2012. Which Mix? - Code-switching or a mixed language - Gurindji Kriol

!is is a contribution from Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27:1© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company

!is electronic "le may not be altered in any way.!e author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF "le to generate printed copies to be used by way of o#prints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this "le on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and sta#) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol1,2,3

Felicity MeakinsUniversity of Queensland/University of Manchester

Gurindji Kriol is a contact variety spoken in northern Australia which has been identi!ed as a mixed language. Yet its status as an autonomous language system must be questioned for three reasons — (i) it continues to be spoken along-side its source languages, Gurindji and Kriol, (ii) it has a close diachronic and synchronic relationship to code-switching between Gurindji and Kriol, and (iii) its structure bears a strong resemblance to patterns found in this code-switching. Nonetheless in this paper I present criteria which support the claim of ‘language-hood’ for Gurindji Kriol. I demonstrate that Gurindji Kriol (i) is a stable lan-guage variety (it has child language learners and a high degree of inter-speaker consistency), (ii) has developed independent forms and structural subsystems which have not been adopted back into the source languages, and (iii) contains structural features from both languages which is rare in other language contact varieties including Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. I also present a number of structural indicators which can be used to distinguish Gurindji Kriol mixed language clauses from code-switched clauses.

Keywords: Gurindji Kriol, mixed language, code-switching, creole, language contact, Australia, language autonomy

!. "anks to Eva Schultze-Berndt, Peter Bakker, Patrick McConvell, Erika Charola, Yaron Ma-tras, Rachel Nordlinger, and Nick Evans for comments on earlier versions of this paper and ideas.

". "e data collection was funded by the Aboriginal Child Language Acquisition (ACLA) proj-ect http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html, the Victoria River District DOBES project http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES and the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/index.php?projid=159.

#. I am indebted to Samantha Smiler Nangala-Nanaku and her family; Ronaleen and Anne-Maree Reynolds Namija, Curley Reynolds Nimarra and their family; Cassandra Algy Nimarra, and Ena, Frances and Sarah Oscar Nanaku; Cecelia Edwards Nangari; Rosy, Lisa and Leanne Smiler Nangari, Violet Donald Wadrill Nanaku, Biddy Wavehill Yamawurr Nangala, and Topsy Dodd Nganyjal Nangari.

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages #$:% (#&%#), !$%–!&$. '() %&.%&$*/jpcl.#$.%.&+mea),,- &.#&–.&+/ / 0-),,- %*1.–.2$& © John Benjamins Publishing Company

http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html

http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES

http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/index.php?projid=159

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

!$' Felicity Meakins

!. Introduction

One of the criticisms which is o3en levelled at descriptions of mixed languages is whether the language variety presented is really an autonomous language system. "e term ‘autonomous language system’ refers to the ability of the language to function as a stand-alone linguistic entity with only minimal continuing input from other languages. Following Saussure ([1916] 1983: 86), the parts of a lan-guage must be ‘synchronically interdependent’. For a mixed language, the clearest demonstration of language autonomy occurs when it is spoken outside of the bi-lingual context in which it arose, that is, speakers are no longer 4uent in the source languages ("omason 2003: 24). Michif is one such example. Although Michif is derived from French and Cree, most of its speakers are not 4uent in either lan-guage. Indeed nowadays most Michif speakers are elderly and the main language of Michif communities has become English (Bakker 1997: 74–76). Similarly Med-nyj Aleut, a Russian-Aleut mixed language spoken on Copper Island in the Ber-ing Strait, was spoken long a3er the Russians had withdrawn from the island and speakers of Mednyj Aleut were no longer 4uent in Aleut (Golovko 1994). None-theless cases of mixed languages which exist in total isolation from their source languages are actually quite rare. Most mixed languages are spoken alongside at least one of their source languages, and most mixed language speakers are 4uent in one or both of the source languages. Smith (2000) calls these languages symbiotic mixed languages. Language stability is harder to achieve in such situations because of the continuing link with the language’s origins, and as a result, the claim of lan-guage autonomy is more di5cult to establish.

"e problem of demonstrating ‘language-ness’ for symbiotic mixed languages is exempli!ed by Gurindji Kriol, which is spoken by Gurindji people in north-ern Australia. "is mixed language combines lexical and syntactic elements from Gurindji, a Pama-Nyungan language and Kriol, an English-lexi!er creole language (Charola 2002; Dalton et al 1995; Jones et al 2011, to appear; McConvell 2002, 2008; McConvell & Meakins 2005; Meakins 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c; Meakins & O’Shannessy 2005, 2010). "e name ‘Gurindji Kriol’ re4ects a language made up of equal components from Gurindji and Kriol, rather than that of a variety of Kriol. "e autonomy of Gurindji Kriol as a language system may be seen to be in doubt for a number of reasons. First Gurindji Kriol continues to be spoken alongside its source languages. Older Gurindji people still speak Gurindji both amongst themselves and to the younger generations, and all Gurindji people speak Kriol to some extent when visiting friends and relatives in the neighbouring towns and communities (Meakins 2008a: 287–95). Given this close relationship with its source languages and the potential for continuing in-put from its source languages, its linguistic independence must be questioned.


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !$(

Additionally there is a close synchronic and diachronic relationship between Gur-indji Kriol and code-switching. Historically code-switching between Gurindji and Kriol was observed as a pervasive linguistic practice in the 1970s which preceded and most likely led to the formation of the mixed language (McConvell 2008, 1985, 1988a; McConvell & Meakins 2005; Meakins 2011c: 112–121). Moreover older Gurindji people maintain these code-switching practices today (Meakins 2008a: 296–98; 2011c: 59–63). Yet, despite this symbiotic relationship between Gurindji Kriol and its source languages, and the connection between the mixed language and code-switching, the argument for an autonomous language system can be made. In this paper, I provide evidence for the treatment of Gurindji Kriol as an autonomous language.

Two separate but related issues exist for this discussion. "e !rst is whether an autonomous language system which continues to exist in contact with one or more of its source languages is possible. Here, I draw together criteria which have been used to support the claim of language autonomy in other examples of mixed languages. I show that the ‘language-ness’ of Gurindji Kriol can be demonstrated through:

i. the stability of the language §3.1,ii. the independent development of the structural subsystems of the mixed lan-

guage which are not adopted back into the source languages §3.2, andiii. the presence of structural features from both languages in a clause §3.3.

"e second issue is a very practical one of how to identify mixed language clauses within a complex language ecology. For example, given that code-switching both preceded the formation of the Gurindji Kriol and is a continuing practice, is it possible to di6erentiate mixed language clauses from code-switched clauses? In §4, I present criteria for identifying individual Gurindji Kriol clauses within this complex mixing environment.

". Gurindji Kriol: Its form and origins

Gurindji Kriol is spoken by Gurindji people who live in Kalkaringi and Dagu-ragu4 in northern Australia, as shown in Figure71. "ese communities are located within the traditional lands of the Gurindji. Gurindji Kriol is now also spoken by Bilinarra and Ngarinyman people in two neighbouring communities to the north,

&. When I refer to Kalkaringi in the rest of the paper, I include Daguragu which is a settlement 8km away. "ese communities were set up separately historically, however they operate as a single entity in terms of kin relations and administration.


!$) Felicity Meakins

Darwin

Pine Creek

Mataranka

Daly Waters

Top Springs

Bulla

Amanbidji

WyndhamKununurra

Yarralin

Pigeon Hole

Daguragu

Hall”sCreek

Kalkaringi

Lajamanu

Elliot

Timber Creek

KATHERINE

TENNANTCREEK

0N

S

EW

50 100

Kilometres

Northern Territory

150 200

Figure 1. Kalkaringi and surrounding communities

Pigeon Hole and Yarralin. Traditionally they were speakers of Ngarinyman and Bilinarra, which are closely related to Gurindji. In this paper I examine the lan-guage practices of Gurindji people at Kalkaringi; however much of this discussion also applies to Bilinarra and Ngarinyman people in their respective communities.

Gurindji Kriol is the main language of younger people at Kalkaringi. People under the age of approximately 35 years speak it as their main everyday language and it is the main language acquired by Gurindji children. Gurindji is now only


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !$*

spoken by older generations and is severely endangered in this respect. Even then older people o3en code-switch between Gurindji and Kriol. All Gurindji people speak Kriol to varying extents when they visit Kriol-speaking areas to the north, for example Katherine and Timber Creek. Standard Australian English is the lan-guage of the school despite the fact that children enter school with no background in English. English is also the language of the media and government services but it plays little role in people’s home lives (Meakins 2008a: 287–95; 2011c: 58–69).

Gurindji Kriol has a low social prestige status in Kalkaringi compared with Gurindji. Older people generally describe it in terms of the loss of Gurindji, rather than the creation of a new language, or the maintenance of Gurindji in a mixed form. Older people complain that the younger generations do not speak Gurindji correctly. Younger people who are the main speakers are quite shy about discuss-ing their speech style, aware that they do not speak Gurindji in a traditional man-ner. Nonetheless this language has a lot of covert prestige among its speakers. "is language variety also had no name until recently.5 Outside o5cial and linguist contexts the term ‘Gurindji Kriol’ has no currency in the community, and nobody would use it to denote the mixed language. In fact this language is usually called ‘Gurindji’. If a distinction between Gurindji and Gurindji Kriol is required, Gur-indji is usually referred to as ‘hard Gurindji’, ‘rough Gurindji’, or ‘proper Gurindji’, and Gurindji Kriol as ‘Gurindji’. "e term ‘Gurindji’, it seems, is a relative term used to signify the main language used by Gurindji people rather than a particular language form, as Charola (2002) points out.

