The other (atypical) property of serial constructions in Mauritian Creole is that V2 can have an object pronoun which is coreferential to the object of V1, as illustrated by the following:<fnref n="3" />

(11)a. Zan ti pran sak la ti mett (li) lor latab
John PST take bag DEF PST put 3SG on table
‘John took the bag and put it on the table.’

b. pran manze la zett (li) dan pubel
take food DEF throw 3SG in bin
‘Take the food and put it in the bin!’

c. premie minis finn pran so bann minis finn mett zott dan kaso
prime minister PFV take 3SG POSS PL minister PFV put 3PL in prison
‘The prime minister has put his ministers in prison.’

Such a possibility is generally not available in other languages with serial constructions. Thus, the following from Yoruba (Baker 1989) and Dàgáárè (Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008) are ungrammatical if a pronoun appears in the canonical object position:

(12)a. Bólá sè èran tà (*á)
Bola cook meat sell 3SG
‘Bola cooked meat and sold it.’ (Baker 1989: 529)

(Yoruba)

b. ò dà sɛ́ lá singkáá ɔɔ (*á)
3SG PST roast FOC groundnuts eat 3PL
‘He roasted groundnuts and ate them.’ (Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008: 800)

(Dàgáárè)

The presence of a pronoun in the object position of V2 in constructions like those in (12) is said to be only possible if they involve coordination (see Baker 1989, Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008). However, as we will show, this is not the case in Mauritian Creole: examples like those in (10), as will be demonstrated below, display properties of serial verb constructions regardless of whether or not an overt pronoun is present in the object position of V2. It is interesting to note in this connection that Mauritian Creole is not alone in allowing an object pronoun after V2 in its serial constructions since the same possibility exists in Akan, although only when the referent of the object is animate, as is clear from (13a) and (13b) from Nyampong (2015: 60):

(13)a. Ama tɔ-ɔ adanko dware-e no yɛn-n no
Ama buy-PST rabbit bathe-PST 3SG rear-PST 3SG
‘Ama bought a rabbit, bathed it, and reared it.’

(Akan)

b. Ama tu-u bayerɛ́ twitwa-a Ø noa-a Ø di-i Ø
Ama uproot-PST yam cut-PST 3SG cook-PST 3SG eat-PST 3SG
‘Ama uprooted the yam, cut it, cooked it, and ate it.’ (Nyampong 2015:60)

<footnote n="3">³ As we show later in the discussion, the verb *pran* ‘take’ assigns a theta role to the NP that follows it (i.e., its object). This rules out a raising analysis but not a control-type analysis, although there are differences between control verbs and serial verbs: the former requires animate subjects and non-finite complements; the latter does not always require animate subject: *sa/that divan/wind la/DEF finn/PFV pran/take loto/car la/DEF finn/PFV zett/throw li/it laba/there* ‘The wind took the car and threw it there.’ Additionally, given that tense concord is obligatory, it is possible that in spite of surface appearance V2 is actually non-finite rather than finite. This seems consistent with V2 being dependent rather than independent/autonomous (as argued by Shibatani (2009) in relation to serial verbs and converbs). In this respect, serial constructions in Mauritian Creole look like control structures.</footnote>
Notwithstanding these unusual features, the constructions in (2) – (4) meet the general description or definition of serial verb constructions. Most importantly, the two verbs in these constructions express a single event with two sub-events rather than two separate events. This is evidenced by tense (aspect, mood) and negation concordance, which suggests these functional elements scope over the entire construction (i.e., both V1 and V2). Thus, as pointed out by Aboh (2015: 277), a single event interpretation of the following requires all subevents to be true at once. In other words, it is not possible to negate one subevent without also negating the other.<fnref n="4" />

(14)a. Zan ti aste banann ti manze, (* me li pa ti manze)
John PST buy banana PST eat but 3SG NEG PST eat
‘John bought and ate bananas, (*but he did not eat them).’

b. Zan ti aste banann ti manze, (* me li pa ti aste)
John PST buy banana PST eat but 3SG NEG PST buy
‘John bought and ate bananas, (*but he did not buy them).’

This is further demonstrated by the responses to an out-of-the-blue question like (15): (15b) is felicitous since both subevents are simultaneously negated and it can be an appropriate response to the serial construction in (15a); (15c), on the other hand, shows that one of the sub-events can only be negated if a coordinator is present. Without the coordinator (including a covert one, signalled by a phonological pause), (15c) is ungrammatical:<fnref n="5" />

(15)a. Zan pa’ nn pran dipen pa’ nn manze?
John NEG PFV take bread NEG PFV eat
‘Didn’t John take bread and eat it?’ (Didn’t John have any bread to eat?)

b. non, li pe dormi
no 3SG PROG sleep
‘No, he’s sleeping.’

c. li’ nn pran me li pa’ nn manze
3SG PFV take but 3SG NEG PFV eat
‘He took (it) but he didn’t eat it.’

From this brief description of serial verb constructions in Mauritian Creole, it is clear that they are morpho-syntactically different to those found in the French-based creoles of the Atlantic. In the Atlantic French creoles, for example, the functional elements tense, aspect, mood, and negation as well as a subject pronoun are never doubled. Additionally, they can only appear in front of V1, as illustrated by (16a, b). Note also that they cannot have a pronoun in the object position of V2:

(16)a. Boukinet te pran yon fle (*te) bay Malis (Haitian)
Boukinet PST take one flower PST give Malis
‘Boukinet gave Malis a flower.’ (DeGraff 1992: 58)

<footnote n="4">⁴ An example like Zan/John ti/PST aste/buy banann/banana me/but pa/NEG ti/PST manze/eat. Li/He pa/NEG kontan/like so/its gou/taste ‘John bought a banana but didn’t eat it. He doesn’t like its taste.’ (from one of the reviewers) is not problematic because it involves coordination not serialization.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ A similar example is given by one of the reviewers in relation to (15c). This too is coordination not serialization.</footnote>
b. li pa pote sa (*pa) bay mo
3SG NEG bring that NEG give 1SG
'He didn't bring that for me.' (Gadelii 1997: 280)

(Guyanese)

Such morpho-syntactic differences (in particular tense, negation, and subject doubling) have often led to the question of whether the constructions in (2) – (4) in Mauritian Creole (and Seychelles Creole) are really serial verb constructions or constructions involving some form of covert (asyndetic) coordination (see the discussion in Bickerton (1989, 1990, 1996), Seuren (1990, 1994), Corne, Coleman, & Curnow (1996), and Muysken & Veenstra (2018)). However, such doubling of tense, negation, and subject pronoun does not disqualify them from being classified as serial constructions since, as was noted above, such doubling is possible in serial constructions in other languages. It was argued in Syea (2013) that constructions like (2) – (4) does not involve (asyndetic) coordination or consecutivization even though they display tense, negation, and subject pronoun in front of both V1 and V2. One piece of evidence that supports this claim is the possibility of successful extraction from inside either VP (see also Stahlke 1970, Baker 1989): example (17b) and (18b), for example, show wh-extraction of *ki* 'what' and *ar ki* 'with what' from inside VP1 while (17c) and (18c) illustrate extraction (topicalization) *larmuar* 'wardrobe' and *ar kanif* 'with a penknife' from inside VP2 and VP1 respectively:

(17)a. Zan ti pran lakle ti uver larmuar
John PST take key PST open wardrobe
'John took the key and opened the wardrobe.'

b. **ki** Zan ti pran ti uver larmuar?
what John PST take PST open wardrobe
'What did John take and opened the wardrobe with?'

c. **larmuar** Zan ti pran lakle ti uver?
wardrobe John PST take key PST open
'The wardrobe, John took the key and opened?'

(18)a. Mari ti kup gato ar kanif ti donn zott
Mary PST cut cake with penknife PST give 3PL
'Mary cut the cake with a penknife and gave us some.'

b. **ar ki** Mari ti kup gato ti donn zott?
with what Mary PST cut cake PST give 3PL
'With what did Mary cut the cake and gave them some?'

c. **ar kanif** Mari ti kup gato ti donn zott
with penknife Mary PST cut cake PST give 3PL
'With a penknife, Mary cut the cake and gave them some.'

As (19) shows, such extraction processes are impossible in constructions like (17) and (18) if a conjunction appears between the two projections of the verbs:

(19)a. \* **ki** Zan ti pran lakle e ti uver?
what John PST take key and PST open

b. \* **ar ki** Mari ti kup gato e ti donn zott?
with what Mary PST cut cake and PST give 3PL

Both (19a) and (19b) show that extraction of a wh-phrase out of either conjunct violates Ross's
(1967) Coordinate Structure Constraint which blocks extraction of an element from one of the
conjuncts. This constraint, as shown in (20), also applies in non-serial constructions in
Mauritian Creole:

(20)a. Zan ti al bazaar **e** (li) ti amenn koko
John PST go market and 3SG PST bring coconut
‘John went to the market and brought coconuts.’

b. *ki Zan ti al bazaar e* (li) ti amene?
what John PST go market and 3SG PST bring

c. *kott Zan ti ale e* (li) ti amenn koko?
where John PST go and 3SG PST bring coconut

Thus, the contrast between (17) and (18) on the one hand and (19) on the other leads us to
conclude that the former must involve some form of serialization and not coordination (in this
case covert coordination).

Interestingly, the contrast observed above between serial constructions and coordination also
obtains in constructions in which not only tense and negation, but also subject pronoun is
doubled. This is illustrated in (21) and (22)<fnref n="6" />:

(21)a. li ti amenn pwason **li** ti donn so mama
3SG PST bring fish 3SG PST give 3SG.POSS mother
‘He brought fish for his mother.’

b. **pu ki** li ti amenn pwason **li** ti done?
for who 3SG PST bring fish 3SG PST give
‘For whom did he bring fish?’

c. **pu so** mama **li** ti amenn pwason **li** ti done
for 3SG.POSS mother 3SG PST bring fish 3SG PST give
‘For his mother, he brought fish.’

(22)a. *pu ki* li ti amenn pwason *e* li ti done?
for whom 3SG PST bring fish and 3SG PST give
‘For whom did he bring fish?’

b. *pu so mama* li ti amenn pwason *e* li ti done
for 3SG.POSS mother 3SG PST bring fish and 3SG PST give
‘For his mother, he brought fish.’

This contrast also shows up in constructions in which V2 has an object pronoun. The presence
of an object pronoun inside VP2, as was noted earlier, is often taken as an indication of
coordination (see Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008); however, extraction possibilities (wh-extraction
and topicalization) suggest that this need not be an inevitable conclusion:

(23)a. Zan ti pran enn zanfan ti amenn **li** naze dan sa larivier la
John PST take a child PST bring 3SG swim in DEM river DEF
‘John took a child to swim in that river.’

b. **dan ki larivier** Zan ti pran enn zanfan ti amenn **li** naze?
in which river John PST take a child PST bring 3SG swim
‘In which river did John take a child to swim?’

