A4. Complete lists of ideophonic transitive movement verbs in Archi:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>PF</th><th>IPF</th><th>INF</th><th>IMPER</th><th>MSD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'squeeze, milk slowly, spit through one's teeth'</td><td>č'ént' bos</td><td>č'ént'er</td><td>č'ént' bo</td><td>č'ént' ba</td><td>č'éntt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'throw; wave'</td><td>lápus</td><td>lap'ár</td><td>lápu</td><td>lápa</td><td>lápukul</td></tr><tr><td>'rock vigorously (baby); eat one's fill'</td><td>búrt' bos</td><td>bu'tá'r</td><td>búrt' bo</td><td>búrt' ba</td><td>búrtt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'pull' (fleece), 'fluff up' (pillow, feather bed)</td><td>gulúrči bos</td><td>gulúrčor</td><td>gulúrči bo</td><td>gulúrči ba</td><td>gulúrčit'i</td></tr><tr><td>'limp; adjust' (eg., a pack on one's back)</td><td>húrk' bos</td><td>hurk'ár</td><td>húrk' bo</td><td>húrk' ba</td><td>húrk'ə bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'incite, stir up against'</td><td>hus:ú bos</td><td>hus:ú war</td><td>hus:ú bo</td><td>hus:ú ba</td><td>hus:ú bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'slam' (door)</td><td>q'wank' bos</td><td>q'wank' war</td><td>q'wank' bo</td><td>q'wank' ba</td><td>q'wank' t'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push, slap lightly, hammer' (lightly)</td><td>q'úc' bos</td><td>q'úc' war</td><td>q'úc' bo</td><td>q'úc' ba</td><td>q'úc't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'separate lambs'</td><td>deré bos</td><td>dere wár</td><td>deré bo</td><td>deré ba</td><td>deré bummul</td></tr><tr><td>'ransack, rummage'</td><td>k'wáš bos</td><td>kušár</td><td>k'wáš bo</td><td>k'wáš ba</td><td>k'wáš bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'hug'</td><td>híjt bos</td><td>hijtár</td><td>híjt bo</td><td>híjt ba</td><td>híjt'ti</td></tr><tr><td>'snatch'</td><td>χáp:us</td><td>χápár</td><td>χáp:u</td><td>χáp:a</td><td>χápt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'tap; peck; do fast'</td><td>k'út' bos</td><td>k'út'ár</td><td>k'út' bo</td><td>k'út' ba</td><td>k'útt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'caress' (a child)</td><td>dítan bos</td><td>dítan war</td><td>dítan bo</td><td>dítan ba</td><td>dítan bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'turn back, drive cattle; ruffle'</td><td>dáv bos</td><td>dašár</td><td>dáv bo</td><td>dáv ba</td><td>dáv't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'flow out; pour out'</td><td>č'wárš bos</td><td>čuršár</td><td>č'wárš bo</td><td>č'wárš ba</td><td>č'wárš't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'turn, squeeze'</td><td>q'wérq'ə bos</td><td>q'wérq'er</td><td>q'wérq'əbo</td><td>q'wérq'ə ba</td><td>q'wérq'ət'i</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PF</td><td>IPF</td><td>INF</td><td>IMPER</td><td>MSD</td></tr><tr><td>'hold smb/smth with an iron hand'</td><td>q'wárł bos</td><td>q'urłár</td><td>q'wárł bo</td><td>q'wárł ba</td><td>q'wárł't'i</td></tr></tbody></table>
A4. Complete lists of ideophonic transitive movement verbs in Archi:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>PF</th><th>IPF</th><th>INF</th><th>IMPER</th><th>MSD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'squeeze, milk slowly, spit through one's teeth'</td><td>č'ént' bos</td><td>č'ént'er</td><td>č'ént' bo</td><td>č'ént' ba</td><td>č'éntt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'throw; wave'</td><td>lápus</td><td>lap'ár</td><td>lápu</td><td>lápa</td><td>lápukul</td></tr><tr><td>'rock vigorously (baby); eat one's fill'</td><td>búrt' bos</td><td>bu'tá'r</td><td>búrt' bo</td><td>búrt' ba</td><td>búrtt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'pull' (fleece), 'fluff up' (pillow, feather bed)</td><td>gulúrči bos</td><td>gulúrčor</td><td>gulúrči bo</td><td>gulúrči ba</td><td>gulúrčit'i</td></tr><tr><td>'limp; adjust' (eg., a pack on one's back)</td><td>húrk' bos</td><td>hurk'ár</td><td>húrk' bo</td><td>húrk' ba</td><td>húrk'ə bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'incite, stir up against'</td><td>hus:ú bos</td><td>hus:ú war</td><td>hus:ú bo</td><td>hus:ú ba</td><td>hus:ú bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'slam' (door)</td><td>q'wank' bos</td><td>q'wank' war</td><td>q'wank' bo</td><td>q'wank' ba</td><td>q'wank' t'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push, slap lightly, hammer' (lightly)</td><td>q'úc' bos</td><td>q'úc' war</td><td>q'úc' bo</td><td>q'úc' ba</td><td>q'úc't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'separate lambs'</td><td>deré bos</td><td>dere wár</td><td>deré bo</td><td>deré ba</td><td>deré bummul</td></tr><tr><td>'ransack, rummage'</td><td>k'wáš bos</td><td>kušár</td><td>k'wáš bo</td><td>k'wáš ba</td><td>k'wáš bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'hug'</td><td>híjt bos</td><td>hijtár</td><td>híjt bo</td><td>híjt ba</td><td>híjtt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'snatch'</td><td>χáp:us</td><td>χápár</td><td>χáp:u</td><td>χáp:a</td><td>χápt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'tap; peck; do fast'</td><td>k'út' bos</td><td>k'út'ár</td><td>k'út' bo</td><td>k'út' ba</td><td>k'útt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'caress' (a child)</td><td>dítan bos</td><td>dítan war</td><td>dítan bo</td><td>dítan ba</td><td>dítan bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'turn back, drive cattle; ruffle'</td><td>dáw bos</td><td>dašár</td><td>dáw bo</td><td>dáw ba</td><td>dáwt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'flow out; pour out'</td><td>č'wárč bos</td><td>čurčár</td><td>č'wárč bo</td><td>č'wárč ba</td><td>č'wárčt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'turn, squeeze'</td><td>q'wérq'ə bos</td><td>q'wérq'er</td><td>q'wérq'əbo</td><td>q'wérq'ə ba</td><td>q'wérq'ət'i</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PF</td><td>IPF</td><td>INF</td><td>IMPER</td><td>MSD</td></tr><tr><td>'hold smb/smth with an iron hand'</td><td>q'wárł bos</td><td>q'urłár</td><td>q'wárł bo</td><td>q'wárł ba</td><td>q'wárłt'i</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>PF</th><th>IPF</th><th>INF</th><th>IMPER</th><th>MSD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'push, make fall'</td><td>χít' bos</td><td>χa't'ár</td><td>χít' bo</td><td>χít' ba</td><td>χítt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'stuff, fill'</td><td>zánk bos</td><td>zánk war</td><td>zánk bo</td><td>zánk ba</td><td>zánkt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'butt; stick in, thrust'</td><td>q'ébus</td><td>q'ér</td><td>q'ébu</td><td>q'é-ba</td><td>q'é't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'jam, crush, squash'</td><td>þúrk't' bos</td><td>þurk't'ár</td><td>þúrk't' bo</td><td>þúrk't' ba</td><td>þúrk't't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push, cram, stuff in'</td><td>š'wélš'i bos</td><td>š'welš'ér</td><td>š'wélš'i bo</td><td>š'wélš'i ba</td><td>š'wélš'i bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'coat, smear'</td><td>s'ús: e bos</td><td>s'us:ór</td><td>s'ús: e bo</td><td>s'ús: e ba</td><td>s'ús: et'i</td></tr><tr><td>'dig, take off a layer'</td><td>qért' bos</td><td>qért' er</td><td>qért' bo</td><td>qért' ba</td><td>qért't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'hit, butt' (calf)</td><td>q'úč bos</td><td>q'úč war</td><td>q'úč bo</td><td>q'úč ba</td><td>q'úč bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'wrap' (blanket); 'cover' (clouds)</td><td>k'áp:us</td><td>k'a'p:á'r</td><td>k'áp:u</td><td>k'a'p:a</td><td>k'a'pt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'fill to the brim'</td><td>zérzi bos</td><td>zérzer</td><td>zérzi bo</td><td>zérzi ba</td><td>zérza't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'sprinkle salt'</td><td>zúz bos</td><td>zúz war</td><td>zúz bo</td><td>zúz ba</td><td>zúz bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'shake' (clothes)</td><td>q'áp:us</td><td>q'ap:ár</td><td>q'áp:u</td><td>q'áp:a</td><td>q'áp:t'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push (people), stick a needle; hammer'</td><td>q'éč bos</td><td>q'éčer</td><td>q'éč bo</td><td>q'éč ba</td><td>q'éčt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'rub; rub oneself'</td><td>ktúr bos</td><td>kłurár</td><td>ktúr bo</td><td>ktúr ba</td><td>ktúrt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'splash, spatter with'</td><td>tért bos</td><td>tertér</td><td>tért bo</td><td>tért ba</td><td>tért bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'throw; shoot' (gun)</td><td>kámmus</td><td>kamár</td><td>kámmu</td><td>kámma</td><td>kámt'i</td></tr></tbody></table>

A5. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with CVC template:

<table><tr><td>báʔ bos</td><td>'kiss'</td></tr><tr><td>bíz bos</td><td>'appear' (grass, bristle, hair)</td></tr><tr><td>búʔ bos</td><td>'smoke (itr), become rich'</td></tr><tr><td>č'ák' bos</td><td>'chatter'</td></tr><tr><td>č'áʔmmus</td><td>'chew'</td></tr><tr><td>č'áʔp:us</td><td>'burst, explode; crack; shoot'</td></tr><tr><td>c'íq' bos</td><td>'fart'</td></tr><tr><td>c'ír bos</td><td>'screech' (owl)</td></tr><tr><td>c'úk' bos</td><td>'ache'</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>c'úr bos</td><td>'draw out' (smoke)</td></tr><tr><td>č'úʔw bos</td><td>'champ, chew with open mouth'</td></tr><tr><td>čák' bos</td><td>'lick clean' (plates)</td></tr><tr><td>čáχ' bos</td><td>'flow; leak'</td></tr><tr><td>čłt bos</td><td>'sizzle'</td></tr><tr><td>dáʔ bos</td><td>'turn back; drive cattle; ruffle'</td></tr><tr><td>déʔj bos</td><td>'resound' (echo)</td></tr><tr><td>dámmus</td><td>'explosion'</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>PF</th><th>IPF</th><th>INF</th><th>IMPER</th><th>MSD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'push, make fall'</td><td>χít' bos</td><td>χa't'ár</td><td>χít' bo</td><td>χít' ba</td><td>χítt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'stuff, fill'</td><td>zánk bos</td><td>zánk war</td><td>zánk bo</td><td>zánk ba</td><td>zánkt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'butt; stick in, thrust'</td><td>q'ébus</td><td>q'ér</td><td>q'ébu</td><td>q'é-ba</td><td>q'é't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'jam, crush, squash'</td><td>þúrk't' bos</td><td>þurk't'ár</td><td>þúrk't' bo</td><td>þúrk't' ba</td><td>þúrk't't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push, cram, stuff in'</td><td>š'wélš'i bos</td><td>š'welš'ér</td><td>š'wélš'i bo</td><td>š'wélš'i ba</td><td>š'wélš'i bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'coat, smear'</td><td>s'ús: e bos</td><td>s'us:ór</td><td>s'ús: e bo</td><td>s'ús: e ba</td><td>s'ús: et'i</td></tr><tr><td>'dig, take off a layer'</td><td>qért' bos</td><td>qért' er</td><td>qért' bo</td><td>qért' ba</td><td>qért't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'hit, butt' (calf)</td><td>q'úč bos</td><td>q'úč war</td><td>q'úč bo</td><td>q'úč ba</td><td>q'úč bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'wrap' (blanket); 'cover' (clouds)</td><td>k'áp:us</td><td>k'a'p:á'r</td><td>k'áp:u</td><td>k'a'p:a</td><td>k'a'pt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'fill to the brim'</td><td>zérzi bos</td><td>zérzer</td><td>zérzi bo</td><td>zérzi ba</td><td>zérza't'i</td></tr><tr><td>'sprinkle salt'</td><td>zúz bos</td><td>zúz war</td><td>zúz bo</td><td>zúz ba</td><td>zúz bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'shake' (clothes)</td><td>q'áp:us</td><td>q'ap:ár</td><td>q'áp:u</td><td>q'áp:a</td><td>q'áp:t'i</td></tr><tr><td>'push (people), stick a needle; hammer'</td><td>q'éč bos</td><td>q'éčer</td><td>q'éč bo</td><td>q'éč ba</td><td>q'éčt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'rub; rub oneself'</td><td>ktúr bos</td><td>kłurár</td><td>ktúr bo</td><td>ktúr ba</td><td>ktúrt'i</td></tr><tr><td>'splash, spatter with'</td><td>tért bos</td><td>tertér</td><td>tért bo</td><td>tért ba</td><td>tért bumul</td></tr><tr><td>'throw; shoot' (gun)</td><td>kámmus</td><td>kamár</td><td>kámmu</td><td>kámma</td><td>kámt'i</td></tr></tbody></table>

A5. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with CVC template:

<table><tr><td>báʔ bos</td><td>'kiss'</td></tr><tr><td>bíz bos</td><td>'appear' (grass, bristle, hair)</td></tr><tr><td>búʔ bos</td><td>'smoke (itr), become rich'</td></tr><tr><td>č'ák' bos</td><td>'chatter'</td></tr><tr><td>č'áʔmmus</td><td>'chew'</td></tr><tr><td>č'áʔp:us</td><td>'burst, explode; crack; shoot'</td></tr><tr><td>c'íq' bos</td><td>'fart'</td></tr><tr><td>c'ír bos</td><td>'screech' (owl)</td></tr><tr><td>c'úk' bos</td><td>'ache'</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>c'úr bos</td><td>'draw out' (smoke)</td></tr><tr><td>č'úʔw bos</td><td>'champ, chew with open mouth'</td></tr><tr><td>čák' bos</td><td>'lick clean' (plates)</td></tr><tr><td>čáχ' bos</td><td>'flow; leak'</td></tr><tr><td>čłt bos</td><td>'sizzle'</td></tr><tr><td>dáʔ bos</td><td>'turn back; drive cattle; ruffle'</td></tr><tr><td>déʔj bos</td><td>'resound' (echo)</td></tr><tr><td>dámmus</td><td>'expode'</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>dímmus</td><td>'disperse, be destroyed'</td></tr><tr><td>dúr bos</td><td>'walk fast'</td></tr><tr><td>dú't' bos</td><td>'blow (trumpet)'</td></tr><tr><td>gwár bos as</td><td>'eat sth fast'</td></tr><tr><td>há'h bos</td><td>'breathe'</td></tr><tr><td>hák't' bo</td><td>'yawn'</td></tr><tr><td>hát bos</td><td>'scold'</td></tr><tr><td>híj bos</td><td>'plough'</td></tr><tr><td>hó's? bos</td><td>'bray'</td></tr><tr><td>húbus</td><td>'growl'</td></tr><tr><td>húč' bos</td><td>'be lazy, not hungry'</td></tr><tr><td>k'á'p:us</td><td>'wrap' (blanket); 'cover' (clouds)</td></tr><tr><td>k'íj bos</td><td>'overripen (wheat)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'úr bos</td><td>'take a nap'</td></tr><tr><td>k'út' bos</td><td>'tap; peck; do smth fast'</td></tr><tr><td>kámmus</td><td>'throw; shoot (gun)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'tár bos</td><td>'hiss, spit (cat, snake)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'túr bos</td><td>'rub; rub oneself'</td></tr><tr><td>k'wáš bos</td><td>'ransack, rummage'</td></tr><tr><td>láhbos</td><td>'want to eat smth'</td></tr><tr><td>lammus</td><td>'lick'</td></tr><tr><td>láp:us</td><td>'throw; wave'</td></tr><tr><td>p'áh bos</td><td>'smoke; smell'</td></tr><tr><td>p'á? bos</td><td>'kiss'</td></tr><tr><td>pár bos</td><td>'stream, fly'</td></tr><tr><td>pút bos</td><td>'stew (nettle); sputter'</td></tr><tr><td>q'áč' bos</td><td>'dress up'</td></tr><tr><td>q'áp:us</td><td>'shake (washed clothes)'</td></tr><tr><td>q'éc' bos</td><td>'nag, bother'</td></tr><tr><td>q'íš bos</td><td>'yell'</td></tr><tr><td>q'úc' bos</td><td>'push, slap lightly, hammer'</td></tr><tr><td>q'wšár- bos</td><td>'rumble' (stomach)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>qat' bos</td><td>'measure one's strength with Actuarial Science, Inc. (ASI)'<br>'smb,'</td></tr><tr><td>qéc bos</td><td>'walk, run' (cars)</td></tr><tr><td>q's'éč bos</td><td>'push (people), stick a needle; hammer'</td></tr><tr><td>qíp:us</td><td>'defecate'</td></tr><tr><td>qúc bos</td><td>'sew with short stitches'</td></tr><tr><td>q'súč bos</td><td>'hit, butt (calf)</td></tr><tr><td>qút bos</td><td>'go fast (livestock)'</td></tr><tr><td>q'sáž bos</td><td>'cut' (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>q'súž bos</td><td>'rub hard' (clothes)</td></tr><tr><td>q'wšár bos</td><td>'crack (voice)'</td></tr><tr><td>š'w'sít' bos</td><td>'whistle'</td></tr><tr><td>šá'mmus</td><td>'gorge'</td></tr><tr><td>šá'mmus</td><td>'gorge'</td></tr><tr><td>sém bos</td><td>'eat too little and unwillingly'</td></tr><tr><td>šúš bos</td><td>to whisper'</td></tr><tr><td>túr bos</td><td>'be overdone, be spoiled' (meat)</td></tr><tr><td>wák' bos</td><td>'clear up'</td></tr><tr><td>wá'p' bos</td><td>'crash, plump'</td></tr><tr><td>wás bos</td><td>'have doubts'</td></tr><tr><td>wúp bos</td><td>'bark'</td></tr><tr><td>záp:os</td><td>'invite'</td></tr><tr><td>zúz bos</td><td>'sprinkle salt'</td></tr><tr><td>ž'wál bos</td><td>'fidget, swarm'</td></tr><tr><td>şóp' bos</td><td>'burp'</td></tr><tr><td>χáp:us</td><td>'snatch'</td></tr><tr><td>χáq's bos</td><td>'throw up'</td></tr><tr><td>χít' bos</td><td>'push, make fall'</td></tr><tr><td>χ'wšár bos</td><td>'itch'</td></tr><tr><td>χ'w'sít' bós</td><td>'comb threads while weaving'</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>dímmus</td><td>'disperse, be destroyed'</td></tr><tr><td>dúr bos</td><td>'walk fast'</td></tr><tr><td>dú't' bos</td><td>'blow (trumpet)'</td></tr><tr><td>gwár bos as</td><td>'eat sth fast'</td></tr><tr><td>há'h bos</td><td>'breathe'</td></tr><tr><td>hák't' bo</td><td>'yawn'</td></tr><tr><td>hát bos</td><td>'scold'</td></tr><tr><td>híj bos</td><td>'plough'</td></tr><tr><td>hó's? bos</td><td>'bray'</td></tr><tr><td>húbus</td><td>'growl'</td></tr><tr><td>húč' bos</td><td>'be lazy, not hungry'</td></tr><tr><td>k'á'p:us</td><td>'wrap' (blanket); 'cover' (clouds)</td></tr><tr><td>k'íj bos</td><td>'overripen (wheat)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'úr bos</td><td>'take a nap'</td></tr><tr><td>k'út' bos</td><td>'tap; peck; do smth fast'</td></tr><tr><td>kámmus</td><td>'throw; shoot (gun)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'tár bos</td><td>'hiss, spit (cat, snake)'</td></tr><tr><td>k'túr bos</td><td>'rub; rub oneself'</td></tr><tr><td>k'wáš bos</td><td>'ransack, rummage'</td></tr><tr><td>láhbos</td><td>'want to eat smth'</td></tr><tr><td>lammus</td><td>'lick'</td></tr><tr><td>láp:us</td><td>'throw; wave'</td></tr><tr><td>p'áh bos</td><td>'smoke; smell'</td></tr><tr><td>p'á? bos</td><td>'kiss'</td></tr><tr><td>pár bos</td><td>'stream, fly'</td></tr><tr><td>pút bos</td><td>'stew (nettle); sputter'</td></tr><tr><td>q'áč' bos</td><td>'dress up'</td></tr><tr><td>q'áp:us</td><td>'shake (washed clothes)'</td></tr><tr><td>q'éc' bos</td><td>'nag, bother'</td></tr><tr><td>q'íš bos</td><td>'yell'</td></tr><tr><td>q'úc' bos</td><td>'push, slap lightly, hammer'</td></tr><tr><td>q'wésár- bos</td><td>'rumble' (stomach)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>qat' bos</td><td>'measure one's strength with Actuarial Science, Inc. (ASI)'<br>'smb,'</td></tr><tr><td>qéc bos</td><td>'walk, run' (cars)</td></tr><tr><td>q's'éč bos</td><td>'push (people), stick a needle; Actuarial Science, Inc. (ASI)'<br>'hammer'</td></tr><tr><td>qíp:us</td><td>'defecate'</td></tr><tr><td>qúc bos</td><td>'sew with short stitches'</td></tr><tr><td>q'súč bos</td><td>'hit, butt (calf)'</td></tr><tr><td>qút bos</td><td>'go fast (livestock)'</td></tr><tr><td>kwáž bos</td><td>'cut' (grass)</td></tr><tr><td>kwúž bos</td><td>'rub hard' (clothes)</td></tr><tr><td>kwésár bos</td><td>'crack (voice)'</td></tr><tr><td>š'wít' bos</td><td>'whistle'</td></tr><tr><td>šá'mmus</td><td>'gorge'</td></tr><tr><td>šá'mmus</td><td>'gorge'</td></tr><tr><td>sém bos</td><td>'eat too little and unwillingly'</td></tr><tr><td>šúš bos</td><td>to whisper'</td></tr><tr><td>túr bos</td><td>'be overdone, be spoiled' (meat)</td></tr><tr><td>wák' bos</td><td>'clear up'</td></tr><tr><td>wá'p' bos</td><td>'crash, plump'</td></tr><tr><td>wás bos</td><td>'have doubts'</td></tr><tr><td>wúp bos</td><td>'bark'</td></tr><tr><td>záp:os</td><td>'invite'</td></tr><tr><td>zúz bos</td><td>'sprinkle salt'</td></tr><tr><td>žwál bos</td><td>'fidget, swarm'</td></tr><tr><td>şóp' bos</td><td>'burp'</td></tr><tr><td>χáp:us</td><td>'snatch'</td></tr><tr><td>χáq's bos</td><td>'throw up'</td></tr><tr><td>χít' bos</td><td>'push, make fall'</td></tr><tr><td>χwésár bos</td><td>'itch'</td></tr><tr><td>χ'wít' bós</td><td>'comb threads while weaving'</td></tr></table>
A6. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with CVRC template:

<table><tr><td>búʿrt’ bos</td><td>‘rock’ (baby); ‘eat one’s fill’</td></tr><tr><td>č’éʿnt’ bos</td><td>‘squeeze, milk slowly; spit through one’s teeth’</td></tr><tr><td>č’írq’ bos</td><td>‘dislocate; crack’ (knuckles)</td></tr><tr><td>čírχ̣ bos</td><td>‘come apart’ (hay; road)</td></tr><tr><td>čʷárḅ bos</td><td>‘flow out; pour out’</td></tr><tr><td>čʷárḅ bos</td><td>‘stamp, clap’</td></tr><tr><td>dáʿnk bos</td><td>‘pulse’ (heart)</td></tr><tr><td>dáʿnk bos</td><td>‘be shaken, shake’</td></tr><tr><td>dárq bos</td><td>‘knock’</td></tr><tr><td>gáʿrtbos</td><td>‘be loose’ (tooth)</td></tr><tr><td>haʿmp bos</td><td>‘bark’</td></tr><tr><td>háʿrš bos</td><td>‘boil’ (itr; tr)</td></tr><tr><td>hérq̣ bos</td><td>‘belch; hiccough’</td></tr><tr><td>húrk’ bos</td><td>‘limp; adjust’ (pack)</td></tr><tr><td>k’ent’ bos</td><td>‘drip’</td></tr><tr><td>k’érš bos</td><td>‘wag one’s finger; yield’</td></tr><tr><td>łáls bos</td><td>‘stammer’</td></tr><tr><td>łúrḅ bos</td><td>‘crawl’</td></tr><tr><td>lánk’ bos</td><td>‘limp’</td></tr><tr><td>łérχ̣ bos</td><td>‘shuffle one’s feet’ (people)</td></tr><tr><td>níʿwbos</td><td>‘meow’</td></tr><tr><td>pálc’ bos</td><td>‘hew, grind smooth’</td></tr><tr><td>pársbos</td><td>‘blink; start, twitch’</td></tr><tr><td>párχ bos</td><td>‘fly’</td></tr><tr><td>pírq’ bos</td><td>‘split, crack (wood, dry skin)’</td></tr><tr><td>pírχ bos</td><td>‘startle’ (heart)</td></tr><tr><td>púʿrš bos</td><td>‘get stuck in marshy soil’</td></tr><tr><td>q’árš bos</td><td>‘gnash, grit’ (teeth)</td></tr><tr><td>q’ṣárt’ bos</td><td>‘dislocate’ (joint)</td></tr><tr><td>q’énc’ bos</td><td>‘shear sheep, trim hair’</td></tr><tr><td>q”ént’ bos</td><td>‘pinch’</td></tr><tr><td>q”wank’ bos</td><td>‘slam’ (door)</td></tr><tr><td>q”wánt’ bos</td><td>‘say, order sharply’</td></tr><tr><td>q”wárł bos</td><td>‘hold with an iron hand’</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>qélt bos</td><td>‘trot’ (horses)</td></tr><tr><td>qénz bos</td><td>‘spin thread, wool’</td></tr><tr><td>qért’ bos</td><td>‘dig, take off a layer of earth’</td></tr><tr><td>qúrš-bos</td><td>‘slide, slip’</td></tr><tr><td>ćúrkł’ bos</td><td>‘jam, crush, squash’</td></tr><tr><td>sínk’ bos</td><td>‘sob’</td></tr><tr><td>t’ánk’ bos</td><td>‘jump’</td></tr><tr><td>t’írk’ bos</td><td>‘speed up’</td></tr><tr><td>tárχ bos</td><td>‘twist wool’</td></tr><tr><td>tért bos</td><td>‘splash, spatter with’</td></tr><tr><td>wárχ̣ bos</td><td>‘collapse’</td></tr><tr><td>wéʿłč’ bos</td><td>‘squelch’ (water in boots)</td></tr><tr><td>wúrq’ bos</td><td>‘crack (wood)’</td></tr><tr><td>zánk bos</td><td>‘stuff, fill’</td></tr><tr><td>žírq bos</td><td>‘brag’</td></tr><tr><td>žírq’ bos</td><td>‘break’ (wood)</td></tr><tr><td>χ:ánk’ bos</td><td>‘snore’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:árt’ bos</td><td>‘shave’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:wsélt’ bos</td><td>‘rummage’</td></tr><tr><td>aʿngáʿ bos</td><td>‘cry’ (baby)</td></tr><tr><td>aʿnšáʿ bos</td><td>‘sneeze’</td></tr><tr><td>ć’émbʿə bos</td><td>‘gnaw’ (dogs)</td></tr><tr><td>t’ént’ə bos</td><td>‘overeat (animals), glut’</td></tr><tr><td>gúrq̣ bos</td><td>‘swallow without chewing’</td></tr><tr><td>háʿnč’ bos</td><td>‘graze’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:úrk’ bos</td><td>‘slurp’</td></tr><tr><td>súnt’ bos</td><td>‘smell’</td></tr><tr><td>zímł bos</td><td>‘break out in a rash’</td></tr><tr><td>zámq’ bos</td><td>‘become very cold’ (weather)</td></tr><tr><td>q’émq’i bos</td><td>‘huddle up’ (from cold)</td></tr><tr><td>pírχ bos</td><td>‘take fire; get burnt’ (food)</td></tr><tr><td>q’ánc’ bos</td><td>‘become sour’</td></tr><tr><td>wáʿrt bos</td><td>‘throb’ (pain)</td></tr><tr><td>hínq’ bos</td><td>‘repent and reform’</td></tr><tr><td>híjt bos</td><td>‘hug’</td></tr></table>
A6. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with CVRC template:

<table><tr><td>búʿrt’ bos</td><td>‘rock’ (baby); ‘eat one’s fill’</td></tr><tr><td>č’éʿnt’ bos</td><td>‘squeeze, milk slowly; spit through one’s teeth’</td></tr><tr><td>č’írq’ bos</td><td>‘dislocate; crack’ (knuckles)</td></tr><tr><td>čírχ̣ bos</td><td>‘come apart’ (hay; road)</td></tr><tr><td>čʷárḅ bos</td><td>‘flow out; pour out’</td></tr><tr><td>čʷárḅ bos</td><td>‘stamp, clap’</td></tr><tr><td>dáʿnk bos</td><td>‘pulse’ (heart)</td></tr><tr><td>dáʿnk bos</td><td>‘be shaken, shake’</td></tr><tr><td>dárq bos</td><td>‘knock’</td></tr><tr><td>gáʿrtbos</td><td>‘be loose’ (tooth)</td></tr><tr><td>haʿmp bos</td><td>‘bark’</td></tr><tr><td>háʿrš bos</td><td>‘boil’ (itr; tr)</td></tr><tr><td>hérq̣ bos</td><td>‘belch; hiccough’</td></tr><tr><td>húrk’ bos</td><td>‘limp; adjust’ (pack)</td></tr><tr><td>k’ent’ bos</td><td>‘drip’</td></tr><tr><td>k’érš bos</td><td>‘wag one’s finger; yield’</td></tr><tr><td>łáls bos</td><td>‘stammer’</td></tr><tr><td>łúrḅ bos</td><td>‘crawl’</td></tr><tr><td>lánk’ bos</td><td>‘limp’</td></tr><tr><td>łérχ̣ bos</td><td>‘shuffle one’s feet’ (people)</td></tr><tr><td>níʿwbos</td><td>‘meow’</td></tr><tr><td>pálc’ bos</td><td>‘hew, grind smooth’</td></tr><tr><td>pársbos</td><td>‘blink; start, twitch’</td></tr><tr><td>párχ bos</td><td>‘fly’</td></tr><tr><td>pírq’ bos</td><td>‘split, crack (wood, dry skin)’</td></tr><tr><td>pírχ bos</td><td>‘startle’ (heart)</td></tr><tr><td>púʿrš bos</td><td>‘get stuck in marshy soil’</td></tr><tr><td>q’árš bos</td><td>‘gnash, grit’ (teeth)</td></tr><tr><td>q’ṣárt’ bos</td><td>‘dislocate’ (joint)</td></tr><tr><td>q’énc’ bos</td><td>‘shear sheep, trim hair’</td></tr><tr><td>q”ént’ bos</td><td>‘pinch’</td></tr><tr><td>q”wank’ bos</td><td>‘slam’ (door)</td></tr><tr><td>q”wánt’ bos</td><td>‘say, order sharply’</td></tr><tr><td>q”wárł bos</td><td>‘hold with an iron hand’</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>qélt bos</td><td>‘trot’ (horses)</td></tr><tr><td>qénz bos</td><td>‘spin thread, wool’</td></tr><tr><td>qért’ bos</td><td>‘dig, take off a layer of earth’</td></tr><tr><td>qúrš-bos</td><td>‘slide, slip’</td></tr><tr><td>ćúrkł’ bos</td><td>‘jam, crush, squash’</td></tr><tr><td>sínk’ bos</td><td>‘sob’</td></tr><tr><td>t’ánk’ bos</td><td>‘jump’</td></tr><tr><td>t’írk’ bos</td><td>‘speed up’</td></tr><tr><td>tárχ bos</td><td>‘twist wool’</td></tr><tr><td>tért bos</td><td>‘splash, spatter with’</td></tr><tr><td>wárχ̣ bos</td><td>‘collapse’</td></tr><tr><td>wéʿlč’ bos</td><td>‘squelch’ (water in boots)</td></tr><tr><td>wúrq’ bos</td><td>‘crack (wood)’</td></tr><tr><td>zánk bos</td><td>‘stuff, fill’</td></tr><tr><td>žírq bos</td><td>‘brag’</td></tr><tr><td>žírq’ bos</td><td>‘break’ (wood)</td></tr><tr><td>χ:ánk’ bos</td><td>‘snore’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:árt’ bos</td><td>‘shave’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:wsélt’ bos</td><td>‘rummage’</td></tr><tr><td>aʿngáʿ bos</td><td>‘cry’ (baby)</td></tr><tr><td>aʿnšáʿ bos</td><td>‘sneeze’</td></tr><tr><td>ć’émbʿə bos</td><td>‘gnaw’ (dogs)</td></tr><tr><td>t’ént’ə bos</td><td>‘overeat (animals), glut’</td></tr><tr><td>gúrq̣ bos</td><td>‘swallow without chewing’</td></tr><tr><td>háʿnč’ bos</td><td>‘graze’</td></tr><tr><td>χ:úrk’ bos</td><td>‘slurp’</td></tr><tr><td>súnt’ bos</td><td>‘smell’</td></tr><tr><td>zímł bos</td><td>‘break out in a rash’</td></tr><tr><td>zámq’ bos</td><td>‘become very cold’ (weather)</td></tr><tr><td>q’émq’i bos</td><td>‘huddle up’ (from cold)</td></tr><tr><td>pírχ bos</td><td>‘take fire; get burnt’ (food)</td></tr><tr><td>q’ánc’ bos</td><td>‘become sour’</td></tr><tr><td>wáʿrt bos</td><td>‘throb’ (pain)</td></tr><tr><td>hínq’ bos</td><td>‘repent and reform’</td></tr><tr><td>híjt bos</td><td>‘hug’</td></tr></table>
A7. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with other templates:

<table><tr><td>CV</td><td>q'ébus</td><td>'butt; stick in, thrust'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qébus</td><td>'dance'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>bá:bus</td><td>'talk'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χábus</td><td>'sing' / 'play'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>húbus</td><td>'growl'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>rá: bos</td><td>'croak; weep' (ironic)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>húbus</td><td>'blow' (wind or person)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tú bus</td><td>'spit'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:úbus</td><td>'sip smth hot'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>c'ábus</td><td>'drink (cold)'</td></tr><tr><td>VC</td><td>áχ bos</td><td>'clear throat and spit'</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td></td><td>á' bos</td><td>'to call, tell, ask, invite'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>é'mmus</td><td>'cry'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>úw bos</td><td>'howl'</td></tr><tr><td>VCV</td><td>út'u bos</td><td>'refuse'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>uħú bos</td><td>'cough'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCV</td><td>hačá bos</td><td>'carry on one's back'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>deré bos</td><td>'separate lambs'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>husú bos</td><td>'set on, incite, stir up'</td></tr><tr><td>VRC</td><td>ú'nš bos</td><td>'blow one's nose'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCVR</td><td>dítan bos</td><td>'caress' (a child)</td></tr></table>

A8. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with reduplication:

<table><tr><td>CVC</td><td>c'éc' bos</td><td>'drizzle'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>zíz bos</td><td>'buzz'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>κύ: bos</td><td>'moo, bellow'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCV</td><td>čúčə bos</td><td>'wash' (oneself or clothes)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>hihí bos</td><td>'whinny'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gúkə bos</td><td>'scratch, to itch'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>č"w'éč'ə bos</td><td>'nibble'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:άχ:u bos</td><td>'eat food made of dac'on'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:úχ:u bos</td><td>'saw'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sése bos</td><td>'roast grain'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sú:se bos</td><td>'coat, smear'</td></tr><tr><td>CVRCV</td><td>t'ént'ə bos</td><td>'overeat (animals), glut (people)'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gérgi bos</td><td>'roll out'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gérkibos</td><td>'rock' (cot)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>k'érk'ə bos</td><td>'go curly' (hair)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>q"w'érq'ə bos</td><td>'turn (smth), squeeze'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>š'wélši bos</td><td>'push, cram, stuff in'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>κ'émκ'ə bos</td><td>'gnaw' (dogs)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>κ'érκə bos</td><td>'break' (crockery)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>zérzi bos</td><td>'fill to the brim'</td></tr><tr><td>CVRCVR</td><td>k'úrk'ur bos</td><td>'purl, babble, flow' (spring); 'fall asleep'</td></tr></table>
A7. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with other templates:

<table><tr><td>CV</td><td>q'ébus</td><td>'butt; stick in, thrust'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qébus</td><td>'dance'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>bá:bus</td><td>'talk'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χábus</td><td>'sing' / 'play'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>húbus</td><td>'growl'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>rá: bos</td><td>'croak; weep' (ironic)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>húbus</td><td>'blow' (wind or person)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tú bus</td><td>'spit'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:úbus</td><td>'sip smth hot'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>c'ábus</td><td>'drink (cold)'</td></tr><tr><td>VC</td><td>áχ bos</td><td>'clear throat and spit'</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td></td><td>á' bos</td><td>'to call, tell, ask, invite'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>é'mmus</td><td>'cry'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>úw bos</td><td>'howl'</td></tr><tr><td>VCV</td><td>út'u bos</td><td>'refuse'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>uħú bos</td><td>'cough'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCV</td><td>hačá bos</td><td>'carry on one's back'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>deré bos</td><td>'separate lambs'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>husú bos</td><td>'set on, incite, stir up'</td></tr><tr><td>VRC</td><td>ú'nš bos</td><td>'blow one's nose'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCVR</td><td>dítan bos</td><td>'caress' (a child)</td></tr></table>

A8. Complete lists of ideophonic coverbs with reduplication:

<table><tr><td>CVC</td><td>c'éc' bos</td><td>'drizzle'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>zíz bos</td><td>'buzz'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kú bos</td><td>'moo, bellow'</td></tr><tr><td>CVCV</td><td>čúčə bos</td><td>'wash' (oneself or clothes)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>híhí bos</td><td>'whinny'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gúkə bos</td><td>'scratch, to itch'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>č'w'éč'ə bos</td><td>'nibble'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:áχ:u bos</td><td>'eat food made of dac'on'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>χ:úχ:u bos</td><td>'saw'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>sése bos</td><td>'roast grain'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>súse bos</td><td>'coat, smear'</td></tr><tr><td>CVRCV</td><td>t'ént'ə bos</td><td>'overeat (animals), glut (people)'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gérgi bos</td><td>'roll out'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>gérkibos</td><td>'rock' (cot)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>k'érk'ə bos</td><td>'go curly' (hair)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>q'w'érq'ə bos</td><td>'turn (smth), squeeze'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>š'wélši bos</td><td>'push, cram, stuff in'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>k'émkə bos</td><td>'gnaw' (dogs)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kérkə bos</td><td>'break' (crockery)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>zérzi bos</td><td>'fill to the brim'</td></tr><tr><td>CVRCVR</td><td>k'úrk'ur bos</td><td>'purl, babble, flow' (spring); 'fall asleep'</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>č'irq'ir</td><td>'chirp'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>dúmbum bos</td><td>'mumble, grumble'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>búrbur bos</td><td>'grumble, mumble'</td></tr><tr><td>CVC-CVC</td><td>č'á'p'-q'ap' bos</td><td>'exchange fire, trade shots' cf. č'á'pus 'burst, explode; shoot'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>šípqip bos</td><td>'hurry sheep up'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>š:wt'q'wšt' bos</td><td>'whistle softly' (melody)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qécšec bos</td><td>'stroll, walk'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>šúšq'us bos</td><td>'gossip'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>há'hčił bos</td><td>'pant, puff'</td></tr><tr><td>other</td><td>urši'u bos</td><td>'crow' (rooster)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>č'irq'ir</td><td>'chirp'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>dúmbum bos</td><td>'mumble, grumble'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>búrbur bos</td><td>'grumble, mumble'</td></tr><tr><td>CVC-CVC</td><td>č'á'p'-q'ap' bos</td><td>'exchange fire, trade shots' cf. č'á'pus 'burst, explode; shoot'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>šípqip bos</td><td>'hurry sheep up'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>š:wt'q'wšt' bos</td><td>'whistle softly' (melody)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>qécšec bos</td><td>'stroll, walk'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>šúšq'us bos</td><td>'gossip'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>há'hčił bos</td><td>'pant, puff'</td></tr><tr><td>other</td><td>urši'u bos</td><td>'crow' (rooster)</td></tr></table>
# Ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles: a comparative study

NICOLAS QUINT¹, NOËL BERNARD BIAGUI²

¹CNRS, UMR 8135 LANGAGE, LANGUES ET CULTURES D'AFRIQUE

²CENTRE DE LINGUISTIQUE APPLIQUEE DE DAKAR (UCAD)

Submitted: 02/04/2023 Revised version: 01/03/2024

Accepted: 04/03/2024 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

The Upper Guinea Creoles (UGCs) are a family of closely related Afro-Portuguese languages, comprising three branches: continental (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau), insular (Cape Verde) and ABC (Dutch Antilles). Several continental and insular UGC varieties make use of a specific set of adverbs which can be called “ideophones” following Dingemanse’s (2012) definition of the term. This paper aims at providing a comprehensive study of UGC ideophones. Based on a database collected from native speakers, it characterizes the main phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic features of ideophonic items in UGCs. In addition, it investigates the origins of UGC ideophones and compares the use and behavior of this word class in continental and insular UGCs, showing the degree of both African and Portuguese influence on each UGC variety considered.

**Keywords:** Afro-Portuguese, ideophones, language contact, Niger-Congo, Upper Guinea Creoles.

## 1. Introduction

Like many Niger-Congo languages, all African members of the Upper Guinea Creoles (UGCs) family, a group of Afro-Portuguese languages spoken in West Africa and in three Dutch Caribbean islands, make use of a specific set of adverbs which can be called “ideophones” (IDEO) following Dingemanse’s (2012) definition of the term. Examples (1)-(3), taken from Casamance Creole (CC), illustrate one particular
# Ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles: a comparative study

NICOLAS QUINT¹, NOËL BERNARD BIAGUI²

¹CNRS, UMR 8135 LANGAGE, LANGUES ET CULTURES D'AFRIQUE

²CENTRE DE LINGUISTIQUE APPLIQUEE DE DAKAR (UCAD)

Submitted: 02/04/2023 Revised version: 01/03/2024

Accepted: 04/03/2024 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

The Upper Guinea Creoles (UGCs) are a family of closely related Afro-Portuguese languages, comprising three branches: continental (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau), insular (Cape Verde) and ABC (Dutch Antilles). Several continental and insular UGC varieties make use of a specific set of adverbs which can be called “ideophones” following Dingemanse’s (2012) definition of the term. This paper aims at providing a comprehensive study of UGC ideophones. Based on a database collected from native speakers, it characterizes the main phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic features of ideophonic items in UGCs. In addition, it investigates the origins of UGC ideophones and compares the use and behavior of this word class in continental and insular UGCs, showing the degree of both African and Portuguese influence on each UGC variety considered.

**Keywords:** Afro-Portuguese, ideophones, language contact, Niger-Congo, Upper Guinea Creoles.

## 1. Introduction

Like many Niger-Congo languages, all African members of the Upper Guinea Creoles (UGCs) family, a group of Afro-Portuguese languages spoken in West Africa and in three Dutch Caribbean islands, make use of a specific set of adverbs which can be called “ideophones” (IDEO) following Dingemanse’s (2012) definition of the term. Examples (1)-(3), taken from Casamance Creole (CC), illustrate one particular
subcategory of ideophones, namely verb intensifiers, which are highly specialized and
each intensify only one or a few verb(s) of the language in question:<fnref n="1" />

(1) CC *braŋku*<fnref n="2" /> 'be white' + *fandaŋ* (IDEO) > *braŋku fandaŋ* 'be very white, be as white as snow'

(2) CC *pretu* ‘be black’ + *nok* (IDEO) > *pretu nok* ‘be very black, be pitch-black, be as black as coal’

(3) CC *kalá* ‘be/keep silent’ + *mik* (IDEO) > *kalá mik* ‘be very silent, be as quiet as a mouse, be dead silent’

The goal of this study is threefold: first, it aims at giving a detailed description of the main phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic characteristics of UGC ideophones; second, it takes stock of the question of their origin; and third, it provides a comparative perspective across two of the three branches of UGCs: the continental branch (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau varieties) and the insular branch (Capeverdean varieties).

The structure of the paper is as follows: in Section 2, we provide the reader with an introduction to the UGC family. Then, in Section 3, we give a brief overview of UGC ideophones, against the background of the typological literature. We explain why our corpus is skewed in favor of verb-intensifying ideophones and mention relevant publications on UGC ideophones. Section 4 provides details about the data and our methodology. Section 5 deals with continental UGC ideophones, whereas Section 6 examines insular UGC ideophones and compares them with their continental counterparts. Section 7 summarizes the main results of this study.

<footnote n="1">¹ For the intensification of non-verbal elements, see §5.2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Unless otherwise specified, UGC data are transcribed orthographically with phonologically-based conventions that generally follow the rules used by Biagui in his grammar (2018: 31-41) for continental UGC data (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau) and the prescriptions of the ALUPEC (*Alfabeto Unificado para a Escrita do Caboverdiano* = Unified Alphabet for Capeverdean writing) for Capeverdean data. Data drawn from other authors were adapted to these rules. Note that in ALUPEC, the digraphs {dj}, {nh} and {tx} code for one phoneme each, namely /dʒ/~/j/, /ɲ/ and /tʃ/~/c/, respectively.</footnote>
subcategory of ideophones, namely verb intensifiers, which are highly specialized and
each intensify only one or a few verb(s) of the language in question:<fnref n="1" />

(1) CC *braŋku*<fnref n="2" /> 'be white' + *fandaŋ* (IDEO) > *braŋku fandaŋ* 'be very white, be as white as snow'

(2) CC *pretu* ‘be black’ + *nok* (IDEO) > *pretu nok* ‘be very black, be pitch-black, be as black as coal’

(3) CC *kalá* ‘be/keep silent’ + *mik* (IDEO) > *kalá mik* ‘be very silent, be as quiet as a mouse, be dead silent’

The goal of this study is threefold: first, it aims at giving a detailed description of the main phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic characteristics of UGC ideophones; second, it takes stock of the question of their origin; and third, it provides a comparative perspective across two of the three branches of UGCs: the continental branch (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau varieties) and the insular branch (Capeverdean varieties).

The structure of the paper is as follows: in Section 2, we provide the reader with an introduction to the UGC family. Then, in Section 3, we give a brief overview of UGC ideophones, against the background of the typological literature. We explain why our corpus is skewed in favor of verb-intensifying ideophones and mention relevant publications on UGC ideophones. Section 4 provides details about the data and our methodology. Section 5 deals with continental UGC ideophones, whereas Section 6 examines insular UGC ideophones and compares them with their continental counterparts. Section 7 summarizes the main results of this study.