Gurindji Kriol originated from contact between non-indigenous colonists and the Gurindji people. In the early 1900s, white settlers set up cattle stations in the Victoria River District area, including on the homelands of the Gurindji. Many Gurindji people were killed in skirmishes over land, and the remaining people were put to work on Wave Hill cattle station as stockmen and kitchen hands in

%. "e term ‘Gurindji Kriol’ was created during a Batchelor Institute workshop with Gurindji students which was facilitated by Erika Charola in the early 2000s. "e term was created as a short-hand way to distinguish between old people’s and young people’s speech varieties. It was later agreed upon by the young Gurindji women involved in projects run by Meakins. "is pro-cess can be viewed in terms of Mufwene’s (2000: 67) criticism of many linguists’ self-licence to go around baptising vernacular languages; however it is worth noting that linguists have been reticent about using the term outside of linguistic consultation work and the young Gurindji people who created the term ‘Gurindji Kriol’ have found it useful within o5cial settings. For ex-ample a number of Gurindji women identi!ed themselves as Gurindji Kriol speakers in the 2006 Australian Census. Aboriginal teaching assistants also use the term within the school and have run language awareness courses for non-Indigenous teachers where they use the term ‘Gurindji Kriol’ to teach them their language variety. Finally in 2008, in a bid to set up a language centre at Kalkaringi, speakers used the name ‘Gurindji Kriol’ in the o5cial proposal to the funding body.


!!$ Felicity Meakins

slave-like conditions together with other Aboriginal groups such as the Bilinarra and Ngarinyman (Hardy 1968). In 1966 the Gurindji initiated a workers’ strike to protest against their poor conditions of employment and to ultimately regain con-trol of their traditional lands. "eir campaign went on for nine years and resulted in the !rst successful land claim by an Aboriginal group in Australia. Today the Gurindji continue to live on their traditional lands, however their desire for self-management is constantly challenged by continuing assimilationist policies such as English-only schooling and the lack of representation on local governing bod-ies. Little availability of employment and high welfare dependence also corrode their sense of independence.

"e linguistic practices of the Gurindji are closely tied to these social circum-stances. Before colonisation the Gurindji were multilingual, speaking the languag-es of neighbouring groups with whom they had familiar and ceremonial connec-tions. "e establishment of the cattle stations by colonisers saw the introduction of the cattle station pidgin and later Kriol into the linguistic repertoire of the Gurind-ji. In the 1970s, McConvell (1988a) observed that code-switching between Kriol and Gurindji was the dominant language practice of Gurindji people. It is likely that this code-switching and a certain amount of levelling between Gurindji and closely-related neighbouring languages such as Ngarinyman and Bilinarra pro-vided fertile ground for the formation of the mixed language. At this time, similar changes to local linguistic ecologies occurred in other places in northern Australia with Kriol becoming the dominant language in many areas such as Timber Creek and Katherine (see Figure71). Yet in Kalkaringi, a mixed language emerged from this situation (McConvell & Meakins 2005). Meakins (2008b: 85–90) argues that maintenance of Gurindji elements in the mixed language relates closely to the land rights movement and can be considered an expression of the persistence of their ancestral identity. "e shi3 to a mixed language rather than Kriol was also prob-ably aided by the fact that Kalkaringi had only one dominant language tradition-ally (with other mostly mutually intelligible languages) rather than many disparate languages spoken in one community which is a characteristic of Kriol-speaking communities (McConvell 2007).

Given its sociohistorical background, Gurindji Kriol can be compared with other languages which have been identi!ed as mixed. It emerged in a situation of community bilingualism (c.f. Matras & Bakker 2003) and it is an in-group language rather than a language created out of a need for communication (c.f. Golovko 2003; Muysken 1997). Despite these common origins, the category of ‘mixed language’ is typologically diverse (see Bakker 2003 for an overview; Matras 2003 for a di6erent view; and Meakins to appear). Most mixed languages consist of a split between the grammar and lexicon with one language contributing the grammar, and the other the lexicon. Media Lengua is one such example with its grammar derived from


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !!!

Quechua and the lexicon from Spanish (Muysken 1997). Other mixed languages are more grammatically mixed such as the observed fusion of the French nominal structure with the Cree verbal structure in Michif (Bakker 1997). Michif ’s lexicon also follows this grammatical split with the majority of nouns derived from French and verbs from Cree. Gurindji Kriol also exhibits a split between the structure of the NP and VP, with Gurindji providing the NP structure in the form of case

Table 1. Structural and lexical sources of Gurindji Kriol (Meakins 2011c: 20)StructuralFeature

Language of Origin LexicalCategory

Language of Origin

word order Kriol/Gurindji N — body parts mostly GurindjiTMA markers Kriol N — colours Kriolbound verbal morphol-ogy inc. transitive, adverbial, continuative

Kriol N — artefacts traditional (Gurindji), new (Kriol)

case morphology Gurindji N — people mixeda

other nominal morphology inc. dual, paucal, proprietive, priv-ative, inchoative, comparative

Gurindji N — kin parents and their sib-lings (Kriol), siblings, grandparents, in-laws (Gurindji)

negation Kriol N — food mixedpronouns Kriol N — plants mostly Gurindjiemphatic pronouns Gurindji N — animals mixedpossessive pronouns Gurindji V — state mixedinterrogative pronouns Kriol V — motion mostly Gurindjideictic elements this/that (Gurindji),

here/there (Kriol), thus (Gurindji)

V — bodily functions

Gurindji

determiners Kriol V — impact Gurindjiconjunctions coordination, rela-

tive pronouns (Kri-ol), other subordi-nation (Gurindji)

V — basic e.g. do, make, hit, talk, go, take, put

Kriol

interjections Gurindji V — vocalising mixeddirectionals (cardinals, up/down)

Gurindji numerals 1–2 Gurindji, 3+ Kriol

a "e term ‘mixed’ here refers to the fact that some items come from Gurindji and some from Kriol, for example the word for ‘old woman’ is derived from Gurindji and the word for ‘girl’ is derived from Kriol. In some cases the Gurindji and Kriol word may be used interchangeably. "is generalisation applies to other lexical categories.


!!" Felicity Meakins

marking and other nominal morphology; and Kriol, the VP structure consisting of free TMA morphemes and bound verbal morphology. Unlike Michif, the lexicon of Gurindji Kriol is more mixed with nouns and verbs of both Gurindji and Kriol origins. In this respect, Gurindji Kriol more closely resembles Light Warlpiri, a neighbouring Australian mixed language which also combines an Indigenous language with Kriol (O’Shannessy 2005, 2008, 2009). "e structural and lexical sources of Gurindji Kriol are summarised in Table 1. An example of Gurindji Kriol is given in (1). In all examples in this paper, Gurindji-derived forms are italicised and Kriol forms remain in plain font.

(1) an skul-ta=ma jei bin hab-im sport karu-walija-ngku and school-89:=;9< 3<8.= <=; have-;> sport child-<?@:-A>B ‘And the kids had sport at school.’ (Meakins 2011c: 112)

In this example, the core VP structure including tense such as bin ‘PAST’ and tran-sitive marking -im is derived from Kriol while the NP structure including erga-tive -ngku and locative case-marking -ta is from Gurindji. "e use of the ergative marker allows a more 4exible word order. It is optional and most o3en found when word order deviates from Kriol-derived SVO (see §4). In these cases a coreferen-tial pronoun is used such as jei ‘they’ above. Other Gurindji nominal morphology can also be observed such as the paucal marker -walija and the discourse enclitic =ma. "is example also illustrates the lexical mix of Gurindji Kriol. Despite the NP structure being provided by Gurindji, nouns are derived from both Gurindji e.g. karu ‘child’ and Kriol/English e.g. skul ‘school’ and sport. Although the verb in this example is Kriol-derived, verbs from Gurindji are also found (although never with transitive marking).

Many of these structures resemble code-switching from the 1970s and present day code-switching. Both past and present-day code-switching use both Gurindji and Kriol as the grammatical frame of switching, that is the matrix language. Here I identify the matrix language on the basis of verbal in4ection (c.f. Muysken 2000; Tre6ers-Daller 1994; Klavans 1983). In the case of Gurindji, this is the in4ecting verb and in the case of Kriol these are the free TMA markers. Code-switching oc-curs when elements from the other language insert into the matrix language, com-monly called insertional code-switching. Other types of code-switching are also common such as alternational code-switching between full Gurindji and Kriol clauses. In the case of the insertional code-switching, Kriol is the most commonly-found matrix language. Already by the 1970s, 67.75% of mixed clauses used Kriol as a matrix language, rather than Gurindji (Meakins 2011c: 114). McConvell & Meakins (2005) argue that the mixed language found its origins in this dominant pattern of code-switching. Indeed the mixed language example in (1) bears a strik-ing resemblance to the code-switching examples below:


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !!#

(2) kaa-rni-mpal-said orait yutubala kat-im ngaji-rlang-kulu. east-up-across-side alright 2C@ cut-;> father-CD?C-A>B ‘You two, father & son, cut it across the east (side of the cow).’ (Code-switching 1970s collected by Patrick McConvell) (Meakins

2011c: 112)

(3) nyanuny-ju ngaji-ngku im kil-im dat maitbi kirrawa. 3=B.'EF-A>B father-A>B 3=B.= hit-;> the maybe goanna ‘His father might have speared the goanna.’ (Code-switching 2009 BW: FM09_a122)

In these examples of code-switching (2) and (3) and the mixed language (1), the verb structure comes from Kriol. Evidence of the Gurindji-derived NP structure in both the code-switching and mixed language include case marking on nominals e.g. ergative and locative marking. Basic pronouns are also derived from Kriol. "us, though Gurindji Kriol may be described in relation to shared socio-histori-cal, structural and lexical features of other mixed languages, much of this structure resembles patterns which may also be found in Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. "is similarity casts some doubt on the ‘language-ness’ of Gurindji Kriol, that is whether Gurindji Kriol can be considered to be operating as an autonomous lan-guage rather than two interacting languages. Yet, despite the symbiotic nature of these types of language mixing, they can also be distinguished. In the following sections, I provide evidence for the existence of an autonomous language (§3) and criteria that allow the identi!cation of mixed language clauses which di6er from code-switching (§4).