<footnote n="6">⁶ The fact that the preposition *pu* ‘for’ appears with the wh-phrase suggests that it is a prepositional indirect object in (21a) but the head preposition is silent.</footnote>
c. **dan sa larivier la** Zan ti pran enn zanfan ti amenn **li** naze
in DEM river DEF John PST take a child PST bring 3SG swim
'In this river, John took a child to swim.'

d. **\*dan ki larivier** Zan ti pran enn zanfan **e** ti amenn **li** naze?
in which river John PST take a child and PST bring 3SG swim

e. *dan sa larivier la* Zan ti pran enn zanfan e ti amenn li naze
in DEM river DEF John PST take a child and PST bring 3SG swim

It is thus evident from examples like (17) through (23) that tense, negation, subject pronoun doubling, or the presence of an object pronoun after the serial verb does not make sentences like those in (2) – (4) in Mauritian Creole coordinated constructions. Instead, they remain essentially serial constructions contrary to what seems to be the case in other languages (e.g., Dàgáárè, see Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008) in which only coordinated, not serial, constructions can have tense and negation doubling and object pronoun following a serial verb.

In summary, constructions like (2) – (4) in Mauritian Creole (and Seychellois) display
several of the properties associated with serialization and they therefore can be said to qualify
as serial (not coordinated) constructions even though functional elements like tense, mood,
aspect, and negation appear in front of both verbs and the serial verb can have an overt subject
and object.

3. The status of V1 in Mauritian Creole serial constructions: can it be a functional verb?

In this section, we look at whether V1 in serial verb constructions in Mauritian Creole can be
analysed as a functional verb. It is suggested in Aboh (2015: 285) (but see also Aboh 2009 and
Campbell 1996) that V1 in serial constructions is always a functional (not lexical) verb that
does not assign a theta role to the object NP that follows it. This object NP is therefore in a
derived position at the surface, having originated in the object position of V2 and then moved
to a specifier position of a functional projection (e.g., AspP, as suggested in Aboh (2009, 2015))
above VP2. Thus, the verb ze ‘take’ in (24) from Gungbe is said to be a light verb which takes
the VP xò Kɔjó kpò lɔ ‘hit Kojo (with) the stick’ as its complement:

(24) Sɛtù zé kpò lɔ xò Kɔjó
Setu take stick DET hit Kojo
‘Setu hit Kojo with a stick.’ (Aboh 2015: 290)
(Gungbe)

Some evidence that shows that V1 behaves as a functional verb is said to come from examples
like (25a, b) in Gungbe, in which the verb zé ‘take’ is followed by an object NP that it does not
semantically select, as suggested by the impossibility of the non-serial construction in (25c):

(25)a. Aluku ze awa-jije yi jonon le
Aluku take joy receive guest PL
‘Aluku received the guests with joy.’
(Gungbe)

b. Aluku ze xo miton a do na Suru
Aluku take word 1PL talk PREP Suru
‘Aluku told Suru about us.’

c. *Aluku ze awa-jije/xo
Aluku take joy /word (Aboh 2015: 284)
The ungrammaticality of (25c) suggests that the verb *zé* ‘take’ in (25a, b) cannot be assigning a theta role to the NP that follows it. It is hypothesized that this is also the case in (24): the object NP *kpò lɔ* ‘the stick’ does not get its theta role from V1 *zé* ‘take’ and must therefore originate as an internal argument of V2. It then moves from there to the specifier position of a functional projection (AspP) between V1 and V2.

Looking at TAKE-serials in Mauritian Creole, it would seem at first sight that a similar argument can be made for treating *pran* ‘take’ as a functional verb. The ungrammaticality of (26c) below shows that the verb *pran* ‘take’ cannot be assigning a theta role to the NP *simen* ‘road’ in (26a, b) although, as the grammaticality of (26d), makes clear, it does when it selects an NP like *bonbon* ‘sweets’:

(26)a. Zan finn pran so simen finn ale
John PFV take 3SG.POSS road PFV go
‘John left.’ (because he was annoyed/angry)

b. aret fer tapaz! Pran zott simen ale
stop make noise take 2PL.POSS road go
‘Stop shouting! Go away!’

c. \*Zan finn pran so simen
John PFV take 3SG.POSS road

d. Zan finn pran tu bonbon
John PFV take all sweet
‘John has taken all the sweets.’

It is tempting on the basis of the impossibility of (26c) to conclude that the verb *pran* ‘to take’ in Mauritian Creole serial constructions, like *zé* in Gungbe, is also a functional verb, and the analysis proposed in Aboh’s (2009, 2015) could then be extended to serial constructions like those in (27):

(27)a. Zan ti pran las ti kup dibwa la
John PST take axe PST cut wood DEF
‘John took the axe and cut the wood.’

b. Zan ti pran bonbon ti donn so kamarad
John PST take sweet PST give 3SG.POSS friend
‘John took sweets and gave them to his friend.’

Under Aboh’s analysis, the NPs *las* ‘axe’ and *bonbon* ‘sweets’ would originate as the object of V2 *kup* ‘cut’ and *donn* ‘give’ respectively and not of *pran* ‘take’. This object NP would then raise to a similar specifier position of some functional projection above VP2 (e.g., AspP), as shown in the following derivation of (27b):

(28) [ Zan ti [VP1 pran [AspP bonbon [TP pro ti [VP pro [v donn [VP2-bonbon donn so kamarad ]]]]]]]

However, one problem with taking V1 *pran* ‘take’ in serial constructions like (27) as a
functional verb arises from the fact that it is not always completely bleached of its semantic
properties. The following shows that it has a meaning comparable to ‘take without permission’:

(29)a. Zan finn pran pul vwazin finn vande (lakoz sa lapolis isi)
John PFV take hen neighbour PFV sell because that police here
‘John took the neighbour’s hen and sold it (that’s why the police are here).’
b. Zan ti pran gato Mari ti manze (lakoz sa li pe plore)
John PST take cake Mary PST eat because that 3SG PROG cry
‘John took Mary’s cake and ate it (that’s why she is crying).’

In such serial constructions, then, the TAKE verb means not only ‘take’ (bring into one’s possession) but also do so without the owner’s permission (unlawfully in some cases).

Another difficulty with analysing *pran* ‘take’ as a functional verb is presented by the fact that the equivalent of constructions like (1a) in Yatye (repeated as (30a) below for ease of exposition) is ungrammatical in Mauritian Creole:

(30)a. Iywi awa utsi iku
child took door shut
‘The child shut the door.’ (Stahlke 1970)
(Yatye)

b. \*zanfan la pran laport ferme
child DEF take door shut
‘The child shut the door.’

Interestingly, in contrast to (30b), the sentences in (31) are grammatical but only if the object NP ‘the door’ is understood as existing as a separate piece that has not yet been fitted to a unit or the house or as one that has been taken apart:

(31)a. Zan ti pran laport la ti peintire
John PST take door DEF PST paint
‘John took the door and painted it.’ (say, the door that was leaning against the wall)

b. Zan ti pran laport la ti sable
John PST take door DEF PST sand
‘John took the door and sanded it.’

The meaning conveyed here is that the door was somewhere, already removed from a unit or house and could be handled (carried, lifted, etc.). On such an interpretation, the verb *pran* ‘take’, unlike the verb *awa* ‘take’ in Yatye in (30a) above, is understood as semantically selecting the object NP that follows it.

A further difficulty with analysing *pran* ‘take’ as a functional verb is presented by examples like (32) in which, under a movement or raising analysis, one will have to claim that its object (the possessor NP *pwason la* ‘the fish’) in (32a) has been extracted from a larger NP *pwason la so lake* ‘the fish’s tail’. Likewise, the possessor NP *zanfan la* ‘the child’ in (32b), one will have to claim, has been extracted out of the larger NP *zanfan la so linz* ‘the child’s clothes’ and placed in the specifier of an FP containing VP2. However, in both cases, movement (raising) is blocked since NPs are islands from which extraction is impossible (Ross 1967):

(32)a. li' nn pran pwason la li 'nn kup so lake
3SG PFV take fish DEF 3SG PFV cut 3SG.POSS tail
‘He took the fish and cut its tail.’

b. mama la ti pran zanfan la ti sanz so linz
mother DEF PST take child DEF PST change 3SG.POSS clothes
‘This mother took the child and changed her clothes.’
Notice that this principle is independently operative in Mauritian Creole and accounts for the ungrammaticality of non-serial constructions like (33c) in which a specifier (the possessor) has been moved out of the object possessive phrase:

(33)a. Zan ti desir Pol so semiz
John PST tear Paul 3SG.POSS shirt
‘John tore Paul’s shirt.’

b. **kisenn-la so** semiz Zan ti desire?
who 3SG.POSS shirt John PST tear
‘Whose shirt did John tear?’

c. \* *kisenn-la Zan ti desir so semiz?*
who John PST tear 3SG.POSS shirt

The contrast between (33b) and (33c) shows that while the whole object NP can be extracted, as in (33b), its specifier alone cannot be extracted, as shown in (33c), a clear violation of the constraint on extraction from inside NPs.

There is also some doubt as to whether other V1s can function as functional verbs when they occur in serial constructions in Mauritian Creole. Aboh (2009, 2015), for instance, analyses a verb like *dà* ‘cook’ in Gungbe serial constructions as a functional verb (a covert causative verb). Consequently, the NP *abobo* ‘bean’ in an example like (34) is said to have been raised from the object position of V2 to the specifier of AspP:

(34) Migán dà àbɔbɔ dù (Gungbe)
Migan cook bean eat
‘Migan cooked beans and ate.’ (Aboh 2015: 288)

Support for the analysis of *dà* ‘cook’ as a functional verb is said to come from examples like (35) in which the verb *dà*, like the verb *zé* ‘take’ and *dù* ‘eat’, can be followed by an NP (e.g., ‘soldier’ and ‘country’) which it does not semantically select as its object:

(35)a. Migán dà kpònɔn lɛ sɔ yì àhwàn (Gungbe)
Migan cook soldier PL take go war
‘Migan prepared the soldiers to go to war’ [i.e. by making some magic]
(Aboh 2015: 288)

b. yé dù tò lɔ vɔ (Gungbe)
3PL eat country DEF finish
‘They ate the country finish [i.e., they ruined the country misappropriating funds]’
(Aboh 2015: 289)

The same reasoning therefore leads to a clause union analysis of examples like (34): the verb *dà* ‘cook’ is a (auxiliary-like) functional verb and the NP *àbɔbɔ* ‘bean’, which originates as the object of V2, is raised to the specifier of an AspP between V1 and V2 in order to satisfy an EPP feature on the head Asp (see Carstens 2002 for a similar suggestion). It is suggested that *dà* ‘cook’ in examples like (34) and (35a) means something like ‘to prepare’ (to make/get/cause XP (to be) ready for consumption/use) and not the meaning that the verb ‘cook’ has in English for instance. As such, it is said to function as a ‘hidden causative’ (Aboh 2015: 289).

Now, a structurally similar construction to (34) is available in Mauritian Creole, as shown in (36), although, surprisingly, not in Haitian, as pointed out by DeGraff in personal
communication with Aboh (see Aboh 2015: 279). It is likely that the same may be the case in
other Atlantic French creoles:

(36)a. Zan ti kwi zariko ti manze
John PST cook bean PST eat
‘John cooked beans and ate.’

b. Mari finn kwi diri finn donn bann zanfan
Mary PFV cook rice PFV give PL child
‘Mary cooked rice and fed the children.’