<footnote n="1">¹ For the intensification of non-verbal elements, see §5.2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Unless otherwise specified, UGC data are transcribed orthographically with phonologically-based conventions that generally follow the rules used by Biagui in his grammar (2018: 31-41) for continental UGC data (Casamance and Guinea-Bissau) and the prescriptions of the ALUPEC (*Alfabeto Unificado para a Escrita do Caboverdiano* = Unified Alphabet for Capeverdean writing) for Capeverdean data. Data drawn from other authors were adapted to these rules. Note that in ALUPEC, the digraphs {dj}, {nh} and {tx} code for one phoneme each, namely /dʒ/~/j/, /ɲ/ and /tʃ/~/c/, respectively.</footnote>
## 2. Upper Guinea Creoles: some basic facts

Apart from the specific references mentioned throughout this section, most of the information presented hereafter is based on Biagui et al. (forthcoming), Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019), Jacobs (2012), and Quint (2000b).

### 2.1. Main subgroupings and varieties

The Upper Guinea Creoles are a group of phylogenetically related Afro-Portuguese languages traditionally spoken in West Africa and in the Dutch Antilles. They comprise three main branches:

(i) Continental UGCs (pov), spoken in Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Map 1): in Senegal, only one UGC variety is spoken today, namely Casamance Creole, traditionally used in the city of Ziguinchor and its surroundings (in the region of Lower Casamance). It has approximately 20.000 speakers, 10.000 of whom are native.

In Guinea-Bissau, at least three distinct UGC varieties are recorded: the Bissau variety, originally spoken in the capital city of Guinea-Bissau, has now become the main vehicular language of the whole country. It has nearly 2.000.000 speakers, over 500.000 of whom are native. The Cacheu and Geba varieties, spoken in the eponymous cities situated in Northwestern and Eastern Guinea-Bissau, respectively, are currently on the verge of extinction (as they are being replaced by the Bissau variety), and each of them is used or remembered by only a handful of elderly people (Quint 2023: 452). The Cacheu variety has been shown to be historically related to Casamance Creole (Quint 2023: 451, 453; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 135-139; Biagui 2018: 18) whereas the Geba variety clusters with the Bissau variety.

(ii) Insular (or Capeverdean) UGCs (Map 2) are spoken by 1.000.000 native speakers, 500.000 of whom live in the archipelago of Cape Verde and the rest in diasporic communities, mainly in the US, Portugal, France, Netherlands and Senegal (Quint 2009b). Insular UGCs can be further split into two sub-branches: Sotavento ('Leeward') Capeverdean is spoken in the four southern islands of Brava, Fogo, Maio, and Santiago. Barlavento ('Windward') Capeverdean is spoken in the five northern islands of Boa Vista, Sal, Sant'Antão, São Nicolau, and São Vicente.

(iii) Papiamentu (or ABC UGC, (pap)) is spoken in the three Caribbean islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao (the ABC islands) by at least 350.000 people including a
## 2. Upper Guinea Creoles: some basic facts

Apart from the specific references mentioned throughout this section, most of the information presented hereafter is based on Biagui et al. (forthcoming), Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019), Jacobs (2012), and Quint (2000b).

### 2.1. Main subgroupings and varieties

The Upper Guinea Creoles are a group of phylogenetically related Afro-Portuguese languages traditionally spoken in West Africa and in the Dutch Antilles. They comprise three main branches:

(i) Continental UGCs (pov), spoken in Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Map 1): in Senegal, only one UGC variety is spoken today, namely Casamance Creole, traditionally used in the city of Ziguinchor and its surroundings (in the region of Lower Casamance). It has approximately 20.000 speakers, 10.000 of whom are native.

In Guinea-Bissau, at least three distinct UGC varieties are recorded: the Bissau variety, originally spoken in the capital city of Guinea-Bissau, has now become the main vehicular language of the whole country. It has nearly 2.000.000 speakers, over 500.000 of whom are native. The Cacheu and Geba varieties, spoken in the eponymous cities situated in Northwestern and Eastern Guinea-Bissau, respectively, are currently on the verge of extinction (as they are being replaced by the Bissau variety), and each of them is used or remembered by only a handful of elderly people (Quint 2023: 452). The Cacheu variety has been shown to be historically related to Casamance Creole (Quint 2023: 451, 453; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 135-139; Biagui 2018: 18) whereas the Geba variety clusters with the Bissau variety.

(ii) Insular (or Capeverdean) UGCs (Map 2) are spoken by 1.000.000 native speakers, 500.000 of whom live in the archipelago of Cape Verde and the rest in diasporic communities, mainly in the US, Portugal, France, Netherlands and Senegal (Quint 2009b). Insular UGCs can be further split into two sub-branches: Sotavento ('Leeward') Capeverdean is spoken in the four southern islands of Brava, Fogo, Maio, and Santiago. Barlavento ('Windward') Capeverdean is spoken in the five northern islands of Boa Vista, Sal, Sant'Antão, São Nicolau, and São Vicente.

(iii) Papiamentu (or ABC UGC, (pap)) is spoken in the three Caribbean islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao (the ABC islands) by at least 350.000 people including a
diaspora of several tens of thousands of people in the Netherlands. Each island has its own variety.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Map 1: Continental Upper Guinea Creoles.</figcaption></figure>
diaspora of several tens of thousands of people in the Netherlands. Each island has its
own variety.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Map 1:** Continental Upper Guinea Creoles.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Map 2:** Insular (Capeverdean) Upper Guinea Creoles.</figcaption></figure>

The degree of mutual understanding between the different UGCs is variable: speakers of any two continental varieties can easily chat with each other without any previous contact, and the same is true for speakers of the various ABC varieties. The insular branch shows a higher degree of internal differentiation, in particular between Barlavento and Sotavento: users of rural varieties of each of these subbranches may find it difficult to fully understand each other. Between speakers of different UGC branches, a basic understanding is always possible due to the structural and lexical features shared by all UGCs. However, the linguistic distance between each of the three branches is such that speakers must usually actively learn some elements of each other's varieties before being able to communicate effectively. In other words,
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Map 2:** Insular (Capeverdean) Upper Guinea Creoles.</figcaption></figure>

The degree of mutual understanding between the different UGCs is variable: speakers of any two continental varieties can easily chat with each other without any previous contact, and the same is true for speakers of the various ABC varieties. The insular branch shows a higher degree of internal differentiation, in particular between Barlavento and Sotavento: users of rural varieties of each of these subbranches may find it difficult to fully understand each other. Between speakers of different UGC branches, a basic understanding is always possible due to the structural and lexical features shared by all UGCs. However, the linguistic distance between each of the three branches is such that speakers must usually actively learn some elements of each other's varieties before being able to communicate effectively. In other words,
the UGCs can be considered as a group of closely related languages, and each branch
of the family as a dialect cluster.

**2.2. African and Portuguese origins**

All UGCs are characterized by a common Afro-Portuguese lexical core, including a
Portuguese component and an African substrate.

Except for contemporary Papiamentu, over 80% of the core lexicon (e.g. Swadesh list) of all UGCs is of Portuguese origin, and therefore UGCs can be described as Portuguese-based Creole languages. Note that this Portuguese component is not derived from today's Portuguese but from classical Portuguese, i.e. the stage of the language that was spoken between 1450 and 1550, at the time when UGCs first developped (see below).

The African substrate is, essentially, derived from the three following languages, in
decreasing order of importance: Mandinka (mnk), Wolof (wof/wol) and Temne (tem)
(Biagui et al. forthcoming; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 124-126; Rougé 1999). These
three languages all belong to the Niger-Congo phylum. Wolof and Temne belong to the
Atlantic branch of this phylum while Mandinka belongs to the Mande branch.

It is the existence of this Afro-Portuguese lexical core, combined with a series of
striking phonological and structural similarities, which has led scholars to posit the
existence of proto-UGC, an ancestor common to all UGCs, which was different from
Portuguese.<fnref n="3" /> Proto-UGC must have developed during the second half of the 15th century
and was in all likelihood fully shaped from 1550 onwards. At the beginning, proto-UGC
may have been used as a pidgin (i.e. a non-native contact variety) allowing exchanges
between Portuguese sailors and West African people. At any rate, it soon became the
native language of some Afro-Portuguese communities, intially in Cape Verde, on the
island of Santiago, the first Capeverdean island to have been settled by the Portuguese
(ca. 1460) and therefore the most plausible cradle for all UGCs. From then on, UGC
varieties developed on the island of Fogo (settled between 1480 and 1490, see
Moreira Tavares (2020: 24-25)) and then progressively on the remaining islands of
the archipelago of Cape Verde.

Continental varieties must have developed in the second half of the 16th century
(Biagui et al. forthcoming), from an offshoot of the incipient Capeverdean (insular)
UGC. As all continental UGCs are obviously closely related and share features not

<footnote n="3">³ For a first temptative reconstruction of proto-UGC lexicon and grammar, see Quint (2000b: 197-208, 307-318).</footnote>
the UGCs can be considered as a group of closely related languages, and each branch
of the family as a dialect cluster.

**2.2. African and Portuguese origins**

All UGCs are characterized by a common Afro-Portuguese lexical core, including a
Portuguese component and an African substrate.

Except for contemporary Papiamentu, over 80% of the core lexicon (e.g. Swadesh list) of all UGCs is of Portuguese origin, and therefore UGCs can be described as Portuguese-based Creole languages. Note that this Portuguese component is not derived from today's Portuguese but from classical Portuguese, i.e. the stage of the language that was spoken between 1450 and 1550, at the time when UGCs first developped (see below).

The African substrate is, essentially, derived from the three following languages, in
decreasing order of importance: Mandinka (mnk), Wolof (wof/wol) and Temne (tem)
(Biagui et al. forthcoming; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 124-126; Rougé 1999). These
three languages all belong to the Niger-Congo phylum. Wolof and Temne belong to the
Atlantic branch of this phylum while Mandinka belongs to the Mande branch.

It is the existence of this Afro-Portuguese lexical core, combined with a series of
striking phonological and structural similarities, which has led scholars to posit the
existence of proto-UGC, an ancestor common to all UGCs, which was different from
Portuguese.<fnref n="3" /> Proto-UGC must have developed during the second half of the 15th century
and was in all likelihood fully shaped from 1550 onwards. At the beginning, proto-UGC
may have been used as a pidgin (i.e. a non-native contact variety) allowing exchanges
between Portuguese sailors and West African people. At any rate, it soon became the
native language of some Afro-Portuguese communities, intially in Cape Verde, on the
island of Santiago, the first Capeverdean island to have been settled by the Portuguese
(ca. 1460) and therefore the most plausible cradle for all UGCs. From then on, UGC
varieties developed on the island of Fogo (settled between 1480 and 1490, see
Moreira Tavares (2020: 24-25)) and then progressively on the remaining islands of
the archipelago of Cape Verde.

Continental varieties must have developed in the second half of the 16th century
(Biagui et al. forthcoming), from an offshoot of the incipient Capeverdean (insular)
UGC. As all continental UGCs are obviously closely related and share features not

<footnote n="3">³ For a first temptative reconstruction of proto-UGC lexicon and grammar, see Quint (2000b: 197-208, 307-318).</footnote>
found in other UGCs, it is reasonable to posit the existence of a common ancestor for
these varieties, namely proto-continental UGC, which must have appeared in Cacheu,
the first Portuguese permanent settlement on West African shores.

Papiamentu (or ABC) UGC emerged in the first half of the 17th century, when the
Dutch colonized Curaçao and then the two other islands (Aruba and Bonaire) where
it is still spoken.

UGCs are mostly analytic languages, and make a much more limited use of bound
morphology than Portuguese (and more generally Romance languages). They all
follow a strict SVO, determiner + noun, noun + genitive word order.

3. Ideophones in UGCs: a brief overview

**3.1. Defining the category of ideophones in UGCs**

In UGCs, as in many languages of the world, ideophones are a subtype of adverbs that
typically combine with a verb and depict different semantic nuances associated with
this verb, such as intensification (1-3), immediacy (4) or different sensory modalities
(see Dingemanse 2012: 663 for more details), such as sounds (in which case the
ideophones may also be called “onomatopoeias”<fnref n="4" />) (5) or visual patterns (6).

(4) Cacheu (Guinea-Bissau) Creole

(a) *labantá* ‘stand up’ + *fakat* (IDEO) > *labantá fakat* ‘stand up *at once*’

(b) *sai* ‘get out’ + *fut* (IDEO) > *sai fut* ‘get out *at once/quickly*’

(5) Casamance Creole (CC)

(a) *kay* ‘fall’ + *furbap* (IDEO) > *kay furbap* ‘fall producing the typical noise of something sinking into rice bran’

(b) *ñemé*<fnref n="5" /> ‘chew’ + *cákum-cákum* (IDEO) > *ñemé cákum-cákum* ‘chew *noisily*’

<footnote n="4">⁴ The concepts of sound ideophone and onomatopoeia do not always overlap in all languages. Within the scope of this paper, we will consider that all UGC sound ideophones can also be considered as onomatopoeias, i.e. “words that originate as imitations of sounds” (Dingemanse 2019: 28). This does not necessarily imply that all UGC onomatopoeias also are ideophones.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ For verbs such as CC ñemé ‘chew’ (5b) or Santiago Capeverdean fasi ‘make’ (6a) and odja ‘see’ (6b), which have transitive uses, one could also argue that the ideophones fill an object slot and are not adverbs. However, such ideophones do not behave as prototypical nouns, as (i) they cannot combine</footnote>
found in other UGCs, it is reasonable to posit the existence of a common ancestor for
these varieties, namely proto-continental UGC, which must have appeared in Cacheu,
the first Portuguese permanent settlement on West African shores.

Papiamentu (or ABC) UGC emerged in the first half of the 17th century, when the
Dutch colonized Curaçao and then the two other islands (Aruba and Bonaire) where
it is still spoken.

UGCs are mostly analytic languages, and make a much more limited use of bound
morphology than Portuguese (and more generally Romance languages). They all
follow a strict SVO, determiner + noun, noun + genitive word order.

3. Ideophones in UGCs: a brief overview

**3.1. Defining the category of ideophones in UGCs**

In UGCs, as in many languages of the world, ideophones are a subtype of adverbs that
typically combine with a verb and depict different semantic nuances associated with
this verb, such as intensification (1-3), immediacy (4) or different sensory modalities
(see Dingemanse 2012: 663 for more details), such as sounds (in which case the
ideophones may also be called “onomatopoeias”<fnref n="4" />) (5) or visual patterns (6).

(4) Cacheu (Guinea-Bissau) Creole

(a) *labantá* ‘stand up’ + *fakat* (IDEO) > *labantá fakat* ‘stand up *at once*’

(b) *sai* ‘get out’ + *fut* (IDEO) > *sai fut* ‘get out *at once/quickly*’

(5) Casamance Creole (CC)

(a) *kay* ‘fall’ + *furbap* (IDEO) > *kay furbap* ‘fall producing the typical noise of something sinking into rice bran’

(b) *ñemé*<fnref n="5" /> ‘chew’ + *cákum-cákum* (IDEO) > *ñemé cákum-cákum* ‘chew *noisily*’

<footnote n="4">⁴ The concepts of sound ideophone and onomatopoeia do not always overlap in all languages. Within the scope of this paper, we will consider that all UGC sound ideophones can also be considered as onomatopoeias, i.e. “words that originate as imitations of sounds” (Dingemanse 2019: 28). This does not necessarily imply that all UGC onomatopoeias also are ideophones.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ For verbs such as CC ñemé ‘chew’ (5b) or Santiago Capeverdean fasi ‘make’ (6a) and odja ‘see’ (6b), which have transitive uses, one could also argue that the ideophones fill an object slot and are not adverbs. However, such ideophones do not behave as prototypical nouns, as (i) they cannot combine</footnote>
(6) Santiago Capeverdean

(a) *fasi* ‘make’ + *menhi-menhi* (IDEO) > *fasi menhi-menhi* ‘have interference, be jammed (television)’

(b) *odja* ‘see’ + *blu* (IDEO) > *odja blu* ‘see pink elephants, have alcohol-related hallucinations’

UGC ideophones match the typological characterization elaborated by Dingemanse in 2012, who defines ideophones as “marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2012: 655). He refined the definition of ideophone in 2019, as a “member of an open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2019: 16). While it is indisputable that ideophones form an open lexical class in many Niger-Congo languages (e.g. in Koalib (kib), see Quint 2018), this property is not necessarily shared by all UGCs, in particular insular UGCs, hence our preference for the 2012 definition.

**3.2. Previous studies on UGC ideophones**

UGC ideophones have already been studied in some detail for Guinea-Bissau Creole<fnref n="6" /> and briefly mentioned for Capeverdean (Quint 2000b: 107-109; 2008: 72-75) and Casamance Creole (Biagui 2018: 265, 372-373; Biagui & Quint 2013: 47; Dalphinis 1986: 107-108). This material mainly consists of lexeme lists with brief comments. Furthermore, only three of the cited authors have published lists of more than 20 ideophones: Kihm (1995) provides 35, Scantamburlo (1999) 51 and Biagui (2018) 62 ideophones. This paper aims at providing a more complete coverage of the category of ideophones across Upper Guinea Creoles.<fnref n="7" />

with nominal determiners (such as demonstratives, numerals, adjectives, etc.) and (ii) generally cannot
occupy a nominal slot in a sentence (although the specific behavior of *menhi-menhi* is more ambiguous
to this respect, criterion (i) is still valid for this item). Hence, in a sequence such as *odja blu* (6b), from
a syntactic point of view, *blu* behaves like a non-ideophonic adverb such as ‘well’ or ‘clearly’ and not
like a noun such as ‘car’, ‘water’ or ‘elephant”.

<footnote n="6">⁶ See Quint (2023: 460-461), Truppi & Costa (2019), Scantamburlo (1981: 66-67; 1999: 189-191), Couto (1994: 102-104; 1995: 207-215), Childs (1994: 265-266, 277), Kihm (1994: 76-78), Doneux & Rougé (1988: 27-28), Mbodj (1979: 79; 1984: 58) and Wilson (1962: 62).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Papiamentu (i.e. the third branch of UGCs, see §2.1) is not taken into account. Indeed, as far as we
can tell, Papiamentu does not seem to have an ideophonic word class comparable to what will be
described hereafter.</footnote>
(6) Santiago Capeverdean

(a) *fasi* ‘make’ + *menhi-menhi* (IDEO) > *fasi menhi-menhi* ‘have interference, be jammed (television)’

(b) *odja* ‘see’ + *blu* (IDEO) > *odja blu* ‘see pink elephants, have alcohol-related hallucinations’

UGC ideophones match the typological characterization elaborated by Dingemanse in 2012, who defines ideophones as “marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2012: 655). He refined the definition of ideophone in 2019, as a “member of an open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2019: 16). While it is indisputable that ideophones form an open lexical class in many Niger-Congo languages (e.g. in Koalib (kib), see Quint 2018), this property is not necessarily shared by all UGCs, in particular insular UGCs, hence our preference for the 2012 definition.

**3.2. Previous studies on UGC ideophones**

UGC ideophones have already been studied in some detail for Guinea-Bissau Creole<fnref n="6" /> and briefly mentioned for Capeverdean (Quint 2000b: 107-109; 2008: 72-75) and Casamance Creole (Biagui 2018: 265, 372-373; Biagui & Quint 2013: 47; Dalphinis 1986: 107-108). This material mainly consists of lexeme lists with brief comments. Furthermore, only three of the cited authors have published lists of more than 20 ideophones: Kihm (1995) provides 35, Scantamburlo (1999) 51 and Biagui (2018) 62 ideophones. This paper aims at providing a more complete coverage of the category of ideophones across Upper Guinea Creoles.<fnref n="7" />

with nominal determiners (such as demonstratives, numerals, adjectives, etc.) and (ii) generally cannot
occupy a nominal slot in a sentence (although the specific behavior of *menhi-menhi* is more ambiguous
to this respect, criterion (i) is still valid for this item). Hence, in a sequence such as *odja blu* (6b), from
a syntactic point of view, *blu* behaves like a non-ideophonic adverb such as ‘well’ or ‘clearly’ and not
like a noun such as ‘car’, ‘water’ or ‘elephant”.

<footnote n="6">⁶ See Quint (2023: 460-461), Truppi & Costa (2019), Scantamburlo (1981: 66-67; 1999: 189-191), Couto (1994: 102-104; 1995: 207-215), Childs (1994: 265-266, 277), Kihm (1994: 76-78), Doneux & Rougé (1988: 27-28), Mbodj (1979: 79; 1984: 58) and Wilson (1962: 62).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Papiamentu (i.e. the third branch of UGCs, see §2.1) is not taken into account. Indeed, as far as we
can tell, Papiamentu does not seem to have an ideophonic word class comparable to what will be
described hereafter.</footnote>
# 4. Data provenance and methodology

This study builds on two main datasets, for continental and insular UGCs respectively.

## 4.1. The continental dataset

For the continental Upper Guinea Creoles dataset, the following varieties are taken into account (Map 1): Bissau, Cacheu and Geba (Guinea-Bissau) and Casamance (Senegal). In practice, the Casamance variety was used as the standard against which other varieties are compared. As Biagui, himself a Casamance Creole native speaker, had already collected 81 ideophonic items in his dictionary (Biagui in preparation) – the longest list so far compiled for any UGC variety – Quint used these items and systematically checked their semantic equivalents for all other continental varieties. For this, several native speakers and available published sources, mainly Scantamburlo<fnref n="8" /> (1999), were consulted (Table 1). All CC ideophones and their other continental UGC counterparts are given in Appendix 1 (Tables 1.1 to 1.5).

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Origin of the data for each UGC variety.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variety</th><th>Source</th><th>Number of consultants<fnref n="9" /></th><th>Code</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Casamance</td><td>Biagui (to appear)<br/>+ personal knowledge</td><td>1</td><td>CC</td></tr><tr><td>Geba</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>1</td><td>Geba</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>3</td><td>Cacheu1/2/3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bissau</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>2</td><td>Bissau1/2</td></tr><tr><td>Scantamburlo (1999)</td><td>1</td><td>Bissau3</td></tr></tbody></table>

The main reasons for the choice of Casamance Creole as the point of departure for the study of these four continental varieties were (i) the availability of a dataset compiled earlier by Biagui and (ii) the fact that he could himself re-check this data and provide in-depth insights as to the behavior of continental UGC ideophones.

<footnote n="8">⁸ In two cases at least (*/far/ and */caŋ/, see Tables 1.3 and 1.4 in Appendix 1), we also resorted to Scantamburlo (2002) to check ideophones that were not listed in Scantamburlo (1999).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Regarding Scantamburlo's dictionary, the data obviously come from more than one consultant. However, as it is a single written source and the specific contribution of each consultant is not mentioned, we will make the approximation of considering that this publication represents one dataset, and therefore is the equivalent of one consultant.</footnote>
# 4. Data provenance and methodology

This study builds on two main datasets, for continental and insular UGCs respectively.

## 4.1. The continental dataset

For the continental Upper Guinea Creoles dataset, the following varieties are taken into account (Map 1): Bissau, Cacheu and Geba (Guinea-Bissau) and Casamance (Senegal). In practice, the Casamance variety was used as the standard against which other varieties are compared. As Biagui, himself a Casamance Creole native speaker, had already collected 81 ideophonic items in his dictionary (Biagui in preparation) – the longest list so far compiled for any UGC variety – Quint used these items and systematically checked their semantic equivalents for all other continental varieties. For this, several native speakers and available published sources, mainly Scantamburlo<fnref n="8" /> (1999), were consulted (Table 1). All CC ideophones and their other continental UGC counterparts are given in Appendix 1 (Tables 1.1 to 1.5).