#. Language autonomy

"e term ‘autonomous language system’ refers to the ability of a language to func-tion as an independent linguistic entity which is only minimally in4uenced by other languages. "e best indicator for the autonomy of a mixed language is it being spoken outside of the bilingual context of its genesis. Yet, as was shown in §2, this is not the case for Gurindji Kriol, and indeed most other mixed languages. Here I present further evidence for the treatment of Gurindji Kriol as an indepen-dent language system — the homogeneity and stability of the language §3.1, the independent development of the mixed language §3.2 and the presence of struc-tural features from both languages in a clause §3.3.


!!& Felicity Meakins

#.! Language homogeneity and stability

"e terms ‘homogeneity’ and ‘stability’ have been used in conjunction with mixed languages by a number of writers (e.g. "omason 2003). "e notion of ‘homo-geneity’ is meant in a synchronic sense, i.e. just how established and predictable patterns are in a language system, and ‘stability’ is used in a diachronic sense to refer to the speed at which a language changes. "ese concepts are related, with increased homogeneity leading to increased stability. Here I use these concepts relatively — that is how homogenous and stable a mixed language is in relation to so-called normal languages. Actually de!ning and measuring these concepts is highly problematic. Part of the problem relates to the degree of variation found in the language, and what constitutes ‘stable variation’ (Labov 1994: 85 onwards). "e other issue is that homogeneity and stability are not something which are gener-ally in question for normal languages. It is acknowledged that variation exists and is meaningful and quanti!able, and is an important factor in driving language change, however there are no benchmarks or measures of homogeneity and sta-bility to gauge a mixed language against. Two social and grammatical indicators which may be used to judge the stability of a mixed language are discussed here: (i) whether it is being acquired as an L1 (§3.1.1) and (ii) the degree of consistency between speakers (§3.1.2). "e issue of stable variable is discussed in §3.1.2.

#.!.! Do children target Gurindji Kriol as a language of acquisition?"e !rst indicator of language homogeneity and stability is whether or not chil-dren are learning the mixed language as their !rst language. "is situation can be demonstrated for Gurindji Kriol. Between 2004–2007, !ve Gurindji children and their families6 were studied to map the community languages and mixing strategies which children are exposed to and acquire. "e ultimate interest of this study was how acquisition occurs in a multilingual and changing language envi-ronment where language mixing is found at all levels and large intergenerational di6erences in language use can be observed. Every six months, the children were recorded interacting with various members of their family. "e aim was to capture both child-directed speech and peer conversation from a number of age groups. "e recordings were made in naturalistic situations where the children interact-ed with their caregivers who included parents, grandparents and older children. "is methodology followed a similar study of Warlpiri children learning Warlpiri

'. "is study was undertaken by Meakins as a part of the Aboriginal Child Language project (Chief Investigators: Gillian Wigglesworth, University of Melbourne, Jane Simpson, University of Sydney, and Patrick McConvell, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies). See http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html.

http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/projects/ACLA/index.html


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !!%

and the mixed language, Light Warlpiri, in a neighbouring community, Lajamanu (see Figure71) (O’Shannessy 2006). "e study at Kalkaringi found that Gurindji children hear Gurindji, Kriol and Gurindji Kriol, as well as playful switches to English and some Warlpiri amongst people with Warlpiri heritage. Child-directed speech is largely in Gurindji Kriol and some Kriol. "e language ecology that chil-dren grow up in also includes code-switching between these languages (Meakins 2008a). Despite the exposure to Gurindji and Kriol, children target Gurindji Kriol as their language of production, with Gurindji and Kriol used only rarely. For ex-ample, in (4) three women (EO, FO and SO are all sisters) are at the site of the old cattle station, Wave Hill (see §2), where they lived as children. "ey are discussing how the landscape has changed since they were children and are also describing features of the site to their grandchildren CH, NA and BP who are 3 years old. "e children are listening and also talking amongst themselves. Although the women are talking to themselves and their grandchildren in Gurindji, the children are talking in Gurindji Kriol. "e following is an excerpt from this interaction.

(4) (FM057.B: SO 41yr, EO 47yr, FO 43yr, CH 3yr, NA 3yr, BP 3yr) SO: nyawa-ma nganarrkan karrinyani kankarra-k na. this-;9< little.cli6 be.<=;.GH<I upstream-?88 I9: ‘"ere used to be a little cli6 upstream from here.’

FO: nyanawu wumara jarrwa. >A:9B.CAH rock many ‘And lots of rocks remember.’

EO: wumara kurla-rni-mpal-said nyanawu. rock south-up-side-side >A:9B.CAH ‘("ere were) rocks on the southside remember.

CH: darrei wi-rra gon, buj-ta. that.way 1<8.=-<9; go bush-89: ‘We’ll go that way through the bush.’

BP: ai-m gon kuya igin. 1=B.=-<>= go thus too ‘I’m going to too.’

NA: yu mad-jawung yu-rra waj-im mijelp. you mud-<>9< 2=B.=-<9; wash-;> >I8J ‘You’re muddy. You should wash yourself o6.’

NA: jeya na yu rait. there I9: 2=B.= alright ‘Kow you’re alright.’ (A3er BP washes the mud o6)


!!' Felicity Meakins

FO: Jinparrak-kurla ngu=rnalu karrinyani ngantipa. Wave.Hill-89: :?;=1<8.AJ be.<=;.GH<I 1<8.AJ ‘We used to live here at Wave Hill station.’

Despite this kind of Gurindji input, Gurindji children never use Gurindji pronouns or verbal in4ection. Most of their input in other contexts is Gurindji Kriol which lacks these Gurindji elements and indeed all of the utterances children produce are Gurindji Kriol, complete with Kriol pronouns and verbal in4ection and Gur-indji nominal morphology. Observations of these children acquiring the mixed language as a separate code such as Gurindji Kriol support the case for language homogeneity. Clearly a separate linguistic entity is being identi!ed and singled out for speci!c attention by children. "e reproduction of Gurindji Kriol as a separate speech code then has the consequence of promoting language stability.

#.!." Inter-speaker consistency in Gurindji KriolAnother measure of homogeneity and stability in a mixed language is the degree of consistency both between and within speakers in their use of lexicon and gram-mar. For example the choice of lexical items and syntactic constructions is very consistent across speakers in Gurindji Kriol. As a result, Gurindji Kriol speakers use virtually identical constructions to express the same event. "is point can be demonstrated looking at a small subset of elicited data from a picture-naming task.7 "is subset consists of 18 tokens of the sentence: ‘the dog bit the man on the hand’ (Meakins 2011c: 42). Of these 18 sentences, the Gurindji words warlaku ‘dog’, marluka ‘old man’, and wartan ‘hand’ are used in all 18 sentences, with the Kriol baitim ‘bite’ used in 89% of sentences in variation with the Gurindji equiva-lent katurl. Syntactically all pronouns present are Kriol-derived free forms,8 and similarly any verbal in4ection and TMA marking is of Kriol origin. "e Gurindji-derived ergative marker -ngku is used in 61% of the sentences, and the locative marker -ta is found 83.5% of the time, with the Kriol preposition la used in the remaining sentences.

(5) dat warlaku-ngku i bin bait-im marluka wartan-ta. the dog-A>B 3=B.= <=; bite-;> old.man hand-89: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 100% 61% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 83.5%

(. "e use of pictures to elicit sentences rather than a translation task was used to avoid ‘leading’ the speaker to produce more Gurindji or Kriol in a sentence. "ese picture elicitation tasks were performed as games with a Gurindji research assistant rather than a linguist facilitating them. See Meakins (2011c: 51–52) for a discussion of this methodology.

). Note that the resumptive pronoun is not always present but, where it is, it is always a Kriol-derived form.


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !!(

"e regularity found in this sentence is not unique. Although it is di5cult to !nd comparable sentences within the Gurindji Kriol corpus of spontaneous speech where it is rare to !nd all participants expressed as full nominals (nominals are optional in Gurindji Kriol), sets of sentences can be drawn from picture elicitation data. For example the 18 sentences shown in (5) come from a set of data which was elicited by native speakers using picture prompts. Similar comparisons can be made using other sentences. Below are 11 sentences which contain full nominals. "e number of tokens of the sentence found in the data is given as well as the per-centage of use of the forms. "e regularity of lexical choice is striking. Additionally Kriol TMA morphology and pronouns are always found. Some variation can be noted in the use of Gurindji nominal su5xes.

"e level of uniformity in lexical and syntactic choices shown by Gurindji Kriol speakers supports its status as a language independent of its sources. For example, though speakers regularly hear Gurindji verbal morphology from older speakers, they consistently use Kriol tense and aspect markers, e.g. bin ‘PAST’ in (5). "is degree of consistency in Gurindji Kriol has developed as particular lexical choices and structures in the language have become dominant and impervious to further outside in4uence and change.