Under the analysis outlined in Aboh (2009, 2015), the object NP in these examples originates as the object of V2 and then moves to a position between V1 and V2 (say, the specifier of AspP). The verb *kwi* ‘cook’ (with the meaning ‘to prepare’) would then be a functional verb with no theta marking properties just like the Gungbe verb *qà* ‘cook’. However, as shown below, there are several reasons why such an analysis cannot be extended to the verb *kwi* ‘cook’ in Mauritian Creole. For one thing, the semantics of the verb *kwi* ‘ cook’, unlike the Gungbe verb *qà* ‘cook’, is such that this verb only selects entities that are edible. Thus, the equivalent of (37a), as that of (37b), is ungrammatical in Mauritian Creole:

(37)a. *guvernman pe kwi bann solda fer lager
government PROG cook PL soldier make war

b. *bann minis pe manz pei pe fini
PL minister PROG eat country PROG finish

Interestingly, an example like (37b) remains ungrammatical even though the verb *manze* ‘eat’
can sometimes be used in non-serial constructions like those in (38), in which it does not appear
to semantically select the object NP that follows it:

(38)a. bann zanfan la pe manz so lavi
PL child DEF PROG eat 3SG.POSS life
‘The children are giving her a bad time.’

b. bann zanfan la pe manz so latet
PL child DEF PROG eat 3SG.POSS head
‘The children are annoying her.’

Secondly, as noted above, the reason that examples like (35a) are possible in Gungbe is because
the verb *qà* ‘cook’, according to Aboh (2009, 2015), means something like ‘to prepare’
(meaning, ‘make something ready for use’). On this interpretation, *qà* ‘cook’, as noted above,
can be used not only with edible things (e.g., beans), as shown in (34), but also with non-edible
things (e.g., soldiers), as shown in (35a). However, the same cannot be said of the verb *kwi*
‘cook’ in Mauritian Creole, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (37a), even though, as (39)
illustrates, it can be replaced by the verb *prepare* ‘to prepare’.

(39) guvernman pe prepare bann solda defann nu pei
government PROG prepare PL soldier defend 1PL.POSS country
‘The government is training soldiers to defend our country.’

Thus, while *prepare* ‘to prepare’ can select both edible and non-edible objects (see (40) below),
*kwi* ‘cook’ only selects edible objects. In fact, it only selects those objects that have the feature
[+SOLID] such as ‘fish’, ‘meat’, ‘vegetables’, and so on and not edible objects with the feature
[-SOLID] such as ‘soup’. This difference in the contextual information (selection restriction)
of these two verbs is illustrated below:

(40)a. Zan finn kwi/prepar diri/legim/pwason/laviann
John PFV cook/prepare rice/vegetables/fish/meat
‘John has cooked/prepared rice/vegetables/fish/meat.’

b. Zan finn ?? kwi/prepar lasup/latizan
John PFV cook/prepare soup/herbal drink
‘John has cooked/prepared soup/a herbal drink.’

Interestingly, this difference in the semantic restrictions imposed on *kwi* ‘cook’ and *prepare*
‘prepare’ also holds when they are used as V1 in serial constructions:

(41)a. Zan finn kwi/prepar pwason finn manze
John PFV cook/prepare fish PFV eat
‘John has cooked/prepared fish and ate.’

b. Zan finn ?? kwi/prepar lasup/latizan finn bwar
John PFV cook/prepare soup /herbal drink PFV drink
‘John has cooked/prepared soup/a herbal drink and drank it.’

Thus, while *prepare* ‘prepare’ can occur with both *manze* ‘eat’ and *bwar* ‘drink, *kwi* ‘cook’, in
contrast, can only occur with the former. Given these semantic differences between *kwi* ‘cook’
and *prepare* ‘prepare’, it would be reasonable to attribute the contrast between (35a) and (37a)
to a difference in their lexical (semantic) properties. This would suggest that the verb *kwi* ‘cook’
in Mauritian Creole, unlike *dà* ‘cook’ in Gungbe, cannot be a functional verb and yet serial
constructions like (34) are possible in Mauritian Creole, although not in Haitian, as pointed out
in Aboh (2015: 298). The absence of examples like (34) in Haitian Creole on the one hand and
the presence of their equivalents in Gungbe on the other, has been attributed to a difference in
the lexical properties of the equivalent of the verb ‘cook’ in these languages (see Aboh 2015:
299).

A further argument for treating a verb like *kwi* ‘cook’ as a lexical rather than a functional verb comes from its relation to other culinary verbs like *bui* ‘to boil’ and *frier* ‘to fry’. Consider the examples in (42):

(42)a. Zan finn bui enn dizef inn manze
John PFV boil an egg PFV eat
‘John boiled an egg and ate it.’

b. Zan finn frier enn dizef inn manze
John PFV fry an egg PFV eat
‘John fried an egg and ate it.’

c. Zan finn kwi enn dizef inn manze
John PFV cook an egg PFV eat
‘John cooked an egg and ate it.’

As shown in (43), the difference between the felicitous and infelicitous (contradictory) reply to
the question in (43a) suggests that the verb *kwi* ‘ cook’ in (36a) or (42c) cannot be construed as
being semantically bleached (i.e. stripped of its semantic/lexical properties) because it entails
events such as bui ‘boil’ and frier ‘fry’ and, for this reason, it must be a lexical, rather than a
functional (auxiliary-like), verb (unlike qà in Gungbe):

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="3">(43) Speaker A</td>
      <td>Zan ti kwi dizef ti manze?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>John PST cook egg PST eat</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>‘Did John cook an egg and eat it?’</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="3">Speaker B</td>
      <td># non, li ti bui/frier dizef li ti manze</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>no 3SG PST boil/fry egg 3SG PST eat</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>‘No, he boiled/fried an egg and ate it.’</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="3">Speaker B</td>
      <td>Wi, li ti bui/frier dizef li ti manze</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>yes, 3SG PST boil/fry egg 3SG PST eat</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>‘Yes, he boiled/fried an egg and ate it.’</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

Finally, as was noted earlier, the equivalent of a serial verb construction like (34) in Gungbe or
(36a) in Mauritian Creole is not available in Haitian (Aboh 2009, 2015):

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>(44) *</td>
    <td>Bouki kuit mannyok manje</td>
    <td>(Haitian)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td>
    <td>Bouki cook cassava eat</td>
    <td>(Aboh 2015: 298)</td>
  </tr>
</table>

This difference between Gungbe and Haitian is attributed in Aboh (2009, 2015) to the fact that the latter has not only the lexical verb *kuit* ‘cook’ but also other verbs such as *prepare* ‘prepare’ and *pare* ‘to be ready’ (with no semantic conflation), and it is for this reason that the verb *kuit* cannot function as a hidden causative, which means that the object NP cannot therefore be raised in order to form a serial construction. By contrast, the verb *qà* in Gungbe means ‘prepare’ (with the meaning ‘cook’ included in its extension) and can therefore function as a hidden causative. Thus, Gungbe is said to have conflated the meaning of ‘cook’ and ‘prepare’ into a single word (*viz.* *qà*) while Haitian has kept them as separate lexical verbs. The problem with such a proposal is that Mauritian Creole, like Haitian, also has these same three lexical verbs (namely, *kwi* ‘cook’, *prepare* ‘prepare’, and *pare* ‘make ready’), as illustrated by (45), and yet examples like (36a) are widely available:

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>(45) a.</td>
      <td>kwi/prepare so manze!</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>cook/prepare 3SG.POSS food</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>‘Cook/Prepare his/her food!’</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>b.</td>
      <td>so manze p’ ankor pare?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>3SG.POSS food NEG yet ready</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>‘Isn’t his/her food ready yet?’</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

This would suggest that the reason why a serial construction like (44) does not occur in Haitian cannot be because it (unlike Gungbe) has three different lexical verbs with non-conflated related meanings. Otherwise, we would also incorrectly predict (36a) to be impossible in Mauritian Creole. Aboh (2015: 298) also notes (footnote 17) that (44) is ungrammatical in Haitian even with a verb like *prepare* ‘to prepare’. Under Aboh’s analysis, we are therefore led to conclude on the basis of the similarity between Mauritian Creole and Gungbe on the one hand and the difference between Mauritian Creole and Haitian on the other that the verb *kwi* ‘to cook’ in examples like (36a) is a functional verb even though Mauritian Creole, like Haitian, has three distinct lexical verbs that can be used in relation to ‘cooking’. An alternative suggestion (Aboh 2015) for the impossibility of (44) in Haitian is that the verb *kuit* ‘cook’ does not semantically select the V2 *manje* ‘to eat’. The difference between Haitian on the one hand and Gungbe and
Mauritian Creole on the other can then be attributed to a difference in the lexical properties of the verb meaning ‘cook’, although it is rather unexpected (but not impossible) that two verbs derived from the same French etymon (*cuire* ‘to cook’) should differ in their complement selection in this way.

In summary: it seems that there are a few good reasons for claiming that not all V1 in serial constructions can be analysed as a functional verb. As we have seen, there are both syntactic and semantic reasons to doubt that a verb like *pran* ‘to take’ or *kwi* ‘to cook’ in Mauritian Creole serial constructions is an auxiliary-like (functional) element with no semantic properties. Accordingly, a clause union analysis in which the object NP following V1 originates in the object position of V2 may not provide the correct description of the derivation of serial constructions in this language. In what follows, we propose an analysis in which V1 and V2 each selects an object NP that satisfies their shared semantic properties. In some ways, this analysis follows the analysis of serial constructions in Collins (1997).

## 4. The structure of serial constructions in Mauritian Creole

As was observed earlier, serial constructions in Mauritian Creole display two rather unusual (atypical) properties. These are 1) tense and negation markers appear in front of both V1 and V2 (a case of tense and negation doubling) and 2) V2 has a subject and object that can be not only phonologically null but also overt. The subject pronoun (overt or covert) is coreferential to the subject of V1 while the object pronoun (overt or covert) is coreferential to the object of V1. Serial constructions in many languages display only one tense and negation marking, and a pronoun is never allowed as the object of V2 (Baker 1989, Collins 1997, Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008). In these languages, double marking of tense and negation or an object pronoun inside VP2 is an indication that the construction involves (covert) coordination rather than serialization (see Baker 1989, Collins 1997, Muysken & Veenstra 2018, Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008, amongst others). However, as was pointed out earlier, this is not true of either Akan serial verb constructions or Mauritian Creole serial constructions. In both these languages, not only can tense and negation be doubled but an overt pronoun can also appear in the object position of V2.

As was demonstrated earlier, neither double marking of tense and negation nor the presence of an overt object pronoun inside VP2 disqualifies constructions like (2) – (4) in Mauritian Creole as serial constructions. This, as was shown earlier, is suggested by the fact that these constructions do not display any sensitivity to movement (island) constraints, whereas coordinated structures do. Wh-extraction and topicalization (see examples (17) and (18) above) also suggest that V2 (or the functional projection that contains it) must be a complement rather than an adjunct (with an adverbial modification role) for, extraction from adjuncts (and specifiers) is blocked since it violates Huang’s (1982) Constraint on Extraction Domains. The structure that can therefore be assigned to an example like (46a) is (46b):

(46)a. Zan ti pran liv la ti mett li dan pubel
John PST take book DEF PST put 3SG in bin
‘John took the book and put it in the bin.’
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

In this representation of (46a), the theme object of V2 is the pronoun *li* 'it' while its subject (merged in the specifier position of vP2) is a phonologically null pronoun. The object pronoun is coreferential to the object of V1, a possibility that is ruled out in other languages (see Baker 1989).

