Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:59:13.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 35 - Germanic Contact Languages

from Part V - Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Paul T. Roberge
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Historically, language contact has taken place under conditions of trade, imported slave and contract labor, military service, conquest, colonialism, migration, and urbanization. The linguistic outcomes are determined in large part by the social relations among populations — including economic, political, and demographic factors — and by the duration of contact. In some times and places, interactions between linguistically heterogeneous groups have generated (depending on one’s theoretical orientation) new languages or radically different language varieties. This article examines the formation of contact languages — understood here primarily as pidgins, creoles, and bilingual mixed languages — the history of which involves a Germanic language in a significant way.

Keywords

language contactcontact languagejargonpidgincreolebilingual mixed languagesinterlanguage
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 833 - 864
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboh, E. and DeGraff, M. 2016. “A null theory of creole formation based on Universal Grammar.” In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press: 401–458.Google Scholar
Alleyne, M. C. 1980. Comparative Afro-American: An Historical-Comparative Study of English-Based Afro-American Dialects of the New World. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U., Matthews, S., and Smith, G. 2010. “China Coast Pidgin: Texts and contexts,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25: 63–94.Google Scholar
Arends, J. 2017. Language and Slavery: A Social and Linguistic History of the Suriname Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 1987. “Historical developments in Chinese Pidgin English and the nature of the relationships between the various pidgin Englishes of the Pacific region,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2:163–207.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 1998. “Investigating the origin and diffusion of shared features among the Atlantic English creoles.” In Baker, P. and Bruyn, A. (eds.), St. Kitts and the Atlantic Creoles: The Texts of Samuel Augustus Mathews in Perspective. London: University of Westminster Press: 315–364.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2000. “Theories of creolization and the degree and nature of restructuring.” In Neumann-Holzschuh, I. and Schneider, E. W. (eds.), Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 41–63.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2001. “No creolization without prior pidginization?” Te Reo 44: 31–50.Google Scholar
Baker, P. and Huber, M. 2001. “Atlantic, Pacific, and world-wide features in English-lexicon contact languages,” English World-Wide 22: 157–208.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. 1989. “A French-Icelandic nautical pidgin,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 4: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. 2008. “Pidgins versus creoles and pidgincreoles.” In Kouwenberg and Singler (eds.): 130–157.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. 2014a. “Creolistics: Back to square one?” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29: 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. 2014b. “Three Dutch creoles in comparison,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26: 191–222.Google Scholar
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A, Parkvall, M., and Plag, I. 2011. “Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26: 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. and Mous, M. (eds.) 1994. Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. and Matras, Y. (eds.) 2013. Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besten, H. den 2012. Roots of Afrikaans. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Michaelis, S. M, and Haspelmath, M 2017. “Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages,” Nature Human Behaviour 1: 723–729.Google Scholar
Broch, I. 1996. “Solombala-English in Archangel.” In Jahr and Broch (eds.): 93–98.Google Scholar
Broch, I. and Jahr, E. H. 1984a. Russenorsk: Et Pidginspråk i Norge, 2nd edn. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Broch, I. and Jahr, E. H. 1984b. “Russenorsk: A new look at the Russo-Norwegian pidgin in northern Norway.” In Sture Ureland, P. and Clarkson, I. (eds.), Scandinavian Language Contacts. Cambridge University Press: 21–65.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1979. “In search of Beach-la-Mar: Towards a history of Pacific Pidgin English,” Te Reo 22: 3–64.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. G. 1968. “Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter,” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 35: 130–139.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. 2003. “Markedness and salience in language contact and second-language acquisition: Evidence from a non-canonical contact language,” Language Sciences 25: 561–613.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. 2009. “Namibian Kiche Duits: The making (and decline) of a Neo-African language,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21: 349–417.Google Scholar
Enninger, W. 1986. “Pennsylvania German: A pidgin(ized) variety?” In Boretzky, N., Enninger, W., and Stolz, T. (eds.), Beiträge zum 2. Essener Kolloquium über “Kreolsprachen und Sprachkontakte.” Bochum: N. Brockmeyer: 41–82.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1987. “Post-exilic Jewish languages and pidgins/creoles: Two mutually clarifying perspectives,” Multilingua 6: 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G. G. and Pavlou, P. 1994. “Gastarbeiterdeutsch ‘Foreign Workers’ German’: An industrial pidgin.” In Blackshire-Belay, C. A. (ed.), The Germanic Mosaic: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press: 147–154.Google Scholar