Despite this degree of homogeneity, some variation exists, for example in the application of the ergative marker. Nonetheless it can be shown that this variation is both predictable and internal to the mixed language. In two studies of the op-tional use of the ergative marker in Gurindji Kriol clauses, the question of whether the variable use of the ergative marker was an indication of the gradual loss of er-gative marking or was a stable but variable part of the mixed language system was resolved through a multivariate analysis (Meakins 2009; Meakins & O’Shannessy 2010). It was found that the ergative marker is more likely to appear when the agent nominal is postverbal, inanimate and occurs with a coreferential pronoun (Meakins 2009: 72). Age was not a signi!cant factor in this variation. "e three age groups tested (children, teenagers, and young adults) all showed the same varia-tion according to the same variables. In this respect, the variable use of the erga-tive marker is both predictable and driven by other variables within the mixed language system. Whether optional ergativity in Gurindji Kriol constitutes ‘stable variation’ in the sense of Labov (1994), will be a test of time. Although age was not a signi!cant variable, the language is young and further change may occur. Other studies which have examined variability in Gurindji Kriol across age groups include Meakins & O’Shannessy’s (2005) discussion of variation between dative marking and prepositions in possessive constructions, and Meakins’ (2011c: 175–207) studies of variation between locative case-marking and prepositions in topo-logical relations and allative marking and prepositions in goal constructions.


!!) Felicity Meakins

jija-ngku i bin turrp im nidul-jawungnurse-ERG 3SG.S PST poke 3SG.O needle-PROP‘The nurse gave her a needle’9 tokensjija ERG i TMA turrp im nidul PROP100% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

dat kajirri i bin paku jiya-ngkathe old.woman 3SG.S PST vomit chair-LOC‘The old woman vomited on the chair’14 tokensdat kajirri ERG i TMA paku jiya LOC100% 100% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78%

dat karu-ngku i bin pangkily marluka wumara-yawungthe child-ERG 3SG.S PST hit.head old.man rock-PROP‘The child hit the old man on the head with a rock’8 tokensdat karu ERG i TMA pangkily marluka wumara PROP100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75%

dat kirri i bin tok-in bo nyanuny hasbenthe woman 3SG.S PST talk-CONT DAT 3DAT husband‘The woman talked to her husband’12 tokensdat kirri i TMA tok CONT bo 3DAT hasben100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 58% 100% 50%

karu-ngku i bin kil-im kengkaru kurrupartu-yawungchild-ERG 3SG.S PST hit-TR kangaroo boomerang-PROP‘The child hit the kangaroo with a boomerang’8 tokenskaru ERG i TMA hit-TR kengkaru kurrupartu PROP100% 71% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 75%


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !!*

dat warlaku i bin makin andanith tebul-ngkathe dog 3SG.S PST sleep down tree-LOC‘The dog slept under the table’11 tokensdat warlaku i TMA makin andanith tebul LOC100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 45% 100% 91%

dat kamel-tu i bin ngalyak kengkaruthe camel-ERG 3SG.S PST lick kangaroo‘The camel licks the kangaroo.’16 tokensdat camel ERG i TMA ngalyak kengkaru100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100%

dat kajirri-ngku i bin put-im koldringk jiya-ngkathe old.woman-ERG 3SG.S PST put-TR softdrink chair-LOC‘The old woman puts the softdrink on the chair’11 tokensdat kajirri ERG i TMA putim koldringk jiya LOC100% 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 82%

dat kirri-ngku i bin fil-im-ap-karra ngapulu kap-tathe woman-ERG 3SG.S PST fill-TR-up-CONT milk cup-LOC‘The woman fills the cup with milk’12 tokensdat kirri ERG i TMA filimap -karra ngapulu cup LOC100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91%

karu kujarra i bin warrkap tri-ngkachild two 3SG.S PST dance tree-LOC‘The two children dance under the tree’10 tokens karu kujarra 3SG.S PST dance tri LOC100% 70% 100% 100% 100% 60% 80%


!"$ Felicity Meakins

In conclusion, these two factors — language acquisition and speaker consis-tency — demonstrate the homogeneity of Gurindji Kriol which in turn contributes to the stability of this mixed language. Although it is di5cult to compare stability across contact and non-contact languages, it is clear that there is a correlation be-tween homogeneity, stability, and ultimately language autonomy.

#." Independent development of the mixed language

Language autonomy may also be demonstrated by the independent development of Gurindji Kriol and its sources. In this scenario, a change in the source languages does not necessarily imply a change in the mixed language and vice versa. Bakker (2003: 126) gives examples of cases where changes in the source languages are not re4ected in the mixed language. Here I examine independent developments which have occurred in the mixed language — Gurindji Kriol — and are not re4ected in the source languages — Gurindji or Kriol — (i) where unique forms and struc-tures have been created in the mixed language system, (ii) where forms from the source languages have developed new functions in the mixed language, and (iii) where forms from the source languages have developed new distributions.

"e most compelling evidence for the treatment of Gurindji and Gurindji Kriol as separate languages would be the same speaker’s di6ering use of Gurindji forms in Gurindji Kriol compared with Gurindji or Kriol/Gurindji code-switching — for ex-ample one speaker’s use of a particular Gurindji form in a new function in the mixed language while maintaining the conservative use of the form in Gurindji. Unfor-tunately this type of evidence is not available. Gurindji Kriol speakers rarely speak monolingual Gurindji and do not code-switch using Gurindji as a matrix language because they do not have a command of the Gurindji verbal system. Conversely old-er Gurindji people code-switch but do not speak the mixed language. "ese codes are separated by di6erent sets of speakers, rather than within speaker use.

dat karu-ngku i bin teik-im keik Kalkaringi-ngkirrithe child-ERG 3SG.S PST take-TR cake Kalkaringi-ALL‘The child took the cake to Kalkaringi’7 tokensdat karu i TMA take-TR keik Kalkaringi ALL100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86%

Figure 2. Degree of consistency across Gurindji Kriol speakers


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !"!

#.".! Unique forms and structuresFirst, Gurindji Kriol has forms which are unique to the mixed language. For exam-ple, Gurindji Kriol has developed a new allative allomorph with vowel-!nal stems, -ngkirri. "is case marker is derived from Gurindji and is probably the result of a phonological coalescence between the two vowel-!nal variants which are found in Gurindji (-ngkurra and -yirri). "e new allomorph is also reinforced by the consonant-!nal variant -jirri which is used in both Gurindji and Gurindji Kriol. "ese case markers are summarised in Table 2:

Table 2. Allomorphic changes in the allative case marker in Gurindji KriolGurindji Gurindji KriolL(M0N O)-EN '),PNNEQ)R -ngkurra L(M0N O)-EN -ngkirri

STNF),PNNEQ)R -ngkurra, -yirriR(-,(-E-F O)-EN -jirri R(-,(-E-F O)-EN -jirri

"e new allative allomorph -ngkirri has not been adopted back into Gurindji, and this form is also not used in Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. Indeed this form is stigmatised by Gurindji speakers. Biddy Wavehill, a Gurindji elder, describes her concerns about the use of the new allative allomorph.

Ngurnayinangkulu kurru karrinyana karu yu nou kula-lu marnana jutup. Ngulu marnani ‘Nyawangkirri’. ‘Nyawangkirri-ma’, nyampayila ngulu marnana ‘Mur-langkurra’. ‘Kawayi murlangkurra,’ kuya yu nou … ‘Nyawangkirri,’ dat not rait word jaru. Ngurnayinangkulu kurru karrinyana kuya laik ngurnayinangkulu jutuk kuya-rnangku jarrakap brobli-wei.We listen to the kids, you know, and they don’t talk properly. For example, they are always saying nyawangkirri for ‘that way’. "ey always say nyawangkirri not murlangkurra which is wrong. You should say murlangkurra … Nyawangkirri is not proper Gurindji. We listen to the kids and they don’t talk as well as I am talk-ing to you. (Meakins 2010b: 230)9

Many other new forms exist in Gurindji Kriol, such as the dative allomorph -yu. "is new form also developed from older Gurindji forms. In Gurindji, the da-

*. Another interesting di6erence is noted by Wavehill in the above quote. She cites a di6erence in use of the demonstrative stem — murla- ‘this’ which she attributes to Gurindji speakers and nyawa- which she says is used by Gurindji Kriol speakers. Nyawa is derived from Gurindji, how-ever it is only used in conservative Gurindji as the unin4ected form with murla- the suppletive stem used for all case in4ections. In fact nyawa is used as both the in4ected and in4ected forms e.g. nyawa-ngka ‘this-LOC=here’ by both Gurindji Kriol and younger Gurindji speakers though it is stigmatised. It is likely that the use of nyawa with case-marking predated the formation of the mixed language.


!"" Felicity Meakins

tive marker appears in allomorphic variation, -wu (vowel-!nal), -ku (consonant-!nal), and -u (liquid -!nal). Some changes can be observed in Gurindji Kriol. First the liquid distinction has been discarded, with liquid-!nal stems being treated as consonant-!nal stems (-ku). Secondly a new allomorph -yu has developed which occurs a3er back vowels. "us Gurindji Kriol maintains a three-way distinction but with di6erent phonological environments -wu (front and mid vowel-!nal), -yu (back vowel-!nal), and -ku (consonant-!nal) (Meakins 2011c: 25–26). Oth-er phonological innovations have occurred at a lexical level. For example, a new form jayijayi ‘chase’ has developed from coalescence between the Gurindji form kayikayi ‘chase, follow’ and the Kriol form jeijim ‘chase’.

New forms have also arisen in Gurindji Kriol from the acrolectalisation of Kriol components due to younger generation’s increasing contact with English. "is process has not occurred in the Kriol used by older Gurindji people in code-switching. Instead older Gurindji people continue to use classic Kriol forms. For example, Gurindji Kriol speakers always use the acrolectal Kriol form don in nega-tive imperatives such as in (6), whereas older Gurindji speakers will use nomo in negative imperatives involving in4ecting verbs10 when they code-switch, for example in (7).

