; O’Shannessy2008, 2009, also see Fig. 1). Bakker (2003, p. 124) calls these types of mixed lan-guages V–N mixed languages. They are rare: most mixed languages exhibit a splitbetween the grammar and lexicon. For example, Media Lengua is a mixed languagespoken in Central Ecuador where the morpho-syntactic frame of the language isessentially Quechua and therefore agglutinating, but with around 90% of its stemsreplaced by Spanish forms (Muysken 1981b, 1997).

In the case of Gurindji Kriol, Kriol provides the verb architecture. Someinflectional morphology is apparent including transitive and aspect suffixes, but amajority of verb syntax is marked by free morphemes, including tense and moodauxiliaries. Gurindji-derived case morphology including ergative, dative, comita-tive, locative, allative and ablative suffixes shapes the nominal structure. Thecomposite nature of the morpho-syntax of Gurindji Kriol is further demonstrated bythe ease with which lexical material from one language is integrated into the syn-tactic domain of the other language. For example, although Gurindji provides thecase morphology, nouns may be of Kriol origin.3 Similarly verbs from Gurindji arefully integrated into the Kriol morpho-syntactic frame. Moreover Kriol-derivedtransitive verbs can subcategorise for an ergative-marked subject, despite beingderived from a nominative-accusative language. The following excerpt of GurindjiKriol exemplifies this composite structure:4

(2) (FM07_a041: LS: Narrative: GK)5

(a) det 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.’’

(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.’’

(c) karu bin jik tetul-jawung nyila-ngka-rni bakit-tachild PST emerge turtle-COM that-LOC-only bucket-LOC

‘‘The kid appeared with the turtle right in that bucket.’’

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 theergative marker. Kriol-derived stems were just as likely to receive ergative marking as Gurindji-derivedstems.4 The Gurindji elements are given in italics, and plain font is used for Kriol elements. Bolded elements arethe case-markers under investigation.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 orKriol). Picture elicitation was elicitation performed by Gurindji research assistants using picture prompttasks. A number of narratives were told to the ‘Frog, where are you?’ book (Mayer 1994 [1969]) which iswell known from many other studies. These examples are referenced as ‘Frog story’.

68 F. Meakins

123


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

(e) dei gubek na Jetulmen-ta3PL return FOC Kalkaringi-LOC

‘‘They return to Kalkaringi now.’’

(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.’’

This example demonstrates the way in which Gurindji-derived case markers havefused with the Kriol verbal frame in Gurindji Kriol. Although Kriol is a rela-tively uninflected language, inflectional categories such as tense are markedusing Kriol forms, for example bin (past). Also in evidence are the Gurindji-derived ergative, locative, dative and comitative case suffixes. The presence ofthe 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 areinherent inflections present in the form of locative, allative and ablative case-marking, but also contextual inflections including ergative and dative casemarkers. Both of these case-markers are subcategorised for by a verb (or anominal in the case of dative marking in possessive constructions) and in thisrespect their presence is reliant on the syntax of the clause rather than theirimmediate environment.

Despite the presence of these case markers, they are not direct replicas of thecase-markers found in Gurindji. For example, where the ergative marker isobligatory for all subjects of transitive clauses in Gurindji, it is only variablyapplied in Gurindji Kriol. As shown in (2a) and (2b), the same clause is repeatedbut the ergative marker is only used in the second instance where the subject ispostverbal. The locative marker also shows some shift. In Gurindji, locativemarking is restricted to locative expressions and an allative marker is used tomark goals, however in Gurindji Kriol the locative marker is increasingly beingused to mark goals as well as locations by teenage speakers. A final example ofthe imperfect replication of Gurindji case markers in Gurindji Kriol can be foundin dative marking and possessive constructions. Gurindji distinguishes betweeninalienable and alienable possessive constructions. Alienable nouns are relatedusing the dative marker and inalienable nouns such as body parts are relatedthrough simple juxtaposition with no overt marking. In Gurindji Kriol, thisdistinction has been lost in the speech of teenagers. All possessive construc-tions are marked dative including inalienable relations. For example, in (2f)above, the relationship between the child and his hand is expressed with a dativesuffix.