Under this analysis, both verbs are lexical (see also Baker 1989) and they each assign theta roles to their internal and external arguments, and the arguments of V2 are pronouns (null or overt) controlled by the c-commanding subject and object of V1. The subject pronoun of V2 is however obligatorily null if it is coreferential to an NP (an R-expression, not a pronoun) in the subject position of V1 (see discussion above). Positing overt pronouns inside VP2 in (46a) is empirically justified since serial constructions in Mauritian Creole, unlike those in other languages (see Baker (1989), Collins (1997), Carstens (2002)), Akan excepted, as pointed out above, can have an overt pronoun as the subject or object of V2. The following examples are also illustrative:

(47)a. Zan ti pran so zanfan (*li) ti amenn (li) lopital
John PST take 3SG.POSS child 3SG PST bring 3SG hospital
‘John took his child to the hospital.’

b. li ti pran so zanfan *(li) ti amenn (li) lopital
3SG PST take 3SG.POSS child 3SG PST bring 3SG hospital
‘He took his child to the hospital.’

Clearly, the possibility of an overt object pronoun inside the VP2 of these serial constructions argues against proposals that there is a single internal argument shared by the two (or more)
verbs in the series (e.g., Baker 1989, Muysken & Veenstra 1995, Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008, among others). Interestingly, it also raises questions for an analysis like the one in Aboh (2009, 2015) which also argues that there is only a single object, and it is the internal argument of V2 not V1. It seems that the presence of both a higher and a lower object in Mauritian Creole serial constructions argues strongly against such a single internal argument analysis. Additionally, positing a null subject pronoun inside VP2 (or its immediate functional projection) avoids the additional stipulation that V1 and V2 merge at LF in order to license the external theta role on the subject of V1 (see Collins 1997).

However, as has been pointed out (see Carstens 2002, Aboh 2009), positing an object pronoun (overt or null) as an internal argument of V2 is problematic for, in the presence of a phonologically null subject inside VP2, the control relation between the object pronoun of V2 and the object of V1 violates the Minimal Distance Principle of Rosenbaum (1970), which states that only the closest c-commanding NP can control a pronoun. However, since no ambiguity or misprocessing ever arises in the interpretation of these serial constructions, it would not be unreasonable to assume that only an intervener that shares its semantic (thematic) role with the c-commanding controller can have a blocking effect on the control relation between the relevant controller and its controllee. This is reminiscent in some ways of Abel's (2012) Intervention Constraint, which informally states that 'likes cannot cross likes'. Thus, the covert/overt agent subject pronoun of V2 does not constitute an appropriate intervener for the control relation between the object NP of V1 and the covert/overt object pronoun of V2.

Turning to TAKE-serial constructions with an instrumental (an example like (17a) repeated below as (48) for ease of exposition), an interesting question arises as to where the instrumental constituent should be merged:

(48) Zan ti pran lakle ti uver laport
John PST take key PST open door
‘John took the key and opened the door’

Collins (1997), for instance, places it in the specifier of the VP headed by V1 ‘take’ and it is linked to a null pronoun (pro) inside a PP headed by a postposition within VP2. Carstens (2002), like Collins (1997), places the instrumental in the specifier of the VP headed by ‘take’ but the null pronoun inside a PP is placed in the specifier of a vP that contains VP2, and is controlled by the c-commanding instrumental. However, in languages whose instrumental serial constructions lack a preposition (e.g., Ijo and Yoruba), the instrumental argument, according to Carstens (2002), is merged in the specifier of vP2 and is raised to the specifier of vP1 in order to satisfy an EPP feature on a semantically bleached V1 (i.e., the verb ‘take/use’) in these languages. Now, since the V1 *pran* ‘take’ in (48) does not show any sign of semantic bleaching, as was demonstrated above, we assume that the instrumental argument is merged as an NP in the specifier of VP1 and it gets its instrumental role from V1 (in the same way that *paint* gets an instrumental role (as suggested by Fillmore 1968) in a sentence like *Mary sprayed paint on the wall* (the counterpart of *Mary sprayed the wall with paint*)). The structure that (48) has is shown in (49):
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

The instrumental is merged in the specifier of V1 and a phonologically null pronoun with an instrumental role (assigned by V2) is merged in the specifier of vP2, as suggested in Carstens (2002). This proposal can be justified for serial constructions like (48) on the grounds that instrumentals can function as subject of a clause, as in the following:

(50) a. sa lakle la ti uver larmuar la (pa lott la)
DEM key DEF PST open wardrobe DEF (NEG other DEF)
‘That key opened the wardrobe (not the other one).’

b. sa lars la pa pu kapav kup sa pie la (li ruye)
DEM axe DEF FUT NEG MOD cut DEM tree DEF (3SG rusty)
‘That axe will not cut this tree (it’s rusty).’

c. kuto ki dan so lamen la ti bles voler la
knife REL in 3SG.POSS hand DEF PST hurt thief DEF
‘The knife that he is holding hurt the thief.’

The instrumental null subject pronoun in (49) is thus controlled by the c-commanding instrumental object of V1 *pran* ‘take’. Control of this null subject pronoun by the subject of V1 is naturally blocked by the intervening instrumental object NP.

**5. Discussion**

Unlike the French creoles of the Atlantic, those of the Indian Ocean appear to allow only certain types of serial constructions. As pointed out by Zribi-Hertz (2022), Mauritian Creole does not allow right adjoined serial constructions: that is, those in which the internal argument of an
unaccusative V2 is controlled by the internal argument of V1. Nor does it allow degree serials.<fnref n="7" />
Those that are possible include object sharing serials, TAKE-serials (instrumental, comitative, benefactive) and directional serials (see Syea 2013).

Serial verb constructions in Mauritian Creole (and Seychellois), as we have noted, are rather unusual in that the arguments of the serial verb (V2) can be realized as overt pronouns and tense and negation must be spelled out in front of both verbs (and in the case of tense, the markers must be the same). In other languages with serial constructions, the presence of an object pronoun within VP2 is a clear indication that these constructions are in fact coordinated, not serial, constructions. This is also the conclusion concerning tense and negation doubling (spreading), although, as we have seen, there are languages in which serial constructions can display this kind of doubling (spreading) without them being construed as being coordinated. Still, the possibility that V2 has its own internal argument in the form of an overt pronoun presents a problem for any approach that seeks to account for the shared argument phenomenon by positing a single argument for both V1 and V2 (see Baker 1989, Aboh 2009, 2015, Collins 2002, among others). A further difficulty is presented by the observation that not all transitive V1s (like ‘cook’) that occur in serial constructions can be treated as functional verb (contra Aboh 2015). The data on serial verb constructions in Mauritian Creole, as we have argued, suggest that a control theory like the one outlined above (in which both V1 and V2 are lexical verbs with internal arguments to which they assign theta roles) can offer an empirically adequate explanation of serial constructions in which the two verbs independently select their respective internal and external arguments.

How can the presence of serial constructions in the Indian Ocean French creoles be accounted for? Different hypotheses have been put forward to explain the existence of serial constructions in creoles (and other languages). It is suggested, for instance, by Bickerton (1981, 1989) that creoles (and other languages) develop serial constructions in order to compensate for the absence or lack of prepositions. However, as has been pointed out in a number of studies, this suggestion is counterexemplified in a number of creoles in which serial constructions and prepositions can co-exist. Also, as pointed out in Syea (2013), no serial-like constructions are known to exist in early child language acquisition at the stage when prepositions are still missing. The alternative suggestion that serial constructions exist in languages without verb movement (i.e., without strong verbal features on the head of the clause (IP)) (see Muysken & Veenstra 2018) is also counterexemplified by the availability of serial constructions in languages with verb movement (e.g., Gbe, see Aboh 2009, 2015). A further suggestion is that serial constructions exist in languages in which (some) lexical verbs can function as grammatical (functional) light verbs as a result of restructuring (see Aboh 2009, 2015). This too seems problematic in the light of the discussion of serial verbs in this paper and, additionally, it does not extend to right-adjoined directional serials (see Zribi-Hertz 2022) in which the internal argument of an intransitive V2 is controlled by the internal argument of V1. Any attempt to account for verb serialization in creole languages without invoking parameterization (and without making them exceptional), as we see in Aboh (2009, 2015), is therefore undeniably desirable, although, in the light of the empirical facts observed in this paper, parametrization perhaps remains a useful descriptive device. In this connection,

<footnote n="7">⁷ An example like *li/she fek/just arive/arrive* 'She just arrived' in Mauritian Creole is not a serial construction since *fek* 'just' is an aspect marker just like the perfective (*f*)*inn* 'have'. The subject pronoun in this example is raised from the object position of the unaccusative *arive* 'arrive' and it binds an NP-trace. No control relation is involved in this case.</footnote>
Collins's (1997) proposal that serial constructions occur in languages in which Tense can simultaneously license two or more verbs remains an interesting and plausible one. The fact that the same tense marker must appear in front of both V1 and V2 in Mauritian Creole (and a few other languages) makes this descriptive generalization even more attractive. As was pointed out earlier, V2 is impossible in Mauritian Creole serial constructions unless licensed by the same tense marker that anchors V1 (i.e. unless tense is lexicalised in front of both V1 and V2). The same restriction, as we saw earlier, does not however apply to serials in the French creoles of the Atlantic, a difference that has led to the suggestion that these creoles have VP-serials whereas those of the Indian Ocean have TP-serials. The obvious question this raises is, how is it that the same construction in the French creoles ends up with different structures?

A possible explanation for this difference lies in their development. There is strong evidence (see McWhorter 1992, Lefebvre 1998, 2011, Winford & Migge 2007, Siegel 2003, 2015, Aboh 2015, Jennings & Pfänder(2018, Zribi-Hertz 2022, among others) that the substrate West African languages made an important contribution to the development of serial constructions (and other constructions) in the Atlantic creoles. In contrast, there is no evidence of West African influence in the development of serial constructions in Mauritian Creole, and the existence of TP-serials, rather than VP-serials, in this creole is in this respect therefore quite telling. It has been suggested by Corne et al. (1994) and Corne (1999) that the development of serial constructions (or what Corne refers to as 'consecutive' constructions) may have been influenced by a convergence of Bantu consecutive clauses and Malagasy serial constructions. Corne (1999) alludes to the following from Baissac (1888) as examples of consecutive constructions.

(51)a. zaute après dansé, après çanté
3PL PROG dance PROG sing
‘They are dancing and singing.’ (Baissac 1888: 203, cited in Corne 1999: 86)

b. li causé, li rié, li faire so galant
3SG talk 3SG laugh 3SG make 3SG.POSS charmer
‘He turns on the charm.’ (Segrais 1939:63, cited in Corne 1999: 86)

c. [li] pèse larzent, amène dans so lacase
3SG seize money take in 3SG.POSS house
‘He grabbed the money and took it home.’ (Baissac 1888: 47, cited in Corne 1999: 86)

d. forzeron prend papier, allime so dife
blacksmith take paper light 3SG fire
‘The blacksmith takes the paper and lights his fire.’
(Baissac 1888: 47, cited in Corne 1999: 86)

The presence of a comma in these examples is construed as a strong indication that the clauses are independent and consecutive (i.e., evidence of consecutivization).