(6) don tarukap nyawa-ngka im tarlukurru. KAB swim this-89: 3=B deep ‘Don’t swim here. It’s too deep.’ (Gurindji Kriol: CA: FM03_a03_1b)

(7) wal Nganyjal-ma ma-rni ngu, well name-;9< talk-<=; 3=B ‘Parnku-rlang, nomo parra-wula kankulupal cousin-CD?C KAB [email protected] above ‘Well Kganyjal said, ‘Don’t you two cousins cut above (the hole).’ (present day Kriol/Gurindji code-switching: VD: FM07_a021)

"e negative nomo is now more commonly used by older speakers than the Gur-indji equivalent kula. Yet despite the high exposure to nomo, Gurindji Kriol speak-ers always use don. It is likely that Kriol components of Gurindji Kriol such as negation have acrolectalised as a result of increased exposure to English through

!$. McConvell (per. comm.) suggests that negative imperatives involving in4ecting verbs should take the form gerund plus privative. I have no examples of these in my data even from old speakers. It is the case that in negative imperatives involving coverbs rather than in4ecting verbs, Gurindji speakers use a coverb plus privative e.g. pangkily-murlung ‘Don’t hit him on the head!’. It is possible that the construction using a gerund form of the in4ecting verb was used in even older Gurindji speech, nonetheless the construction I describe above using nomo is the construction that Gurindji Kriol speakers are exposed to. Despite this they do not use nomo, rather don is found categorically.


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !"#

schooling and the media. Six hours of Gurindji children’s day is spent immersed in English and most households own televisions.

Gurindji Kriol has also developed new grammatical structures which are not found in either Gurindji or Kriol. One such example is the asymmetrical serial verb construction. Serial verb constructions are characterised by two or more verbs acting together as a single predicate and marking a single event (Durie (1997: 290) and many others). Aikhenvald (2006: 21) identi!es a subclass which she calls asymmetrical serial verb constructions.11 She suggests that the distin-guishing property of asymmetrical serial verb constructions is that they consist of one verb from a relatively large open class category, and another verb from a more restricted class (minor verbs). Gurindji Kriol contains these types of construc-tions which combine one of 14 semantically bleached minor verbs such as go, put and hit with an open class of verbs. "ese constructions are used to (i) change the aspectual properties of a clause, (ii) change the transitivity of the clause, (iii) give information about path and direction of actions, and more generally (iv) modify the semantics of the major verb. For example, put is used in (8) to increase the valency of the clause such that an object is introduced.

(8) i bin put-im im jidan 3=B.= <=; put-;> 3=B.9 sit ‘She sat it down.’ (Gurindji Kriol: Meakins 2010a: 22)

Kriol only contains a very restricted set of minor verbs — go, come and make which combine with other verbs to add path information and create causative con-structions. Instead Kriol uses other parts of the grammar to mark particular func-tions. For example, Kriol does not change the transitivity of the clause in the same manner as Gurindji Kriol. In Kriol, the transitive marker is derivational, in that it can create transitive verbs from intransitive verbs. "e following example comes from the variety of Kriol spoken in Tennant Creek which is called Wumpurrarni English (see Figure71).

(9) sid-im-ap doldol, go-an. sit-;>-up doll go-on ‘Sit the doll up, go on!’ (Kriol; Disbray 2009 cited in Meakins 2010a: 22)

Gurindji also does not contain serial verb constructions, however Gurindji does have a complex verb made up of an in4ecting verb (from a closed class of around 30) and a coverb (from an open class) (McConvell 1996). An example is given in (10) where the Gurindji verbs corresponding to sit and put combine in a way that re4ects Gurindji Kriol, as shown in (8).

!!. Also known as unbalanced serial verb constructions (Durie 1997).


!"& Felicity Meakins

(10) yala-nginyi=ma ngu=rnayinangulu lurlu yuwa-nana kuya that-EQN=;9< :?;=1<8GK:>3<8 sit put-<>= thus yala-ngarna tarlakurru-la=ma jungkart-ta=ma. that-?==9: deep-89:-;9< smoke-89:-;9< ‘A3er that we sit them like this in the pit in the smoke.’ (Gurindji: VD: FM08_a085)

Although this construction bears some resemblance to serial verb constructions, the main di6erence is that the individual verbs may occur as independent predi-cates in serial verb constructions. "is is not the case in Gurindji where coverbs can not occur independent of an in4ecting verb. "us, although strong similarities can be observed, the asymmetrical serial verb construction in Gurindji Kriol is not directly derived from either Gurindji or Kriol. Instead it is a unique structure which is a product of the restricted Kriol serial verb construction developing and expanding under the in4uence of the Gurindji complex verb (Meakins 2010a).

Not only has Gurindji Kriol created unique forms out of forms found in the source languages, it has also dispensed with patterns which are found in both Gur-indji and Kriol. For example both Gurindji and Kriol make use of reduplication in nominals to create plurals and in co/verbs to mark iterative aspect. Despite the use of reduplication in both source languages, Gurindji Kriol makes little use of it, though see an example in (16). In fact this is a very conscious stylistic choice of the part of Gurindji Kriol speakers who call reduplication dabulap tok ‘double up talk’ and joke about it. "us the virtual non-use of reduplication is unique to Gurindji Kriol speakers and separates them stylistically from both Gurindji and Kriol speakers.

Another place where Gurindji Kriol speakers have diverged from patterns found in both source languages is in the marking of inalienable possession. In both Gurindji and Kriol body parts are unmarked in attributive possessive con-structions where all other possessed nominals are marked with a dative su5x (Gurindji) or preposition (Kriol). In Gurindji Kriol this alienability distinction has been virtually lost with almost all possessed nominals being marked with a Gur-indji dative su5x (Meakins & O’Shannessy 2005). In this respect Gurindji Kriol di6ers from both Gurindji and Kriol in possessive constructions.

#."." Old forms, new functionsAlthough new forms and structures have developed in Gurindji Kriol, much of the mixed language system is more directly derived from Gurindji or Kriol. Yet even where Gurindji and Kriol forms are directly replicated in Gurindji Kriol, they o3en exhibit di6erent functions from the source language, generally as a result of contact with the other source language. For example, Gurindji Kriol uses the Kriol dative pronoun bo in ways that di6er from Kriol. In both the eastern and western


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !"%

varieties of Kriol (Hudson 1983; Sandefur 1979) the dative preposition is only used for peripheral functions such as benefactive and purposive constructions, or in possessive constructions. Yet Gurindji Kriol the dative preposition is used to mark indirect objects, where Kriol would use a locative preposition.

(11) nyanuny mami bin tok bo nyanuny karu. 3,U.'EF mother V,F talk +,- 3,U.'EF child ‘"e mother talks to her child.’ (Gurindji Kriol: AC: FHM002)

(12) dis olgaman im tok-in la jet yanggel. this old.woman 3,U talk-R(-F ./0 the girl ‘"is old women is talking to the girl.’ (Kriol: SY: FHM096)

"is change is the result of mapping the range of functions of the dative case su5x in Gurindji onto the Kriol preposition in Gurindji Kriol. In Gurindji, the dative case marker is used to mark indirect objects, as shown in (13) and this function has been extended to the Kriol preposition bo in Gurindji Kriol, as (11) demonstrated.

(13) ngu=rla ma-rna-na karu-wu yalu-wu REF=3'EF talk-)SVO-VW, child-+,- that-+,- ‘She talks to that child.’ (Gurindji: BW: FM07_a043)

"e marking of inanimate goals is another example of this type of shi3. Gurindji marks inanimate goals using an allative case marker (with place names optionally unmarked) and the ground in stative locative expressions using a locative case marker. Kriol uses the same preposition to indicate both inanimate goals (again with place names optionally unmarked) and the ground in locative expressions — langa ‘to, at’. A new system has emerged in Gurindji Kriol which fuses both systems. "e new system uses the form from one language with the distribution from the other language. "us inanimate goals are o3en marked with a Gurindji locative case su5x by younger speakers, despite the fact that locative marking is not used to indicate goals in Gurindji. "is pattern is the result of mapping the Gurindji locative case su5x onto a Kriol pattern, which does not distinguish be-tween location and goal relations (Meakins 2011c: 249).


!"' Felicity Meakins

(14) karrinyana ngawa-ngka yanana ngawa-ngkurra (Gurindji)be.PRS water-LOC go-PRS water-ALL‘be at the water(‘s edge)’ ‘go to the water’

CASE SUFFIX FORM

top ngawa-ngka gon ngawa-ngka (GK)be water-LOC go house-LOC‘be at the water(‘s edge)’ ‘go to the water’

CONFLATION OF DISTRIBUTION

jidan langa woda gon langa woda (Kriol)be LOC.water go LOC.water‘be at the water(‘s edge)’ ‘go to the water’

#.".# Old forms, new distributionNot only has the function of many forms shi3ed when they have been replicated in the mixed language, but the distribution of some forms has also changed. "is change is particularly striking in the Gurindji component of Gurindji Kriol. For example Gurindji Kriol contains a set of emphatic pronouns which are derived from Gurindji (see Table 1).12 In Gurindji, emphatic pronouns remain unin4ected regardless of whether the form marks a subject or object. Argument disambigua-tion is performed by the pronominal clitics or coreferential nominals. For exam-ple, in (15) nyantu refers to Emu who is the subject and ergative-marked in the fol-lowing nominal, however nyantu remains unmarked for its grammatical function.

(15) nyawa-rra ngu yurruyurruk ma-ni nyantu=ma Yiparrartu-lu=ma this-<8U :?;.3=B spill.>AC@< do-<=; 3=B=;9< Emu-A>B=;9< ‘He spilt this lot (red ochre) here, he (did), Emu (did).’ (Gurindji: TD: FM08_a08_4b)

In Gurindji Kriol, these emphatic pronouns have been subsumed into the general nominal system such that they are ergative-marked as subjects as shown in (16) and unmarked as objects. "is change in Gurindji Kriol has not been re4ected in Gurindji.

!". Regular pronouns are derived from Kriol.


