<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# A new look into relativization in Martinican

Minella Duzerol

► To cite this version:

Minella Duzerol. A new look into relativization in Martinican. Summer Conference of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Jun 2019, Lisbao, Portugal. hal-04653768

HAL Id: hal-04653768

https://hal.univ-lyon2.fr/hal-04653768v1

Submitted on 19 Jul 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
A new look
into relativization
in Martinican

Minella DUZEROL

Dynamique du Langage,
University Lumière Lyon 2, CNRS
# Outline

1. Martinican

2. State of the Art

3. Methodology

4. Results

a) Strategies

b) The RC-final morpheme *la*

c) Relativization in discourse

5. Take home message: a new look into...
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

1. Martinican
# Martinican

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

* Regional language of France - Martinique, Lesser Antilles

- 600.000 speakers (APiCS)

- SVO language

* The lexicon: French-based (Holm 2000, 146)

* Sociolinguistic background - bilingual speakers (Martinican; French)

- socially stigmatized language

(Hazaël-Massieux 2002, 65; Valdman 1978, 32)

- language of instruction and administration: French
## 2. State of the Art

Bernabé 1983

Bernabé and Pinalie 1999

Colot and Ludwig 2013

Damoiseau 2012

description of the Martinican basilect

didactic handbook

online description of Martinican and Guadeloupean

comparative syntax
Relativization of the subject

➤ RC-initial marker *ki*

➤ Expletive form *éti* (Bernabé and Pinalie 1999)

➤ Before the imperfective marker *ka*: 3 phonetic realizations of *ki*

- [ki]

- [i]

- Not realized

(Colot and Ludwig 2013)

(1) Ni moun [(ki) ka kwè sa].
have people REL IPFV believe DEM
‘There are people who believe that.’

(Damoiseau 2012, 39)
Relativization of the direct object

> No RC-initial marker

(2) **Kabrit-la** [ou *maré* *a*]

goat-DET.DEF 2SG *tie.up*

‘the goat you tied up’

(Bernabé et Pinalie 1999, 34)
Relativization of the oblique (place)

➤ 5 RC-initial markers

- oti

- éti

- ola

- Definite NP + otila

- Definite NP + étila

(3) **Koté-a** [oti man ka alé a]

place-DET.DEF REL 1SG IPFV go

‘the place where I am going’

(Bernabé 1983, 1424)
Domains with a definite determiner

> The RC-final marker *la~a*

(4) **Kabrit-la** [ou maré]

 goat-DET.DEF 2SG tie.up

 ‘the goat you tied up’

 (Bernabé et Pinalie 1999, 34)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

1) A repetition of the **definite determiner** present in the definite domain
(Bernabé and Pinalie 1999, 190; Colot and Ludwig 2013)

2) A **discourse marker** with a deictic function
(Colot and Ludwig 2013)
3. Methodology
# The corpus: 200 RC + 2 questionnaires (1/2)

## Written data

* ✓ Jik dèyè do Bondyé (Confiant 1979): 45 first pages

## Oral data

* ✓ Ziétaj: TV programme broadcast on La1ère Martinique

* ✓ Recordings of native speakers (narrations ; descriptions)
# The corpus: 200 RC + 2 questionnaires (2/2)

* *Online questionnaires*

✓ Do speakers accept subject RC with no initial marker?

= > Questionnaire 1 (5 native speakers)

✓ What are the language attitudes to several strategies to relativize the direct object?

= > Questionnaire 2 (4 native speakers)
Criteria of the syntactic analysis (1/2)

1) **The relativized syntactic role** (Creissels 2006): S, DO, IO, DOC, OBL

2) **Presence of a syntactic gap** (Creissels 2006, 2:209-10)
   vs.