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Origin of the data for each UGC variety.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variety</th><th>Source</th><th>Number of consultants<fnref n="9" /></th><th>Code</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Casamance</td><td>Biagui (to appear)<br/>+ personal knowledge</td><td>1</td><td>CC</td></tr><tr><td>Geba</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>1</td><td>Geba</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>3</td><td>Cacheu1/2/3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bissau</td><td>fieldwork (2019)</td><td>2</td><td>Bissau1/2</td></tr><tr><td>Scantamburlo (1999)</td><td>1</td><td>Bissau3</td></tr></tbody></table>

The main reasons for the choice of Casamance Creole as the point of departure for the study of these four continental varieties were (i) the availability of a dataset compiled earlier by Biagui and (ii) the fact that he could himself re-check this data and provide in-depth insights as to the behavior of continental UGC ideophones.

<footnote n="8">⁸ In two cases at least (*/far/ and */caŋ/, see Tables 1.3 and 1.4 in Appendix 1), we also resorted to Scantamburlo (2002) to check ideophones that were not listed in Scantamburlo (1999).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Regarding Scantamburlo's dictionary, the data obviously come from more than one consultant. However, as it is a single written source and the specific contribution of each consultant is not mentioned, we will make the approximation of considering that this publication represents one dataset, and therefore is the equivalent of one consultant.</footnote>
The main reason for the choice of the remaining varieties (i.e. Bissau, Cacheu and Geba) was the desire to provide an exhaustive coverage of continental UGCs, as these varieties, together with Casamance Creole, are the only continental varieties dating back to the settlement period that are still spoken today (see also Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 118).

## 4.2. The insular (Capeverdian) dataset

For Capeverdian, we checked two varieties, namely Santiago and Fogo (Map 2), and looked for ideophonic lexemes comparable to the ones found by Biagui in Casamance Creole. For Santiago, we mostly drew on Quint's own lexical databases, whether published (Quint 1998; 1999) or not. A secondary source was Rougé (2004). The Santiago ideophones considered in this study are given in Appendix 2 (Table 2.1). For Fogo, we relied on the material gathered by Moreira Tavares that was published in Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019). Furthermore, for the sake of comparability, the semantic equivalents of all 81 ideophones attested in Casamance Creole were also systematically checked with one Santiago native speaker.

The main reasons for the choice of Santiago and Fogo varieties were (i) availability of data and (ii) the fact that both Santiago and Fogo varieties are Sotavento (southern) Capeverdian, in which the African element is particularly important, when compared with northern Capeverdian (Quint 2000b: 71-97). Assuming that UGC ideophones were probably an African feature (an intuition that was confirmed by the present study, as shown below), it appeared preferable to choose more Africanized Capeverdian varieties.

## 4.3. The overrepresentation of verb intensifiers

In this study, we have clearly favored a semantic subcategory of ideophones, namely verb intensifiers (see also §3.1). They represent 61 items out of a list of 81 Casamance Creole ideophones prepared by Biagui, i.e. 75% of the total. The main reason underlying this imbalance is the specific semantic relation between a verb-intensifying ideophone and the verb it modifies. A given verb-intensifying ideophone rarely collocates with more than one or two verbs and, conversely, a given verb is rarely intensified by more than one or two different ideophones. Consequently, the semantic relation between a verb and its intensifying ideophone is salient and clearly
The main reason for the choice of the remaining varieties (i.e. Bissau, Cacheu and Geba) was the desire to provide an exhaustive coverage of continental UGCs, as these varieties, together with Casamance Creole, are the only continental varieties dating back to the settlement period that are still spoken today (see also Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 118).

## 4.2. The insular (Capeverdian) dataset

For Capeverdian, we checked two varieties, namely Santiago and Fogo (Map 2), and looked for ideophonic lexemes comparable to the ones found by Biagui in Casamance Creole. For Santiago, we mostly drew on Quint's own lexical databases, whether published (Quint 1998; 1999) or not. A secondary source was Rougé (2004). The Santiago ideophones considered in this study are given in Appendix 2 (Table 2.1). For Fogo, we relied on the material gathered by Moreira Tavares that was published in Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019). Furthermore, for the sake of comparability, the semantic equivalents of all 81 ideophones attested in Casamance Creole were also systematically checked with one Santiago native speaker.

The main reasons for the choice of Santiago and Fogo varieties were (i) availability of data and (ii) the fact that both Santiago and Fogo varieties are Sotavento (southern) Capeverdian, in which the African element is particularly important, when compared with northern Capeverdian (Quint 2000b: 71-97). Assuming that UGC ideophones were probably an African feature (an intuition that was confirmed by the present study, as shown below), it appeared preferable to choose more Africanized Capeverdian varieties.

## 4.3. The overrepresentation of verb intensifiers

In this study, we have clearly favored a semantic subcategory of ideophones, namely verb intensifiers (see also §3.1). They represent 61 items out of a list of 81 Casamance Creole ideophones prepared by Biagui, i.e. 75% of the total. The main reason underlying this imbalance is the specific semantic relation between a verb-intensifying ideophone and the verb it modifies. A given verb-intensifying ideophone rarely collocates with more than one or two verbs and, conversely, a given verb is rarely intensified by more than one or two different ideophones. Consequently, the semantic relation between a verb and its intensifying ideophone is salient and clearly
perceived by most native speakers of any UGC variety, which also renders verb-
intensifying ideophones easier to elicit for field linguists, when compared with other
semantic types of ideophones. In our database, we see, for instance, that several sound
ideophones can be associated with the action of *FALLING*, according to the type of noise
produced by this action, e.g. *furbap* (in rice bran, see (5a)), *bup* (someone on a hard
surface), *tim* (a metallic object). In other words, verb-intensifying ideophones can be
considered, at least in UGCs but also in other languages (e.g. in Koalib, see Quint
2018), as a prototypical semantic type of ideophones, which probably accounts for
the fact that our comparative database has a strong bias towards verb-intensifying
ideophones. As a matter of fact, all previous work devoted to UGC ideophones also
mentions a majority of verb-intensifying ideophones in the examples and lists.

Furthermore, when we began this comparative work, we were mostly focused on
intensifying ideophones and tended to discard other semantic types from the
ideophone category, in particular sound ideophones. For instance, the equivalents of
Casamance Creole sound ideophones *furbap* (5a) and *cákum-cákum* (5b), which Biagui
(forthcoming) had already recorded in his dictionary of Casamance Creole, were not
systematically checked for other varieties and could therefore not be taken into
consideration in this comparative study.

5. Ideophones in the continental branch

**5.1. Phonology**

As observed in many Niger-Congo languages (Creissels 1994: 30, Quint 2006: 101; 2009a: 91; 2018: 181-190), the phonological characteristics of continental UGC ideophones significantly differ from other lexical items of these languages. This difference is conspicuous at least at four levels: prosody, syllabic structure, vowel pattern and consonant inventory.<fnref n="10" />

5.1.1 Prosody

Nearly all continental UGC verb-intensifying ideophones are pronounced with a
clearly recognizable high tone which extends across all syllables of the word. This

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ These four levels are explicitly mentioned by Dingemanse (2012: 656) as typically marked for many-ideophones across the languages of the world.</footnote>
perceived by most native speakers of any UGC variety, which also renders verb-
intensifying ideophones easier to elicit for field linguists, when compared with other
semantic types of ideophones. In our database, we see, for instance, that several sound
ideophones can be associated with the action of *FALLING*, according to the type of noise
produced by this action, e.g. *furbap* (in rice bran, see (5a)), *bup* (someone on a hard
surface), *tim* (a metallic object). In other words, verb-intensifying ideophones can be
considered, at least in UGCs but also in other languages (e.g. in Koalib, see Quint
2018), as a prototypical semantic type of ideophones, which probably accounts for
the fact that our comparative database has a strong bias towards verb-intensifying
ideophones. As a matter of fact, all previous work devoted to UGC ideophones also
mentions a majority of verb-intensifying ideophones in the examples and lists.

Furthermore, when we began this comparative work, we were mostly focused on
intensifying ideophones and tended to discard other semantic types from the
ideophone category, in particular sound ideophones. For instance, the equivalents of
Casamance Creole sound ideophones *furbap* (5a) and *cákum-cákum* (5b), which Biagui
(forthcoming) had already recorded in his dictionary of Casamance Creole, were not
systematically checked for other varieties and could therefore not be taken into
consideration in this comparative study.

5. Ideophones in the continental branch

**5.1. Phonology**

As observed in many Niger-Congo languages (Creissels 1994: 30, Quint 2006: 101; 2009a: 91; 2018: 181-190), the phonological characteristics of continental UGC ideophones significantly differ from other lexical items of these languages. This difference is conspicuous at least at four levels: prosody, syllabic structure, vowel pattern and consonant inventory.<fnref n="10" />

5.1.1 Prosody

Nearly all continental UGC verb-intensifying ideophones are pronounced with a
clearly recognizable high tone which extends across all syllables of the word. This

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ These four levels are explicitly mentioned by Dingemanse (2012: 656) as typically marked for many-ideophones across the languages of the world.</footnote>
(H)n all-high tone profile is most plausibly a Mandinka feature (§5.4). It contrasts with all other lexical items of the language, which follow a stress pattern (inherited from Portuguese). Consider again the verb + ideophone sequence given in (1), here renumbered as (7).

(7) Bissau1 *braŋku* ‘be white’ + *fandaŋ* (IDEO) > *braŋku fandaŋ* ‘be very white, be as white as snow’

The verb *braŋku* ['braŋku'] ‘be white’ (< Port. *branco* ['brěku]), which is a non-ideophonic lexical item, displays an S-U (=stressed-unstressed) stress pattern. The ideophone *fandaŋ* [fándaŋ]<fnref n="11" /> ‘very’ (non-Romance), which is an ideophonic lexical item, displays a H-H (high-high) tone pattern.

However, some continental ideophones do have a stress (not tonal) prosodic pattern. In (8), in the sequence *ñemé cákum-cákum* [ñe'me 'cakum 'cakum] both the verb *ñemé* ‘chew’ and the sound ideophone *cákum-cákum* are stressed.

(8) CC *ñemé* ‘chew’ + *cákum-cákum* (IDEO) > *ñemé cákum-cákum* ‘chew noisily’

In continental UGCs, most stressed ideophones seem to belong to semantic categories other than verb intensifiers.<fnref n="12" /> Considering the overall prosodic system of the language, a stressed ideophone is less marked than a tonal ideophone, which confirms the prototypical character of verb intensifiers by contrast with other types of ideophones.

### 5.1.2 Syllabic structure

As shown in Table 2, all continental UGC ideophones save one end in a consonant and over two thirds (69%) are monosyllabic.<fnref n="13" /> This data is obviously at variance with the well-formedness standard for continental UGC words, where (i) disyllabic items are clearly favoured, as shown by the fact that 65% of Casamance Creole lexical words

<footnote n="11">¹¹ In the phonetic transcriptions provided in this paper, an acute accent above a vowel, e.g. [V], indicates a high tone.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² However, there is at least one case of a stressed verb intensifier ideophone in continental creoles: see fn. 32 and 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ The peculiar syllabic profile of continental UGC ideophones was already noticed by other authors, e.g. Couto (1995: 212), Kihm (1994: 76) and Wilson (1962: 34).</footnote>
(H)n all-high tone profile is most plausibly a Mandinka feature (§5.4). It contrasts with all other lexical items of the language, which follow a stress pattern (inherited from Portuguese). Consider again the verb + ideophone sequence given in (1), here renumbered as (7).

(7) Bissau1 *braŋku* ‘be white’ + *fandaŋ* (IDEO) > *braŋku fandaŋ* ‘be very white, be as white as snow’

The verb *braŋku* ['braŋku'] ‘be white’ (< Port. *branco* ['brěku]), which is a non-ideophonic lexical item, displays an S-U (=stressed-unstressed) stress pattern. The ideophone *fandaŋ* [fándaŋ]<fnref n="11" /> ‘very’ (non-Romance), which is an ideophonic lexical item, displays a H-H (high-high) tone pattern.

However, some continental ideophones do have a stress (not tonal) prosodic pattern. In (8), in the sequence *ñemé cákum-cákum* [ñe'me 'cakum 'cakum] both the verb *ñemé* ‘chew’ and the sound ideophone *cákum-cákum* are stressed.

(8) CC *ñemé* ‘chew’ + *cákum-cákum* (IDEO) > *ñemé cákum-cákum* ‘chew noisily’

In continental UGCs, most stressed ideophones seem to belong to semantic categories other than verb intensifiers.<fnref n="12" /> Considering the overall prosodic system of the language, a stressed ideophone is less marked than a tonal ideophone, which confirms the prototypical character of verb intensifiers by contrast with other types of ideophones.

### 5.1.2 Syllabic structure

As shown in Table 2, all continental UGC ideophones save one end in a consonant and over two thirds (69%) are monosyllabic.<fnref n="13" /> This data is obviously at variance with the well-formedness standard for continental UGC words, where (i) disyllabic items are clearly favoured, as shown by the fact that 65% of Casamance Creole lexical words

<footnote n="11">¹¹ In the phonetic transcriptions provided in this paper, an acute accent above a vowel, e.g. [V], indicates a high tone.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² However, there is at least one case of a stressed verb intensifier ideophone in continental creoles: see fn. 32 and 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ The peculiar syllabic profile of continental UGC ideophones was already noticed by other authors, e.g. Couto (1995: 212), Kihm (1994: 76) and Wilson (1962: 34).</footnote>
(and 39% of all lexical items<fnref n="14" /> of the language) have a C(C)V.C(C)V structure (Biagui 2018: 89), and (ii) C(C)V is the dominant syllable type, with 73% in Casamance Creole (Biagui 2018: 86) and 65,79% in Bissau Creole (Mbodj 1979: 54).

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Syllabic structure of continental UGC ideophones (based on Biagui's data for Casamance Creole).<fnref n="15" /></caption><thead><tr><th>Syllabic structure</th><th>Number of ideophones</th><th>%</th><th>Syllables</th><th>Number of ideophones</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CV</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC</td><td>55</td><td>68%</td><td>1</td><td>56</td><td>69%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>15</td><td>19%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>6</td><td>8%</td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CVC</td><td>2</td><td>2%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CV.CVC</td><td>2</td><td>2%</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>81</td><td>100%</td><td></td><td>81</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 5.1.3 Vowel patterns

Polysyllabic continental UGC ideophones display a special type of vowel harmony: all vowels of a given ideophone are the same, as in (9) and (10). The only exception is seen in (12).

(9) CC *pagá* 'switch off' + *kamaj* (IDEO) > *pagá* [o] *kamaj* 'switch [sth.] off suddenly'

(10) Cacheu1 *beju* 'be old' + *kokorot* (IDEO) > *beju kokorot* 'be very old, be as old as Methuselah'

### 5.1.4 Consonant inventory

As a rule, continental Upper Guinea Creoles have no voiced fricatives in their core vocabulary<fnref n="16" /> (Quint 2023; Biagui 2018: 55, 79; Kihm 1994: 17-18; Doneux & Rougé

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Throughout this paper, we make a distinction between “lexical word”, a category including primarily open lexical classes (nouns, verbs...), “morphological (or grammatical) word”, a category including closed lexical classes (adpositions, conjunctions...) and “lexical item”, a general label including any word of the language, whether “lexical” or “morphological”.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The syllabic structure of the other continental UGC varieties is not significantly different.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ This trend can also be observed in conservative varieties of Santiago Capeverdean (an insular UGC), see Quint (2000a: 112-114) and §4.1.4.</footnote>
(and 39% of all lexical items<fnref n="14" /> of the language) have a C(C)V.C(C)V structure (Biagui 2018: 89), and (ii) C(C)V is the dominant syllable type, with 73% in Casamance Creole (Biagui 2018: 86) and 65,79% in Bissau Creole (Mbodj 1979: 54).

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Syllabic structure of continental UGC ideophones (based on Biagui's data for Casamance Creole).<fnref n="15" /></caption><thead><tr><th>Syllabic structure</th><th>Number of ideophones</th><th>%</th><th>Syllables</th><th>Number of ideophones</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CV</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC</td><td>55</td><td>68%</td><td>1</td><td>56</td><td>69%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>15</td><td>19%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>6</td><td>8%</td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CVC</td><td>2</td><td>2%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CV.CVC</td><td>2</td><td>2%</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>81</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>81</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 5.1.3 Vowel patterns

Polysyllabic continental UGC ideophones display a special type of vowel harmony: all vowels of a given ideophone are the same, as in (9) and (10). The only exception is seen in (12).

(9) CC *pagá* 'switch off' + *kamaj* (IDEO) > *pagá* [o] *kamaj* 'switch [sth.] off suddenly'

(10) Cacheu1 *beju* 'be old' + *kokorot* (IDEO) > *beju kokorot* 'be very old, be as old as Methuselah'

### 5.1.4 Consonant inventory

As a rule, continental Upper Guinea Creoles have no voiced fricatives in their core vocabulary<fnref n="16" /> (Quint 2023; Biagui 2018: 55, 79; Kihm 1994: 17-18; Doneux & Rougé

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Throughout this paper, we make a distinction between “lexical word”, a category including primarily open lexical classes (nouns, verbs...), “morphological (or grammatical) word”, a category including closed lexical classes (adpositions, conjunctions...) and “lexical item”, a general label including any word of the language, whether “lexical” or “morphological”.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The syllabic structure of the other continental UGC varieties is not significantly different.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ This trend can also be observed in conservative varieties of Santiago Capeverdean (an insular UGC), see Quint (2000a: 112-114) and §4.1.4.</footnote>
1988: 6). However, /v/ and /z/ are attested for several varieties in our ideophone data, as shown in Table 3.

<table><caption>**Table 3:** Occurrences of continental UGC ideophones containing a voiced fricative.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Ideophone</th></tr><tr><th>No.</th><th>CC equivalent</th><th>Voiced fricative</th><th>Variety and consultant</th><th>No. of occurrences</th><th>Semantic type</th><th>Associated verb(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1)</td><td>bap</td><td>vap</td><td>Bissau1</td><td>1</td><td>sound</td><td>sintá 'sit' + kay 'fall'</td></tr><tr><td>(2)</td><td>kamaj</td><td>vut</td><td>Bissau1</td><td>1</td><td>immediate</td><td>pagá 'switch off'</td></tr><tr><td>(3)</td><td>tar</td><td>vap</td><td>Cacheu3</td><td>1</td><td>sound/intensifier</td><td>bafatiyá 'slap'</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(4)</td><td rowspan="2">bup</td><td>vip</td><td>Cacheu1 + Cacheu3</td><td>2</td><td rowspan="2">sound</td><td rowspan="2">kay 'fall'</td></tr><tr><td>vup</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>(5)</td><td>lip</td><td>vip</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td><td>intensifier</td><td>pisadu 'be heavy'</td></tr><tr><td>(6)</td><td>NA<sup>17</sup></td><td>zip</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td><td>intensifier</td><td>gros 'be fat/thick'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"></td><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

All in all, /v/ and /z/ appear very rarely in our data (8 occurrences for ca. 500 UGC ideophones, i.e. 1%) and in variants that have very similar phonological shapes, i.e. /vVp/ ~ /vVt/ ~ /zVp/. However, voiced initial fricatives are attested in all continental UGC varieties except Casamance Creole, which, admittedly, is the most basilectal of the group (see Biagui et al. forthcoming; Quint 2023: 451-452, 454, 457). Note also that at least three of the six ideophones for which voiced fricatives are attested are (or can be used as) sound ideophones, which represent only a minority of our sample (§4.3): the sporadic use of voiced initial fricative variants in sound ideophones may be linked with ICONICITY (Dingemanse 2012: 657-660), in this case the necessity to depict as faithfully as possible the sound perceived by the speakers.<fnref n="18" />

### 5.1.5 Lexical reduplication

Contrary to many other languages (Dingemanse 2012: 656; Quint 2018), in continental UGCs, only a small number of ideophones have a reduplicated base form. In our

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Some few ideophones were taken into consideration even though they were missing in our CC list, for more details see §5.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Other languages have been reported to show a higher frequency of voiced fricatives in ideophonic items than in the overall lexicon. This is for example the case of /z/ ~ /dz/ (both realizations appearing in free variation) in Pastaza Quichua (qvz) (Nuckolls et al. 2016).</footnote>
1988: 6). However, /v/ and /z/ are attested for several varieties in our ideophone data, as shown in Table 3.

<table><caption>**Table 3:** Occurrences of continental UGC ideophones containing a voiced fricative.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Ideophone</th></tr><tr><th>No.</th><th>CC equivalent</th><th>Voiced fricative</th><th>Variety and consultant</th><th>No. of occurrences</th><th>Semantic type</th><th>Associated verb(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1)</td><td>bap</td><td>vap</td><td>Bissau1</td><td>1</td><td>sound</td><td>sintá 'sit' + kay 'fall'</td></tr><tr><td>(2)</td><td>kamaj</td><td>vut</td><td>Bissau1</td><td>1</td><td>immediate</td><td>pagá 'switch off'</td></tr><tr><td>(3)</td><td>tar</td><td>vap</td><td>Cacheu3</td><td>1</td><td>sound/intensifier</td><td>bafatiyá 'slap'</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(4)</td><td rowspan="2">bup</td><td>vip</td><td>Cacheu1 + Cacheu3</td><td>2</td><td rowspan="2">sound</td><td rowspan="2">kay 'fall'</td></tr><tr><td>vup</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>(5)</td><td>lip</td><td>vip</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td><td>intensifier</td><td>pisadu 'be heavy'</td></tr><tr><td>(6)</td><td>NA<sup>17</sup></td><td>zip</td><td>Geba</td><td>1</td><td>intensifier</td><td>gros 'be fat/thick'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"></td><td>TOTAL</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

All in all, /v/ and /z/ appear very rarely in our data (8 occurrences for ca. 500 UGC ideophones, i.e. 1%) and in variants that have very similar phonological shapes, i.e. /vVp/ ~ /vVt/ ~ /zVp/. However, voiced initial fricatives are attested in all continental UGC varieties except Casamance Creole, which, admittedly, is the most basilectal of the group (see Biagui et al. forthcoming; Quint 2023: 451-452, 454, 457). Note also that at least three of the six ideophones for which voiced fricatives are attested are (or can be used as) sound ideophones, which represent only a minority of our sample (§4.3): the sporadic use of voiced initial fricative variants in sound ideophones may be linked with ICONICITY (Dingemanse 2012: 657-660), in this case the necessity to depict as faithfully as possible the sound perceived by the speakers.<fnref n="18" />

### 5.1.5 Lexical reduplication

Contrary to many other languages (Dingemanse 2012: 656; Quint 2018), in continental UGCs, only a small number of ideophones have a reduplicated base form. In our

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Some few ideophones were taken into consideration even though they were missing in our CC list, for more details see §5.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Other languages have been reported to show a higher frequency of voiced fricatives in ideophonic items than in the overall lexicon. This is for example the case of /z/ ~ /dz/ (both realizations appearing in free variation) in Pastaza Quichua (qvz) (Nuckolls et al. 2016).</footnote>
Casamance Creole sample of 25 polysyllabic ideophones (21 disyllabic + 4 trisyllabic, see Table 2), only six ideophones (i.e. approximately a quarter of the total number of polysyllabic ideophones and 6/81 = 7% of all continental ideophones) have a fully (one item, see (11)) or partially (five items, see (10, 12)) reduplicated lexical base form.