However, as Corne also notes, sequences of clauses are also possible in non-standard French. Thus, St. Thomas French has consecutive constructions like (52a), while New Caledonian French has consecutive constructions like (52b) (from Corne 1999: 28)<fnref n="8" />:

<footnote n="8">⁸ One of the reviewers points out that examples like (52a) are also possible in French (and English too).</footnote>
(52)a. on les cousait, on faisait eune robe
3PL 3PL sew 3PL make a skirt
‘They were sewing, they were making a skirt.’
(Highland 1979, cited in Corne 1999: 186)

b. Nounous il a demarre comme une balle i' t'a choppe l'Zoreil par la crete
Bruce 3SG have take.off like a bullet 3SG have grab DEF Pom by DEF hair
‘Bruce took off like a bloody rocket, grabbed the Pom by the hair.’
(Highland 1979, cited in Corne 1999: 186)<fnref n="9" />

It is not inconceivable then that such constructions would have been in the input (the linguistic model or *koiné*) and would have been available to the Malagasies and Africans. It is reasonable therefore to assume that they would have been reinforced by the Bantu speakers who had a similar pattern in their native languages. One could further assume that these constructions, displaying loose juxtaposition of finite clauses, became more formally and closely (syntactically) integrated, resulting in serial constructions. Such a development from loose syntactic juxtaposition (i.e. consecutivization) to close/tight syntactic integration (i.e. serialization) would be consistent with Givón (1991) diachronic change hypothesis that loosely juxtaposed clauses subsequently become more formally integrated into tight syntactic units. Such a development could also have been influenced by Malagasy serial constructions. As has been noted by Kalin & Keenan (2011), Malagasy serial constructions display tense marking on each verb, doubled negation (although single negation is also possible), shared subject, but, importantly, no shared object. One could therefore trace tense and negation doubling and subject doubling in Mauritian Creole serials back to a Malagasy source. In this respect, Corne's (1999: 186) suggestion that consecutive constructions like those in (51) show congruence (convergence) with Malagasy and African substrates is quite appealing.

Still, the evidence of substratal influence (or convergence/congruence) in the development of serial constructions in Mauritian Creole is far from compelling. This is because consecutive constructions like those in (51) could equally have been modelled on such non-standard spoken French patterns like those in (52), and these may have been inherited with or without any influence (reinforcement) from Bantu consecutives. The contribution of Malagasy is also suspect in view of the fact that the Malagasies only formed the majority of the population in Mauritius for the first eight years (1721 – 1729) (Corne 1999: 163). And, immigration data from 1725-1735 (see Chaudenson 1981: 148) appears to suggest that there were more or less equal numbers of French and Creoles (those born in Reunion), Indians, West Africans, and Malagasies in Mauritius. A theory of creole development based on feature selection and convergence (Mufwene 2001, Aboh 2015) might be tempted to attribute the presence of serial constructions in Mauritian Creole to convergence given that these constructions occur not only in the languages of the Malagasies and West Africans but also those of the Indians (see, for example, Padharipanda (1990) on serials in Marathi and also Syea forthcoming). However, the morphological and structural differences between serial constructions in these languages (e.g. word order, morphology, and so on) make it difficult to see how selection and convergence would have worked. As far as word order is concerned, for example, the relevant West African languages (we assume) are SVO, Malagasy VOS, and the languages of North and South India SOV. In terms of morphology, the West African languages are analytical, Malagasy agglutinating, and North and South Indian languages inflecting. In terms of structure, the serial

<footnote n="9">⁹ The word *nounous* may be the nickname for the individual called Bruce.</footnote>
constructions are VPs in West African languages, TPs in Malagasy (see Kalin and Keenan 2011), and V-V complexes in North and South Indian languages. It is also worth pointing out that a shared overt object pronoun after the serial verb is possible in Mauritian Creole, as we saw earlier, but such a possibility does not exist in either West African (Akan excepted) and Malagasy serial constructions. Additionally, in contrast to the homogeneity of the non-European population in the some of the contact situations in the Atlantic (Singler 1988, Lefebvre 1998, Aboh 2015, among others), there is no clear evidence of such homogeneity in any of the non-European linguistic groups during the development of Mauritian Creole (see Chaudenson 1981: 149).

It seems therefore more likely that object sharing and instrumental serial constructions in Mauritian Creole may have developed from consecutive clauses like those in (51) or imperatives like (53), which in turn may have been modelled on inherited non-standard consecutive clauses like those in (52), with little or no substrate influence<fnref n="10" />:

(53) Avla papier sec, prend li, allime to dife.
here paper dry, take 3SG, light 2SG fire
‘Here’s some dry paper, take it and light your fire.’ (Baissac 1888:41)

It is interesting to note in connection with the imperative in (53) that it is immediately followed by the sentence in (51d) in Baissac’s (1888) short story of *Zistoire Bonhomme Flanquère* (story of old Flanquère), thus pointing to appropriate contexts that might have encouraged the development and use of serials. It is also worth noting Chaudenson’s observation that the early Malagasy slaves in Mauritius had to be *francisés* (exposed to French) for a period of four months by a group of slaves previously arrived from Reunion Island (Bourbon). The presence of double tense markers, double negation, and the possibility of a shared object pronoun after the serial verb is consistent with serialization in Mauritian Creole developing from inherited (non-standard) French finite consecutive clauses or imperatives like *prends la pomme (et) mange la* ‘take the apple and eat it”.

6. Conclusion

This paper has looked at serial constructions, particularly object sharing and instrumental, in Mauritian Creole and has shown that they display some of the key properties commonly associated with classical serial constructions. It has further argued that they can be assigned a structure in which each verb is projected with its own arguments and the serial verb (V2) and its projection is a complement-like constituent given the possibility of extraction (wh-extraction and topicalization) and the relation that exists between the lexical (semantic) properties of the two verbs in the serial construction. Additionally, the fact that the two verbs are licensed by the same tense marker (tense matching) and the fact that a control relation obtains between the arguments of V1 and V2 provide further support for such a structural analysis. It is also clear from the data discussed (particularly the presence of a overt pronoun as the object of V2) that positing a single internal argument analysis is problematic. Instead, a control analysis in which

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ One of the reviewers asks why similar constructions are not found in the Atlantic creoles. Although no example is available to me at the moment, there is no reason not to suppose that the input that was instrumental in the development of Atlantic creoles did not contain consecutives finite clauses like (52a) or directives (imperatives) like (53) particularly in the early stages of their development. Directives/imperatives, it is safe to suppose, would have been in common use given the ecology of the contact situations.</footnote>
each verb subcategories an object (which is shared) offers a more plausible account of the data. Concerning the development of argument sharing and instrumental serials in Mauritian Creole, the paper suggests that, although substratal influence in their development cannot be completely ruled out, there is a viable alternative explanation for their presence in terms of pattern (consecutive clauses) inheritance from the lexifier (the linguistic model) and its grammaticalization from loose juxtaposed structures to more formal syntactic structures in which the serial verb and its projection are fully integrated with V1.

## References

Abel, Klaus (2012) The Italian left periphery: a view from locality. *Linguistic Inquiry* 43, 229-54.

Aboh, Enoch (2009) Clause structure and verb series. *Linguistic Inquiry* 40, 1-33.

Aboh, Enoch (2015) *The emergence of hybrid grammars*. Cambridge University Press.

Adone, Dani, Melanie Brück, & Astrid Gabel (2018) Serial verb constructions at the interface between grammar and culture: cross-study creole Seselwa. *Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies*. 15–46.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2006) Serial verb constructions in a typological perspective, in Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W Dixon (eds.) *Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-68.

Ameka, Felix (2006) Ewe serial constructions in their grammaticalized context, in A. Aikhenvald and Y. Dixon (eds.) *Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 124–143.

Arends, Jacques. Pieter Muysken, & Norval Smith (eds.) (1995) *Pidgins and creoles*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baissac, Charles (1888) *Le folklore de l'île Maurice*. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.

Baker, Mark (1989) Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. *Linguistic Inquiry* 20, 513–53.

Baker, Philip and Chris Corne (1982) *Isle de France Creoles: affinities and origins*. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Baker, Philip and Anand Syea (eds.) (1996) *Changing meaning, changing functions. Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages*. London: University of Westminster Press.

Bickerton, Derek (1981) *Roots of Language*. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Bickerton, Derek (1989) Seselwa serialization and its significance. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole* 4, 155-183.

Bickerton, Derek (1990) If it quacks like a duck ... a reply to Seuren. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 5, 293–303.

Bickerton, Derek (1996) Why serial constructions in ‘Isle de France creole’ can have subjects: a reply to Corne, Coleman, and Curnow, in Philip Baker & Anand Syea (eds) *Changing meaning, changing functions. Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages*. London: University of Westminster Press.

Byrne, Francis (1987) *Grammatical relations in a radical creole*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Campbell, Richard (1996) Serial verbs and shared arguments. *The Linguistic Review* 13, 83-118.
Carstens, Vicki (2002) Anti-symmetry and word order in serial constructions, *Language* 78, 1–50.

Chaudenson, Robert (1981) *Textes créoles anciens*. Hamburg: Buske.

Chaudenson, Robert (2003) *La créolisation: théorie, applications, implications*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Chomsky, Noam (1986) *Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use*. New York: Praeger.

Corne, Chris (1999) *From French to Creole. The development of new vernaculars in the French colonial world*. London: University of Westminster Press.

Corne, Chris, Deirdre Coleman, and Simon Curnow (1996) Clause reduction in asyndetic coordination in Isle de France creole: the ‘serial verb’ problem. In P. Baker an&d A. Syea (eds.) *Changing meanings, changing functions. Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages*. London: University of Westminster Press. 129-54.

Déchaine, Rose-Marie (1988) Towards a typology of serial constructions in Haitian. In K. Demuth & V. Manfredi (eds.) *Niger-Congo syntax and semantics 1*. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

DeGraff, Michel (1993) Is Haitian Creole a pro-drop language, in F. Byrne and J. Holm (eds). *Atlantic meets Pacific*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–90.

Fillmore, Charles (1968) Lexical entries for verbs, *Foundation of Language* 4, 373-93

Gadelii, Karl (1997) *Lesser Antillean French creole and universal grammar*. Sweden: University of Göteborg.

Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. diss. MIT.

Hiraiwa, Ken & Adam Bodomo (2008) Object sharing and symmetric sharing: predicate clefting and serial verbs in Dàgáárè. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 26, 795-832.

Hyman, Larry (1971) Consecutivization in Fe’ fe. *Journal of African Linguistics* 10/2. 29-43.

Jansen, B, Hilda Koopman, & Pieter Muysken (1978) Serial verbs in the creole languages, *ACS II*, 125-59.

Jennings, William & Stephen Pfänder (2018) *Inheritance and innovation in language creation. A usage-based account of French Guianese Creole*. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kalin, L and E. Keenan (2011) TP serialization in Malagasy. *AFLA 18 Proceedings*: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aflaxviii/meeting/10/ accessed 2023.01.06

Lefebvre, Claire (ed.) (1991) *Serial verbs, grammatical, comparative, and cognitive approaches*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lefebvre, Claire (1998) *Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lefebvre, Claire (ed.) (2011) *Creoles, their Substrates, and Language Typology*. Amsterdam: Benjamins

McWhorter, John (1992) Substratal influence in Saramaccan serial verb constructions. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 7, 1-53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

McWhorter, John and Jeff Good (2012) A Grammar of Saramaccan Creole. De Gruyter

Mufwene, Salikoko (2001) *The ecology of language evolution*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muysken, Pieter & Tonjes Veenstra (1995) Serial verbs. In J. Arends, P. Muysken, & N. Smith (eds.) *Pidgins and creoles*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289-301.
Muysken, Pieter a&nd Tonjes Veenstra, (2018) Serial verbs. In Martin Everaert & Hans van Riemsdijk (eds.), *The Blackwell companion to syntax*, vol. IV, 234–270. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Noonan, Michael (1992) *A grammar of Lango*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Nyampong, Beatrice (2015) Serial constructions in Krio and Akan. MA dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Pandharipanda, Rajeshwari (1990) Serial verb construction in Marathi. In *Working Papers in Linguistics* 39, 178-199, Ohio State University.