**Presence of a resumptive pronoun**

3) **The type of domains** (Creissels 2006, 2:207)

= > *Domain*: nominal constituent of the matrix whose reference is specified by the RC

= > DEF NPs, INDF NPs, DEM NPs, DEM PR...
Criteria of the syntactic analysis (2/2)

4) Presence of relative markers

- *Relativizer*: invariable morpheme which informs about the presence of a RC

- *Relative pronoun*: pronominal morpheme which informs about the relativized syntactic role

5) Position of the RC

Always postposed to the domain

6) Form of the verb within the RC

Always finite
# 4. Results
a) Strategies
Subject relative clauses
1) Subject RC with the RC-initial marker *ki*

➤ **Overt domain**

(5) *i* **té ka pwopté sé sijé-a** [ki _ té anlè lòtel]
3PL PST IPFV clean DEF.PL trinket-DET.DEF REL PST on altar
‘she was cleaning the trinkets that were on the altar’

➤ RC-initial marker *ki*

➤ Syntactic gap

➤ **No overt domain** (oral data, 1 occurrence)

(6) (sa) [ki _ vlé di]
DEM REL want say
‘which means’

➤ No overt domain

➤ Casual expression

➤ No loss of information
- pronominal head
semantically empty,
- anaphoric function
## 2) Subject RC without RC-initial marker

(7) a. **nou** **té** **konfronté** a **dé** **_pwofésionnel_**
1PL PST deal.with to DET.INDF.PL professional
___ **té** **ka** **vini** **déwò】**
PST IPFV come outside

‘we were dealing with profesional coming from outside’

➤ No RC-initial marker

➤ The corresponding RC with *ki* is correct (b.)

➤ Syntactic gap

b. **nou** **té** **konfronté** a **dé** **_pwofésionnel_**
1PL PST deal.with to DET.INDF.PL professional
[ki] ___ **té** **ka** **vini** **déwò】**
REL PST IPFV come outside

‘we were dealing with profesional who were coming from outside’
Direct object relative clauses
1) DO RC without RC-initial marker

(8) li Mano té ka espéré

3SG Mano PST IPFV wait

pou fanm-la [i té chwèzi ]

for woman-DET.DEF 3SG PST choose

‘He, Mano, was waiting for the woman he chose’

➤ No RC-initial marker

➤ Syntactic gap
## 2) DO RC with the RC-initial marker [kø]

(9) aktivité-mwen [[kø] man mété an]
activity-1SG REL 1SG put in
plas __ an 91]
place in 91

‘my activity that I implemented in 1991’

* RC-initial marker [kø]

* Syntactic gap
3) DO RC with the RC-initial marker *ki*

(10) *Jean* *Bernabé* [*ki nou kay fété* __]

Jean Bernabé REL 1PL FUT celebrate
‘Jean Bernabé who we will celebrate’

➤ RC-initial marker *ki*

➤ Syntactic gap

(11) *Jean* *Bernabé* [*ki — kay fété nou*]

Jean Bernabé REL FUT celebrate 1PL
‘Jean Bernabé who will celebrate us’

➤ RC-initial marker *ki*

➤ Syntactic gap
RC-initial markers [kø] and ki (1/2)

Rare strategies: 7% of direct object RCs have an RC-initial marker

Which role could bilingualism play in these rare constructions ?

• In Martinican, for some syntactic roles like S, there is a RC-initial marker

• French direct object RCs begin with the relativizer que (Riegel, Pellat, Rioul 2009, 799)

• In Martinican like in French there are RC markers:

- clause-initial

- monosyllabic

- with an initial [k]
RC-initial markers [kø] and ki (2/2)

> Direct object RC-initial markers in the literature

Because of the bilingual repertoires of Martinican speakers, direct object RC-initial markers are
frequently described

- Bernabé (1983, 3:1151): ké, ki, ku

- Damoiseau (2012, 139): ké, ki, ke

> My hypothesis: *interlectal direct object RC-initial marker*

‘Interlectal zone’: ‘obeys neither to the nuclear basilect nor to the acrolectal grammar’ (Prudent
1981, 26, 31)

> No prediction = impossible to know if [kø] works - as a Martinican RC-initial marker

- as a rephonologization of French *que*
Oblique relative clauses
1) Peripheral oblique RC
with the RC-initial marker *oti*

(12) sé **pyéklokliko-a** [oti sé nèg-la
DEF.PL hibiscus-DET.DEF REL DEF.PL man-DET.DEF
té maré-’y — la]
PST tie-3SG DEF

‘the hibiscus where the man had tied him’