(11) CC termé ‘shake/shiver’ + *bok-bok* (IDEO) > termé **bok-bok** ‘shake like a leaf’

(12) Geba *jantí* ‘hurry up’ + *fit-fat* (IDEO) > *jantí fit-fat* ‘hurry up making great strides’

**5.2. Morphosyntax<sup>19</sup>**

**5.2.1 Word order**

In all continental UGCs, the ideophone always follows the word (generally a verb) whose
meaning it modifies (see also Kihm 1994: 76). To the best of our knowledge, no other
element can be inserted between an intransitive verb and an ideophone (13)-(14).

(13) CC
*gatu kay furbap déntur di bidog*

cat fall.PFV IDEO inside of barrel

‘The cat fell **with a soft noise** inside the barrel [full of rice bran].’

(14) CC

*kontrá ku sol kinti Mariya simí fes*

when SUB sun be.hot.PFV Mary disappear.PFV IDEO

*ningen ka torná wojá-l más*

nobody NEG do.again.PFV see.PFV-O3SG anymore

‘During the hottest part of the day, Mary disappeared **completely** [and] nobody saw her anymore.’

With transitive verbs, the object is usually inserted between the verb and the
ideophone. This object can be either a noun (15) or a pronoun (16)-(17).

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ In this part, most examples are drawn from Casamance Creole, which Biagui speaks natively (§4.1).
Our comparison of continental UGC varieties was mainly limited to the lexicon and, in most cases, the
available data does not allow us to say whether the morphosyntactic processes we describe hereafter
are limited to CC or extend across all continental UGCs.</footnote>
Casamance Creole sample of 25 polysyllabic ideophones (21 disyllabic + 4 trisyllabic, see Table 2), only six ideophones (i.e. approximately a quarter of the total number of polysyllabic ideophones and 6/81 = 7% of all continental ideophones) have a fully (one item, see (11)) or partially (five items, see (10, 12)) reduplicated lexical base form.

(11) CC termé ‘shake/shiver’ + *bok-bok* (IDEO) > termé **bok-bok** ‘shake like a leaf’

(12) Geba *jantí* ‘hurry up’ + *fit-fat* (IDEO) > *jantí fit-fat* ‘hurry up making great strides’

**5.2. Morphosyntax<sup>19</sup>**

**5.2.1 Word order**

In all continental UGCs, the ideophone always follows the word (generally a verb) whose
meaning it modifies (see also Kihm 1994: 76). To the best of our knowledge, no other
element can be inserted between an intransitive verb and an ideophone (13)-(14).

(13) CC
*gatu kay furbap déntur di bidog*
*cat fall.PFV IDEO inside of barrel*
‘The cat fell **with a soft noise** inside the barrel [full of rice bran].’

(14) CC
*kontrá ku sol kinti Mariya simí fes*
*when SUB sun be.hot.PFV Mary disappear.PFV IDEO*
*ningen ka torná wojá-l más*
*nobody NEG do.again.PFV see.PFV-O3SG anymore*
‘During the hottest part of the day, Mary disappeared **completely** [and] nobody saw her anymore.’

With transitive verbs, the object is usually inserted between the verb and the
ideophone. This object can be either a noun (15) or a pronoun (16)-(17).

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ In this part, most examples are drawn from Casamance Creole, which Biagui speaks natively (§4.1).
Our comparison of continental UGC varieties was mainly limited to the lexicon and, in most cases, the
available data does not allow us to say whether the morphosyntactic processes we describe hereafter
are limited to CC or extend across all continental UGCs.</footnote>
(15) Bissau

iransegu kumé karnel buk
python eat.PFV sheep IDEO

‘The python swallowed the sheep **whole**.’ (Kihm 1994: 76)<fnref n="20" />

(16) CC

i kumé-l bik
S3SG eat.PFV-O3SG IDEO

‘S/he ate it **all**.’

(17) CC

disna k-e jusiyá e ta pasá ηútur maj-maj
since SUB-S3PL quarrel.PFV S3PL HAB go.by each.other IDEO.RED<fnref n="21" />

‘Since they quarrelled, they don’t talk anymore (lit. since they quarrelled, they go by each other **with a total lack of attention**).’

### 5.2.2 Modified elements

In an overwhelming majority of cases, the ideophone modifies a verb (see all examples above) or a qualifier (i.e. an adjective behaving as a verb when used in predicative function,<fnref n="22" /> see Quint 2023: 457, 459). However, some other parts of speech, such as adverbs (18) and pronouns (19), may also be modified by an ideophone.

(18) CC didiya ‘at noon’ + lèm (IDEO) > didiya lèm ‘at solar noon, when the sun is just at its peak/zenith’

(19) Cacheul a-mi ‘me’ + kondon (IDEO) > a-mi kondon ‘on my own, being (myself) hopelessly alone’

In (19), kondon could be itself analysed as a non-ideophonic adverb meaning ‘alone’, but this same element also combines with verbs (20) in prototypical ideophonic

<footnote n="20">²⁰ This usage of buk in association with the verb kumé ‘eat’ is not listed in our own database.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ For the use of expressive reduplication in Casamance Creole, see §5.2.3.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Note that qualifiers can be modified by an ideophone both in predicative and attributive function.</footnote>
(15) Bissau

iransegu kumé karnel buk
python eat.PFV sheep IDEO

‘The python swallowed the sheep whole.’ (Kihm 1994: 76)<fnref n="20" />

(16) CC

i kumé-l bik
S3SG eat.PFV-O3SG IDEO

‘S/he ate it all.’

(17) CC

disna k-e jusiyá e ta pasá ηútur maj-maj
since SUB-S3PL quarrel.PFV S3PL HAB go.by each.other IDEO.RED<fnref n="21" />

‘Since they quarrelled, they don’t talk anymore (lit. since they quarrelled, they go by each other with a total lack of attention).’

### 5.2.2 Modified elements

In an overwhelming majority of cases, the ideophone modifies a verb (see all examples above) or a qualifier (i.e. an adjective behaving as a verb when used in predicative function,<fnref n="22" /> see Quint 2023: 457, 459). However, some other parts of speech, such as adverbs (18) and pronouns (19), may also be modified by an ideophone.

(18) CC didiya ‘at noon’ + lèm (IDEO) > didiya lèm ‘at solar noon, when the sun is just at its peak/zenith’

(19) Cacheul a-mi ‘me’ + kondon (IDEO) > a-mi kondon ‘on my own, being (myself) hopelessly alone’

In (19), kondon could be itself analysed as a non-ideophonic adverb meaning ‘alone’, but this same element also combines with verbs (20) in prototypical ideophonic

<footnote n="20">²⁰ This usage of buk in association with the verb kumé ‘eat’ is not listed in our own database.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ For the use of expressive reduplication in Casamance Creole, see §5.2.3.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Note that qualifiers can be modified by an ideophone both in predicative and attributive function.</footnote>
constructions where one can see that the notion of LONELINESS that kondoj conveys in (19) is linked with the notion of EMPTINESS or LACK OF CONTENT:

(20) Bissau

garafa linpu kondoj

bottle be.clean/empty.PFV IDEO

‘The bottle is **totally** empty.’ (Kihm 1994: 77)

The existence of (20) justifies the analysis of kondoj in (19) as an ideophone modifying the pronoun.

### 5.2.3 Morphology

Although UGC ideophones are clearly adverbs, they can be involved in at least three types of morphological processes: expressive reduplication, vowel lengthening and ideophone-to-verb derivation.

#### 5.2.3.1 Expressive reduplication

Expressive reduplication is used to strengthen the meaning of a given ideophone (17, 21, 22).

(21) CC burmeju ‘red’ + wêk (IDEO)

> burmeju wêk ‘vivid/bright red’

> burmeju wêk-wêk ‘extremely bright red’

(22) CC susu ‘dirty’ + potok (IDEO)

> susu potok ‘very dirty’

> susu potok-potok ‘horribly dirty’

Ideophones whose lexical form is reduplicated (§5.1.5) can also undergo (partial) expressive reduplication (23).

(23) CC termé ‘shake/shiver’ + bok-bok (IDEO)

> termé bok-bok ‘shake like a leaf’

> termé bok-bok-bok ‘shake like a leaf without stopping’
constructions where one can see that the notion of LONELINESS that *kondonj* conveys in (19) is linked with the notion of EMPTINESS or LACK OF CONTENT:

(20) Bissau

garafa linpu **kondonj**

bottle be.clean/empty.PFV IDEO

‘The bottle is **totally** empty.’ (Kihm 1994: 77)

The existence of (20) justifies the analysis of *kondonj* in (19) as an ideophone modifying the pronoun.

### 5.2.3 Morphology

Although UGC ideophones are clearly adverbs, they can be involved in at least three types of morphological processes: expressive reduplication, vowel lengthening and ideophone-to-verb derivation.

#### 5.2.3.1 Expressive reduplication

Expressive reduplication is used to strengthen the meaning of a given ideophone (17, 21, 22).

(21) CC *burmeju* ‘red’ + *wêk* (IDEO)

> *burmeju wêk* ‘vivid/bright red’

> *burmeju wêk-wêk* ‘extremely bright red’

(22) CC susu ‘dirty’ + *potok* (IDEO)

> *susu potok* ‘very dirty’

> *susu potok-potok* ‘horribly dirty’

Ideophones whose lexical form is reduplicated (§5.1.5) can also undergo (partial) expressive reduplication (23).

(23) CC *termé* ‘shake/shiver’ + *bok-bok* (IDEO)

> *termé bok-bok* ‘shake like a leaf’

> *termé bok-bok-bok* ‘shake like a leaf without stopping’
### 5.2.3.2 Final vowel lengthening

Vowel lengthening is another means to increase the expressiveness of an ideophone and it is only attested for trisyllabic ideophones. In all known cases, it is the last vowel that is lengthened (24):

(24) CC *saŋ* ‘healthy’ + *keŋkereŋ* (IDEO)

> *saŋ keŋkereŋ* ‘very healthy’

> *saŋ keŋkereŋ* ‘extremely healthy’

### 5.2.3.3 Ideophone-to-verb derivation

Several Casamance ideophones can be derived into verbs by the addition of the stressed suffix -/’i/ (25)-(26).

(25) CC

(a) *pañá* ‘thicken’ + *tekɛp* (IDEO)

> *pañá tekɛp* ‘get **very** thick’ (glue, sauce)

> *tekɛpí* ‘get tough’

(b) *e añju tekɛpí* *suma turu nobu*
DEM.PROX new.born.baby **get.tough**.PFV like bull young
‘This newborn baby has a body as **tough** as a young bull.’

(26) CC

(a) *termé* ‘shake/shiver’ + *bok-bok* (IDEO)

> *termé bok-bok* ‘shake **like a leaf**’

> *bok-bokí* ‘shake like a leaf’

(b) *bu na bok-bokí na suma miñjer bej-a*
S2SG IPFV.PROG **shake** ASS like woman old-F
‘You are **shivering** like an old woman.’

The suffix -/’i/ is very productive in the language and can also be used to derive verbs from other parts of speech, e.g. nouns (27), including borrowings:

(27) CC *fotó* [fo’to] ‘photograph’ (< French *photo*)

> *fotoí* [foto’i] ‘take a photo/picture [of s.o./sth.]’
### 5.2.3.2 Final vowel lengthening

Vowel lengthening is another means to increase the expressiveness of an ideophone and it is only attested for trisyllabic ideophones. In all known cases, it is the last vowel that is lengthened (24):

(24) CC *saŋ* ‘healthy’ + *keŋkereŋ* (IDEO)

> *saŋ keŋkereŋ* ‘very healthy’

> *saŋ keŋkereŋ* ‘extremely healthy’

### 5.2.3.3 Ideophone-to-verb derivation

Several Casamance ideophones can be derived into verbs by the addition of the stressed suffix -/’i/ (25)-(26).

(25) CC

(a) *pañá* ‘thicken’ + *tɛkɛp* (IDEO)

> *pañá tɛkɛp* ‘get **very** thick’ (glue, sauce)

> *tɛkɛpí* ‘get tough’

(b) e añju tɛkɛpí suma turu nobu DEM.PROX new.born.baby **get.tough**.PFV like bull young ‘This newborn baby has a body as **tough** as a young bull.’

(26) CC

(a) *termé* ‘shake/shiver’ + *bok-bok* (IDEO)

> *termé bok-bok* ‘shake **like a leaf**’

> *bok-bokí* ‘shake like a leaf’

(b) bu na bok-bokí na suma miñjer bej-a S2SG IPFV.PROG **shake** ASS like woman old-F ‘You are **shivering** like an old woman.’

The suffix -/’i/ is very productive in the language and can also be used to derive verbs from other parts of speech, e.g. nouns (27), including borrowings:

(27) CC *fotó* [fo’to] ‘photograph’ (< French *photo*)

> *fotoí* [foto’i] ‘take a photo/picture [of s.o./sth.]’
Therefore, the ideophone-to-verb derivation fits into the general morphological framework of Casamance Creole.

## 5.3. Diatopic variation

### 5.3.1 Shared ideophonic roots

If we look at the number of shared ideophonic roots between the different UGC varieties (Table 4), taking into account that Casamance Creole was considered as the standard for comparison, we can distinguish four types of distribution profiles, which are discussed hereafter.<fnref n="23" />

<table><caption>**Table 4:** Number of UGC continental varieties sharing the same ideophonic root as Casamance Creole (CC).</caption><thead><tr><th>Distribution profile</th><th>No. of items</th><th>Distribution type</th><th>No. of items</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 1<sup>24</sup></td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 2</td><td>5</td><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 3</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 4</td><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 5</td><td>8</td><td>Common core</td><td>39</td><td>46%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 6</td><td>17</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 7</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(CC + Guinea-Bissau) vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>84</td><td></td><td>84</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the ‘CC-only’ type, 22 CC ideophones (i.e. 26% of the total) have either no semantic counterpart in any other UGC variety or their respective UGC semantic equivalents are not attested in more than one UGC variety each and these UGC semantic

<footnote n="23">²³ This classification into distribution types is also used in the data appendices.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ The digit following ‘CC +’ indicates the number of consultants from other UGC continental varieties sharing an ideophonic root with Casamance Creole (CC), e.g. ‘CC + 1’ means that one consultant speaking a continental UGC variety other than CC provided an ideophone whose phonological form is comparable to the CC semantically equivalent ideophone.</footnote>
Therefore, the ideophone-to-verb derivation fits into the general morphological framework of Casamance Creole.

## 5.3. Diatopic variation

### 5.3.1 Shared ideophonic roots

If we look at the number of shared ideophonic roots between the different UGC varieties (Table 4), taking into account that Casamance Creole was considered as the standard for comparison, we can distinguish four types of distribution profiles, which are discussed hereafter.<fnref n="23" />

<table><caption>**Table 4:** Number of UGC continental varieties sharing the same ideophonic root as Casamance Creole (CC).</caption><thead><tr><th>Distribution profile</th><th>No. of items</th><th>Distribution type</th><th>No. of items</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 1<sup>24</sup></td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 2</td><td>5</td><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 3</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 4</td><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 5</td><td>8</td><td>Common core</td><td>39</td><td>46%</td></tr><tr><td>CC + 6</td><td>17</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC + 7</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CC vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(CC + Guinea-Bissau) vs. Guinea-Bissau</td><td>3</td><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>84</td><td></td><td>84</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the 'CC-only' type, 22 CC ideophones (i.e. 26% of the total) have either no semantic counterpart in any other UGC variety or their respective UGC semantic equivalents are not attested in more than one UGC variety each and these UGC semantic

<footnote n="23">²³ This classification into distribution types is also used in the data appendices.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ The digit following 'CC + ' indicates the number of consultants from other UGC continental varieties sharing an ideophonic root with Casamance Creole (CC), e.g. 'CC + 1' means that one consultant speaking a continental UGC variety other than CC provided an ideophone whose phonological form is comparable to the CC semantically equivalent ideophone.</footnote>
equivalents have a lexical root different from CC. The ‘CC-only’ distribution type underlines the outlier status of Casamance Creole among continental UGCs (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 133-134), probably due to (a) a peculiar Jola and Nyun<fnref n="25" /> adstrate and (b) the political boundary, which, for almost 140 years (Biagui & Quint 2013: 41, Biagui 2018: 18; Quint 2023: 451-452, Biagui et al. forthcoming), has been isolating Casamance Creole – spoken in Senegal – from the remaining continental UGCs – all spoken in Guinea-Bissau.

The contrast between CC and the other UGCs is also conspicuous at the phonological level, even when the CC form is obviously related to other UGCs, i.e. for ideophones belonging to the ‘common core’ type, see entries (30) and (37) in Table 1.3 in the appendix.

(28) Continental UGCs *burmeju* ‘red’

> Geba + Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1/3 *burmeju wak* ‘bright red’

≠ CC *burmeju wek*

(29) Continental UGCs *moli* ‘soft’

> Geba *moli pɔcɔk* ~ Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1 *moli pɔtɔk* ~ Bissau3 *moli potok*

‘very soft’

≠ CC *moli botok*

In the ‘*common core*’ type, nearly one half (39/81 = 48%) of our standard list of 81 CC ideophones have a close equivalent for at least 4 of the 7 consultants (§4.1) from other UGC varieties. We can therefore reasonably posit that these forms can be traced back at least to proto-continental UGC, i.e. to the second half of the 16th century (§2.2).

In the ‘minority model’ type, some CC-related ideophones were found in the data of only a minority (i.e. fewer than four) of consultants from other UGC varieties. In many cases, these common roots are probably also traceable to proto-continental UGC, as it is very plausible that such phonological and semantic coincidences between several UGCs are not due to mere chance. However, a lower number of formal matches implies a higher degree of uncertainty. It is also striking that the ‘minority model’ type concerns fewer items than the ‘common core’ and ‘CC-only’ types, which means that the main split is between ideophones only found in CC and those shared by all

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Jola and Nyun are not provided with an ISO Code-639, because there are no satisfactory code for each of these language groups.</footnote>
equivalents have a lexical root different from CC. The ‘CC-only’ distribution type underlines the outlier status of Casamance Creole among continental UGCs (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 133-134), probably due to (a) a peculiar Jola and Nyun<fnref n="25" /> adstrate and (b) the political boundary, which, for almost 140 years (Biagui & Quint 2013: 41, Biagui 2018: 18; Quint 2023: 451-452, Biagui et al. forthcoming), has been isolating Casamance Creole – spoken in Senegal – from the remaining continental UGCs – all spoken in Guinea-Bissau.

The contrast between CC and the other UGCs is also conspicuous at the phonological level, even when the CC form is obviously related to other UGCs, i.e. for ideophones belonging to the ‘common core’ type, see entries (30) and (37) in Table 1.3 in the appendix.

(28) Continental UGCs *burmeju* ‘red’

> Geba + Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1/3 *burmeju wak* ‘bright red’

≠ CC *burmeju wek*

(29) Continental UGCs *moli* ‘soft’

> Geba *moli pɔcɔk* ~ Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1 *moli pɔtɔk* ~ Bissau3 *moli potok*

‘very soft’

≠ CC *moli botok*

In the ‘*common core*’ type, nearly one half (39/81 = 48%) of our standard list of 81 CC ideophones have a close equivalent for at least 4 of the 7 consultants (§4.1) from other UGC varieties. We can therefore reasonably posit that these forms can be traced back at least to proto-continental UGC, i.e. to the second half of the 16th century (§2.2).

In the ‘minority model’ type, some CC-related ideophones were found in the data of only a minority (i.e. fewer than four) of consultants from other UGC varieties. In many cases, these common roots are probably also traceable to proto-continental UGC, as it is very plausible that such phonological and semantic coincidences between several UGCs are not due to mere chance. However, a lower number of formal matches implies a higher degree of uncertainty. It is also striking that the ‘minority model’ type concerns fewer items than the ‘common core’ and ‘CC-only’ types, which means that the main split is between ideophones only found in CC and those shared by all

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Jola and Nyun are not provided with an ISO Code-639, because there are no satisfactory code for each of these language groups.</footnote>
(or most) UGCs. The ‘minority model’ therefore represents an intermediary category, whose existence may be attributable to factors related to the fieldwork setting (e.g. misunderstandings between collector and consultants) or the lower frequency of forms.

The ‘*other distribution*’ *type* covers three subtypes which deserve to be studied in more detail. In the ‘CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, the Casamance Creole (CC) form contrasts with a form attested in several Guinea-Bissau UGC varieties (30).

(30) Continental UGCs tesu ‘be solid’

> Geba + Cacheu2 + Bissau1 tesu *kaŋ* ‘be very solid’ ~ Cacheu3 tesu *taŋ*

≠ CC tesu *liŋ*

In the ‘no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, a form attested in several Guinea-Bissau UGC varieties is lacking in Casamance Creole (31).

(31) Continental UGCs *negá* ‘refuse’

> Geba + Cacheu1/2 + Bissau3 *negá far* ‘refuse adamantly’

≠ no known form in CC<fnref n="26" />

Finally, in the ‘(CC + Guinea-Bissau) vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, the CC form clusters with one or several Guinea-Bissau forms and contrasts with the remaining Guinea-Bissau forms (32).

(32) Continental UGCs *sukuru* ‘be dark’

> CC + Geba *sukuru mut* ‘be pitch/completely dark’

≠ Cacheu3 + Bissau2/3 *sukuru mip*

### 5.3.2 Variation according to variety

Except for the distinctive character of CC reflected in the ‘CC-only’ type, which is also linked with the choice of CC as a standard of comparison, there are no significant differences between the other UGC varieties as regards their ideophone inventories.

Bissau2 and Bissau3 are the only two datasets lacking an equivalent for a majority of the 81 CC ideophones (Table 5). However, these results are an experimental

<footnote n="26">²⁶ This subtype explains why the total number of ideophones in Table 4 is 84 instead of 81 elsewhere. Here, 84 results from the 81 ideophones listed for CC (§4.1) plus the 3 ‘no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ cases.</footnote>
(or most) UGCs. The ‘minority model’ therefore represents an intermediary category, whose existence may be attributable to factors related to the fieldwork setting (e.g. misunderstandings between collector and consultants) or the lower frequency of forms.

The ‘*other distribution*’ *type* covers three subtypes which deserve to be studied in more detail. In the ‘CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, the Casamance Creole (CC) form contrasts with a form attested in several Guinea-Bissau UGC varieties (30).

(30) Continental UGCs tesu ‘be solid’

> Geba + Cacheu2 + Bissau1 tesu *kaŋ* ‘be very solid’ ~ Cacheu3 tesu *taŋ*

≠ CC tesu *liŋ*

In the ‘no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, a form attested in several Guinea-Bissau UGC varieties is lacking in Casamance Creole (31).

(31) Continental UGCs *negá* ‘refuse’

> Geba + Cacheu1/2 + Bissau3 *negá far* ‘refuse adamantly’

≠ no known form in CC<fnref n="26" />

Finally, in the ‘(CC + Guinea-Bissau) vs. Guinea-Bissau’ subtype, the CC form clusters with one or several Guinea-Bissau forms and contrasts with the remaining Guinea-Bissau forms (32).

(32) Continental UGCs *sukuru* ‘be dark’

> CC + Geba *sukuru mut* ‘be pitch/completely dark’

≠ Cacheu3 + Bissau2/3 *sukuru mip*

### 5.3.2 Variation according to variety

Except for the distinctive character of CC reflected in the ‘CC-only’ type, which is also linked with the choice of CC as a standard of comparison, there are no significant differences between the other UGC varieties as regards their ideophone inventories.

Bissau2 and Bissau3 are the only two datasets lacking an equivalent for a majority of the 81 CC ideophones (Table 5). However, these results are an experimental

<footnote n="26">²⁶ This subtype explains why the total number of ideophones in Table 4 is 84 instead of 81 elsewhere. Here, 84 results from the 81 ideophones listed for CC (§4.1) plus the 3 ‘no CC vs. Guinea-Bissau’ cases.</footnote>
artifact, because we did not check the complete list of CC ideophones with consultant Bissau2. As a matter of fact, with consultant Bissau2, we only recorded some forms we wanted to check after having worked with Bissau1. The Bissau3 dataset was taken from a publication (Scantamburlo 1999: 189-191, see §4.1), and we could not check missing forms with a consultant.