123


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

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

Given the fragility of inflectional morphology in situations of language contact, inparticular contextual inflection, the question is how the Gurindji case paradigmcame to be present in a Kriol verb frame. In this section I argue that the individualgrammars of Gurindji and Kriol were brought into close contact through pervasivecode-switching practices, and it is in the patterns of code-switching that thedevelopment of the composite morphosyntactic structure of the Gurindji Kriol canbe found. This section uses evidence from code-switching to suggest the mecha-nisms by which the structure of Gurindji Kriol emerged.

McConvell (1985, 1988) observes that code-switching between Kriol andGurindji was the dominant language practice of Gurindji people in the 1970s, andMcConvell and Meakins (2005) argue that Gurindji Kriol found its origins in thiscode-switching. In this respect, clues for the source of Gurindji-derived case-marking and its integration into the clause structure of Gurindji Kriol can be foundin the patterns of the 1970s code-switching. The code-switching from the 1970sused both Gurindji and Kriol as the grammatical frame of switching, that is thematrix 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 verbinflection is identified as the matrix language: in the case of Gurindji, this is theinflecting verb8 and in the case of Kriol these are the free TAM markers andprogressive inflection.9 Code-switching occurs when elements from the other

6 It must be noted that as well as functional and distributional changes, the Gurindji case-markers haveundergone allomorphic reduction which is common to situations of language shift. The ergative andlocative case markers in Gurindji have seven allomorphs. Two allomorphs are associated with the vowel-final stems and depend on the number of syllables in the stem. The remaining five allomorphs attach toconsonant-final stems and distinguish place of articulation: peripheral (bilabial or velar), coronal, palataland retroflex; and manner: liquid. Gurindji Kriol has reduced this system to a two-way distinctionbetween consonant and vowel-final stems. Dative, allative and ablative case markers show less dramaticallomorphic 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).7 The ‘matrix’ language is essentially the same as the term ‘recipient’ language which is used in theborrowing literature.8 The Gurindji verb is a complex predicate which consists of two verbs: (i) an obligatory inflecting verbwhich is semantically-bleached and provides TAM information, and (ii) an optional uninflected verb calleda coverb which provides the main semantics of the complex predicate (McConvell 1994, 1996; Meakins2010). 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).9 The Kriol VP consists of one or two auxiliary verbs which express TAM categories and a main verbwhich may be marked for transitivity and aspect (Hudson 1983b; Meakins 2010; Munro 2000; Sandefur1979).

70 F. Meakins

123


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

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

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

In (3) the matrix language is identified as Gurindji on the basis of verbal inflectionkarrwa-rnana (have-PRS.IMPER). The object nominal pokitnaif (pocket-knife) isinserted into this Gurindji matrix. (4) demonstrates the opposite where Kriolcan be identified as the matrix language due to the presence of the Kriol pasttense marker bin. A Gurindji direct object kartak-walija (buckets) is insertedinto 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 andMeakins (2005, p. 19) show that 73% of mixed utterances used Kriol as the matrixlanguage such as was shown in (4). Indeed, Kriol became the basis of the VP in themixed language with Gurindji verbal inflection now never found. Yet even whereKriol provided the verbal frame for code-switching, Gurindji case morphology wasnot blocked, though blocking would be predicted by Myers-Scotton’s (2002) Sys-tem Morpheme Principle (Sect. 2). Thus the presence of Gurindji case morphologywas already unusual in the 1970s given the predictions of the System MorphemePrinciple (and indeed most borrowing hierarchies). Examples below show the use ofan ergative marker marking a transitive subject in (5), dative markers marking anindirect object in (6) and an allative marker marking a goal complement in (7).

(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)

(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)

(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)


123


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

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

Yet differences between the code-switching and mixed language are apparent.Despite the close resemblance of the code-switching and mixed language, GurindjiKriol is not merely code-switching. Arguments for its status as an autonomouslanguage system include the high level of inter-speaker consistency, acquisition bychildren, the development of unique forms and independent development ofGurindji 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 code-switching and the mixed language that the development of the composite morpho-syntactic frame can be surmised. First, the behaviour of case-marked nominals inGurindji–Kriol code-switching where a Kriol matrix language is used differs subtlyfrom equivalents found in the mixed language. Case-marked nominals are non-obligatory in both the mixed language and the code-switching but, where theyoccur 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) aboveand subjects of intransitive clauses) which do not occur with co-referentialpronouns. The problem seems to be one of typological congruence. Kriol providesthe matrix language and Kriol nominals are not case-marked. In this respect, non-case-marked Gurindji nominals are typologically congruent to Kriol nominals andcan be directly inserted into the matrix clause, as shown in (4). On the other hand,Gurindji case-marked nominals (subjects of transitive clauses, indirect objects) arenot congruent with Kriol nominals and are blocked from the clause as a result.