Ross, John (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Seuren, Pieter (1990) Still no serials in Seselwa: A reply to ‘Seselwa serialization and its significance’ by Derek Bickerton. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages*, 5/2, 271-292.

Seuren, Pieter (1994) Soaps and serials. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 9: 131-49.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (2009) On the form of complex predicates: toward demystifying serial verbs. In J. Helmbrecht, Y. Nishina, Y -M Shin, S. Skapeteas & E Verhoeven (eds.), *Form and Function in Language Research. Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann*. Amsterdam: DeGruyter Mouton. 255-282

Siegel, Jeff (2003) Substrate influence in creoles and the role of transfer in second language acquisition. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition* 25, 185-209.

Siegel, Jeff (2012) Two types of functional transfer in language contact. *Journal of Language Contact*, 1-29.

Siegel, Jeff (2015) The role of substrate transfer in the development of grammatical morphology in language contact varieties. *Word Structure*: 160-183.

Singler, John (1988) The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis. *Language* 64, 27–51.

Stahlke, Herbert (1970) Serial verbs. *Journal of African Linguistics* 1/1, 60-99.

Syea, Anand (2013) Serial verb construction in the Indian Ocean Creoles (IOCs): substrate, universal, or an independent diachronic development? *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 28/1, 13-64.

Syea, Anand (2017) *French creoles. A comprehensive and comparative grammar*. London/New York: Routledge.

Syea, Anand (forthcoming) Indo-Aryan influence in Mauritian Creole, in M. Alleesaib and J. Lefort (eds.) *Creoles of the Indian Ocean*. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Winford, Donald & Bettina Migge (2007). Substrate influence on the emergence of the TMA systems of the Surinamese creoles. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 22/1, 73-99.

Anand Syea
# A few remarks on gender in Martinican Creole*

Stéphane Térosier

U. Leiden

**Abstract** This paper argues that, besides natural gender which it has long possessed, Martinican Creole (MQ) is developing the category of grammatical gender. Evidence for this claim is adduced from the so-called marker of semantic definiteness LA- described in Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis (2014). Based on the previously unnoticed fact that this marker has two more allomorphs, viz. *lè-* and *li-*), and that its realization depends on the gender of the French cognate of the root it associates with, I argue that LA- is in fact the spell-out of a variant of *n* which bears the features [–SORTAL] and [±FEM]. I propose that, owing to its contact with French, MQ is undergoing a process of feature recombination which affects the inventory of its *ns* and whose outcome may be the introduction of grammatical gender. The absence of grammatical gender agreement on other categories suggests that the process remains incomplete.

## 1 Introduction

It is commonly claimed that the expression of gender is reduced to its bare minimum in creole languages (e.g. Holm 1990, 2000; Bakker 2003). Many creole languages simply do not have gender, and where it exists, it is generally limited to natural gender,<fnref n="1" /> and even where natural gender is marked, it tends to apply to a rather restricted set of nouns (Holm 1990, 2000; Baxter 2010). Similar claims have been made about French creoles in general (Neumann-Holzschuh 2006), and Martinican Creole (MQ) in particular (Bernabé 1994; Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis 2014).

However, a closer look at LA-, the MQ proclitic marker of semantic definiteness described in Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis (2014), suggests that these claims should be reconsidered. This marker, it turns out, may also be realized as *lè-* or *li-* when it combines with a root whose French etymon is masculine. If the root has a French feminine etymon, it is instead spelled out as *la*-. Crucially, this holds for both human and non-human individual concepts. One could then hastily conclude that MQ possesses grammatical gender, but non-human individual concepts do not trigger gender agreement on other grammatical categories. This standard diagnostic (Corbett 1991; Kramer 2015) militates against the existence of grammatical gender in MQ. How can we reconcile these apparently conflicting facts?

The solution which I proposed to this paradox is that the so-called marker of semantic definiteness should be reanalyzed as the spell-out of a certain flavor of the categorizing head, *n*, which some scholars have identified as the locus of gender (e.g. Kihm 2005; Kramer 2015). On this view, the aforementioned pattern may be attributed to a process of feature recombination (Aboh 2015) licensed by widespread French-MQ bilingualism. I thus conjecture that MQ may be on its way to developing grammatical gender, *n* being the first target of this process.

<footnote>* Some time ago, Anne asked me what my thoughts were about prenominal *l(a)*. By no means is this paper a definite answer to that question. All I hope is that these initial thoughts may contribute to my ongoing conversation with Anne on the syntax of Martinican. Thanks to my consultants.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 For instance, both Berbice Dutch (Kouwenberg 2013)) and Sranan (Winford & Plag 2013) are said to lack gender altogether. On the other hand, Cape Verdean Creole (Baptista 2002) and Malacca Creole Portuguese (Baxter 2010) possess natural gender.</footnote>
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the expression of natural gender in MQ. Section 3 takes a closer look at the so-called marker of definiteness and reveals the previously unnoticed fact that its morphological realization depends in a systematic fashion on the gender of the French etymon of the root it combines with. Section 4 then offers an analysis which relies on the featural properties of *n*. Next, section 5 rejects the view that MQ already possesses grammatical gender but conjectures that it may be on its way to developing that category. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper.

## 2 Natural gender in Martinican Creole

The morphological expression of gender in MQ is relatively restricted, and the consensus is that the language does not have grammatical gender (Bernabé 1994; Neumann-Holzschuh 2006; Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis 2014). Gender marking is therefore be limited to natural gender, and even this is subject to severe restrictions. The set of nouns and adjectives which distinguish between a masculine and a feminine form represents a rather small subset of these lexical categories (Bernabé 1994; Neumann-Holzschuh 2006). Examples of such nouns are provided in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 1** Examples of nouns whose form is sensitive to natural gender</caption><thead><tr><th>Masculine</th><th>Feminine</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>kwafè</i></td><td><i>kwafez</i></td><td>'hairdresser'</td></tr><tr><td><i>profésè</i></td><td><i>profésez</i></td><td>'teacher/professor'</td></tr><tr><td><i>mantè</i></td><td><i>mantez</i></td><td>'liar'</td></tr><tr><td><i>chantè</i></td><td><i>chantez</i></td><td>singer</td></tr><tr><td><i>enstititè</i></td><td><i>enstititris</i></td><td>'teacher'</td></tr><tr><td><i>agrikiltè</i></td><td><i>agrikiltris</i></td><td>'farmer'</td></tr><tr><td><i>aktè</i></td><td><i>aktris</i></td><td>'actor'</td></tr><tr><td><i>met</i></td><td><i>métres</i></td><td>'teacher'</td></tr><tr><td><i>chaben</i></td><td><i>chabin</i></td><td>'light-skinned person'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Given the relatively low frequency of such alternations, one may question the relation between masculine and feminine forms. Are they both stored as morphologically non-decomposable units in the lexicon? Or are they instead derived from one another in some way to be determined?

In Haitian Creole (HC) where a similar pattern obtains, DeGraff (2001) argues for a morphological process which relates feminine to masculine forms, notably on the grounds that some HC feminine forms do not have a French equivalent. The same argument can be made *mutatis mutandis* about MQ. Take the form *pwofésez* 'female teacher' mentioned by Bernabé (1994); its French etymon should be the unattested *professeuse*. An even stronger argument is that the morphological process which underlies the formation of similar feminine forms is rather productive, as illustrated in (1). The arguably novel form *vonmisez* may be used to designate a woman with a habit of vomiting. It is thus reasonable to posit that MQ has a bound morpheme -z which expones a [+FEM] feature.

(1) Ou sé an vonmisez, ti mafi. Ou ka yen ki vonmi toulong. 2SG COP a *vonmisez* little girl 2SG IMPF just COMP vomit all the time 'You are a vomitter, my dear. All you do is vomit all the time.'
As noted by Bernabé (1994), bound morphology is not the only means of forming feminine nouns. Compounding is also possible. For instance, *fanm* ‘woman’ may be used as the first term in NN compounds to designate female practitioners of a given occupation. Hence, the compound *fanm-doktè* ‘(lit.) woman-doctor’.

Incidentally, the above facts show that in MQ the expression of natural gender is limited to human-denoting nouns. Bound morphology does not distinguish between male and female individuals of non-human animal species. NN compounds are the only way to express such a distinction. For instance, one may oppose *mal-mouton* ‘male sheep’ to *fimel-mouton* ‘female sheep’ (see Bernabé 1994: for other types of compounds).

Of course, the above alternations do not suffice to establish the existence of natural gender in MC. The real evidence comes from adjectives, as this is the only category which distinguishes between masculine and feminine forms. Recall, however, that such adjectives are a rather small minority. Table 2 offers a few examples, some of which come from Bernabé (1994) and others from Confiant (2007).

<table><caption>**Table 2** Examples of adjectives which are sensitive to natural gender</caption><thead><tr><th>Masculine</th><th>Feminine</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>fou</td><td>fol</td><td>‘crazy’</td></tr><tr><td>visié</td><td>visiez</td><td>‘vicious’</td></tr><tr><td>bondaliè</td><td>bondaliez</td><td>‘callipygous’</td></tr><tr><td>éré</td><td>érez</td><td>‘happy’</td></tr><tr><td>eskandalè</td><td>eskandalez</td><td>‘scandalous’</td></tr><tr><td>fwansé</td><td>fwansez</td><td>‘French’</td></tr><tr><td>grenché</td><td>grenchez</td><td>‘grumpy’</td></tr><tr><td>japonnè</td><td>japonnez</td><td>‘Japanese’</td></tr><tr><td>manipilatè</td><td>manipilatris</td><td>‘manipulative’</td></tr><tr><td>meksitjen</td><td>meksitjèn</td><td>‘Mexican’</td></tr></tbody></table>

The concord patterns illustrated in (2) confirm that natural gender does not extend beyond nouns which denote human beings. The ungrammaticality of (2b) and (2c) thus stems from the fact that the noun which the attributive adjective modifies denotes a non-human animal and an inanimate, respectively. In contrast, in the well-formed (2a) the noun which the adjective modifies denotes human entities.

(2) a. an fanm japonnez/*japonné

a woman Japanese.F/Japanese.M

‘a Japanese woman’

b. * an fimel-chien japonnez/*japonné

a female-dog Japanese.F/Japanese.M

‘a Japanese female dog’

c. * an loto japonnez/*japonné<fnref n="2" />

a car Japanese.F/Japanese.M

‘a Japanese car’

<footnote n="2">2 The noun *loto* ‘car’ was chosen because its French eytmon *auto* is feminine. Given the fact that the vast majority of MQ speakers also speak French (Bernabé 2004), one might expect that they would assign feminine gender to *loto*. This obviously does not obtain.</footnote>
It should be noted that these observations carry over to the case of adjectival predicates.<fnref n="3" /> For illustration, consider the facts in (3), which parallels (2). Here again, the conclusion must be that adjectives will match the gender of only human-denoting nouns.