Goodman, M. 1985. Review of Bickerton 1981, International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 109–137.Google Scholar
Grant, A. 1994. “Shelta: The secret language of Irish travellers viewed as a mixed language.” In Bakker and Mous (eds.): 123–150.Google Scholar
Gruiter, M. de 1994. “Javindo, a contact language in pre-war Semarang,” in Bakker and Mous, (eds.): 151–159.Google Scholar
Hackert, S. and Huber, M. 2007. “Gullah in the diaspora: Historical and linguistic evidence from the Bahamas,” Diachronica 24: 279–325.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. 1986. “The domestic hypothesis, diffusion, and componentiality: An account of Atlantic Anglophone creole origins.” In Muysken and Smith (eds.): 71–102.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. 1996. “The special case of Arctic pidgins.” In Broch and Jahr (eds.): 15–29.Google Scholar
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt “Pidgin Deutsch” 1975. Sprache und Kommunikation ausländischer Arbeiter, Analysen, Berichte, Materialien. Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor Verlag GmbH & Co. KG.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 1997. “Arguments for creolisation in Irish English.” In Hickey, R. and S. Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festchrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 969–1038.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 1986. “Substrate diffusion.” In Muysken and Smith (eds.): 259–278.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 1988–1989. Pidgins and Creoles, 2 Vols. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 2004. Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. and Patrick, P. L. (eds.) 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. United Kingdom and Sri Lanka: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 1999a. “Atlantic English Creoles and the Lower Guinea coast: A case against Afrogenesis.” In Huber, M. and Parkvall, M (eds.), Spreading the Word: The Issue of Diffusion among the Atlantic Creoles. London: University of Westminster Press: 81–110.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 1999b. Ghanaian Pidgin English in its West African Context: A Sociohistorical and Structural Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 2013. “Ghanaian Pidgin English.” In Michaelis et al. (eds.): 167–175.Google Scholar
Jahr, E. H. 1996. “On the pidgin status of Russenorsk.” In Jahr and Broch (eds.): 107–122.Google Scholar
Jahr, E. H., and Broch, I. (eds.) 1996. Language Contact in the Arctic: Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarva, V. 2008. “Old Helsinki Slang and language mixing,” Journal of Language Contact 1: 52–80.Google Scholar
Josselin de Jong, J. P. B. de 1926. Het huidige Negerhollandsch. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Kihm, A. 2012. Review of McWhorter 2011, Language 88: 657–660.Google Scholar
Klein, T. B. 2013. “Gullah.” In Michaelis et al. (eds.): 139–147.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. 1994. A Grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. and Singler, J. V. (eds.) 2008. The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1965. “A poem in Halbdeutsch and some questions concerning substratum,” Word 21: 55–69.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, M. 2016. “Trade pidgins in China: Historical and grammatical relationships,” Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 298–314.Google Scholar
Li, M. and Matthews, S. 2016. “An outline of Macau Pidgin Portuguese,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31: 141–183.Google Scholar
Li, M., Matthews, S., and Smith, G. P. 2005. “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese-English Instructor,” Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 79–168.Google Scholar
Maitz, P. and Volker, C. A. 2017. “Documenting Unserdeutsch: Reversing colonial amnesia,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 32: 365–397.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2010. Romani in Britain: The Afterlife of a Language. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2000. The Missing Spanish Creoles: Recovering the Birth of Plantation Contact Languages. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress? Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. 2012. “Which mix — code-switching or a mixed language? — Gurindji Kriol,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27: 105–140.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 2008. “Pidgins/creoles and contact languages: An overview.” In Kouwenberg and Singler (eds.): 263–286.Google Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M., and Huber, M. (eds.) 2013a. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M., and Huber, M. (eds.) 2013b. The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Vol. 1: English-Based and Dutch-Based Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Migge, B. 2003. Creole Formation as Language Contact: The Case of the Suriname Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, P. 1972. “Deux sabirs balkaniques,” Linguistique 8: 137–140.Google Scholar