Nonetheless Gurindji case-marked nominals were not excluded from the code-switching. Instead theywere incorporated into code-switched clauses using an adjunctstructure which closely mimics the structure of Gurindji. Nominals in non-configu-rational languages, such as Gurindji, are argued to have the status of adjuncts ratherthan arguments in the generative literature. A number of properties of these languagesprovide evidence for this argument—pragmatically determined word order, discon-tinuous noun phrases, and the common omission of nominals coupled with theobligatory presence of bound pronouns. In this respect, bound pronouns are consideredthe true arguments of a clause (Jelinek 1984; Laughren 1988, 1989; Speas 1990).10

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

72 F. Meakins

123


These features also apply to the code-switched clauses even where Kriol providesthe matrix language. For example in (5), ngaji-rlang-kulu (father and son) is cross-referenced by the pronoun yutubala (you two), and the presence of the case-markednominal is not required for the grammaticality of the clause. Many case-markednominals are still found in these adjunct structures in themixed language. For instance,55% of all ergative-marked transitive subjects have co-referential pronouns, as shownin (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 argumentstructure of the mixed language clause. The result is a ‘composite’ matrix languagewhere both Gurindji and Kriol contribute structural features to the clauses. Forexample in (10)warlaku (dog) can be analysed as the argument of the verb, because noco-referential pronoun is present.

(9) an warlaku-ngku i bin bait-im det marluka wartan-ta.and dog-ERG 3SG.S PST bite-TR the old.man hand-LOC‘‘And the dog (it) bit the old man on the hand.’’(FHM082: AC: Elicitation pictures: GK)

(10) warlaku-ngku bait-im im marluka fut-ta.dog-ERG bite-TR 3SG.O old.man foot-LOC‘‘The dog bites the old man on the foot.’’(FHM072: AR: Picture elicitation: GK)

Another important point of difference between the behaviour of case-marking incode-switching and in the mixed language is the use of Gurindji case-marking onKriol nouns. As was discussed in Sects. 1 and 3.2, there are no restrictions oncombinations of Kriol stems and Gurindji case marking in the mixed language. Forexample, in (11), a Kriol transitive subject man (man) is found with a Gurindjiergative marker and a Kriol noun jiya (chair) takes a Gurindji locative marker in thefinal NP.

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

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. WhereKriol nouns are found, Kriol prepositions are used instead. For example in (12), theKriol noun sheid (shade) is not marked with a Gurindji locative marker, insteadthe Kriol locative preposition langa is used.

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


123


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

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

4 Changes in case marking in Gurindji Kriol

Section 3.3 provided the first part of the contact story with regards to Gurindji-derived case markers and their role in the development of the composite morpho-syntactic frame which characterises Gurindji Kriol. The second part of thisdevelopmental story involves changes in their distribution and function which haveoccurred during this process of integration and after. The result is that the casemarkers present in Gurindji Kriol are not carbon copies of their Gurindji sources. Iargue that these changes are the result of contact and competition with Kriolfunctional equivalents such as prepositions and word order.

Changes in the form and function of the Gurindji-derived case-markers can beseen across the different generations of Gurindji Kriol speakers. As was dis-cussed in Sect. 3.1, this mixed language is only around 30 years old, therefore itseems reasonable to hypothesise that nativisation occurred within the generationof adults who are now in their 30s. In their speech, the full paradigm of Gurindjicase-markers can be observed, with their functionality largely reflecting thatfound in Gurindji, with a notable exception of the ergative marker. It is in thespeech of teenagers that shifts in the function and distribution of the case-markers are most apparent. Continuing contact with Kriol, which is the linguafranca of the areas to the north of Kalkaringi, has meant continuing influence onthe mixed language.