(3) a. Fanm lan té japonnez
woman DEF PST Japanese.F
'The woman was Japanese.'

b. * Fimel-chien an té japonnez
female-dog DEF PST Japanese.F
'The female dog was Japanese.'

c. * Loto a té japonnez
car DEF PST Japanese.F
'The car was Japanese.'

Thus, gender concord between a noun and an adjective obtains only if the noun bears a [+HUMAN] feature. Gender distinctions are therefore irrelevant for all other nouns. This puts MQ on a par with, e.g., Malacca Portuguese Creole (Baxter 2010). The ungrammaticality of the (b) and (c) examples in (2) and (3) further suggests that the masculine form is the default.

More evidence for the relevance of a [+HUMAN] feature in gender concord can be adduced from proper nouns and common nouns, i.e. nouns which use a single form to denote both male and female entities. Provided they denote a human being, both types of nouns will be matched in gender by the adjectives, predicative and attributive. Consider (4) and (5).

(4) a. Max té éré/*érez di wè yich li
Max PST happy.M/happy.F of see child 3SG
'Max was happy to see his child.'

b. Sandra té érez/*éré di wè yich li
Sandra PST happy.F/happy.M of see child 3SG
'Sandra was happy to see her child.'

(5) a. Nonm tala sé an artis japoné/*japonez
man DEM COP a artist Japanese.M/Japanese.F
'This man is a Japanese artist.'

b. Fanm tala sé an artis japonez/*japoné
woman DEM COP a artist Japanese.F/Japanese.M
'This woman is a Japanese artist.'

The masculine proper noun in (4a) is matched with the masculine form of the predicative adjective, while the feminine proper noun in (4b) is matched with the feminine form. Likewise, the common noun *artis* 'artist' triggers masculine agreement when its referent is a man, as in (5a), and feminine agreement when it is a woman, as in (5b). Agreement being the defining criterion of gender (Corbett 1991; Kramer 2015),<fnref n="4" /> we may safely draw the conclusion that [+HUMAN] nouns are either [+FEM] and [-FEM] depending on the biological sex of their referent, even when the [±FEM] feature has no morphological reflex.

In summary, this section has confirmed that MQ has natural gender (Bernabé 1994; Neumann-Holzschuh 2006) and that its expression is limited to [+HUMAN] nouns. All other nouns are

<footnote n="3">³ The predicative status of the adjectives is evidenced in the fact that they are preceded by the past tense marker *té*.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ See Kihm (2005) for a different view.</footnote>
seemingly insensitive to gender distinctions, as reflected by the absence of agreement on adjec-
tives. The evidence adduced thus far suggests, then, that the type of agreement observed falls
under the category of semantic agreement and that grammatical gender does not exist in MQ.
The latter point, however, is challenged by the data presented in the next section.

3 Grammatical gender in Martinican Creole: evidence from the marker of semantic definiteness?

Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis (2014) (henceforth, ZH&JL) argue that MQ distinguishes two markers of definiteness: the enclitic LA marker marks pragmatic definiteness while the proclitic LA- does semantic definiteness.<fnref n="5" /> The latter marker is particularly interesting as it participates in noun alternations between a short and a long form. As illustrated in (6a), the short form denotes a sortal concept, while the long form does an individual concept, as in (6b).<fnref n="6" />

(6) a. Pwof ta'a kòmèt anlo enjistis
teacher DEM-DEF commit a lot injustice
‘This professor committed a lot of injustices (was unfair in many situations).’

b. Lenjistis sé an bagay tout moun rayi
injustice COP a thing everybody hate
‘Injustice is something everybody hates.’
Adapted from Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis (2014: 282)

Based on the data provided by ZH&JL, it would appear that this marker is subject to
phonologically conditioned allomorphy, since it is spelled out as *la* before a consonant or as *l*-before a vowel. Hence, the data in (7).

(7) a. **la**-plaj
LA-beach
‘The beach’

b. la-lwa
LA-law
‘The Law’

c. **l**-enjistis
LA-injustice
‘Injustice’

d. **l**-istwa
LA-history
‘History’

The marker surfaces as *la*- before the consonant-initial roots in (7a) and (7b), and as *l*- before
the vowel-initial roots in (7c) and (7d). Describing this marker, ZH&JL (277) state that

[...] *l(a)*- is historically derived from the French proclitic definite singular article
spelt out *le*, *la* or *l'*, depending on gender specification and the phonological
context. Although inflectional gender is absent from creole, the French article
has entered the creole lexicon by attaching to a number of lexical roots.

<footnote n="5">5 I shall follow ZH&JL in distinguishing individual concepts by writing them with an initial capital in the translations.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 I refer the reader to Löbner (1985, 2011) for an exposé of the theory of definiteness which underlies their analysis.</footnote>
The origin of this marker does not require further discussion, but the issue of “inflectional gender” (i.e. grammatical gender) calls for deeper scrutiny. As a matter of fact, all the nouns ZH&JL offer as examples are either vowel-initial or derived from French feminine nouns. Consider again the data in (7). In (7a) and (7b), *plaj* and *lwa* are historically related to French *plage* ‘beach’ and *loi* ‘law’, both of which are feminine. In (7c) and (7d), *enjistis* and *istwa* are vowel-initial and related respectively to the French feminine nouns *injustice* ‘injustice’ and *histoire* ‘story/history’. ZH&JL do, however, also mention *lesklaval* ‘slavery’, whose root, *esklavaj*, is derived from the French vowel-initial masculine noun *esclavage* ‘slavery’. Crucially, missing from their dataset are roots historically related to French consonant-initial masculine nouns. This gap, I will now argue, obscures two significant facts.

First, contrary to ZH&JL’s claim, the marker of semantic definiteness is not limited in its realization to *la* or *l-*. Observe the data in (8), taken from Confiant (2007). The marker spells out as *li-* in (8a) and as *lè* in (8b). Neither *la-* nor *l-* would be compatible with the roots in either example.

(8) a. **li-wa**
LA-king
‘the King’

b. **lè-pap**
LA-pope
‘the Pope’

The root in (8a) is related to the French consonant-initial masculine noun *roi* ‘king’. In (8b), it is related to *pape* ‘pope’. Crucially, in both examples we are dealing with individual concepts, as reflected in the presence the so-called marker of semantic definiteness. This is confirmed in (9), which shows that the related sortal concepts are incompatible with the so-called marker of semantic definiteness (which I shall continue to refer to as LA- for the sake of convenience).

(9) a. Pé pa ni dé (*li-*)wa
can NEG have two LA-king
‘There cannot be two kings.’

b. Pé pa ni dé (*lè-*)pap
can NEG have two LA-pope
‘There cannot be two popes.’

It is therefore reasonable to assume that *li-* and *lè-* are both realizations of the marker of semantic definiteness. However, these clearly cannot be said to be the result of phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Take the individual concepts in (10).

(10) a. **la-pasians**
LA-patience
‘patience’

b. **la-wont**
LA-shame
‘shame’

These examples readily show that the realization of the marker is not conditioned by any of the following factors: syllable structure, mono- vs. polysyllabicity, initial segment quality. The roots in (9a) and (10b) share the same initial segment, yet differ in which allomorph of LA- attaches
to them. The same goes for (9b) and (10a). Furthermore, while the roots in (9) and in (10b) are all monosyllabic, again, they differ in the realization of LA-. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy, then, does not suffice to account for the form of the marker of semantic definiteness.

Gender must therefore be given consideration as a possible conditioning factor. When LA-
precedes a root that is historically derived from a French consonant-initial masculine noun, it
is spelled out as either *li-* or *lè-* and it is likely that both forms are historically derived from
the French masculine definite article *le*. This begs the question of whether there is a difference
between these forms. Pending further investigation, the best answer I can offer the reader is
that *li-* appears to be an older form restricted in its distribution to a select set of roots such as
wa 'king' and mè 'mayor'. On the other hand, *lè-* seems to be a more recent form, somewhat
phonologically closer to its French etymon and with a larger distribution. This difference in
distribution incidentally raises the question of whether these forms are involved in productive
morphological processes.

To support the view that they are, I would like to adduce the additional facts in (11) and (12).

(11) a. *(Lè-)monn ka pati tjou pou tet
LA-world IMPF leave upside down
‘The world is going crazy.’

b. Man té ké simié viv adan an lot (*lè-)monn
1SG PST IRR prefer live in a other LA-world
‘I would have preferred to live in another world.’

(12) a. *(Lè-)travay enpòtan pou la-dignité
LA-work important for LA-dignity
‘Work is important to one’s sense of dignity.’

b. Jan ni an nouvo (*lè-)travay
John have a new LA-work
‘John has got a new job.’

Again, a straightforward explanation is found in the fact *monn* 'world' and *travay* 'work' are derived from the French masculine nouns, *monde* and *travail*, respectively.

Now, it would make little sense to link the realization of the so-called marker of semantic definiteness to the gender of a noun in another language. It would be as though MQ grammar had no autonomous existence of its own. A more promising alternative, then, is to consider that the realization of LA- is dictated by gender distinctions inherent to MQ. Let us consider whether this hypothesis resists deeper scrutiny.

If MQ does indeed possess grammatical gender, one would expect to find evidence of it in
agreement-like phenomena. Recall that agreement is the standard diagnosis of gender (Corbett
1991; Kramer 2015). On this view, we are led to reject the existence of grammatical gender in
MQ. Recall (2c) and (3c), reproduced here as (11a) and (11b), respectively. It was established
through these examples that agreement in MQ obtains only with nouns that denote [+HUMAN]
entities.

(13) a. * an loto japonez
a car Japanese.F
‘a Japanese car’

b. * Loto a té japonez
car DEF PST Japanese.F
‘The car was Japanese,’
The very same can be said of LA-marked nouns. Regardless of the actual realization of LA- (and thus the gender of the French etymon of the root), agreement fails to obtain when the individual concept is [-HUMAN]. This is illustrated in (14).

(14) a. **Lè**-monn ka vini two visié/*visiez*
LA-world IMPF come too vicious.M/vicious.F
‘The world is becoming too vicious.’

b. **La-lwa** ka vini two visié/*visiez* pou lé maléré
LA-law IMPF come too vicious.M/*vicious.F for DEF destitute
‘The Law is becoming too vicious for the destitute.’

In (14a) and (14b) the predicative adjective<sup>7</sup> surfaces in its default masculine form. This is especially significant in (14b) where *loi* ‘law’, the French etymon of the root, is a feminine noun. We must therefore conclude that, beside *LA-*, there is no evidence for the existence of grammatical gender in MQ. In other words, *LA*-marked nouns do not diverge from other nouns in that respect.

Of course, when LA-marked nouns denote [+HUMAN] entities, semantic agreement obtains, as evidenced in (15).

(15) a. **Lè**-pap té éré/*érez* di wè yo
LA-pope PST happy.M/happy.F of see 3PL
‘The Pope was happy to see them.’

b. **La-rèn** té érez/*éré* di wè yo
LA-queen PST happy.F/happy.M of see 3PL
‘The Queen was happy to see them.’