Mitzka, W. 1923. Studien zum baltischen Deutsch. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 2015. “The emergence of creoles and language change.” In Bonvillain, N. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. London: Routledge: 348–365.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1980. “German as a contact language in the Pacific (with special reference to the influence of German on Tok Pisin),” Michigan Germanic Studies 6: 163–189.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1984. “Tracing the roots of Pidgin German,” Language and Communication 4: 27–57.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1996. “Dutch in the Pacific area.” In Wurm et al. (eds.), 2: 339–343.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1997. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, 2nd edn. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1998. “How creoloid can you get?” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 13: 355–371.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 2012. “Sprachliche Kontakte in den Missionen auf Deutsch-Neuguinea und die Entstehung eines Pidgin-Deutsch.” In Engelberg, S. and Stolberg, D (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und kolonialzeitlicher Sprachkontakt: Sprachliche Begegnungen und Auseinandersetzungen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 71–100.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P., Dutton, T. E., and Romaine, S. (eds.) 2003. Tok Pisin Texts: From the Beginning to the Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. and Smith, N. (eds.) 1986. Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nortier, J. and Dorleijn, M 2013. “Multi-ethnolects: Kebabnorsk, Perkerdansk, Verlan, Knakensprache, Straattaal, etc.” In Bakker and Matras (eds.): 229–271.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. 1981. “Incipient creolization in Gastarbeiterdeutsch? An experimental sociolinguistic study,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3: 165–178.Google Scholar
Plag, I. 2008. “Creoles as interlanguages: Syntactic structures,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 23: 307–328.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T. 1975. “The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘creoloid’,” Anthropological Linguistics 17: 363–374.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 2001. “Yiddish as a contact language.” In Smith, N and Veenstra, T. (eds.), Creolization and Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 263–289.Google Scholar
Reinecke, J. E. 1969. Language and Dialect in Hawai‘i: A Sociolinguistic History to 1935. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheeden, H. van 1994. “Petjo: The mixed language of the Indos in Batavia.” In Bakker and Mous (eds.): 223–237.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberge, P. T. 2010. “Contact and the history of Germanic languages.” In Hickey, R. (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 406–431.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. M. 1995. “Pidgin Hawaiian: A sociohistorical study,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 10: 1–56.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. J. 1998. “The role of diffusion in the genesis of Hawaiian Creole,” Language 74: 1–39.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. J. 2000. “Nativization and the genesis of Hawaiian Creole.” In McWhorter, J. (ed.), Language Change and Language Contact in Pidgins and Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 257–300.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. J. 2005. The Emergence of Hawai‘i Creole English in the Early 20th Century. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. 1979. Berbice Dutch – A Description. Doctoral dissertation, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. 1989. “Berbice and Skepi Dutch: A lexical comparison,” TNTL 105: 3–21.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1994. “Germanic creoles.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London and New York: Routledge: 566–603.Google Scholar
Rossem, C. van and van der Voort, H. (eds.) 1996. Die Creol Taal: 250 Years of Negerhollands Texts. Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabino, R. 2012. Language Contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his Jacket. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Schreier, D. and Hundt, M. (eds.) 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H. 1884. Slawo-Deutsches und Slawo-Italienisches. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. 2000. “Substrate influence in Hawai‘i Creole English,” Language in Society 29: 197–236.Google Scholar
Singler, J. V. 2006. “Children and creole genesis,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 21: 157–173.Google Scholar
Singler, J. V. 2008. “The sociohistorical context of creole genesis.” In Kouwenberg and Singler (eds.): 332–358.Google Scholar
Smit, M. de 2010. “Modelling mixed languages: Some remarks on the case of Old Helsinki Slang,” Journal of Language Contact 3: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. S. H. 2009. “English-speaking in early Surinam?” In Selbach, R., Cardoso, H. C., and van den Berg, M. (eds.), Gradual Creolization: Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 305–326.Google Scholar
Stammler, W. 1922. “Das Halbdeutsch der Esten,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 17: 160–172.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1996. “Dual-source pidgins and reverse creoloids: Northern perspectives on language contact.” In Jahr and Broch (eds.): 5–14.Google Scholar
Velupillai, V. 2015. Pidgins, Creoles, and Mixed Languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volker, C. A. 1982. An Introduction to Rabaul Creole German (Unserdeutsch). Master of Literary Studies dissertation, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Wexler, P. 2002. Two-Tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whinnom, K. 1971. “Linguistic hybridization and the ‘special case’ of pidgins and creoles.” In Hymes, D (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge University Press: 91–115.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. A. and Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) 1985. Handbook of Tok Pisin (New Guinea Pidgin). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. A., Mühlhäusler, P., and Tryon, D. T. (eds.) 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, 2 Vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×