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !"(

(16) i=m til ngapungapuk nyantu-ngku,13 manyanyi=ma. 3=B=<>= still smell.>AC@< 3=B-A>B plant.species=;9< ‘He still smelling the manyanyi, he is. (Gurindji Kriol: CE: FM08_a067)

"e distribution of nominal morphology has also changed in Gurindji Kriol. In Gurindji all elements of the noun phrase agree in terms of morphological mark-ing. "is agreement is maintained in the code-switching even where Kriol is se-lected as the matrix language. For example in (17), Kriol is the matrix language (Kriol tense marking bin is used) yet the nominals continue to agree as they would in Gurindji. "e nominals that, whatsitname, and seed all receive locative and topic marking.

(17) on da oldentaim dei bin pirrkap mangarri, yala-ngka=ma in the olden.days they <=; make bread that-89:=;9< nyampayila-la=ma, sid-ta=ma nganta wayi? whats.it.name-89:=;9< seed-89:=;9< C9@X; ;?B ‘In the old days they made bread out of that whatsitname seed, didn’t they?’ (present day Kriol/Gurindji code-switching: VD: FM09_a13_2a)

On the other hand, in Gurindji Kriol agreement across the noun phrase is no lon-ger observed. Instead noun phrases are edge-marked with the right-most noun marked regardless of the modi!er-head order which varies.14 (18) is one such example.

(18) dat yapakayi karu-ngku i bin gon ged-im-bat dat karu. the small child-A>B 3=B.= <=; go get-;>-:9K; the child ‘1e small kid goes to get the (other) kid.’ (Gurindji Kriol: SE: FM019.A)

"e examples above demonstrate just some of the ways in which elements from Gurindji and Kriol operate in di6erent ways in the mixed language. "ese di6er-ences support the claim that Gurindji Kriol is a separate language variety. If Gur-indji Kriol were merely an example of code-switching, the operation of various

!#. Also note that the nasal-stop dissimilation rule which existed in Gurindji whereby a nasal-stop cluster in the stem would cause the nasal-stop cluster in the ergative su5x -ngku to be reduced to -ku (and also a6ected other su5xes such as the allative) (McConvell 1988b) is not found in Gurindji Kriol. Nonetheless this is not an innovation of the language as young speakers of Gurindji have also lost this morpho-phonemic rule.

!&. Note that discontinuous noun phrases are also possible. Where other constituents intervene in a noun phrase, both the modi!er and head are marked. "is follows the pattern found in Gurindji. Also it must be noted that occasionally a Gurindji Kriol speaker will mark all of the constituents in a noun phrase, however this is considered by speakers themselves to be hyper-correction where they are trying to more closely approximate Gurindji.


!") Felicity Meakins

elements of the clauses would be expected to be much like the source languages. Indeed Gurindji Kriol was also shown to di6er from Kriol/Gurindji code-switch-ing, as shown in (7) and (17). Generally speaking the forms in the code-switching data behave as they do in their source languages. Both languages are active to vary-ing extents and therefore elements from both languages are used in the language mix as they are in monolingual clauses.

#.# "e composite structure of Gurindji Kriol

A !nal piece of evidence for the autonomy of Gurindji Kriol is the structural fusion of its two source languages. One place where this fusion is evidenced is in the use of both source languages to mark in4ectional categories in the mixed language. In this respect, the grammar of Gurindji Kriol may be considered a composite struc-ture, with neither Gurindji nor Kriol dominating. As was discussed in §2, verbal in4ectional categories are marked by Kriol (TMA markers) and Gurindji contrib-utes nominal in4ectional morphology (case marking). "is composite structure is demonstrated schematically in (19):

(19) She talked to her husband in his ear.[i bin tok] la im hasben langa irrwul (K)3SG.S PST talk LOC 3SG husband LOC ear

[i bin tok] [nyanuny hasben-ku] [langa-ngka] (GK)3SG.S PST talk 3SG.DAT husband-DAT ear-LOC

ngu=rla ma-rni [nyanuny-ku ngumparna-wu] [langa-ngka] (G)CAT=3DAT talk-LOC 3DAT-DAT husband-DAT ear-LOC

"e presence of Gurindji case morphology within a Kriol verbal frame in Gur-indji Kriol is exceptional given the fragility of in4ectional morphology in other language contact situations. In4ectional morphology is rarely borrowed ("oma-son & Kaufman 1988; Heath 1978; Weinreich 1974 [1953]; Gardani 2008; Matras 2007), generally derived from the more dominant language in code-switching (Myers-Scotton 2002; Muysken 2000) and one of the !rst systems to be reduced or lost in situations of language obsolescence (Maher 1991; Sasse 1992). Interestingly in4ectional morphology is found from both source languages in three other mixed languages: Michif (Bakker 1997), Mednyj Aleut (Golovko 1994), Light Warlpiri


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !"*

(O’Shannessy 2006) and in some Mandarin dialects which have come into contact with agglutinating Turkic languages to produce hybrid varieties (Hezhu, Dongx-iang, and Tangwang) (McConvell 2008: 208). "is seems to be a feature of more grammatically fused mixed languages which distinguishes them from other out-comes of language contact.

"is distinction between mixed languages and other forms of language contact such as code-switching can be demonstrated in a comparison of the use of in4ec-tional morphology in Gurindji Kriol code-switching and the mixed language. "e use of both Gurindji and Kriol to mark in4ectional categories in Gurindji Kriol di6ers from the patterns found in equivalent Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. "e relevant type of code-switching is the dominant pattern where Kriol is used as the matrix language, as de!ned by the presence of Kriol TMA markers (see §2). What is interesting about this form of code-switching is that, where Gurindji case-mor-phology is found (i.e. an ergative or dative marker), a resumptive pronoun is gen-erally required, as was shown in (2) and (3).15 In these examples, ergative-marked nominals are cross-referenced with a free Kriol pronoun. "e case-marked nomi-nals are not fully integrated into the clause but rather are dislocated. Kriol remains the dominant language in the code-switching in these cases and the dislocated nominals only have a peripheral relationship to the predicate argument structure of the clause. Alternatively the nominal can be integrated without its case-marking as shown in (20) where the name Nganyjal is not ergative-marked.

(20) Nganyjal bin ged-im-bat nyila na karnti, wutuyawung. name <=; get-;>-:9K; that I9: tree river.!g ‘Kganyjal was getting that river !g wood.’ (present day Kriol/Gurindji code-switching: VD: FM09_a127)

Meakins (2011c: 125) suggests that case-marked Gurindji nominals cannot be in-tegrated into the clause because they are not typologically congruent with Kriol nominals which are unmarked. Indeed where Gurindji nominals do not require

!%. Note that some examples can be found where this generalisation does not hold. McConvell (2008: 193) cites one such example:

onli jintaku-lu Warlawurru-lu bin faind-im nyawa na only one-ERG Eagle-ERG PST !nd-TR this now ‘Only the one Eagle found this one.’

"e existence of these examples does not undermine the general argument. It is expected that some such examples should exist. Variation is required for language change and these examples most likely represent tokens of early examples where the change had begun. Nonetheless even in contemporary code-switching data, it is rare to !nd examples which do not have resumptive pronouns (Meakins 2011c: 119–121).


!#$ Felicity Meakins

case-marking such as objects, there is no problem with their incorporation into the clause, as shown in (21).

(21) wi neba bin bring-im kartak-walija. 1<8.= KAB <=; bring-;> container-<?@: ‘We didn’t bring any buckets.’ (1970s code-switching collected by P.

McConvell )

In the mixed language, Gurindji Kriol, case-marked nominals are not always dis-located, but o3en occupy argument positions. "is kind of composite structure is exempli!ed by (22).

(22) karnti-ngku turrp im fut-ta lungkarra-k. tree-A>B poke 3=B.9 foot-89: cry-)-RY( ‘He stepped on a stick and started crying (lit: the stick poked him in his foot

and made him cry.’ (Gurindji Kriol: CE: FM045.D)

"e integration of Gurindji-derived case-marking into the Gurindji Kriol clause is a major di6erence between the code-switching and mixed language. "is dif-ference is signi!cant because of the special status in4ectional morphology has in contact situations. "is type of morphology provides a good litmus test for the relative strengths of the interacting languages. It is o3en one of the !rst systems to be lost from the weaker language, and is a6ected less in the dominant language. In this respect, the maintenance of nominal in4ectional morphology from one lan-guage where the other language provides the verbal frame, as is shown in Gurindji Kriol, is an indicator of the more equal status of both languages in the mix. "e di6erence between the treatment of case-marked nominals in the code-switching and mixed language is further evidence for the existence of an autonomous lan-guage system — one which is built from structural elements from both Gurindji and Kriol.

Further evidence for the structural fusion of Gurindji Kriol can be seen in pronoun and demonstrative paradigms. In the case of the pronoun paradigm, Gurindji and Kriol paradigms have combined to produce a single Gurindji Kriol paradigm. For example subject pronouns are drawn from English and Kriol, most object pronouns come from the set of emphatic Gurindji pronouns and dative pronouns are also Gurindji-derived forms, as shown in Figure 3. "e Gurindji em-phatic pronouns except the dual forms continue to be used in this function, and, like nominals, are in4ected for case such as ergative case.

"e mixing of the Gurindji and Kriol pronoun paradigms is strong evidence that structural fusion has taken place. When older Gurindji people code-switch, they use the pronouns of the matrix language in the manner that they are found in the matrix


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !#!

language. For example where Kriol verbal in4ections in the form of TMA markers are found, Kriol pronouns are also found. Similarly where the Gurindji in4ecting verb is used in code-switching then Gurindji bound pronouns are also found as well as emphatic pronouns. In this respect they continue to separate the languages and their paradigm sets in a way that di6ers from Gurindji Kriol speakers.