74 F. Meakins

123


Inherent case-markers such as the allative, ablative and locative case-markershave been affected little by contact with Kriol. Some effects can be seen in thespeech of teenagers and children such as the extension of the locative marker tomarking inanimate goals (Sect. 4.1). Contextual inflections show more evidence ofcontact-induced change. The dative marker marks possessive constructions, how-ever 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 sup-planted by word order and it now marks information structure (Sect. 4.3). Thischange can already be seen in the speech of 30 year olds and therefore probablyoccurred at genesis when Gurindji case-marking came into contact with Kriol wordorder. Perhaps the most dramatic change can be seen in the domain of animate goalsand indirect objects. 30 year old Gurindji Kriol speakers use dative marking in themanner found in Gurindji, which is evidence of its initial borrowing. Nonethelessthis case form is disappearing in the speech of teenagers. Teenagers now use a Kriolpreposition, 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 dativepreposition. It appears that the Gurindji distribution of the dative marking hasremained though now a Kriol form is used (Sect. 4.4).

4.1 Locative marking and inanimate goals

Gurindji-derived spatial casemarkers including locative, allative and ablative suffixesare used inGurindji Kriol with only some changes seen in the speech of teenagers. Thedomain of goal marking of inanimate locations demonstrates the main change. WhereGurindji distinguishes between goals and locations (goals are marked allative andlocations aremarked locative),GurindjiKriol has extended the locativemarker to bothdomains. I suggest that redistribution of the locative marker has occurred under theinfluence of the Kriol preposition langa (\along) which is used to mark both inani-mate goals and locations. Thus the use of the locative case suffix to mark goals is theresult of mapping the Gurindji locative case form onto a Kriol pattern.

In Gurindji, inanimate goals and locations are differentiated by case marking. Forexample, the goal of the locomotion event in (13) and the target of the ballisticmotion event in (14) are both marked allative, whereas the location of the dog,karnti (tree), is marking locative in (15).

(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)

(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)


123


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

Kriol, on the other hand, does not distinguish between goals and locations. Insteadthey 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 samepreposition as that found in (17) which marks the location where the dog is sleeping,faya (fire).

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

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

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 case-markers are used in the same distributional pattern as that found in Gurindji—thelocative suffix marks locations and the allative suffix marks goals. A differentpattern has emerged among teenage speakers. These speakers continue to marklocations with the Gurindji locative marker, however they also extend this casesuffix to goal marking. For example the Gurindji-derived locative suffix is used tomark the location of the dog in (18), but also the goal in (19) and the target of theballistic motion event in (20), despite the fact that the allative marker is the onlyform used in Gurindji.

(18) warlaku i"m makin faya-ngka wansaid.dog 3SG"PRS.PROG sleep fire-LOC next.to‘‘The dog sleeps next to the fire.’’ (FHM067: LE: Picture elicitation: GK)

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

(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)

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

76 F. Meakins

123


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

4.2 Dative marking and inalienable possessive constructions

Possessive relationships in Gurindji Kriol are marked with the Gurindji-deriveddative marker which is suffixed to the dependent (possessor). This marking strategyis used regardless of whether the head (possessed) is an owned object or a body partrelation. This use across these different categories is surprising given that in bothGurindji and Kriol, the relationship between body parts and their whole is indicatedthrough simple juxtaposition. In this respect, a class of inalienable nouns whichincludes body parts and some other nominals such as bodily products and shadowsis distinguished from an alienable class of nouns in Gurindji and Kriol. This dis-tinction has almost been lost in the speech of teenage Gurindji Kriol speakers. Inthis section I suggest that language contact has had no direct effect on the loss of thein/alienable distinction, but rather it has sped up a process of change which iscommon cross-linguistically.

Like most Australian languages, Gurindji distinguishes relationships betweenentities using two distinct possessive constructions (McConvell 1996, pp. 92–94).The first type of possession marks inalienable relationships, ‘‘an indissoluble con-nection between two entities’’ (Chappell and McGregor 1995, p. 4). In Gurindji,these part-whole relationships involve inherent or unchangeable relationshipsbetween the possessor and possessed, such as the relationship between animateentities and their body parts, the product of their bodily excrements and theirshadows/reflections. While inalienable constructions mark an intrinsic relationshipbetween two entities, physical separability and free association is represented inalienable structures. Grammatically there is a typological tendency for alienablenouns (either the head or possessor) to be marked, often morphologically, andinalienable nouns to be unmarked (Heine 1997, p. 172). This marking distinction iscommon in Australian languages (Dixon 1980, p. 293; Nichols 1992, p. 118), andGurindji is no exception.