If we consider the other consultants and varieties, their behavior is quite similar: they lack equivalents for roughly the same proportion of the total list (between 23 to 36 items, i.e. 28% to 44% of the total) and most of them have few or no semantic equivalents for the ideophones belonging to the ‘CC-only’ type (§5.3.1). Consultant Cacheu3 has the lowest number of missing CC equivalents, which means Cacheu3 has more in common with CC than any other consultant. The specific proximity between CC and Cacheu3 is reflected by several examples, such as (33).

(33) pisadu ‘be heavy’

> pisadu sip (Geba + Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1/2) ‘be as heavy as lead’

≠ pisadu lip <fnref n="27" /> (CC + Cacheu3).

One could explain this higher degree of similarity by the fact that the Cacheu and Casamance UGC varieties are historically related (§2.1). Nonetheless, the other available datasets for Cacheu (Cacheu1 and Cacheu2) do not display noticeable differences to Geba and Bissau (or rather Bissau1, the only complete dataset available for Bissau) regarding their number of missing equivalents of CC ideophones. Hence, it is not possible to contrast the ideophone inventories of Cacheu with that of Geba and/or Bissau. UGC ideophones are definitely very similar in all Guinea-Bissau varieties, which is due to their common origin (see §2.2 and §5.3.1) but also to the levelling influence of the Bissau variety, which is about to erase the Cacheu and Geba varieties (§2.1).

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Note that *lip* is only attested as an intensifier of *fartá* ‘be satisfied’ in Cacheu3 and that Cacheu3 also uses *sip* (as other Guinea-Bissau continental varieties). However, given that (i) *lip* is not used by any other Guinea-Bissau variety; (ii) *SATISFIED* and *HEAVY* are obviously semantically related; and (iii) the local Cacheu variety is about to be totally replaced by the Bissau variety (§2.1), this specific resemblance between CC and Cacheu3 can be considered as linguistically significant.</footnote>
artifact, because we did not check the complete list of CC ideophones with consultant Bissau2. As a matter of fact, with consultant Bissau2, we only recorded some forms we wanted to check after having worked with Bissau1. The Bissau3 dataset was taken from a publication (Scantamburlo 1999: 189-191, see §4.1), and we could not check missing forms with a consultant.

If we consider the other consultants and varieties, their behavior is quite similar: they lack equivalents for roughly the same proportion of the total list (between 23 to 36 items, i.e. 28% to 44% of the total) and most of them have few or no semantic equivalents for the ideophones belonging to the ‘CC-only’ type (§5.3.1). Consultant Cacheu3 has the lowest number of missing CC equivalents, which means Cacheu3 has more in common with CC than any other consultant. The specific proximity between CC and Cacheu3 is reflected by several examples, such as (33).

(33) pisadu ‘be heavy’

> pisadu sip (Geba + Cacheu1/2/3 + Bissau1/2) ‘be as heavy as lead’

≠ pisadu lip <fnref n="27" /> (CC + Cacheu3).

One could explain this higher degree of similarity by the fact that the Cacheu and Casamance UGC varieties are historically related (§2.1). Nonetheless, the other available datasets for Cacheu (Cacheu1 and Cacheu2) do not display noticeable differences to Geba and Bissau (or rather Bissau1, the only complete dataset available for Bissau) regarding their number of missing equivalents of CC ideophones. Hence, it is not possible to contrast the ideophone inventories of Cacheu with that of Geba and/or Bissau. UGC ideophones are definitely very similar in all Guinea-Bissau varieties, which is due to their common origin (see §2.2 and §5.3.1) but also to the levelling influence of the Bissau variety, which is about to erase the Cacheu and Geba varieties (§2.1).

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Note that *lip* is only attested as an intensifier of *fartá* ‘be satisfied’ in Cacheu3 and that Cacheu3 also uses *sip* (as other Guinea-Bissau continental varieties). However, given that (i) *lip* is not used by any other Guinea-Bissau variety; (ii) *SATISFIED* and *HEAVY* are obviously semantically related; and (iii) the local Cacheu variety is about to be totally replaced by the Bissau variety (§2.1), this specific resemblance between CC and Cacheu3 can be considered as linguistically significant.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 5:** Number of missing equivalents of CC ideophones in other UGC continental varieties.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variety</th><th colspan="2">Missing equivalents<sup>28</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Total</th><th>CC-only</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Geba</td><td>30</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu1</td><td>29</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu2</td><td>36</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu3</td><td>23</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau1</td><td>31</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau2</td><td>74</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau3</td><td>47</td><td>22</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.4. Origin

Most of the ideophones whose origin is identified come from Mandinka and/or Wolof (see Table 6 and Table 3.1. in Appendix 3).

<table><caption>**Table 6:** African-derived continental UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Continental UGC ideophones</th><th colspan="4">Ideophones with an attested African etymon</th></tr><tr><th>Distribution type</th><th>Total</th><th>Wolof</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof or Mandinka</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td>39</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>84</strong></td><td><strong>15</strong></td><td><strong>17</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>39</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

A significant proportion (39/84 = 46%) of the ideophones studied in this paper have a plausible African etymon. This confirms Couto's (1995: 212) and Kihm's (1994: 76)

<footnote n="28">28 We forgot to check the equivalents of some few CC ideophones in Cacheu2 (four items) and Bissau1 (three items), which may account for the fact that these two datasets have a total number of missing equivalents slightly higher than Geba, Cacheu1 and Cacheu3.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 5:** Number of missing equivalents of CC ideophones in other UGC continental varieties.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variety</th><th colspan="2">Missing equivalents<sup>28</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Total</th><th>CC-only</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Geba</td><td>30</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu1</td><td>29</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu2</td><td>36</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Cacheu3</td><td>23</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau1</td><td>31</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau2</td><td>74</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Bissau3</td><td>47</td><td>22</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.4. Origin

Most of the ideophones whose origin is identified come from Mandinka and/or Wolof (see Table 6 and Table 3.1. in Appendix 3).

<table><caption>**Table 6:** African-derived continental UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Continental UGC ideophones</th><th colspan="4">Ideophones with an attested African etymon</th></tr><tr><th>Distribution type</th><th>Total</th><th>Wolof</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof or Mandinka</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td>39</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>84</strong></td><td><strong>15</strong></td><td><strong>17</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>39</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

A significant proportion (39/84 = 46%) of the ideophones studied in this paper have a plausible African etymon. This confirms Couto's (1995: 212) and Kihm's (1994: 76)

<footnote n="28">28 We forgot to check the equivalents of some few CC ideophones in Cacheu2 (four items) and Bissau1 (three items), which may account for the fact that these two datasets have a total number of missing equivalents slightly higher than Geba, Cacheu1 and Cacheu3.</footnote>
intuition that continental UGC ideophones originally come from West African languages.<fnref n="29" />

Wolof (Niger-Congo, Atlantic) and Mandinka (Niger-Congo, Mande) are the only known African sources for continental UGC ideophones. This result is in accordance with the fact that these languages have long been recognized as the main African substrates of UGCs (§2.2). Nevertheless, the fact that Mandinka and Wolof, due to their widespread use as vehicular languages in West Africa, are better described than many other languages of the region – see, in particular, the detailed lexicographic works for Mandinka by Creissels (2012) and Creissels et al. (1982), and for Wolof by Diouf (2003) and Fal et al. (1990) – is also a significant factor accounting for the absolute dominance of these two languages as etymological sources of UGC ideophones.

The ratios of Mandinka- and Wolof-derived continental UGC ideophones are roughly equivalent. This result is at variance with what was found in previous studies that considered UGC African-derived items in all parts of speech (Quint 2000b: 23-34, 110-113; Quint 2008: 32-47; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 124-126). These studies showed a clear dominance of Mandinka-derived items over Wolof-derived items with at least a 2:1 ratio. In other words, continental UGC ideophones seem to be more Wolofized than the other African-derived items of the language. However, if we look at Table 6 in more detail and check the ratio of Mandinka and Wolof for each of the four recognized distribution types, a more nuanced picture emerges.

Mandinka is clearly dominant in the ‘common core’ type (10 Mandinka-derived vs. 2 Wolof-derived ideophones), i.e. among the ideophones which can be traced back to proto-continental UGC with most certainty. Conversely, Wolof seems to dominate in all other types.

The ‘CC-only’ type comprises the ideophones considered as typical of Casamance Creole (CC). As CC is the northernmost variety of continental UGC, as the Wolof-speaking area is situated north of the Mandinka speaking area, and as CC is spoken in Senegal where Wolof is the main lingua franca, it comes as no surprise that the Wolof element is stronger in CC than in any other continental UGC.<fnref n="30" />

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Conversely, it goes against Childs (1994: 265-266), who, after a first exploratory study on Guinea-Bissau Creole, wrote that “[n]one of the [Guinea-Bissau Creole] ideophones were identified in the first languages [=Atlantic and Mande traditional languages] used alongside Guinea-Bissau Creole” and inferred from this observation (which is contradicted by the present data) “that the ideophones were generated internally, rather than borrowed”. Wilson (1962: 34) basically upholds Child’s position.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ For the question of Wolof influence on CC (and more generally on northern continental UGCs), see Biagui et al. (forthcoming) and Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 124-126, 135-139).</footnote>
intuition that continental UGC ideophones originally come from West African languages.<fnref n="29" />

Wolof (Niger-Congo, Atlantic) and Mandinka (Niger-Congo, Mande) are the only known African sources for continental UGC ideophones. This result is in accordance with the fact that these languages have long been recognized as the main African substrates of UGCs (§2.2). Nevertheless, the fact that Mandinka and Wolof, due to their widespread use as vehicular languages in West Africa, are better described than many other languages of the region – see, in particular, the detailed lexicographic works for Mandinka by Creissels (2012) and Creissels et al. (1982), and for Wolof by Diouf (2003) and Fal et al. (1990) – is also a significant factor accounting for the absolute dominance of these two languages as etymological sources of UGC ideophones.

The ratios of Mandinka- and Wolof-derived continental UGC ideophones are roughly equivalent. This result is at variance with what was found in previous studies that considered UGC African-derived items in all parts of speech (Quint 2000b: 23-34, 110-113; Quint 2008: 32-47; Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 124-126). These studies showed a clear dominance of Mandinka-derived items over Wolof-derived items with at least a 2:1 ratio. In other words, continental UGC ideophones seem to be more Wolofized than the other African-derived items of the language. However, if we look at Table 6 in more detail and check the ratio of Mandinka and Wolof for each of the four recognized distribution types, a more nuanced picture emerges.

Mandinka is clearly dominant in the ‘common core’ type (10 Mandinka-derived vs. 2 Wolof-derived ideophones), i.e. among the ideophones which can be traced back to proto-continental UGC with most certainty. Conversely, Wolof seems to dominate in all other types.

The ‘CC-only’ type comprises the ideophones considered as typical of Casamance Creole (CC). As CC is the northernmost variety of continental UGC, as the Wolof-speaking area is situated north of the Mandinka speaking area, and as CC is spoken in Senegal where Wolof is the main lingua franca, it comes as no surprise that the Wolof element is stronger in CC than in any other continental UGC.<fnref n="30" />

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Conversely, it goes against Childs (1994: 265-266), who, after a first exploratory study on Guinea-Bissau Creole, wrote that “[n]one of the [Guinea-Bissau Creole] ideophones were identified in the first languages [=Atlantic and Mande traditional languages] used alongside Guinea-Bissau Creole” and inferred from this observation (which is contradicted by the present data) “that the ideophones were generated internally, rather than borrowed”. Wilson (1962: 34) basically upholds Child’s position.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ For the question of Wolof influence on CC (and more generally on northern continental UGCs), see Biagui et al. (forthcoming) and Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 124-126, 135-139).</footnote>
The ‘minority models’ assemble ideophones that are less likely to be traced back to proto-continental UGC than those of the ‘common core’. The ‘other distribution’ type is characterized by the fact that not all UGCs share the same lexical root for a given ideophone, which implies that, for most of these cases, at least one of these roots cannot be traced back to proto-continental UGC.

In sum, the Mandinka component is stronger among those ideophones that can be traced back to proto-continental UGC, i.e. the common stage underlying all known continental UGCs. This seems to suggest that the particularly high ratio of Wolof-derived items among continental UGC ideophones is due to the fact that a significant part of these Wolof-derived items made their way into some UGC varieties *after* the period of formation of continental UGCs, i.e. Wolof is both a *substrate* for UGCs – it contributed some ideophonic elements during their period of formation – and an *adstrate*, as it contributed some ideophonic elements after the period of formation. The same applies to Mandinka, which is both a *substrate* for all UGCs and an *adstrate* for several contemporary continental UGCs (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 125-126). However, the results given in Table 6 suggest that Mandinka has been a less powerful *adstrate* than Wolof.<fnref n="31" />

Another argument in favor of the prevalence of Mandinka as a continental UGC substrate is the fact that in Mandinka – a tonal language – ideophones are generally characterized by the same (H)n all-high tone profile (Creissels 2013: 323; 2012; Creissels et al. 1982: xvii) as continental UGC ideophones (§5.1.1). As Wolof is a stress language, it is probable that the tonal profile of UGC continental ideophones was inherited from Mandinka.<fnref n="32" />

Besides Mandinka and Wolof, at least one continental UGC ideophone is derived from Portuguese (34).

(34) Continental UGCs *kurpu limpu* ‘naked’, lit. ‘body clean’

> Geba + Cacheu1/3 + Bissau1 *kurpu limpu nu* ‘stark naked’

= CC *kurpu limpu nuŋ*

with UGC *nu/nuŋ* < Port. *nu* ['nu] ‘naked’

<footnote n="31">³¹ The relative weakness of Mandinka as an adstrate may also be partly explained by the fact that CC (the most Wolof-influenced continental UGC variety, see Quint (2023: 451-452), Biagui et al. (forth-coming)) was chosen as a standard for this comparative study.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Most notably, ['moku], the only known UGC verb-intensifying ideophone having a clear stress pattern on the continent (see fn. 40 and Table 3.1 in Appendix 3), comes from Wolof.</footnote>
The ‘minority models’ assemble ideophones that are less likely to be traced back to proto-continental UGC than those of the ‘common core’. The ‘other distribution’ type is characterized by the fact that not all UGCs share the same lexical root for a given ideophone, which implies that, for most of these cases, at least one of these roots cannot be traced back to proto-continental UGC.

In sum, the Mandinka component is stronger among those ideophones that can be traced back to proto-continental UGC, i.e. the common stage underlying all known continental UGCs. This seems to suggest that the particularly high ratio of Wolof-derived items among continental UGC ideophones is due to the fact that a significant part of these Wolof-derived items made their way into some UGC varieties *after* the period of formation of continental UGCs, i.e. Wolof is both a *substrate* for UGCs – it contributed some ideophonic elements during their period of formation – and an *adstrate*, as it contributed some ideophonic elements after the period of formation. The same applies to Mandinka, which is both a substrate for all UGCs and an adstrate for several contemporary continental UGCs (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 125-126). However, the results given in Table 6 suggest that Mandinka has been a less powerful adstrate than Wolof.<fnref n="31" />

Another argument in favor of the prevalence of Mandinka as a continental UGC substrate is the fact that in Mandinka – a tonal language – ideophones are generally characterized by the same (H)n all-high tone profile (Creissels 2013: 323; 2012; Creissels et al. 1982: xvii) as continental UGC ideophones (§5.1.1). As Wolof is a stress language, it is probable that the tonal profile of UGC continental ideophones was inherited from Mandinka.<fnref n="32" />

Besides Mandinka and Wolof, at least one continental UGC ideophone is derived from Portuguese (34).

(34) Continental UGCs *kurpu limpu* ‘naked’, lit. ‘body clean’

> Geba + Cacheu1/3 + Bissau1 *kurpu limpu nu* ‘stark naked’

= CC *kurpu limpu nuŋ*

with UGC *nu/nuŋ* < Port. *nu* ['nu] ‘naked’

<footnote n="31">³¹ The relative weakness of Mandinka as an adstrate may also be partly explained by the fact that CC (the most Wolof-influenced continental UGC variety, see Quint (2023: 451-452), Biagui et al. (forth-coming)) was chosen as a standard for this comparative study.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Most notably, ['moku], the only known UGC verb-intensifying ideophone having a clear stress pattern on the continent (see fn. 40 and Table 3.1 in Appendix 3), comes from Wolof.</footnote>
# 6. Ideophones in the insular branch (Capeverdean)

In this section, a sample of 34 insular UGC ideophones will be systematically
compared with their continental counterparts.

## 6.1. Phonology

### 6.1.1 Prosody

Contrary to continental UGCs, insular UGC ideophones are prosodically much more
integrated into the general rules applying for the language. All insular ideophones are
stressed (like any other lexical word in all insular UGCs), and two stress profiles are
allowed, oxytonic (35) and paroxytonic (36).

(35) Santiago abri ‘open’ + uandan [wẽ'dẽ] (IDEO) > abri uandan ‘open wide [a door]’

(36) Santiago sai ‘get out’ + futi ['futi] (IDEO) > sai futi ‘get out at once/quickly’

The paroxytonic profile is clearly dominant, as it represents 24.5³³ items (i.e. 82%) out of a total of 30 polysyllabic ideophones.

### 6.1.2 Syllabic structure

Contrary to continental UGCs, a majority of insular UGC ideophones (72%) contain only C(C)V open syllables (Table 7), and most of them (63%) are disyllabic (Table 8). Insular UGC ideophones therefore exactly fit into the syllabic canon of the language, which is characterized, at least in the two varieties under study, by a preponderance of C(C)V syllables and a majority of disyllables for stressed items (see Quint 2000a: 35-40 for Santiago and Moreira Tavares 2020: 97-101 for Fogo).

Another peculiarity of insular UGC ideophones is the fact that at least six of them (i.e. roughly one out of six) contain one or two CCV syllables, while these complex onsets are not attested in continental UGC ideophones. Actually, CCV syllables are

<footnote n="33">³³ The reason why, in this section devoted to the phonology of insular UGC ideophones, we are dealing with half-words is due to the fact that one of these ideophones has at least three different variants (*txulupu* [tʃu'lupu] ~ *txulufu* [tʃu'lufu] ~ *txufun* [tʃu'fũ]) with two different stress and syllable patterns (/CV'CVCV/ (= txulupu + txulufu) vs. /CV'CVC/ (= txufun)), see entry (31) in Table 2.1 in the appendix. In consequence, we have considered that each of these two patterns counted as 0.5 item in our word counts.</footnote>
# 6. Ideophones in the insular branch (Capeverdean)

In this section, a sample of 34 insular UGC ideophones will be systematically
compared with their continental counterparts.

## 6.1. Phonology

### 6.1.1 Prosody

Contrary to continental UGCs, insular UGC ideophones are prosodically much more
integrated into the general rules applying for the language. All insular ideophones are
stressed (like any other lexical word in all insular UGCs), and two stress profiles are
allowed, oxytonic (35) and paroxytonic (36).

(35) Santiago abri 'open' + uandan [wẽ'dẽ] (IDEO) > abri uandan 'open wide' [a door]

(36) Santiago sai 'get out' + futi ['futi'] (IDEO) > sai futi 'get out at once/quickly'

The paroxytonic profile is clearly dominant, as it represents 24.5³³ items (i.e. 82%) out of a total of 30 polysyllabic ideophones.

### 6.1.2 Syllabic structure

Contrary to continental UGCs, a majority of insular UGC ideophones (72%) contain only C(C)V open syllables (Table 7), and most of them (63%) are disyllabic (Table 8). Insular UGC ideophones therefore exactly fit into the syllabic canon of the language, which is characterized, at least in the two varieties under study, by a preponderance of C(C)V syllables and a majority of disyllables for stressed items (see Quint 2000a: 35-40 for Santiago and Moreira Tavares 2020: 97-101 for Fogo).

Another peculiarity of insular UGC ideophones is the fact that at least six of them (i.e. roughly one out of six) contain one or two CCV syllables, while these complex onsets are not attested in continental UGC ideophones. Actually, CCV syllables are

<footnote n="33">³³ The reason why, in this section devoted to the phonology of insular UGC ideophones, we are dealing with half-words is due to the fact that one of these ideophones has at least three different variants (*txulupu* [tʃu'lupu] ~ *txulufu* [tʃu'lufu] ~ *txufun* [tʃu'fũ]) with two different stress and syllable patterns (/CV'CVCV/ (=*txulupu* + *txulufu*) vs. /CV'CVC/ (=*txufun*)), see entry (31) in Table 2.1 in the appendix. In consequence, we have considered that each of these two patterns counted as 0.5 item in our word counts.</footnote>
much more frequent in Capeverdean (12% in texts, see Quint 2000a: 393, 396, 399) than in continental UGC varieties (4,5% in texts, see Biagui 2018: 335, 339, 355), which may account for this difference. Note also that, in all Capeverdean ideophones with CCV syllables, this syllable type always appears in the first syllable of the word (37), although it can be repeated in reduplicated ideophones (38).

(37) Santiago *sakédu* ‘stand’ + *tran* (IDEO) > *sakédu tran* ‘stand upright’

(38) Santiago *gordu* ‘fat’ + *plátxi-plátxi* (IDEO) > *gordu plátxi-plátxi* ‘very fat, as fat as a pig’

<table><caption>**Table 7:** Syllabic structure of insular UGC ideophones (based on Santiago data):<fnref n="34" /> syllabic types.</caption><thead><tr><th>Syllabic structure</th><th>No.</th><th>CCV. and CV. merged</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th><th>Syllabic type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CCV.CCV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV</td><td>2</td><td>C(C)V.C(C)V</td><td>16</td><td>47%</td><td rowspan="2">open = C(C)V only</td><td rowspan="2">72%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV</td><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV.CV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CV</td><td>2.5</td><td>C(C)V.CV.CV</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV.CCV.CV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CV.CV</td><td>4</td><td>C(C)V.CV.C(C)V.CV</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCVC</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">closed = C(C)VC only</td><td rowspan="2">24%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC</td><td>3</td><td>C(C)VC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>1%</td><td rowspan="2">mixed</td><td rowspan="2">4%</td></tr><tr><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 8:** Syllabic structure of insular UGC ideophones (based on Santiago data): number of syllables.</caption><thead><tr><th>CCV. and CV. merged</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th><th>Syllables</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C(C)VC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV</td><td>16</td><td>47%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>1%</td><td>2</td><td>20.5</td><td>63%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>3%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV.CV</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td><td>3</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV.C(C)V.CV</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ As discussed in §6.3, Fogo ideophones are far less numerous than their Santiago counterparts.</footnote>
much more frequent in Capeverdean (12% in texts, see Quint 2000a: 393, 396, 399) than in continental UGC varieties (4,5% in texts, see Biagui 2018: 335, 339, 355), which may account for this difference. Note also that, in all Capeverdean ideophones with CCV syllables, this syllable type always appears in the first syllable of the word (37), although it can be repeated in reduplicated ideophones (38).