➤ RC-initial marker **oti**

➤ RC-final morpheme *la*

➤ Syntactic gap
## 2) Peripheral oblique RC with the RC-initial marker éti

(13) Séchel
Seychelles
an
DET.INDF.SG

[éti
REL
lang
language

kréyol
Creole
ofisièl
official

sé
be
__]

‘Seychelles where Creole is an official language’

➤ RC-initial marker éti

➤ Syntactic gap
b) The RC-final morpheme *la*

13 RC out of 200 (1h27min of recordings)
3 homonyms:

*la RC-final marker, la definite, la 'here/there'*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Position</th><th>Allomorphs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>la RC-final marker</td><td>RC-final</td><td>la, a, an</td></tr><tr><td>-la definite suffix</td><td>NP-final</td><td>-la; -a; -an; -lan; -ya; -yan; -wa; wan</td></tr><tr><td>la 'here/there'</td><td>In NPs and in RCs</td><td>la</td></tr></tbody></table>
Phonetic realizations of *la* RC-final marker

After an oral
vowel

(14)

tout sé lanné-a [ki fini pasé a]
all DEF.PL year-DET.DEF REL end go.by DEF
‘all the years which have just went by’

After an oral
consonant

(15)

sé pyéklokliko-a [oti sé nèg-la té maré-’y la]
DEF.PL hibiscus-DET.DEF REL DEF.PL man-DET.DEF PST tie-3SG DEF
‘the hibiscus where the man had tied him’

Rare, after a
word with a
nasal feature

(16)

fòs-la [i ni an]
strength-DET.DEF 3SG have DEF
‘the strength he has’
-la definite suffix

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Position: NP-final

(17)

loto-a

car-DET.DEF

‘the car’

(18)

loto

car

wouj-la

red-DET.DEF

‘the red car’

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Systematic nazalisation

(19)

chien

vwazen-an

door

neighbour-DET.DEF

‘the neighbour’s dog’
-la definite suffix vs. RC-final marker la (1/2)

➤ Non systematic nasalization of the RC-final morpheme la

(20) fòs-la
[i ni — an]
strength-DET.DEF 3SG have DEF
‘the strength he has’

(21) Chonjé **sa** [ou ka fè mwen — **a]** !
remember DEM 2SG IPFV do 1SG DEF
‘Remember what you are doing to me !’
-la definite suffix vs. RC-final marker la (2/2)

➤ The RC-final marker **la** does not repeat the definite determiner which is on the domain
(Bernabé and Pinalie 1999, 190)

⇒ **la** can be used when the domain is not determined by the definite suffix

Demonstrative
pronoun

(22) **sa** [dé zyé-mwen ka wè — a]
DEM two eye-1SG IPFV see DEF
‘what my two eyes see’

Proper noun

(23) **Carbet** [oti man ké alé — a] sé an vil péchè.
Carbet REL 1SG FUT go DEF be DET.INDF.SG city fisherman
‘Carbet, where I will go to, is a fishing town’
la (here/there) vs. RC-final marker la (1/2)

> la ‘here/there’: invariable form

> la ‘here/there’ vs. RC-final morpheme la: no free variation

(24)

a. tout sé lanné-a [ki — fini pasé a]
all DEF.PL year-DET.DEF REL end go.by DEF
‘all the years which have just went by’

b. tout sé lanné-a [ki — fini pasé la]
all DEF.PL year-DET.DEF REL end go.by here
‘all the years which have just went by recently’
la (here/there) vs. RC-final marker la (2/2)

➤ la ‘here/there’ and la RC-final marker can co-occur

(25) tout sé lanné-a [ki — fini pasé la a]
all DEF.PL year-DET.DEF REL end go.by here DEF
‘all the years which have just went by recently’
How to analyse the RC-final marker *la* ? (1/2)

> The RC-final marker *la* is not a relativizer: it can be used with a RC-initial relativizer

(26) tout sé lanné-a [ki — fini pasé a]
all DEF.PL year-DET.DEF REL end go.by DEF
‘all the years which have just went by’

