Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Fischer, Olga / Norde, Muriel

Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.463
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.647

CiteScore 2018: 0.59

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.284
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.971

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 49, Issue 1


The long and short of verb alternations in Mauritian Creole and Bantu languages

Jenneke van der Wal
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculty of Modern & Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tonjes Veenstra
Published Online: 2015-04-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0003


Mauritian Creole displays an alternation between a short and a long form of the verb, which is reminiscent of the conjoint–disjoint alternation found in some eastern Bantu languages. Based on comparison with other French-based creoles and socio-historical evidence, we conclude that the Bantu substrate must have had an impact on the grammatical system of Mauritian Creole. We compare the synchronic properties of the alternations in Mauritian Creole and the most likely substrate Bantu languages of northern Mozambique and examine two possible scenarios for the influence of Bantu on the Mauritian verbal alternation, concluding that probably only the (syntactic) basics of the Bantu alternation motivated the persistence of the alternation in Mauritian Creole.

Keywords: Bantu; creole; conjoint/disjoint alternation; language contact; focus


  • Allen, Richard B. 2008. The constant demand of the French: The Mascarene slave trade and the worlds of the Indian Ocean and Atlantic during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Journal of African History 49. 43–72.Google Scholar

  • Alpers, Edward A. 1975. Ivory and slaves in East Africa. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar

  • Arends, Jacques 2008. A demographic perspective on creole formation. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John V. Singler (eds.), The handbook of Pidgin and Creole studies, 309–331. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Philip. 1972. Kreol: A description of Mauritian Creole. London: C. Hurst & Company.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Philip. 2008. Elements for a sociolinguistic history of Mauritius and its Creole (to 1968). In Philip Baker & Guillaume Fon Sing (eds.), The making of Mauritian Creole, 307–334. London: Battlebridge Press.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Philip & Chris Corne. 1982. Isle de France Creole: Affinities and origins. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

  • Batibo, Herman M., James Moilwa & Naledi M. Mosaka. 1997. The historical implications of the linguistics relationship between Makua and Sotho languages. PULA Journal of African Studies 11(1). 23–29.Google Scholar

  • Becker, Angelika & Tonjes Veenstra. 2003. The survival of inflectional morphology in French-related creoles: The role of SLA processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(2). 283–306.Google Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel & Dieter Stein. 1995. Functional renewal. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Historical linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 33–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Buell, Leston. 2005. Issues in Zulu verbal morphosyntax. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Buell, Leston. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: Focus or constituency? ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 43. 9–30.Google Scholar

  • Buell, Leston. 2009. Evaluating the immediate postverbal position as a focus position in Zulu. In Masangu Matondo, Fiona McLaughlin & Eric Potsdam (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Linguistic theory and African language documentation, 166–172. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Laura J. Downing. 2009. Where’s the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26. 207–238.Google Scholar

  • Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Laura J. Downing. 2012. Against FocusP: Arguments from Zulu. In Ivona Kucerova & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Information structure: Contrasts and positions, 247–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Corne, Chris 1982. Final vowel truncation in Indian Ocean Creole French. In Philip Baker & Chris Corne (eds.), Isle de France creole: Affinities and origins, 49–63. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

  • Corne, Chris. 1999. From French to Creole. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar

  • Costa, João & Nancy C. Kula. 2008. Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu. In Cecile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The BantuRomance connection, 293–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Creissels, Denis. 1996. Conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in Setswana. South African Journal of African Languages 16. 109–115.Google Scholar

  • Demuth, Katherine & Mark Johnson. 1989. Interactions between discourse functions and agreement in Setswana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11. 22–35.Google Scholar

  • Devos, Maud. 2008. A grammar of Makwe (Studies in African linguistics 71). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

  • Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27. 323–360.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guthrie, Malcolm. 1967 [1948]. The classification of the Bantu languages. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Harris, Martin. 1989. French. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The world’s major languages, 210–235. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Haudrère, Philippe. 1989. La compagnie francaise des Indes au XVIIIe siècle (1719–1795). Paris: Librairie de l’Inde.Google Scholar

  • Henri, Fabiola. 2010. A constraint-based approach to verbal constructions in Mauritian: Morphological, syntactic and discourse-based aspects. Paris: PhD Dissertation (University of Mauritius & Ecole Doctorale des Sciences du Langage, ED 132, Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7).Google Scholar