(37) Santiago *sakédu* ‘stand’ + *tran* (IDEO) > *sakédu tran* ‘stand upright’

(38) Santiago *gordu* ‘fat’ + *plátxi-plátxi* (IDEO) > *gordu plátxi-plátxi* ‘very fat, as fat as a pig’

<table><caption>**Table 7:** Syllabic structure of insular UGC ideophones (based on Santiago data):<fnref n="34" /> syllabic types.</caption><thead><tr><th>Syllabic structure</th><th>No.</th><th>CCV. and CV. merged</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th><th>Syllabic type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CCV.CCV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV</td><td>2</td><td>C(C)V.C(C)V</td><td>16</td><td>47%</td><td rowspan="2">open = C(C)V only</td><td rowspan="2">72%</td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV</td><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV.CV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CV</td><td>2.5</td><td>C(C)V.CV.CV</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCV.CV.CCV.CV</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CV.CV.CV</td><td>4</td><td>C(C)V.CV.C(C)V.CV</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CCVC</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">closed = C(C)VC only</td><td rowspan="2">24%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC</td><td>3</td><td>C(C)VC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>1%</td><td rowspan="2">mixed</td><td rowspan="2">4%</td></tr><tr><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 8:** Syllabic structure of insular UGC ideophones (based on Santiago data): number of syllables.</caption><thead><tr><th>CCV. and CV. merged</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th><th>Syllables</th><th>No.</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C(C)VC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV</td><td>16</td><td>47%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CV.CVC</td><td>0.5</td><td>1%</td><td>2</td><td>20.5</td><td>63%</td></tr><tr><td>CVC.CVC</td><td>4</td><td>12%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VC.CV</td><td>1</td><td>3%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV.CV</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td><td>3</td><td>3.5</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>C(C)V.CV.C(C)V.CV</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>34</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ As discussed in §6.3, Fogo ideophones are far less numerous than their Santiago counterparts.</footnote>
CVC monosyllabic ideophones (4/34 items = 12%, including CCVC) and ideophones ending in a consonant (8,5/34 items = 25%) are much rarer in insular than in continental UGCs (68% and 99% respectively). This is largely due to the fact that insular UGCs admit a much lower number of consonants in the coda (Quint 2000a: 33-34; Moreira Tavares 2020: 75-76) than continental UGCs (Biagui 2018: 59-63). This contrast is particularly conspicuous for ideophonic roots shared by both UGC branches (39)-(40).

(39) Cacheu3 (continental)/Santiago (insular) *sai* 'get out'
> Cacheu3 *sai fut* [fut] 'get out **at once/quickly', see (4b)
≠ Santiago *sai futi* ['futi], see (36)

**Fut** [fut] has a CVC structure and final [t], allowed by all continental UGCs, whereas **futi** ['futi] ends in a paragogic [i] (and therefore has a CVCV structure), as final [t] is not allowed by Santiago insular UGC.

(40) CC *kumê* (continental)/Fogo (insular) *kumê* ‘eat’
> CC *kumê fep* [fep] ‘eat [sth.] **thoroughly**, eat **every last crumb** [of sth.]’
≠ Fogo *kumê fépu* ['fêpu]

**Fep** [fep] has a CVC structure and final [p], allowed by all continental UGCs, whereas **fépu** ['fêpu] ends in a paragogic [u] (and therefore has a CVCV structure), as final [p] is not allowed by Fogo insular UGC.<fnref n="35" />

### 6.1.3 Vowel patterns

A rule very similar to the one described for continental UGCs (§5.1.3) also applies to polysyllabic insular UGC ideophones: all vowels of an ideophonic root are identical (41), except for the post-tonic vowel (42), which is probably paragogic, see (39) and (40), and therefore not part of the root.

(41) Santiago *txera* ‘smell’ + *fututú* (IDEO) > *txera fututú* [futu'tu'] ‘have a **strong** smell’

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Our relatively reduced sample of insular ideophones seems to suggest that the choice of the paragogic vowel in insular UGCs depends on the preceding consonant (preC). If preC = [t, dʒ~ʃ, tʃ~c] (i.e. a dental or palatal consonant), the paragogic vowel is [i] (38). If preC = [b, f, p, k] (i.e. a labial or velar consonant), the paragogic vowel is [u] (39). The only known exception to these rules is Santiago *saki* ['sɛki] ~ *siki* ['siki] (IDEO) > *sápa saki* ~ *sápa siki* ‘cut **clean**’.</footnote>
CVC monosyllabic ideophones (4/34 items = 12%, including CCVC) and ideophones ending in a consonant (8,5/34 items = 25%) are much rarer in insular than in continental UGCs (68% and 99% respectively). This is largely due to the fact that insular UGCs admit a much lower number of consonants in the coda (Quint 2000a: 33-34; Moreira Tavares 2020: 75-76) than continental UGCs (Biagui 2018: 59-63). This contrast is particularly conspicuous for ideophonic roots shared by both UGC branches (39)-(40).

(39) Cacheu3 (continental)/Santiago (insular) *sai* ‘get out’
> Cacheu3 *sai fut* [fut] ‘get out **at once/quickly**’, see (4b)
≠ Santiago *sai futi* ['futi], see (36)

**Fut** [fut] has a CVC structure and final [t], allowed by all continental UGCs, whereas **futi** ['futi] ends in a paragogic [i] (and therefore has a CVCV structure), as final [t] is not allowed by Santiago insular UGC.

(40) CC *kumê* (continental)/Fogo (insular) *kumê* ‘eat’
> CC *kumê fep* [fep] ‘eat [sth.] **thoroughly**, eat **every last crumb** [of sth.]’
≠ Fogo *kumê fépu* ['fêpu]

**Fep** [fep] has a CVC structure and final [p], allowed by all continental UGCs, whereas **fépu** ['fêpu] ends in a paragogic [u] (and therefore has a CVCV structure), as final [p] is not allowed by Fogo insular UGC.<fnref n="35" />

### 6.1.3 Vowel patterns

A rule very similar to the one described for continental UGCs (§5.1.3) also applies to polysyllabic insular UGC ideophones: all vowels of an ideophonic root are identical (41), except for the post-tonic vowel (42), which is probably paragogic, see (39) and (40), and therefore not part of the root.

(41) Santiago *txera* ‘smell’ + *fututú* (IDEO) > *txera fututú* [futu'tu'] ‘have a **strong** smell’

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Our relatively reduced sample of insular ideophones seems to suggest that the choice of the paragogic vowel in insular UGCs depends on the preceding consonant (preC). If preC = [t, dʒ~ʒ, tʃ~ʃ] (i.e. a dental or palatal consonant), the paragogic vowel is [i] (38). If preC = [b, f, p, k] (i.e. a labial or velar consonant), the paragogic vowel is [u] (39). The only known exception to these rules is Santiago *saki* ['sɛki] ~ *siki* ['siki] (IDEO) > *sápa saki* ~ *sápa siki* ‘cut **clean**’.</footnote>
(42) Santiago labánta ‘stand up’ + fakati (IDEO) > labánta fakati [feˈkeiti] ‘stand up at once’, compare with fakat in Cacheu (4a)

This rule applies to all five polysyllabic ideophonic roots attested in Santiago Capeverdean, all of which have cognates in continental varieties.

### 6.1.4 Consonantic inventory

Only one known Santiago ideophone can be optionally pronounced with a voiced fricative (43).

(43) CC intxi ‘fill’ + bipu ~ vipu (IDEO) > intxi **bipu** or intxi **vipu** ‘fill [sth.] up to the brim’

Voiced fricatives are equally rare in Santiago core vocabulary (Quint 2000a: 112-114).

### 6.1.5 Reduplication

While lexically reduplicated ideophones are rare in continental UGCs, they are much more frequent in Santiago Capeverdean. Out of a sample of 29 polysyllabic items (20.5 disyllables + 3.5 trisyllables + 5 quadrisyllables), nine insular UGC ideophones, i.e. close to one third of the total number of polysyllabic ideophones and 9/34 = 26% of all insular ideophones, have a fully (eight items, see (44)) or partially (one item, see (41)) reduplicated lexical base form. All quadrisyllabic Santiago ideophones, e.g. (44), are in fact reduplicated forms.

(44) Santiago gordu ‘fat’ + bódji-bódji (IDEO) > gordu **bódji-bódji** ‘very fat, as fat as a pig’

### 6.1.6 Comparison of the phonology of insular and continental UGCs

Table 9 sums up the main commonalities and differences between continental and insular UGC ideophones. There is a clear phonological split between the two UGC branches and, in at least some domains (prosody, preferred syllabic structure, final – C, CCV), a greater Portuguese influence probably explains why insular UGCs differ
(42) Santiago labánta ‘stand up’ + fakati (IDEO) > labánta fakati [feˈkeiti] ‘stand up at once’, compare with fakat in Cacheu (4a)

This rule applies to all five polysyllabic ideophonic roots attested in Santiago Capeverdean, all of which have cognates in continental varieties.

### 6.1.4 Consonantic inventory

Only one known Santiago ideophone can be optionally pronounced with a voiced fricative (43).

(43) CC intxi ‘fill’ + bipu ~ vipu (IDEO) > intxi **bipu** or intxi **vipu** ‘fill [sth.] up to the brim’

Voiced fricatives are equally rare in Santiago core vocabulary (Quint 2000a: 112-114).

### 6.1.5 Reduplication

While lexically reduplicated ideophones are rare in continental UGCs, they are much more frequent in Santiago Capeverdean. Out of a sample of 29 polysyllabic items (20.5 disyllables + 3.5 trisyllables + 5 quadrisyllables), nine insular UGC ideophones, i.e. close to one third of the total number of polysyllabic ideophones and 9/34 = 26% of all insular ideophones, have a fully (eight items, see (44)) or partially (one item, see (41)) reduplicated lexical base form. All quadrisyllabic Santiago ideophones, e.g. (44), are in fact reduplicated forms.

(44) Santiago gordu ‘fat’ + bódji-bódji (IDEO) > gordu **bódji-bódji** ‘very fat, as fat as a pig’

### 6.1.6 Comparison of the phonology of insular and continental UGCs

Table 9 sums up the main commonalities and differences between continental and insular UGC ideophones. There is a clear phonological split between the two UGC branches and, in at least some domains (prosody, preferred syllabic structure, final – C, CCV), a greater Portuguese influence probably explains why insular UGCs differ
from continental UGCs. Indeed, Portuguese, like Capeverdean, is a stress language (prosody), with a dominant disyllabic word-pattern (preferred syllabic structure), few final consonants (final –C), and a relatively high frequency of CCV syllables (Quint 2000a: 35-40, Omnès 1988: 146). However, both insular and continental UGCs also share some features, one of which – the rarity of voiced fricatives – is clearly linked with an African common substrate (Quint 2000a: 112-114).

<table><caption>**Table 9:** Comparison of the phonology of insular and continental UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Upper Guinea Creoles</th></tr><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Continental</th><th>Insular</th><th>Balance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Prosody (dominant pattern)</td><td>all high tone</td><td>stress</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Dominant syllable-type</td><td>CVC</td><td>CV</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred syllabic structure</td><td>monosyllabic</td><td>disyllabic</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Final –C</td><td>pervasive</td><td>rare</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>CCV</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Vowel harmony</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Voiced fricatives</td><td>rare</td><td>rare</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Lexical reduplication</td><td>&lt; 10%</td><td>&gt; 25%</td><td>≠</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6.2. Morphosyntax

### 6.2.1 Word order

Regarding word order, insular UGC ideophones behave exactly like their continental counterparts and immediately follow the element they modify, e.g. (38, 42), except when an object is inserted between a transitive verb and its associated ideophone (45, 46).

#### (45) Santiago

e *pegâ-m* **txápu** na *brásu*

S3SG seize.PFV-O1SG IDEO in/at arm

‘S/he seized **suddenly** my arm **with a firm grip** (lit. s/he seized me **firmly and suddenly** in [the] arm).’

#### (46) Santiago

e *abri* *pórta* **uandan**

S3SG open.PFV door IDEO

‘S/he opened the door **wide**.’
from continental UGCs. Indeed, Portuguese, like Capeverdean, is a stress language (prosody), with a dominant disyllabic word-pattern (preferred syllabic structure), few final consonants (final –C), and a relatively high frequency of CCV syllables (Quint 2000a: 35-40, Omnès 1988: 146). However, both insular and continental UGCs also share some features, one of which – the rarity of voiced fricatives – is clearly linked with an African common substrate (Quint 2000a: 112-114).

<table><caption>**Table 9:** Comparison of the phonology of insular and continental UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Upper Guinea Creoles</th></tr><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Continental</th><th>Insular</th><th>Balance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Prosody (dominant pattern)</td><td>all high tone</td><td>stress</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Dominant syllable-type</td><td>CVC</td><td>CV</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred syllabic structure</td><td>monosyllabic</td><td>disyllabic</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Final –C</td><td>pervasive</td><td>rare</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>CCV</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Vowel harmony</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Voiced fricatives</td><td>rare</td><td>rare</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Lexical reduplication</td><td>&lt; 10%</td><td>&gt; 25%</td><td>≠</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6.2. Morphosyntax

### 6.2.1 Word order

Regarding word order, insular UGC ideophones behave exactly like their continental counterparts and immediately follow the element they modify, e.g. (38, 42), except when an object is inserted between a transitive verb and its associated ideophone (45, 46).

#### (45) Santiago

e *pegâ-m* **txápu** na *brásu*

S3SG seize.PFV-O1SG IDEO in/at arm

‘S/he seized **suddenly** my arm **with a firm grip** (lit. s/he seized me **firmly and suddenly** in [the] arm).’

#### (46) Santiago

e *abri* *pórta* **uandan**

S3SG open.PFV door IDEO

‘S/he opened the door **wide**.’
### 6.2.2 Modified elements

As in continental UGCs, insular UGC ideophones usually associate with verbs. However, due to the fact that the distinction between verbs and adjectives is more clear-cut in Capeverdean than in continental UGCs,<fnref n="36" /> seven Capeverdean ideophones (out of a total of 34, i.e. 21%) specifically associate with adjectives (as opposed to verbs).<fnref n="37" /> Note that only *five* insular (Capeverdean) adjectives, namely *bedju* ‘old’, *bránku* ‘white’, *gordu* ‘fat’, *prétu* ‘black’ and *ségu* ‘blind’, have been found to associate with these *seven* ideophones. This difference in number is due to the fact that one and the same adjective can associate with two ideophones. To the best of our knowledge, there is no significant semantic difference between the two ideophones in (47).

(47) Santiago *bedju* ‘old’
> *bedju góbu-góbu* ‘very old’
> *bedju kóti-kóti* ‘very old’

Furthermore, in Capeverdean, there is at least one case of a fossilized ideophone.

(48) Santiago *sta* ‘be’ ~ *fika* ‘remain’ + *nunpriti* ‘naked’ > *sta/fika nunpriti* ‘be/remain naked’

Synchronically, *nunpriti* can be analysed as an adjective. However, it is quite probable that *nunpriti* can be further broken down into *nun* [nũ] ‘naked’ (a cognate of CC *nuy* (see (34)) < Port. *nu* ‘naked’) + *priti* ['priti] (IDEO), a frozen ideophone intensifying the notion of nakedness. In other words, in continental UGCs, the reflex of the Portuguese adjective *nu* ‘naked’ was reanalysed as an ideophone, whereas in insular

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Continental *brajku* ‘(be) white’, for example, is more appropriately described as a qualifier (or qualifying verb) which can combine with verbal morphemes and be used in the same slot as a verb, whereas Santiago (insular) *bránku* ‘white’ is not compatible with most verbal morphemes and better described as an adjective in the Portuguese (or Romance) meaning of the term. For more details about the question of adjectives and qualifiers in UGCs, see Biagui et al. (forthcoming), Quint (2000a: 297-300; 2000b: 103; 2023: 457, 459), Biagui (2018: 223-232), Biagui & Quint (2013: 46), Kihm (1994: 34-37, 148-149), Scantamburlo (1981: 44; 1999: 168-169) and Doneux & Rougé (1988: 27, 31, 39-40, 47, 49).</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ We have classified Santiago Capeverdean *sakédu* ‘stand’ as a “qualifier” (§5.2.2), as, contrary to most Capeverdean adjectives but similar to its continental counterpart *sikidu* ‘stand’, it can behave as a verb when used in predicative function (Quint 2000a: 297-300).</footnote>
### 6.2.2 Modified elements

As in continental UGCs, insular UGC ideophones usually associate with verbs. However, due to the fact that the distinction between verbs and adjectives is more clear-cut in Capeverdean than in continental UGCs,<fnref n="36" /> seven Capeverdean ideophones (out of a total of 34, i.e. 21%) specifically associate with adjectives (as opposed to verbs).<fnref n="37" /> Note that only *five* insular (Capeverdean) adjectives, namely *bedju* ‘old’, *bránku* ‘white’, *gordu* ‘fat’, *prétu* ‘black’ and *ségu* ‘blind’, have been found to associate with these *seven* ideophones. This difference in number is due to the fact that one and the same adjective can associate with two ideophones. To the best of our knowledge, there is no significant semantic difference between the two ideophones in (47).

(47) Santiago *bedju* ‘old’
> *bedju góbu-góbu* ‘very old’
> *bedju kóti-kóti* ‘very old’

Furthermore, in Capeverdean, there is at least one case of a fossilized ideophone.

(48) Santiago *sta* ‘be’ ~ *fika* ‘remain’ + *nunpriti* ‘naked’ > *sta/fika nunpriti* ‘be/remain naked’

Synchronically, *nunpriti* can be analysed as an adjective. However, it is quite probable that *nunpriti* can be further broken down into *nun* [nũ] ‘naked’ (a cognate of CC *nuy* (see (34)) < Port. *nu* ‘naked’) + *priti* ['priti] (IDEO), a frozen ideophone intensifying the notion of nakedness. In other words, in continental UGCs, the reflex of the Portuguese adjective *nu* ‘naked’ was reanalysed as an ideophone, whereas in insular

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Continental *brajku* ‘(be) white’, for example, is more appropriately described as a qualifier (or qualifying verb) which can combine with verbal morphemes and be used in the same slot as a verb, whereas Santiago (insular) *bránku* ‘white’ is not compatible with most verbal morphemes and better described as an adjective in the Portuguese (or Romance) meaning of the term. For more details about the question of adjectives and qualifiers in UGCs, see Biagui et al. (forthcoming), Quint (2000a: 297-300; 2000b: 103; 2023: 457, 459), Biagui (2018: 223-232), Biagui & Quint (2013: 46), Kihm (1994: 34-37, 148-149), Scantamburlo (1981: 44; 1999: 168-169) and Doneux & Rougé (1988: 27, 31, 39-40, 47, 49).</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ We have classified Santiago Capeverdean *sakédu* ‘stand’ as a “qualifier” (§5.2.2), as, contrary to most Capeverdean adjectives but similar to its continental counterpart *sikidu* ‘stand’, it can behave as a verb when used in predicative function (Quint 2000a: 297-300).</footnote>
UGCs, the reflex of Portuguese *nu* ‘naked’ kept its adjectival status but was intensified by a non-Romance ideophone, *priti*. We may therefore consider that, in Capeverdean, *nun* (in *nunpriti*) is a sixth instance of an adjective associating with an ideophone.

### 6.2.3 Morphology

In insular UGC ideophones, expressive reduplication is nonexistent while vowel lengthening and ideophone-to-verb derivation are marginally attested. The lengthening of stressed vowels is documented for color-associated ideophones and has both an attenuative/diminutive and laudatory value (49)-(50).

(49) Santiago *bránku* ‘white’ + *álbu* (IDEO)

> *bránku álbu* ['albu] ‘very white, as white as snow'

> *bránku áálbu* ['a:lbu] ‘so small, so nice and so white'

(50) Santiago *prétu* ‘black’ + *finu* (IDEO)

> *prétu finu* ['finu] ‘very black, pitch-black'

> *prétu fiinu* ['fi:nu] ‘so small, so nice and so black'

Some three cases of ideophone-to-verb derivation have been found (51)-(53).

(51) Santiago *sai* ‘get out’ + *futi* (IDEO)

> *sai futi* ['futi] ‘get out at once/quickly'

> *futi* ['futi] ‘get swiftly out [of a place], escape [from a place]’ (e.g. a goat from its pen or a bird from a trap...)

(52) Santiago *labánta* ‘stand up’ + *fakati* (IDEO)

> *labánta fakati* [fe'keti] ‘stand up at once'

> *fakatia* [fe'ketje] ‘wriggle, move in all directions'

(53) Santiago *gordu* ‘fat’ + *plátxi-plátxi* (IDEO)

> *gordu plátxi-plátxi* ['platʃi 'platʃi] ‘very fat, as fat as a pig'

> *platxia* ['pletʃje] ‘crash [to the ground]’
UGCs, the reflex of Portuguese *nu* ‘naked’ kept its adjectival status but was intensified by a non-Romance ideophone, *priti*. We may therefore consider that, in Capeverdean, *nun* (in *nunpriti*) is a sixth instance of an adjective associating with an ideophone.

### 6.2.3 Morphology

In insular UGC ideophones, expressive reduplication is nonexistent while vowel lengthening and ideophone-to-verb derivation are marginally attested. The lengthening of stressed vowels is documented for color-associated ideophones and has both an attenuative/diminutive and laudatory value (49)-(50).

(49) Santiago bránku ‘white’ + álbu (IDEO)

> bránku álbu ['albu] ‘very white, as white as snow’

> bránku áálbu ['a:lbu] ‘so small, so nice and so white’

(50) Santiago prétu ‘black’ + finu (IDEO)

> prétu finu ['finu] ‘very black, pitch-black’

> prétu fiinu ['fi:nu] ‘so small, so nice and so black’

Some three cases of ideophone-to-verb derivation have been found (51)-(53).

(51) Santiago sai ‘get out’ + futi (IDEO)

> sai futi ['futi] ‘get out at once/quickly’

> futi ['futi] ‘get swiftly out [of a place], escape [from a place]’ (e.g. a goat from its pen or a bird from a trap...)

(52) Santiago labánta ‘stand up’ + fakati (IDEO)

> labánta fakati [fe'keti] ‘stand up at once’

> fakatia [fe'ketje] ‘wriggle, move in all directions’

(53) Santiago gordu ‘fat’ + plátxi-plátxi (IDEO)

> gordu plátxi-plátxi ['platʃi 'platʃi] ‘very fat, as fat as a pig’

> platxia ['pletʃje] ‘crash [to the ground]’
As all Santiago insular ideophones were checked for possible derived forms with a trained native-speaker, our list of deideophonic verbs is probably close to exhaustive. Contrary to CC, the derivational process is not morphologically regular: in (51), we have a conversion process, while in (52)-(53), a suffix [e] is added to the ideophone. Note also that, in (53), the reduplication of the ideophonic base is lost in the derived verb. Furthermore, the meaning of the verb is not always predictable. In (52), it is the notion of SUDDEN MOVEMENT that seems to constitute the link between the ideophone and the derived verb, while the common semantic feature in (53) seems to be the SOFT, SHAPELESS CONSISTENCY of the fat (for the ideophone) and of something crashing to the ground and hence losing its original SHAPE and being somewhat SOFTened (for the verb). These cases of ideophone-to-verb derivation are therefore highly idiosyncratic and contrast with the morphologically regular, semantically transparent ideophone-to-verb derivation that occurs in Casamance Creole.

### 6.2.4 Comparison of the morphosyntactic properties of insular and continental UGCs

As shown in Table 10, the main morphosyntactic differences existing between continental and insular UGCs bear on their respective morphological properties. Generally speaking, continental UGCs display more diverse morphological patterns for their ideophones than insular UGCs.