&. Identifying individual clauses as code-switching or a mixed language clause

"e previous section presented evidence which suggests that Gurindji Kriol may be considered a new language independent of its sources which can also be dis-tinguished from code-switching. Given these claims, this section looks at the very practical problem of how to identify mixed language clauses within a complex language ecology. "is issue is relevant to Gurindji Kriol because not only does it continue to be spoken alongside its source languages but the code-switching which preceded the formation of the Gurindji Kriol is a continuing practice. In this respect, it is o3en di5cult to di6erentiate mixed language clauses from code-switched clauses, and even monolingual clauses, as will be shown. In many cases, the features of Gurindji Kriol which were discussed in the previous section and

Subject Object Dative Emphatic

1SG ai ngayu ngayiny ngayu

1SGINC wi ngali – ngali

1SGEX wi ngantipa ngantipany ngantipa

1PLINC wi ngaliwa ngaliwany ngaliwa

2SG yu yu nyununy nyuntu

2DU yutu(bala) yutu(bala) – –

2PL yumob yumob nyurruluny nyurrulu

3SG i im nyanuny nyantu

3DU tu(bala) tu(bala) – –

3PL dei dem nyarruluny nyarrulu

REFLX mijelpFigure 3. Gurindji Kriol regular pronoun paradigm


!#" Felicity Meakins

presented as evidence for language autonomy (unique features, forms with new functions and new distributions and a composite structure) can be used to di6er-entiate mixed language clauses from code-switching. "is section will show how the features discussed in the previous section can be operationalised to classify in-dividual utterances. It will also demonstrate that there is a grey area where clauses are not easily classi!ed as Gurindji, Kriol, Gurindji Kriol, or code-switching.

According to the observation that in4ectional morphology from both lan-guages can be present in the mixed language without a resumptive pronoun and not in the code-switching (§3.3), clauses which have very little mixed lexical con-tent may be classi!ed as Gurindji Kriol. For example, in (23) below, though most of the lexemes including in4ectional morphology, =in ‘PAST’, and -im ‘TR’, are derived from Kriol. But the presence of the Gurindji ergative marker, -tu (without a coreferential pronoun), is enough to identify this utterance as Gurindji Kriol. Similarly, though (24) contains almost all Gurindji lexemes, in4ectional morphol-ogy from both languages is present, for example case-marking from Gurindji, and the past tense marker from Kriol, showing it to be a Gurindji Kriol utterance.

(23) jinek-tu bin bait-im im. snake-A>B V,F bite-;> 3=B.9 ‘"e snake bit him.’ (Gurindji Kriol: RS: FHM124)

(24) karu bin lungkarrap marluka ngarlaka-ngka. child <=; cry old.man head-89: ‘"e child was crying on the old man’s shoulders.’ (Gurindji Kriol: CE: FHM018)

Nonetheless this composite criterion is problematic as a general measure because it requires the presence of nominals which are in fact optional in Gurindji Kriol. "is means that the potential for case-marking — the diagnostic — is not always realised in the clause. "e optionality of nominals produces many utterances where all of the words and morphemes are derived from Kriol, such as (25) which is repeated from (8):

(25) i bin put-im im jidan. 3=B.= <=; put-;> 3=B.9 sit ‘She sat it down.’ (Gurindji Kriol: Meakins 2010a: 22)

Yet, although all of the morphemes in this sentence are derived from Kriol, they do not behave as they would in Kriol. As was discussed in §3.2.1, Kriol does not con-tain serial verb structures of this sort and would instead used a transitive marker to change the valency of the verb, jid-im-dan. "us this sentence would be classi-!ed as Gurindji Kriol on the basis of the use of unique serial verb structure.


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !##

Similarly in (26), although the forms of the sentence are all derived from Kriol, the negative imperative don is used where Kriol uses the form nomo (see §3.2.1). Moreover the use of the Kriol-derived form bo to mark an indirect object also dif-fers from Kriol (see §3.2.2). In Kriol, indirect objects are marked using the locative preposition langa. "e dative preposition bo is an in4uence from Gurindji which marks indirect objects with dative case su5xes. "us although on the surface (26) is Kriol, this sentence would be classi!ed as a Gurindji Kriol sentence.

(26) don gib-it im mani bo dat Josie. KAB give-;> 3=B.9 money +,- the name ‘Don’t give money to Josie.’ (Gurindji Kriol: AR: FM003.A)

"e status of other sentences where the forms are all derived from one language can be resolved using negative criteria. For example, (27) is an apparently mono-lingual Gurindji utterance. Yet despite containing only Gurindji lexemes, this sen-tence would be considered a Gurindji Kriol token, rather than a monolingual Gur-indji utterance, because it does not contain the Gurindji in4ecting verb and bound pronoun structure which would be present in Gurindji, as in (28). It also shows no case agreement within the noun phrase (see §3.2.3). "e relevant missing pieces of Gurindji are provided and highlighted in (28).

(27) kajirri jintaku jarrakap-karra nyanuny ngumparna-wu. old.woman one talk-:9K; 3,U.'EF husband-C?; ‘One old woman is talking to her husband.’ (Gurindji Kriol: CE: FHM037)

(28) kajirri jintaku ngu=rla jarrakap-karra ma-rna-na old.woman one :?;=3,U.'EF talk-R(-F say-GH<I-VW, nyanuny-ku ngumparna-wu. 3sg.'EF-C?; husband-'EF ‘One old woman is talking to her husband.’ (Gurindji equivalent)

Other sentences which (i) do not have a composite structure and where (ii) all morphemes are derived from either Gurindji or Kriol and (iii) all of these mor-phemes behave as they would in these languages are di5cult to distinguish from monolingual Gurindji or Kriol. For example (29) contrasts with (23) which has an expressed agent. In (29) all of the lexical and grammatical morphemes come from Kriol and they all behave as they would in the source languages.

(29) i bin bait-im im 3,U., V,F bite-FW- 3,U.( ‘It bit him.’ (RS: FHM124: Karrative)

Sentences such as (29) which contain all Kriol morphemes are di5cult to label as either Kriol or Gurindji Kriol. Potentially this sentence could belong to the


!#& Felicity Meakins

Gurindji Kriol language system, however it cannot be distinguished from Kriol. Additionally other clauses which are mixed present problems for classi!cation when all of the parts of the mixed clause behave as they would in the source lan-guages. "ese clauses are virtually impossible to distinguish from code-switching, and are problematic for the identi!cation of Gurindji Kriol clauses in this respect. For example, in (30) the goal nominal Lajamanu is a place name that is unmarked. In both Gurindji and Kriol place names are optionally unmarked in goal construc-tions. "us this sentence may be considered a case of code-switching between Kri-ol and Gurindji, with the Gurindji nominals jintaku kirri ‘one woman’ inserting into a Kriol matrix language (verbal structure from Kriol), or it may be considered a mixed language clause. No part of this sentence behaves any di6erently from the source languages, thus it is not clear how to treat it.

(30) jintaku kirri i=m gon Lajamanu. one woman 3,U.,=<>= go place.name ‘One woman went to Lajamanu.’ (CE: FHM121)

Other problematic cases are examples such as (31) whose status is ambiguous due to the use of the Kriol preposition rather than a Gurindji case-marker at the end of the utterance. In §3.3 I showed that Gurindji is responsible for the noun phrase structure in Gurindji Kriol, however here is a Kriol preposition used instead of a Gurindji locative marker -ta. Moreover the use of the Kriol preposition re4ects that of its source language. "us it is not clear in this utterance whether the use of the preposition represents a code-switch or is a part of the larger language system of Gurindji Kriol.

(31) warlaku-ngku bait-im wan marluka la wartan. dog-0WU bite-FW a old.man N(R hand ‘"e dog bites a man on the arm.’ (JV: FHM051)

Similarly the status of (32) is ambiguous due to the absence of the ergative marker on warlaku.

(32) warlaku bin bait-im im marluka=ma wartan-ta. dog <=; bite-;> 3=B.9 old.man=;9< hand-89: ‘"e dog bit the old man on the hand.’ (CE: FHM086)

One analysis of this sentence might be that it represents code-switching where Kriol provides the matrix clause and Gurindji elements have inserted into this sentence.

Yet many utterances such as these which cannot be di6erentiated from code-switching are revealed to operate within the larger mixed language system. For example, as was discussed in §3.1.2, the ergative marker is more likely to appear


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !#%

when the agent nominal is postverbal, inanimate and occurs with a coreferential pronoun. "is analysis is consistent with (32) where the ergative marker is absent on an animate, preverbal agent which has no coreferential pronoun. "us the vari-ability of the ergative marker is predictable and in this respect may be considered to operate in a consistent manner within an autonomous language system rather than code-switching. "us (32) may be considered to be a mixed language clause.

"us there are clauses which can de!nitely be identi!ed as a part of the mixed language on the basis of their composite structure and the uniqueness of the func-tion of particular elements. Gurindji Kriol can always be di6erentiated from Gur-indji on the basis of negative criteria. "is is because the VP including verb, TMA markers and pronouns is the only obligatory part of the Gurindji Kriol clause and Kriol is the language of the VP. "erefore if the Gurindji VP is missing as in (27) the clause can always be classi!ed as Gurindji Kriol. However there is also a grey area containing clauses which are not clearly Gurindji Kriol, monolingual Kriol, or code-switching. "e status of some ambiguous clauses may be resolved by looking at the operation of particular features such as the ergative marker within the overall system. Yet it will always be the case that in such a complex language ecology, there will be utterances where no analysis or criteria is available to judge their status.