  • Henri, Fabiola & Anne Abeillé. 2008. Verb forms alternation in Mauritian. On-line Proceedings of the HPSG-2008 Conference, Keihanna, Kyoto. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Janson, Tore. 1991–1992. Southern Bantu and Makua. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 12–13. 63–106.Google Scholar

  • Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue. 1997. The basic variety. Second Language Research 13. 301–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kraal, Peter. 2005. A grammar of Makonde. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Larson, Pier M. 2007. Enslaved Malagasy and ‘Le Travail De La Parole’ in the pre-revolutionary Mascarenes. Journal of African History 48. 457–79.Google Scholar

  • Maho, Juni. 2009. NUGL online: The online version of the New Updated Guthrie List, a referential classification of the Bantu languages (http://goto.glocalnet.net/mahopapers/nuglonline.pdf).Google Scholar

  • Meeussen, A. E. 1959. Essai de Grammaire Rundi (Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Série Sciences Humaines 24). Tervuren: Musée Royal du Congo Belge.Google Scholar

  • Mesthrie, Rajend. 2006. Subordinate immigrant languages and language endangerment : Two community studies from KwaZulu-Natal. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 37(1). 3–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nurse, Derek. 2008. Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nurse, Derek & Gerard Philippson. 2003. The Bantu languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Odden, David. 1996. The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Odden, David. 2003. Rifiji-Ruvuma (N10, P10–20). In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philipson (eds.), The Bantu languages, 529–545. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Rottet, Kevin. 1992. Functional categories and verb raising in Louisiana Creole. Probus 4. 261–289.Google Scholar

  • Seedat, Zubeda Kassim. 1983. The Zanzibaris in Durban. Durban: University of Natal MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Seuren, Pieter 1990. Verb syncopation and predicate raising in Mauritian Creole. Linguistics 28(4). 809–844.Google Scholar

  • Seuren, Pieter 1995. Notes on the history and the syntax of Mauritian Creole. Linguistics 33. 531–577.Google Scholar

  • Smith, Norval S.H. 2006. Very rapid creolization in the framework of the Restricted Motivation Hypothesis. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 42), 49–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Syea, Anand 1992. The short and long form of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism. Theoretical Linguistics 1(18). 61–97.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vallduvi, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 79–108. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Van der Spuy, Andrew. 1993. Dislocated noun phrases in Nguni. Lingua 90. 335–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2008. Agreement in thetic sentences in Bantu and Romance. In Cecile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The BantuRomance connection, 323–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2011. Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua 121(11). 1734–1750.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2014. Subordinate clauses and exclusive focus in Makhuwa. In Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds.), Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences, 45–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke & Larry M. Hyman (eds.). In preparation. The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Bantu (Trends in Linguistics). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Veenstra, Tonjes. 2003. What verbal morphology can tell us about creole genesis: The case of French-related creoles. In Ingo Plag (ed.), Phonology and morphology of creole languages, 293–314. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Veenstra, Tonjes. 2007. Verb allomorphy in French-related creoles and the syntax-phonology interface. In Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds.), Proceedings of Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 37), 17–30. Amherst, MA: GSLA Publications.Google Scholar

  • Veenstra, Tonjes. 2008. Creole genesis: The impact of the language bioprogram hypothesis. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John V. Singler (eds.), The handbook of Pidgin and Creole studies, 219–241. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Veenstra, Tonjes. 2009. Verb allomorphy and the syntax of phases. In Enoch Aboh & Norval Smith (eds.), Complex processes in new languages, 99–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Watters, John. 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure (SCOPIL 7), 137–197. Los Angeles, CA: USC Department of Linguistics Publications.Google Scholar

  • Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of information structure in Northern Sotho. Berlin: Humboldt University PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Zerbian, Sabine. 2007. A first approach to information structuring in Xitsonga/Xichangana. In Lutz Marten & Nancy Kula (eds.), SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (Bantu in Bloomsbury: Special issue on Bantu Linguistics), 65–78. London: SOAS, University of London, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Zribi-Hertz, Anne & L. J. Li Pook Tan 1987. Gouvernement et syntagme verbal: A propos de la truncation verbale en Creole Mauricien. Documents de travailUniversité Paris 8(1). 57–86.Google Scholar

About the article

Revised: 2013-08-08

Revised: 2014-05-23

Received: 2014-07-25

Accepted: 2014-08-18

Published Online: 2015-04-28

Published in Print: 2015-05-01

Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 85–116, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0003.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in