Alienability in Gurindji is expressed by a possessor phrase consisting of a head and adependent dative-marked nominal, which encodes the role of the possessor, as in (21).On the other hand, inalienable possessive constructions in Gurindji are morphologicallyunmarked, as shown in (22). In both constructions, the head and dependent may appearin either order and as discontinuous constituents, for example in (22).

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


123


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

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

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

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

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

(25) 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)

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

(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)

(27) kajirri-ngku i"m kat-im jawurt kengkaru-yu.old.woman-ERG 3SG.S"PRS.PROG cut-TR tail kangaroo-DAT‘‘The old woman cuts off the kangaroo’s tail.’’(FHM143: LS: Picture elicitation: GK)

78 F. Meakins

123


As was seen in the use of the locative case suffix to mark goals, the application ofthe dative marker depends on the age of the speaker. 26–35 year old Gurindji Kriolspeakers use the dative marker 55% of the time to mark relationships between bodyparts 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 andinalienable) nominals in possessive constructions, teenage speakers of GurindjiKriol have lost this distinction. It is likely that the case form and alienable functionwas adopted in the process of the formation of the mixed language but this contrasthas slowly been lost over the life of the mixed language. The loss of the alienableand inalienable distinction cannot be attributed to Kriol in this case because Kriolmarks a similar distinction. Instead it seems to be a part of a natural process oflanguage change which has been sped up by language contact. This loss has alsobeen observed in other cases of postcolonial language contact in Australia wheretraditional language possessive or dative markers are still in use, for example LightWarlpiri (Meakins and O’Shannessy 2005), Wumpurrarni English (Disbrayand Simpson 2005), Arabana, Paakantyi (Hercus 2005) and Areyonga TeenagePitjantjatjara (Langlois 2004).

4.3 Functional shift in the use of the ergative marker

Changes in the function of the ergative marker can also been seen. No age-relateddifferences are found in this domain which suggests that the change occurred at thegenesis of Gurindji Kriol. Gurindji Kriol has adopted the argument marking systemsfrom both source languages; case marking, specifically the ergative marker, fromGurindji, and SVO word order from Kriol. These two systems of argument markingwere brought into contact and competition in the formation of the mixed languagewith three results: (i) word order has emerged as the dominant system in the mixedlanguage, (ii) ergative marking is optional, and (iii) the ergative marker has taken ondiscourse functions, specifically to accord discourse prominence to the agentivity ofa 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 affectingthe grammatical role borne by that NP’’ (McGregor 2010). Often the ergativemarker in optional ergative languages takes on discourse functions. This has beenthe case for a number of Australian languages (see McGregor 2010 for an over-view). Gurindji Kriol differs from these languages because optional ergativity is theresult of language contact, not a feature internal to the language. This section looksmore closely at the contact between the argument marking systems in Gurindji andKriol and its results in Gurindji Kriol. For a fuller description of this contactscenario see Meakins and O’Shannessy (2010) and Meakins (2009).

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


123


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

(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 F. Meakins

123


functional equivalents and competition between these systems ensued. The firstoutcome 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 ofthe ergative marker. Unlike in Gurindji, transitive subjects are not categoricallymarked ergative in Gurindji Kriol, with only 66.5% of A nominals receiving anergative suffix (Meakins 2009, p. 67).14 The likelihood that an ergative marker isused increases if the A nominal is inanimate, found post-verbally or found inconjunction 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) isinanimate, occurs after the verb purtuj (set alight) and is cross-referenced by athird singular subject pronoun i. The ergative marker is required to identify the Aargument because it occurs post-verbally. In this respect the ergative markermaintains some of its syntactic function.

(32) i bin purtuj mi faya-ngku3SG.S PST set.alight 1SG.O fire-ERG‘‘The flames set me alight.’’ (FM057.C: SO: Narrative: GK)

Nonetheless 62.6% of transitive subjects occur preverbally with an ergative markerwhere 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 aboy 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 theagent is unmarked in the first clause, and marked in the second clause.

(33) a. det mukmuk bin kuli la " imthe owl PST attack OBL " 3SG.O‘The owl attacked (the boy).’