%. Conclusion

"e aim of this paper has been to demonstrate that mixed languages may op-erate as autonomous language systems even where they exist in symbiosis with their source languages. In the case of Gurindji Kriol which continues to be spoken alongside Gurindji and Kriol, and has a close historical and continuing relation-ship with code-switching practices, a number of features of the mixed language lend themselves to the claim of autonomy. Gurindji Kriol may be considered a stable language system because it is acquired by children and there is a large degree of consistency between speakers. Moreover, where there is variation, such as in the use of the ergative marker, this variation can be shown to be predictable as varia-tionalists following in the tradition of Labov have shown to be the case in numer-ous studies of variation in so-called ‘normal’ languages. Moreover Gurindji Kriol has developed unique forms and structures which are not present in either source language. "ese innovations have not been adopted back into the source languages and are also not used in Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. Where forms are directly replicated from the source languages, many cases of functional or distributional shi3 can be seen further supporting the case for language autonomy. Finally the presence of in4ectional morphology from both source languages in Gurindji Kriol was shown to be rare in other situations of language contact cross-linguistically.


!#' Felicity Meakins

Importantly for the case of Gurindji Kriol, this composite grammar is not present in Kriol/Gurindji code-switching. "is structural fusion was further evidenced by mixing in the pronoun paradigm.

"rough these di6erences, Gurindji Kriol can be shown to be an autonomous language system rather than two separate language systems combined. "e devel-opment of Gurindji and Kriol elements in the mixed language has not extended to the source languages. Moreover the use of Gurindji and Kriol constituents in code-switching generally does not di6er radically from monolingual clauses. Gurindji and Kriol systems, which have been altered in the mixed language, continue to be used unchanged in the source languages. "us Gurindji Kriol exists in symbiosis with Gurindji and Kriol yet is independent of these languages. It is unlikely that Gurindji Kriol will be completely impervious to further change as a result of con-tinuing contact with the source languages. Both of the source languages are associ-ated with di6erent social meanings (Gurindji: ancestral, Kriol: modernity) and these social meanings may change in importance over time and with it, Gurindji Kriol. In which case, further development and change may predicted for this mixed language.

Received: 9/16/09 Revised: 2/20/10 Accepted: 3/5/10

List of abbreviations

EQN ablative -0U negativeERF activity -SZ nominaliserENN allative ( objectR(-[ conjunction W0R)V reciprocalR(-F continuative W0R(U.'0S recognitional demonstrative'EF dative W0'TV reduplication'(TQF dubiative W0ON re4exive'T dual VETR paucal'PE' dyad, a pair V0W perfect0WU ergative VN pluralO(R focus VW(V proprietive ‘having’OTF future VW, present tense)SVO imperfect V,F past)-R inclusive , subject)-RY( inchoative ,U singularN(R locative FEU tag question


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !#(

F(V topic 2 second personFW transitive 3 third person1 !rst person - morpheme break

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Alex-andra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions, 1–68. Oxford: OUP.

Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: !e genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. New York: OUP.

Bakker, Peter. 2003. Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bak-ker (eds.), !e mixed language debate: !eoretical and empirical advances, 107–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Charola, Erika. 2002. !e verb phrase structure of Gurindji Kriol. Melbourne: University of Mel-bourne Honours dissertation.

Dalton, Lorraine, Sandra Edwards, Rosaleen Farquarson, Sarah Oscar, & Patrick McConvell. 1995. Gurindji children’s language and language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 113. 83–98.

Disbray, Samantha. 2009. More than one way to catch a frog: Children’s discourse in a language contact setting. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD dissertation.

Durie, Mark. 1997. Grammatical structures in verb serialisation. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 289–354. Stanford: CSLI.

Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of in"ectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Golovko, Evgeniy V. 1994. Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut: An Aleut-Russian mixed lan-guage. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 113–121. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.

Golovko, Evgeniy V. 2003. Language contact and group identity: "e role of ‘folk’ linguistic engineering. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), !e mixed language debate: !eoretical and empirical advances, 177–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hardy, Frank. 1968. !e Unlucky Australians. Melbourne: Nelson.Heath, Je6rey. 1978. Linguistic di#usion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: AIAS.Hudson, Joyce. 1983. Grammatical and semantic aspects of Fitzroy Valley Kriol, Work paper of

SIL-AAB A/8. Darwin: SIL.Klavans, Judith. 1983. "e syntax of code switching: Spanish and English. In D. King & C.A.

Matey (eds.), Selected papers from the 13th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Maher, Julianne. 1991. A crosslinguistic study of language contact and language attrition. In

Herbert Seliger & Robert Vago (eds.), First language attrition, 67–84. Cambridge: CUP.Matras, Yaron. 2003. Mixed languages: Re-examining the structural prototype. In Yaron Ma-

tras & Peter Bakker (eds.), !e mixed language debate: !eoretical and empirical advances, 151–176. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


!#) Felicity Meakins

Matras, Yaron. 2007. "e borrowability of structural categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker. 2003. "e study of mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), !e mixed language debate: !eoretical and empirical advances, 1–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

McConvell, Patrick. 1985. Domains and codeswitching among bilingual Aborigines. In Michael Clyne (ed.), Australia, meeting place of languages, 95–125. Canberra: Paci!c Linguistics.

McConvell, Patrick. 1988a. Mix-im-up: Aboriginal codeswitching old and new. In Monica Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, 97–124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

McConvell, Patrick. 1988b. Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological vari-ables in Gurindji and related languages. Aboriginal Linguistics 1. 135–165.

McConvell, Patrick. 1996. Gurindji grammar. Canberra: AIATSIS, ms.McConvell, Patrick. 2002. Mix-im-up speech and emergent mixed languages in Indigenous

Australia. Texas Linguistic Forum (Proceedings from the 9th Annual Symposium about Lan-guage and Society) 44 (2). 328–349.

McConvell, Patrick. 2007. Language ecology as determinant of language shi$ or language hybrid-ity: Some Australian aboriginal cases. Paper read at International Symposium on Bilingual-ism, Hamburg.

McConvell, Patrick. 2008. Mixed languages as outcomes of code-switching: Recent examples from Australia and their implications. Journal of Language Contact 2. 187–212.

McConvell, Patrick & Felicity Meakins. 2005. Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 9–30.

Meakins, Felicity. 2008a. Unravelling languages: Multilingualism and language contact in Kalkaringi. In Jane Simpson & Gillian Wigglesworth (eds.), Children’s language and mul-tilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school, 247–64. New York: Continuum.

Meakins, Felicity. 2008b. Land, language and identity: "e socio-political origins of Gurindji Kriol. In Miriam Meyerho6 & Naomi Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language, 69–94. Amster-dam: John Benjamins.

Meakins, Felicity. 2009. "e case of the shi3y ergative marker: A pragmatic shi3 in the ergative marker in one Australian mixed language. In Jóhanna Barddal & Shobhana Chelliah (eds.), !e role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case, 59–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Meakins, Felicity. 2010a. "e development of asymmetrical serial verb constructions in an Aus-tralian mixed language. Linguistic Typology 14(1). 1–38.

Meakins, Felicity. 2010b. "e importance of understanding language ecologies for revitalisa-tion. In John Hobson, Kevin Lowe, Susan Poetch, & Michael Walsch (eds.), Reawaken-ing languages: !eory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s indigenous languages, 225–239. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Meakins, Felicity. 2011a. Spaced-out: Inter-generational changes in the expression of spatial re-lations by Gurindji people. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(1). 43–78.

Meakins, Felicity. 2011b. Borrowing contextual in4ection: Evidence from north Australia. Mor-phology 21(1). 57–87.

Meakins, Felicity. 2011c. Case marking in contact: !e development and function of case morphol-ogy in Gurindji Kriol, an Australian mixed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins


Which Mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol !#*

Meakins, Felicity. (To appear). Mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), Contact languages. Berlin: Mouton.

Meakins, Felicity & Carmel O’Shannessy. 2005. Possessing variation: Age and inalienability re-lated variables in the possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University Linguistics Papers 4(2). 43–63.

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

Mufwene, Saliko. 2000. Creolization is a social, not a structural, process. In Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh & Edgar Schneider (eds.), Degrees of restructuring in creole languages, 65–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Muysken, Pieter. 1997. Media Lengua. In Sarah Grey "omason (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, 365–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: CUP.Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes.

Oxford: OUP.O’Shannessy, Carmel. 2005. Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics

25(1). 31–57.O’Shannessy, Carmel. 2006. Language contact and children’s bilingual language acquisition:

Learning a mixed language and Warlpiri in northern Australia. Sydney: University of Syd-ney dissertation.

O’Shannessy, Carmel. 2008. Children’s production of their heritage language and a new mixed language. In Jane Simpson & Gillian Wigglesworth (eds.), Children’s language and multi-lingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school, 261–82. New York: Continuum.

O’Shannessy, Carmel. 2009. Language variation and change in a north Australian Indigenous community. In Dennis Preston & James Stanford (eds.), Variationist approaches to indig-enous minority languages, 419–439. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pateman, Trevor. 1987. Language in mind and language in society: Studies in linguistic reproduc-tion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sandefur, John. 1979. An Australian creole in the Northern Territory: A description of Ngukurr-Bamyili dialects (Part 1), Work Papers of SIL-AAB series B vol 3. Darwin: SIL.

Sasse, Hans Jurgen. 1992. "eory of language death. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, 7–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) 1983. Course in general linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.

Smith, Norval 2000. Symbiotic mixed languages: A question of terminology. Bilingualism: Lan-guage and Cognition 3(2). 122–123.

"omason, Sarah Grey. 2003. Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), !e mixed language debate: !eo-retical and empirical advances, 21–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

"omason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tre6ers-Daller, Jeanine. 1994. Mixing two languages: French-Dutch contact in a comparative per-spective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Weinreich, Uriel. (1953) 1974. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. "e Hague: Mouton.


!&$ Felicity Meakins

Author’s addressFelicity MeakinsSchool of Languages and Comparative Cultural StudiesUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2012. Which Mix? - Code-switching or a mixed language - Gurindji Kriol

Documents

Transcript of 2012. Which Mix? - Code-switching or a mixed language - Gurindji Kriol