Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:56:23.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ịjọ element in Berbice Dutch*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Norval S. H. Smith ,
Ian E. Robertson  and
Kay Williamson
Norval S. H. Smith
Affiliation:
Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Ian E. Robertson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine
Kay Williamson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, & African LanguagesUniversity of Port Harcourt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Berbice Dutch is one of two recently rediscovered Dutch-based Creole languages spoken in Guyana. It is spoken in the county of Berbice, which corresponds to the former Dutch colony of Berbice, founded in the early seventeenth century.

This language possesses certain features that make it unique in comparison to other European language-based Creoles spoken in the Atlantic region. Because of these unique features, it represents a promising test case for the presence of substrate influence, and as such, is of obvious relevance for the present creolist debate between substratists and universalists.

The article discusses four different conceivable hypotheses to explain the origin of Berbice Dutch. The first of these assumes that a mixed Dutch–Kalaịarḅ trading jargon was developed in Africa as a result of the operations of the slave traders, and that this formed the basis of Berbice Dutch.

The second hypothesis depends critically on the ethnic homogeneity of the slaves. This hypothesis would assume that the planters/overseers in Berbice attempted to learn those aspects of Eastern Ịjọ that could be utilized on the plantations.

The third hypothesis assumes that Berbice Dutch is genetically descended from Eastern Ịjọ, but that this is not obvious due to large-scale relexification.

The fourth hypothesis assumes that Eastern Ịjọ was replaced by Berbice Dutch under the catalysing influence of (creole) Dutch, rather as the fully inflected Romani language was replaced in England by the creolized Anglo-romani under the catalysing influence of English.

The hypothesis that is selected as probably the best is the fourth, where it is argued that Berbice Dutch was adopted as the language of the Berbice slaves because it offered a means of expressing the identity of a newly created “ethnic” group.

The most important moral that can be drawn from this article is that the development of each Creole must be examined individually. Only after such an examination has taken place for a significant number of Creoles will it be possible to define what is meant by creolization. In addition to the detailed linguistic examination required, it will also be necessary to carry out detailed (socio)historical work demonstrating if possible that the linguistic sequence of events is supported by the available historical data. (Creole language, substrate, Ịjọ language, ethnicity, mixed language)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 49 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

REFERENCES

Acton, T., & Davies, G. (1979). Educational policy and language use among English Romanies and Irish travellers in England and Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 19: 91–110.Google Scholar
Adelung, J. C., & Vater, J. S. (1806–1817). Mithridates, oder allegemeine Sprachkunde. Berlin.Google Scholar
Alagoa, E. J., & Fombo, A. (1972). A chronicle of Grand Bonny. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1974). Creolization, linguistic universals, natural semantax and the brain. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 6(3): 124–41.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 173–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, H. (1830). The memoirs of the late Captain Hugh Crow of Liverpool. Reprinted by Cass Library of African Studies, Travels and Narratives No. 60. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dapper, O. (1668). NaukeurigeBescrijvingederAfrikaenscheGewesten … Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs.Google Scholar
de Vries, J. (1971). Nederlandse etymologisch woordenboek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hair, P. E. H. (1967). The early study of Nigerian languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hair, P. E. H. (1977). A note on early references to “Calabar.” Journal of Niger Delta Studies 1: 127–28.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. (1969). A provisional comparison of the English-derived Atlantic Creoles. African Language Review 8: 7–72.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. (1976). The nautical sources of Krio vocabulary. Linguistics 173: 23–37.Google Scholar
Hancock, I. (1984). The social and linguistic development of Angloromani. In Acton, T. & Kenrick, D. (eds.), Romani rokkeripen to-divvis: The English Romani dialect and its contemporary social, educational and linguistic standing. London: Romanestan. 89–122.Google Scholar
Ibim, O. (1983). A phonology of Bille. B. A. Long Essay, Department of Linguistics and African Languages, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Jenewari, C. (1976). The identification of ethnolinguistic units in early European records: The case of Kalabarj. Journal of Niger Delta Studies 1: 9–18.Google Scholar
Jones, G. I. (1963). The trading states of the Oil Rivers. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the International African Institute.Google Scholar
Kaliai, M. H. I. (1964, 1966). A Nembe-English dictionary. 2 vols. Ibadan: Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. (1979). Romani English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 19: 111–20.Google Scholar
Koelle, S. (1854). Polyglotta Africana. Graz: Akademische.Google Scholar
Köler, H. (1854). Einige Notizen über Bonny, an der Küste von Guinea: seine Sprache und seine Bewohner. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Muysken, P. C. (1985). Mixed categories. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Orupabo, G. J. (1973). A tentative phonology of the Okrika dialect of Ịjọ. Monograph, Ibadan.Google Scholar
Price, R. (1975). KiKóongo and Saramaccan: A reappraisal. Bijdragen tot de Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde 131: 461–78.Google Scholar
Rens, L. L. E. (1953). The historical and social background of Surinam's Negro-English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. E. (1976a). A preliminary word list of Berbice Dutch. Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Paper No. 5.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. E. (1976b). Dutch Creole speakers and their locations in Guyana in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Paper No. 4.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. E. (1982). Berbice and Skepi Dutch — A lexical comparison. Manuscript, Georgetown, Guyana.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. E. (forthcoming). Berbice Dutch — A description. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Ryder, A. F. C. (1965). Dutch trade on the Nigerian coast during the 17th century. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 111(2): 195–210.Google Scholar
Swaving, J. G. (1827). Reizen en Lotgevallen. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
van Berkel, A. (1695). Amerikaansche Voyagien. Amsterdam: Johan ten Hoorn.Google Scholar
van Kampen, N. G. (1831). Geschiedenis der Nederlanders buiten Europa … Haarlem.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, J. (1983). De oorsprong van het Surinaams. In Charry, E., Koefoed, G., & Muysken, P. C. (eds.), De Talen van Suriname. Muiderberg: Coutinho. 38–46.Google Scholar
Williamson, K., & Timitimi, A. O. (1983). Short Ịzọn-English dictionary. (Delta Series No. 3.). Jos: University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria and the Nigeria Bible Translation Trust.Google Scholar