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

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

14 These figures are based on an analysis of a dataset consisting of 1917 transitive clauses with overt Aarguments from 39 female speakers. The dataset consists of conversations and narratives, as well aspicture-match elicitation tasks (Meakins 2009, p. 60).15 A semi-transitive verb here is defined as one which has a dative object.


123


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 theergative marker in Gurindji is argument disambiguation, however this use of theergative marker is only marginal in Gurindji Kriol. Instead Kriol-derived SVO wordorder is the main system used to distinguish arguments. The ergative marker onlyfunctions in a diminished capacity as an argument marker, for example, wheredeviations from the pragmatically unmarked SVO pattern occur. The result of thisreduced syntactic functionality has been optional ergativity and a shift to discoursefunctions.

4.4 Dative marking of indirect objects and animate goals

The most dramatic change in the use of a Gurindji-derived case-marker in GurindjiKriol is found in the domain of animate goals and indirect objects. Here the Gurindjidative marker was borrowed into Gurindji Kriol as evidenced by its use by 30 yearsolds, however teenage speakers show a different pattern of usage. They use thedative preposition from Kriol where Kriol would use a locative preposition in thesame function. Although the form is derived from Kriol, the use of the dativepreposition is an influence from Gurindji, which is why the use of a prepositionwould not be considered merely code-switching. Gurindji and older Gurindji Kriolspeakers mark indirect objects and animate goals with a dative case suffix. Thus forteenage speakers of Gurindji Kriol, though the form is from Kriol, the dative featurehas been retained from Gurindji. In this respect the preposition shows a dualinfluence from the source languages.

Gurindji uses the dative marker in a number of functions including markingindirect objects and animate goals, as shown in (34) and (35), respectively.

(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)

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

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 alocative preposition. The form is the same discussed for inanimate goals inSect. 4.1. Similarly, in (37) the goal is indicated by a locative preposition.

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

82 F. Meakins

123


(37) det dog bin ran la det ol man an bait-im im.the dog PST run LOC the old man and bite-TR 3SG‘‘The dog ran up to the old man and bit him.’’(FHM096: SY: Picture elicitation: Kriol)

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 inpossessive constructions, as shown in Sect. 4.2, and other constructions such asbenefactive or purposive constructions (Munro 2005).

The use of the Gurindji dative marker by 30 year old speakers of Gurindji Kriolreflects that of their Gurindji-speaking parents and grandparents. It is used to markindirect objects and animate goals, as shown in (38) and (39).16

(38) i"m kiyap la"im nyanuny kapuku-yu na.3SG.S"PRS.PROG whisper OBL"3SG.O 3SG.DAT sister-DAT FOC

‘‘She whispers to her sister.’’ (FHM100: SS: Picture elicitation: GK)

(39) nyila jinek i"m gon yapart la"im kajirri-yu.that snake 3SG.S"PRS.PROG go sneak.up OBL"3SG.O woman-DAT‘‘That snake sneaks up on the old woman.’’(FHM125: LE: Picture elicitation: GK)

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

(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)

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

What seems to have occurred in these domains is a form-function remapping. TheKriol locative preposition and Gurindji dative marker were recognised as beingfunctionally equivalent and came into contact, probably after the formation of themixed language given that older speakers of Gurindji Kriol continue to use thedative marker. Thus, subsequent to mixed language genesis, a Kriol form wasborrowed 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 theGurindji dative marker, which is an example of contextual inflection, is its

16 The case-marked nominal is also optionally cross-referenced by an oblique-marked pronoun la"im(OBL"3SG.O) which reflects a structure found in Gurindji ngu"rla (auxiliary " 3DAT).


123


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

5 Conclusion

In Gurindji Kriol, the presence of inflectional morphology in the form of Gurindji-derived case marking is particularly noteworthy given that Kriol provides the verbalframe including tense and mood auxiliaries, and transitive and aspect markers.Inflectional morphology, particularly contextual inflections such as syntactic casemarkers, are rarely borrowed or inserted in instances of code-switching. Thedirection of transfer has been from Gurindji into Kriol as evidenced by the domi-nance of Kriol in the code-switching practices of the Gurindji in the 1970s.