> Use of the RC-final marker *la* in the corpus according to the domain

NPs with a definite determiner: 8 RCs

Demonstrative pronouns: 4 RCs

NPs with a demonstrative: 1 RC
How to analyse the RC-final marker *la* ? (2/2)

> RC-final marker *la* indicates the end of the RC

> RC-final marker *la*: a morpheme of definiteness

• The RC-final marker *la* is used when the domain of the RC is
semantically definite

• Definite = referential + identifiable (Creissels 2006, 1:129)
c) Relativization in discourse
The syntactic roles relativized

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Oral data</th><th>Written data</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Subject</td><td>102</td><td>27</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>Object</td><td>54</td><td>9</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Peripheral oblique</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Nuclear oblique</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>200</td></tr></tbody></table>
Subject relativization strategies (129 RC)

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
Direct object relativization strategies (63 RC)

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
Peripheral oblique relativization strategies

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
5. Take home message: a new look into...
# What differs from the literature ?

* A corpus-based study

* RC-initial markers not found in the corpus:

<table><tr><td>Eti</td><td>Expletive form</td></tr><tr><td>Ola</td><td>Oblique marker</td></tr><tr><td>Otila</td><td>Oblique marker with definite domains</td></tr><tr><td>Etila</td><td>Oblique marker with definite domains</td></tr></table>

* No fusion between the relativizer *ki* and the imperfective marker *ka* (Damoiseau 2012, 39)
  Alignement with the omission analysis (Colot and Ludwig 2013)
What is new ? (1/2)

No headless RCs in Martinican

ki vlé di ‘which means’: lexicalized RC

The morpheme of definiteness *la*

- is a RC-final marker used when the domain is semantically definite

- indicates the end of the syntactic domain of the RC
What is new ? (2/2)

> **Interlectal RC-initial markers** for the DO

- [kø]: relative pronoun

- ki: relativizer

> The distribution in discourse of the relativization strategies

- Martinican follows the accessibility hierarchy (Keenan and Comrie 1977)

- An RC-initial marker is specific to oral productions: [kø]

- High frequency of *ki* in subject RCs vs. low frequency of RC-initial markers in object RCs
Mèsi anpil !
Bibliography

* Bernabé, J. 1983. Fondal-natal: grammaire basilectale approchée des créoles guadeloupéen et martiniquais : approche sociolittéraire, sociolinguistique et syntaxique. Fondal-natal: grammaire basilectale approchée des créoles guadeloupéen et martiniquais : approche sociolittéraire, sociolinguistique et syntaxique, vol. 2. L'Harmattan.

• Bernabé, J., et P. Pinalie. 1999. Grammaire du créole martiniquais en 50 leçons. Editions L'Harmattan.

* Colot, Serge, et Ralph Ludwig. 2013. « Guadeloupean and Martinican Creole ». In The survey of pidgin and creole languages. Volume 2: Portuguese-based, Spanish-based, and French-based Languages, édité par Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath, et Magnus Huber. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://apics-online.info/surveys/50.

* Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale une introduction typologique. Vol. 2. 2 vol. Paris: Hermès Science [u.a.].

* Damoiseau, Robert. 2012. Syntaxe créole comparée: Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Haïti. Dictionnaires et langues. Fort-de-France : Paris: CRDP Martinique ; Karthala.

* Hazaël-Massieux, Marie-Christine. 2002. « Les créoles à base française : une introduction ». Travaux Interdisciplinaires du Laboratoire Parole et Langage d'Aix-en-Provence (TIPA) 21: 63-86.

* Holm, John A. 2000. An introduction to pidgin and creoles. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

* Keenan, Edward L., et Bernard Comrie. 1977. « Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar ». Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1): 63–99.

* Valdman, Albert. 1978. Le Créole: structure, statut et origine. Initiation à la linguistique : Série B, Problèmes et méthodes ; 7. Paris: Klincksieck.
Double-object RC:
no RC-initial marker, resumptive pronoun

(27) **boug-la** [man ba-’y lajan-an]
man-DET.DEF 1SG give-3SG money-DET.DEF
‘the man to whom I gave the money’
(Bernabé and Pinalie 1999, 34)

➤ No RC-initial marker

➤ Resumptive pronoun: ‘y”

➤ No syntactic gap