<table><caption>**Table 10:** Comparison of the morphosyntactic properties of insular and continental UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Upper Guinea Creoles</th></tr><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Continental</th><th>Insular</th><th>Balance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Word order</td><td>V-(O)-IDEO</td><td>V-(O)-IDEO</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Associated elements</td><td>mostly verbs</td><td>mostly verbs (+ adjectives)</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Expressive reduplication</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Vowel lengthening</td><td>intensive</td><td>attenuative</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Ideophone-to-verb derivation</td><td>regular</td><td>exceptional</td><td>≠</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 6.3. Diatopic variation and inventory

As mentioned in §4.2, only two insular UGC varieties – Fogo and Santiago – have been investigated so far. The main difference between them concerns the size of their inventory: we have found only three ideophones in Fogo vs. 34 in Santiago, and all
As all Santiago insular ideophones were checked for possible derived forms with a trained native-speaker, our list of deideophonic verbs is probably close to exhaustive. Contrary to CC, the derivational process is not morphologically regular: in (51), we have a conversion process, while in (52)-(53), a suffix [e] is added to the ideophone. Note also that, in (53), the reduplication of the ideophonic base is lost in the derived verb. Furthermore, the meaning of the verb is not always predictable. In (52), it is the notion of SUDDEN MOVEMENT that seems to constitute the link between the ideophone and the derived verb, while the common semantic feature in (53) seems to be the SOFT, SHAPELESS CONSISTENCY of the fat (for the ideophone) and of something crashing to the ground and hence losing its original SHAPE and being somewhat SOFTened (for the verb). These cases of ideophone-to-verb derivation are therefore highly idiosyncratic and contrast with the morphologically regular, semantically transparent ideophone-to-verb derivation that occurs in Casamance Creole.

### 6.2.4 Comparison of the morphosyntactic properties of insular and continental UGCs

As shown in Table 10, the main morphosyntactic differences existing between continental and insular UGCs bear on their respective morphological properties. Generally speaking, continental UGCs display more diverse morphological patterns for their ideophones than insular UGCs.

<table><caption>**Table 10:** Comparison of the morphosyntactic properties of insular and continental UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Upper Guinea Creoles</th></tr><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Continental</th><th>Insular</th><th>Balance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Word order</td><td>V-(O)-IDEO</td><td>V-(O)-IDEO</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Associated elements</td><td>mostly verbs</td><td>mostly verbs (+ adjectives)</td><td>=</td></tr><tr><td>Expressive reduplication</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Vowel lengthening</td><td>intensive</td><td>attenuative</td><td>≠</td></tr><tr><td>Ideophone-to-verb derivation</td><td>regular</td><td>exceptional</td><td>≠</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 6.3. Diatopic variation and inventory

As mentioned in §4.2, only two insular UGC varieties – Fogo and Santiago – have been investigated so far. The main difference between them concerns the size of their inventory: we have found only three ideophones in Fogo vs. 34 in Santiago, and all
Fogo ideophones have close equivalents in Santiago (Table 11). This result comes as no surprise as the African element has already been recognized as clearly less important in Fogo than in Santiago (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 129-131). However, it must also be said that, as the vocabulary of Fogo has not been as thoroughly investigated as that of Santiago, we may have missed some Fogo ideophones.

<table><caption>**Table 11:** The three known Fogo ideophones with their Santiago counterparts.<fnref n="38" /></caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Fogo</th><th colspan="2">Santiago cognates</th></tr><tr><th>Modified element</th><th>Ideophone</th><th>Approximative meaning</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sta 'be' ~ fikâ 'remain'</td><td>enden [ɛ̄dɛ̄]</td><td>'fully empty'</td><td>iondon [jɔ̄dɔ̄] ~ iandan [jɛ̄dɛ̄] ~ uandan [wɛ̄dɛ̄]</td></tr><tr><td>kumé 'eat' ~ bazâ 'spill' ~ panhâ 'catch/seize' ~ kunprâ 'buy'</td><td>fépu ['fɛpu]</td><td>'completely, without leaving anything'</td><td>fépu ['fɛpu]</td></tr><tr><td>prétu 'black'</td><td>finu ['finu]</td><td>'very'</td><td>finu ['finu]</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is also possible that more ideophonic items will be found on the two other islands of Sotavento (or Southern Capeverdean, see §2.1 and Map 2), namely Brava and Maio, which have not been explored for this matter. Furthermore, we expect that ideophones, which seem to be mostly a Niger-Congo feature in UGCs (see §5.4 and §6.4), are much less common in Barlavento (or Northern Capeverdean), where lexical African influence is weaker than in Sotavento (see §4.2).

## 6.4. Origin and comparison with continental UGCs

### 6.4.1 Origin of the insular UGC ideophones

Seventeen insular UGC ideophones (i.e. 17/34 = 50%) can be traced back to Mandinka and/or Wolof (Table 12). Basically, the ratio of Mandinka and Wolof is similar to what has been observed in continental UGCs (see §5.4 and Table 6), and most of the African-derived insular UGC ideophones have cognates in continental

<footnote n="38">³⁸ For Fogo, *enden* is attested in Moreira Tavares (2020: 237), *fépu* in Moreira Tavares (2020: 273) and Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 152), and *finu* in Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 148).</footnote>
Fogo ideophones have close equivalents in Santiago (Table 11). This result comes as no surprise as the African element has already been recognized as clearly less important in Fogo than in Santiago (Quint & Moreira Tavares 2019: 129-131). However, it must also be said that, as the vocabulary of Fogo has not been as thoroughly investigated as that of Santiago, we may have missed some Fogo ideophones.

<table><caption>Table 11: The three known Fogo ideophones with their Santiago counterparts.<fnref n="38" /></caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Fogo</th><th colspan="2">Santiago cognates</th></tr><tr><th>Modified element</th><th>Ideophone</th><th>Approximative meaning</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sta 'be' ~ fikâ 'remain'</td><td>enden [ɛ̄dɛ̄]</td><td>'fully empty'</td><td>iondon [jɔ̄dɔ̄] ~ iandan [jɛ̄dɛ̄] ~ uandan [wɛ̄dɛ̄]</td></tr><tr><td>kumé 'eat' ~ bazâ 'spill' ~ panhâ 'catch/seize' ~ kunprâ 'buy'</td><td>fépu ['fɛpu]</td><td>'completely, without leaving anything'</td><td>fépu ['fɛpu]</td></tr><tr><td>prétu 'black'</td><td>finu ['finu]</td><td>'very'</td><td>finu ['finu]</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is also possible that more ideophonic items will be found on the two other islands of Sotavento (or Southern Capeverdean, see §2.1 and Map 2), namely Brava and Maio, which have not been explored for this matter. Furthermore, we expect that ideophones, which seem to be mostly a Niger-Congo feature in UGCs (see §5.4 and §6.4), are much less common in Barlavento (or Northern Capeverdean), where lexical African influence is weaker than in Sotavento (see §4.2).

## 6.4. Origin and comparison with continental UGCs

### 6.4.1 Origin of the insular UGC ideophones

Seventeen insular UGC ideophones (i.e. 17/34 = 50%) can be traced back to Mandinka and/or Wolof (Table 12). Basically, the ratio of Mandinka and Wolof is similar to what has been observed in continental UGCs (see §5.4 and Table 6), and most of the African-derived insular UGC ideophones have cognates in continental

<footnote n="38">³⁸ For Fogo, *enden* is attested in Moreira Tavares (2020: 237), *fépu* in Moreira Tavares (2020: 273) and Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 152), and *finu* in Quint & Moreira Tavares (2019: 148).</footnote>
UGCs. If we consider the distribution types (with due caution because of the limited amount of data), Mandinka seems to predominate in the ‘common core’ type while undoubtedly Wolof-derived ideophones appear only in the ‘CC-only’ and ‘minority models’ types. Here again, the distribution profile is very similar to what has been observed for continental UGC African-derived ideophones (ADI).

<table><caption>**Table 12:** African-derived insular UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Distribution type<sup>39</sup></th><th colspan="5">Origin</th></tr><tr><th>Wolof</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof or Mandinka</th><th>Total ADI</th><th>Continental cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>NA<sup>40</sup></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table>

Like on the continent, some insular UGC ideophones come from Portuguese (54) or can be derived both from an African language and/or Portuguese (55).

(54) Santiago bránku ‘white’ + álbu (IDEO) > bránku álbu ‘very white, as white as snow’, with álbu < Portuguese alvo ‘bright/intense white’

(55) Santiago prétu ‘black’ + finu (IDEO) > prétu finu ‘very black, pitch-black’, with finu < Mandinka fīŋ ‘be black’ and/or Portuguese fino ‘fine, refined’

<footnote n="39">³⁹ The distribution types are those defined for continental UGCs, i.e. if a given insular UGC ideophone X is the cognate or semantic equivalent of a continental ideophone Y, X is ascribed to the distribution type Y belongs to.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Some insular ideophones have no attested (NA) cognate or semantic equivalent in the list of 81 Casamance Creole (CC) ideophones which has been used as the standard for continental UGCs (§4.1). However, in some cases, we were able to find afterwards a continental cognate or semantic equivalent outside the CC list, e.g. Santiago pila ‘crush’ ~ kebra ‘break’ + moku (IDEO) > pila/kebra moku ‘break/crush completely’. After moku was found in Santiago Capeverdean, it was also found with a similar meaning and form both in Casamance and Bissau3 continental varieties. Furthermore, moku can be traced to a Wolof term, mokk [mɔ:kkə] ‘be ground/crushed’ (Diouf 2003: 226; Dieng 1985: 247). But as moku was not included in the initial list of 81 CC ideophones, it is counted in Table 11 as an insular African-derived ideophone belonging to the ‘non-attested (NA)’ type.</footnote>
UGCs. If we consider the distribution types (with due caution because of the limited amount of data), Mandinka seems to predominate in the ‘common core’ type while undoubtedly Wolof-derived ideophones appear only in the ‘CC-only’ and ‘minority models’ types. Here again, the distribution profile is very similar to what has been observed for continental UGC African-derived ideophones (ADI).

<table><caption>**Table 12:** African-derived insular UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Distribution type<sup>39</sup></th><th colspan="5">Origin</th></tr><tr><th>Wolof</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof or Mandinka</th><th>Total ADI</th><th>Continental cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>NA<sup>40</sup></td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>4</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>6</strong></td><td><strong>17</strong></td><td><strong>13</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Like on the continent, some insular UGC ideophones come from Portuguese (54) or can be derived both from an African language and/or Portuguese (55).

(54) Santiago bránku ‘white’ + álbu (IDEO) > bránku álbu ‘very white, as white as snow’, with álbu < Portuguese alvo ‘bright/intense white’

(55) Santiago prétu ‘black’ + finu (IDEO) > prétu finu ‘very black, pitch-black’, with finu < Mandinka fīŋ ‘be black’ and/or Portuguese fino ‘fine, refined’

<footnote n="39">³⁹ The distribution types are those defined for continental UGCs, i.e. if a given insular UGC ideophone X is the cognate or semantic equivalent of a continental ideophone Y, X is ascribed to the distribution type Y belongs to.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Some insular ideophones have no attested (NA) cognate or semantic equivalent in the list of 81 Casamance Creole (CC) ideophones which has been used as the standard for continental UGCs (§4.1). However, in some cases, we were able to find afterwards a continental cognate or semantic equivalent outside the CC list, e.g. Santiago pila ‘crush’ ~ kebra ‘break’ + moku (IDEO) > pila/kebra moku ‘break/crush completely’. After moku was found in Santiago Capeverdean, it was also found with a similar meaning and form both in Casamance and Bissau3 continental varieties. Furthermore, moku can be traced to a Wolof term, mokk [mɔ:kkə] ‘be ground/crushed’ (Diouf 2003: 226; Dieng 1985: 247). But as moku was not included in the initial list of 81 CC ideophones, it is counted in Table 11 as an insular African-derived ideophone belonging to the ‘non-attested (NA)’ type.</footnote>
### 6.4.2 Comparison with continental UGCs

The first difference between insular and continental UGC ideophones concerns their number: there are less ideophones on the islands than on the continent. Only 31 ideophones<fnref n="41" /> from insular varieties correspond to the 81 ideophones of the standard Casamance Creole list. Put differently, 50 ideophones of the standard CC list lack an equivalent in Santiago Capeverdean, the only insular variety to have been extensively checked. The number of missing equivalents is thus much higher than for all continental varieties that have been checked with consultants, where there are between 23 and 36 gaps per list (see §5.3.2 and Table 5).

Admittedly, the standard CC list is probably far from exhaustive, and there must be many more ideophones, both in continental and insular varieties, that were not taken into account in the present study. However, from our own experience of both UGC branches (including daily practice thereof), we can say quite confidently that the ideophone category is less developed in insular than in continental varieties. As the category seems to draw most of its members from the African substrate and adstrate (see 5.4.), which is stronger on the continent than on the archipelago of Cape Verde, the difference in the number of ideophones seems to be consistent with what we know about the history of UGCs.

When we take the distribution types defined for continental UGC ideophones (see §5.3.1 and Table 4) and apply them to three subsets of our insular UGC sample of ideophones (Table 13), namely (i) the semantic equivalents of CC ideophones, (ii) the cognates of CC ideophones and (iii) the African-derived ideophones (ADI), the most striking observation is the similarity between continental and insular varieties regarding the ratio of each distribution type, no matter which subset is taken into account. For all subsets, the items belonging to the continental ‘common core’ type make up approximately one half of the total number of insular ideophones, just as in CC. All in all, insular and continental UGC ideophones share the same distribution profile.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ We have excluded the three insular ideophones belonging to the ‘NA’ type (see fn. 40), as they are precisely defined by the fact that they have no CC equivalent. Hence the value of 31 insular UGC ideophones (= 34 (total) – 3 (NA)) which we consider for the comparison with continental UGCs.</footnote>
### 6.4.2 Comparison with continental UGCs

The first difference between insular and continental UGC ideophones concerns their number: there are less ideophones on the islands than on the continent. Only 31 ideophones<fnref n="41" /> from insular varieties correspond to the 81 ideophones of the standard Casamance Creole list. Put differently, 50 ideophones of the standard CC list lack an equivalent in Santiago Capeverdean, the only insular variety to have been extensively checked. The number of missing equivalents is thus much higher than for all continental varieties that have been checked with consultants, where there are between 23 and 36 gaps per list (see §5.3.2 and Table 5).

Admittedly, the standard CC list is probably far from exhaustive, and there must be many more ideophones, both in continental and insular varieties, that were not taken into account in the present study. However, from our own experience of both UGC branches (including daily practice thereof), we can say quite confidently that the ideophone category is less developed in insular than in continental varieties. As the category seems to draw most of its members from the African substrate and adstrate (see 5.4.), which is stronger on the continent than on the archipelago of Cape Verde, the difference in the number of ideophones seems to be consistent with what we know about the history of UGCs.

When we take the distribution types defined for continental UGC ideophones (see §5.3.1 and Table 4) and apply them to three subsets of our insular UGC sample of ideophones (Table 13), namely (i) the semantic equivalents of CC ideophones, (ii) the cognates of CC ideophones and (iii) the African-derived ideophones (ADI), the most striking observation is the similarity between continental and insular varieties regarding the ratio of each distribution type, no matter which subset is taken into account. For all subsets, the items belonging to the continental ‘common core’ type make up approximately one half of the total number of insular ideophones, just as in CC. All in all, insular and continental UGC ideophones share the same distribution profile.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ We have excluded the three insular ideophones belonging to the ‘NA’ type (see fn. 40), as they are precisely defined by the fact that they have no CC equivalent. Hence the value of 31 insular UGC ideophones (= 34 (total) – 3 (NA)) which we consider for the comparison with continental UGCs.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 13:** Comparison of continental (CC) UGC ideophones with different subsets of insular UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Distribution type</th><th colspan="4">Insular (Santiago) ideophones</th></tr><tr><th>CC</th><th>Semantic equivalents</th><th>Continental cognates</th><th>ADI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td><strong>39</strong></td><td><strong>15</strong></td><td><strong>9</strong></td><td><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>84</td><td>34</td><td>21</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, if we consider the semantic types of insular UGC ideophones (Table 14), a difference appears between the two UGC branches. Regarding the total sample of insular UGC ideophones, the semantic distribution is quite comparable to what has been observed for continental varieties, with a clear predominance of intensifying ideophones: 25 out of 34, i.e. 74%, a value equivalent to what was found in the CC-standard list (75%, see §4.3). Nonetheless, if we take into account, for each semantic type, the number of insular UGC ideophones that have a plausible cognate in continental UGCs, a clear split appears:

* Almost all (8/9) insular UGC non-intensifying ideophones have cognates in continental UGCs.

* Only one half (13/25) of insular UGC intensifying ideophones have cognates in continental UGCs.

In other terms, insular intensifying ideophones seem to be less easily traceable to proto-UGC than ideophones of other semantic categories. Yet it appears that it is precisely this semantic category that was favoured and considered as the most prototypical during the elaboration of the standard CC list (§4.3). Why then are intensifying ideophones less prone to be shared between continental and insular UGCs? The main underlying reason may well be once more the respective degree of Niger-Congo influence. As a matter of fact, intensifying ideophones are certainly a salient semantic category when contrasting Niger-Congo languages with Portuguese, the main lexifier of both insular and continental UGCs (§2.2). Whereas, for instance, sound ideophones (or “onomatopoeias”) are found in Portuguese (and in other Romance languages), a word category matching Niger-Congo intensifying ideophones
<table><caption>**Table 13:** Comparison of continental (CC) UGC ideophones with different subsets of insular UGC ideophones according to their distribution type as defined in Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Distribution type</th><th rowspan="2">CC</th><th colspan="3">Insular (Santiago) ideophones</th></tr><tr><th>Semantic equivalents</th><th>Continental cognates</th><th>ADI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CC-only</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Minority models</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Common core</td><td><strong>39</strong></td><td><strong>15</strong></td><td><strong>9</strong></td><td><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Other distribution</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>84</td><td>34</td><td>21</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, if we consider the semantic types of insular UGC ideophones (Table 14), a difference appears between the two UGC branches. Regarding the total sample of insular UGC ideophones, the semantic distribution is quite comparable to what has been observed for continental varieties, with a clear predominance of intensifying ideophones: 25 out of 34, i.e. 74%, a value equivalent to what was found in the CC-standard list (75%, see §4.3). Nonetheless, if we take into account, for each semantic type, the number of insular UGC ideophones that have a plausible cognate in continental UGCs, a clear split appears:

* Almost all (8/9) insular UGC non-intensifying ideophones have cognates in continental UGCs.

* Only one half (13/25) of insular UGC intensifying ideophones have cognates in continental UGCs.

In other terms, insular intensifying ideophones seem to be less easily traceable to proto-UGC than ideophones of other semantic categories. Yet it appears that it is precisely this semantic category that was favoured and considered as the most prototypical during the elaboration of the standard CC list (§4.3). Why then are intensifying ideophones less prone to be shared between continental and insular UGCs? The main underlying reason may well be once more the respective degree of Niger-Congo influence. As a matter of fact, intensifying ideophones are certainly a salient semantic category when contrasting Niger-Congo languages with Portuguese, the main lexifier of both insular and continental UGCs (§2.2). Whereas, for instance, sound ideophones (or “onomatopoeias”) are found in Portuguese (and in other Romance languages), a word category matching Niger-Congo intensifying ideophones
is missing. This may well explain the relative lack of stability of intensifying ideophonic roots in insular UGCs: these varieties, submitted to a stronger Portuguese influence, must have aligned their semantic organization with their Romance lexifier and lost African features (such as the use of intensifying ideophones) that contrasted too drastically with Portuguese. In contrast, continental UGCs, which had less intense contacts with Portuguese (and more African influence), were more prone to retain Niger-Congo material.

<table><caption>**Table 14:** Semantic types of insular UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Semantic type</th><th>Total</th><th>Continental cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Intensifying</td><td>25</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Non-intensifying</td><td>9</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">of which:</td><td>Sound (onomatopoeia)</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Immediate</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>34</td><td>21</td></tr></tbody></table>

The semantic field of color provides a good example of the difference between insular and continental ideophones regarding intensifying ideophones. Many Niger-Congo languages make a lexical distinction between three (more rarely four, e.g. Koalib) basic colors ('white' = FULL LIGHT, 'red' = FULL COLOR and 'black' = NO LIGHT, NO COLOR, see Segerer & Vanhove (2019: 292, 315-316); Rougé (1988: 40-41)), each of which is intensified by a specific ideophone (Table 15). These color intensifiers are among the most stable ideophones, and it is possible to reconstruct proto-forms for some branches of Niger-Congo (for Kordofanian, see examples in Quint 2018: 202-204).

<table><caption>**Table 15:** Intensifying ideophones for the three basic coulours 'white, red, black' in several Niger-Congo languages, in proto-continental and in insular UGCs.</caption><caption>Intensifying ideophone</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Niger-Congo languages</th><th colspan="2">UGCs</th></tr><tr><th>Color</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof</th><th>Djifanghor<br>Nyun</th><th>Koalib</th><th>Proto-conti-<br>nental UGC</th><th>Insular</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'white'</td><td>fér [+léw ~ wéj]</td><td>fur ~ tàll</td><td>pat</td><td>ppéppèr</td><td>*/nok/</td><td>[’albu]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>'red'</td><td>cáw ~ táw ~ táráw</td><td>coy ~ cur(r)</td><td>úutut</td><td>ccél-ccél ~<br>ccéccél</td><td>*/wak/</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>'black'</td><td>kím ~ kúrím<br> [+hót ~ nót]</td><td>kuk(k)</td><td>ñɔtɔtɔ́t</td><td>ṭíṭṭít</td><td>*/fandaŋ/</td><td>[’finu]</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
is missing. This may well explain the relative lack of stability of intensifying ideophonic roots in insular UGCs: these varieties, submitted to a stronger Portuguese influence, must have aligned their semantic organization with their Romance lexifier and lost African features (such as the use of intensifying ideophones) that contrasted too drastically with Portuguese. In contrast, continental UGCs, which had less intense contacts with Portuguese (and more African influence), were more prone to retain Niger-Congo material.

<table><caption>**Table 14:** Semantic types of insular UGC ideophones.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Semantic type</th><th>Total</th><th>Continental cognates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Intensifying</td><td>25</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Non-intensifying</td><td>9</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">of which:</td><td>Sound (onomatopoeia)</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Immediate</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total</td><td>34</td><td>21</td></tr></tbody></table>

The semantic field of color provides a good example of the difference between insular and continental ideophones regarding intensifying ideophones. Many Niger-Congo languages make a lexical distinction between three (more rarely four, e.g. Koalib) basic colors ('white' = FULL LIGHT, 'red' = FULL COLOR and 'black' = NO LIGHT, NO COLOR, see Segerer & Vanhove (2019: 292, 315-316); Rougé (1988: 40-41)), each of which is intensified by a specific ideophone (Table 15). These color intensifiers are among the most stable ideophones, and it is possible to reconstruct proto-forms for some branches of Niger-Congo (for Kordofanian, see examples in Quint 2018: 202-204).

<table><caption>**Table 15:** Intensifying ideophones for the three basic coulours 'white, red, black' in several Niger-Congo languages, in proto-continental and in insular UGCs.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Intensifying ideophone</th></tr><tr><th colspan="4">Niger-Congo languages</th><th colspan="3">UGCs</th></tr><tr><th>Color</th><th>Mandinka</th><th>Wolof</th><th>Djifanghor<br>Nyun</th><th>Koalib</th><th>Proto-conti-<br>nental UGC</th><th>Insular</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'white'</td><td>fér [+léw ~ wéj]</td><td>fur ~ tàll</td><td>pat</td><td>ppéppèr</td><td>*/nok/</td><td>['albu]</td></tr><tr><td>'red'</td><td>cáw ~ táw ~ táráw</td><td>coy ~ cur(r)</td><td>úutut</td><td>ccél-ccél ~<br>ccéccél</td><td>*/wak/</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>'black'</td><td>kím ~ kúrím<br> [+hót ~ nót]</td><td>kuk(k)</td><td>ñɔtɔtɔ́t</td><td>ṭíṭṭít</td><td>*/fandaŋ/</td><td>['finu]</td></tr></tbody></table>