This paper has shown how, given the right linguistic practices and particularfeatures of the languages in contact, such transfers can occur. Gurindji Kriol wasshown to have been derived from code-switching which was the dominant linguisticpractice of Gurindji people in the 1970s. The behaviour of case-marked nominals inthis 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 inGurindji and other Australian languages. Case-marking also only occurred onGurindji nominals. I have termed these case-marked nominal adjuncts trojan horsestructures because they facilitated the transfer of the case-markers. Thus, in theprocess of the formation of the mixed language, case-marking extended to Kriolnouns and the case-marked nominals were integrated into the predicate argumentstructure of the mixed language. As a result the clause structure of Gurindji Kriol isa composite of its source languages.

Kriol had some influence on the realisation of Gurindji case-marking at the timeof genesis. This influence continues in the speech of teenagers who are also speakersof Kriol which is the lingua franca of most Aboriginal people in the north ofAustralia. Little effect can be observed in inherent case-markers. Ablative, allative,locative and comitative case-markers have remained true to their Gurindji sourcesexcept in the realm inanimate goal marking. The real influence from Kriol has beenfelt most by the syntactic case-markers, the ergative and dative case markers, whichare examples of contextual inflection. Here functional shift has occurred, distinctionshave been lost and in one instance, the form has been lost leaving just functionaltraces from Gurindji.

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 variousincarnations of this paper. I am also indebted to Erika Charola who introduced me to the people atKalkaringi in the first place and a number of Gurindji informants who assisted with the data collectionincluding Samantha Smiler Nangala, Cassandra Algy Nimarra, Rosy, Lisa and Leanne Smiler Nangari,Cecelia Edwards Nangari and Anne-Maree and Ronaleen Reynolds Namija (Gurindji Kriol); VioletDonald Nanaku, Biddy Wavehill Nangala and Topsy Dodd Nangari (Gurindji). I am also grateful toDiwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation and in particular Lauren Campbell and Greg Dickson’s workwith Queenie Brennan, Brenda Forbes and John Joshua which helped fill in some gaps in theKriol literature on goal constructions. The work for this paper was funded by the Aboriginal ChildLanguage (ACLA) project (http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html)

84 F. Meakins

123


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

References

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 perspectiveson event structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, P., & Bresnan, J. (1996). Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory, 14, 215–268.

Bakker, P. (1997). A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of theCanadian Métis (Vol. 10). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, P. (2003). Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), The mixedlanguage 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 termsand the part-whole relation (pp. 3–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Charola, E. (2002). The verb phrase structure of Gurindji Kriol. Unpublished Honours, MelbourneUniversity, 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. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55(1), 59–138.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: ForisPublications.


123


Matras, Y. (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Gram-matical 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 deGruyter.

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.), Codes-

witching: 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 Australiaand 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. (2010). Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective.

Lingua, 120(7), 1610–1636.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 ofMelbourne, Melbourne.

Meakins, F. (2008a). Unravelling languages: Multilingualism and language contact in Kalkaringi.In J. Simpson & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Children’s language and multilingualism: Indigenouslanguage 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. InM. 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 inone Australian mixed language. In J. Barddal & S. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantics andpragmatics in the development of case (pp. 59–91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Meakins, F. (2010). The development of asymmetrical serial verb constructions in an Australian mixedlanguage. Linguistic Typology, 14(1), 1–38.

Meakins, F. (to appear). Which Mix?—code-switching or a mixed language—Gurindji Kriol. Journal ofPidgin and Creole Languages.

Meakins, F., & O’Shannessy, C. (2005). Possessing variation: Age and inalienability related variables inthe possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University LinguisticsPapers, 4(2), 43–63.

Meakins, F., & O’Shannessy, C. (2010). Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motiva-tions in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua,120(7), 1693–1713.

Moravcsik, E. (1978). Universals of language contact. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of humanlanguage: 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. InJ. 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 tolanguage 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 UniversityPress.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in Codeswitching. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

86 F. Meakins

123


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: OxfordUniversity Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2000). What matters: The out of sight in mixed languages. Bilingualism: Languageand 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: Indigenouslanguage 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 Even dialect in contact wihtSakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact, 2, 85–110.

Sandefur, J. (1979). An Australian Creole in the northern territory: A description of Ngukurr- BamyiliDialects (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 perspectiveBerlin: 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.


123


2011. Borrowing contextual inflection: evidence from northern Australia

Documents

Transcript of 2011. Borrowing contextual inflection: evidence from northern Australia