The patterns in (14) and (15) are consistent with our earlier observations that MQ has natural gender but lacks grammatical gender.

It is nonetheless rather puzzling that the realization of LA- should be dictated by the gender of the French etymon of the root for both human or non-human individual concepts. Take, for instance, (14a) and (15a). In both examples, the root has a French masculine etymon and LA- is then realized as *lè*. Similarly, in (14b) and (15b), where the root has a French feminine etymon, it is spelled out as *la*. Agreement facts, on the other hand, militate against the existence of grammatical gender. This paradox is addressed in section 5, where I argue that ongoing changes in MQ grammar are responsible for this perplexing state of affairs. Before that, I offer an analysis of MQ gender which recasts LA- as the spell-out of *n*.

## 4 Gender in MQ: an account based on the featural properties of *n*

In section 3, I referred to ZH&JL, where it is argued that LA-marked nouns denote individual concepts. In the absence of this marker, the very same root thus denotes a sortal concept. ZH&JL further note that LA- is a proclitic and that no modifier may intervene between it and the noun. Finally, ZH&JL demonstrate that LA-marked nouns behave very much like proper nouns. ZH&JL argue that LA- is a determiner, but I would like to suggest an alternative account under which the various properties of LA- all fall into place, viz. that LA- is the spell-out of a certain flavor of the categorizing head, *n*.

<footnote n="7">7 Because LA-marked nouns denote individual concepts, they are incompatible with modification by attributive objectives. This leaves us with predicative adjectives as the only possible diagnostic.</footnote>
Following ZH&JL, I hold that the semantic contribution of LA- is to turn a sortal concept into an individual concept. This suggests an interesting parallelism between LA- and Bantu noun class markers. Kihm (2005: 497) states that “[c]lass is endowed with a classificatory (i.e., semantic) content of varying richness or relevance with respect to the universe of concepts each language’s particular lexicon expresses.” Kihm further mentions that Manjuku’s class 7 marker participates in the formation of action nouns. Categorially, Bantu noun class markers are instantiations of *n* (Kihm 2005; Kramer 2015) and their function is therefore to form nouns. Let us assume that LA- is on a par with Bantu class markers and, therefore, that it too instantiates *n*.

Under this view, the fact that no modifier can intervene between LA- and the root finds a straightforward explanation. LA- qua categorizer selects the root as its complement, and the root then adjoins to LA- for categorizing purposes. Additionally, the fact that LA- marked nouns behave like proper nouns could be accounted for if we assume that both types of nouns undergo head movement to D à la Longobardi (1994). This would additionally explain why LA-marked nouns cannot cooccur with the enclitic marker of pragmatic definiteness (Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis 2014).<fnref n="8" /> In addition, analyzing LA- as a spell-out of *n* has interesting consequences for gender in MQ.

As a matter of fact, *n* has been identified as the locus of gender in various studies (a.o. Kihm 2005; Kramer 2014, 2015). This is the hypothesis that I shall adopt to account for the properties of gender in MQ. But let us first consider a possible objection to the analysis of LA- as an instantiation of *n*.

ZH&JL argue that LA- should be analyzed as the lexicalization of Num because of nouns such as *lakouyonni* ‘stupidity’. According to them, *lakouyonni* decomposes into the root √KOUYON, the nominalizer -ni and *la-*, the spell-out of Num. Their implicit assumption seems to be that categoryless roots are the only acceptable complements of *n*. This would then justify their postulate that LA- is first merged in Num, rather than *n*. This premise, however, is not warranted.

There is in fact no *a priori* reason why *n* should select only for roots. The literature suggests that *n*Ps may be stacked. This is, for instance, the case in Bantu languages (see Fuchs & van der Wal 2022: and references therein). Since the theory does not preclude this possibility, I assume that there is no reason to exclude an analysis whereby LA- spells out *n*. To illustrate what I have in mind, consider the representation in (16).

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

The first step in the derivation is the merger of √KOUYON with *n*₁, which hosts the nominalizer -ni. Next is the merger of *n*₂, which is lexicalized as *la-*. The arrows in (16) represent the various instantiations of internal merge which ultimately result in the formation of *lakouyonni*. This structure raises questions concerning the featural makeup of *n*₂, the host of LA-.

As was previously mentioned, a crucial property of LA-marked nouns is that they denote individual concepts. Therefore, I propose that one of the features spelled out by LA- is [-SORTAL].

<footnote n="8">⁸ An anonymous reviewer rightly notes that this restriction could also simply be attributed to a clash in the semantics of these two markers. However, this does not in itself account for ZH&JL’s observation that LA-marked nouns behave like proper nouns.</footnote>
This feature is responsible for turning a sortal concept into an individual one. Crucially, [-SORTAL] is not the only feature spelled out by LA-. It also lexicalizes a gender feature: [±FEM]. This accounts for the observation that the actual spell-out of LA- is gender-dependent.<fnref n="9" /> Keep in mind, however, that MQ nouns which are sensitive to natural gender trigger agreement, while those which are sensitive to grammatical gender (as reflected by the form of LA-) do not. That distinction should then be encoded in the grammar. I thus adopt the view that natural gender is an interpretable feature and grammatical gender its uninterpretable counterpart (Bošković 2009, 2011; Kramer 2014, 2015). Finally, I assume that LA- also spells out a [±HUMAN] feature to reflect the fact that the resulting noun denotes either a human or a non-human concept. Of course, we would not want the features [-HUMAN] and i[±FEM] to cooccur. We should therefore posit a rule such as (17) to prevent this.

$$ (17) \quad n i[\pm\text{FEM}] \rightarrow [\text{+HUMAN}] $$

It follows that LA- may thus realize the types of *n* listed in (18).

## (18) Types of *n* spelled out by LA-

a. *n* [-SORTAL] [+HUMAN] i[+FEM] Female natural gender

b. *n* [-SORTAL] [+HUMAN] i[-FEM] Male natural gender

c. *n* [-SORTAL] [-HUMAN] u[+FEM] Feminine grammatical gender

d. *n* [-SORTAL] [-HUMAN] u[-FEM] Masculine grammatical gender

It should be noted that LA-marked nouns are not the only ones which MQ can use to denote individual concepts. ZH&JL provide the example of rimò ‘remorse’, which may denote both sortal and individual concepts. In the latter case, ZH&JL assume that the root √RIMÒ is first adjoined to *n* and then to Num, which they analyze as being the first-merge site of LA-.<fnref n="10" /> Now, on the assumption, which this paper adopts, that LA- spells out *n* when the latter’s feature bundle includes the feature [-SORTAL], it follows that there must also be a phonologically null variant of this flavor of *n*. It is unfortunately very hard to construct examples to determine whether this flavor of *n* also spells out a [±FEM] feature. The adjectives which alternate between a masculine and a feminine form generally denote human qualities and, though statistical evidence is lacking, I tentatively propose that this flavor of *n* is found in nouns which denote [-HUMAN] individual concepts and that it lacks a [±FEM] feature. We must therefore add (19) to the inventory of *ns* that produces individual concepts.

## (19) Non-LA-marked individual concepts

*n* [-SORTAL] [-HUMAN]

<footnote n="9">⁹ An anonymous reviewer suggests an alternative analysis whereby the contribution of French to the MQ lexicon consists in chunks made up of the proclitic definite article and the noun. The basic form of MQ words would therefore correspond to the equivalent French DET+N string. Under this view, a rule of truncation would then target some (but not all) of these basic MQ words and delete the word-initial /l/ and the following vowel. However, I do not consider this proposal to be viable.</footnote>

<footnote>Consider the fact that the output of the hypothesized truncation rule must systematically match the French cognate. By way of illustration, consider the LA-marked individual concepts *laplaj* ‘the beach’ and *lagrikilti* ‘Agriculture’. In one case the truncation rule should produce *plaj* ‘beach’ and in the other *agrikilti* ‘agriculture’, forms which correspond respectively to the French nouns *plage* and *agricutlure*. To account for the discrepancy in the deleted material, the posited truncation rule must then be significantly more complex than what the reviewer suggests. Crucially, it must also presuppose for its proper application that the speaker knows the form of the appropriate French N string. I therefore favor the approach adopted in the paper.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ ZH&JL propose additional movements (including raising to D) which I shall ignore as they are not crucial to this argument.</footnote>
As regards Vocabulary Insertion, I propose the set of rules in (20).

(20) **Rules of Vocabulary Insertion governing the realization of n**

a. $n, [-SORTAL], [+FEM] \leftrightarrow /la/ / \{\sqrt{ENJISTIS}, \sqrt{LWA}, \sqrt{JOUNEN}, n_{-ni}...\}$

b. $n, [-SORTAL], [-FEM] \leftrightarrow /lɛ/ / \{\sqrt{PAP}, \sqrt{MONN}, ...\}$

c. $n, [-SORTAL] \leftrightarrow \emptyset$

Thus, when *n* bears the feature bundle [+SORTAL, +FEM], it is spelled out as *la*-, regardless of the value of the [±HUMAN] feature. When it bears the feature bundle [+SORTAL, -FEM], it is spelled out as *lè*. In all other cases, it is realized by a null morpheme. As regards the variant *l*-, I assume that it simply results from the application of a more general phonological rule of hiatus resolution which applies after (20a) and (20b).

As for agreement, I assume that it depends on the presence of a [+HUMAN] feature. This feature, as we have seen, is associated with natural gender. It follows that agreement will fail to obtain in all other cases. This is obviously problematic if we take agreement to be the defining characteristic of gender, as this would entail that MQ lacks grammatical gender altogether. On this view, however, little sense could be made of LA-marking. I shall therefore attempt to shed some light on this paradox in the next section.

5 **A gender system caught in transition**

If we want to get a better grasp of the paradoxical status of grammatical gender in MQ, there is a
crucial fact that we cannot ignore – the overwhelming majority of MQ speakers are in fact early
bilingual speakers of MQ and French (Bernabé 2004; Bellonie 2011; Beck 2018). In fact, it
may even be that some speakers acquire French before MQ (March 1996; Bernabé 2004; Pustka
2006). Most MQ speakers would therefore possess two grammars – one (French) where gender,
both natural and grammatical, is omnipresent, and one (MQ) where gender plays a secondary
role and is for the most part limited to natural gender. These two languages are also genetically
related and most MQ lexical items have French cognates. If one also accepts the view that there
is no rigid barrier between the two grammars of a bilingual speaker (Grosjean 1989; López
2020), it then becomes easier to make sense of the facts described above.

In a nutshell, what I would like to propose is that MQ is developing a gender system which
includes both natural and grammatical gender, but that this development has not come to its
conclusion yet. It stands to reason that, as a result of French influence, the inventory of *ns* in MQ
has to come to integrate gender-based differences which are no longer limited to human-denoting
concepts. That is, MQ’s *ns* are slowly becoming more similar to their French counterparts with
respect to their featural makeup.

There is, nonetheless, a major difference between French and MQ inventory of *ns*. None
of the French *ns* is spelled out by *la-* or *lè-*.<fnref n="11" /> The phonologically similar *la* and *le* are definite
articles which must be used with individual concepts, as in, e.g., *le soleil* ‘the sun’ or *la patience*
‘la patience’. Of course, the form of the French article depends on the gender of its complement
noun, as reflected in (21).

<footnote n="11">11 Another significant difference is the fact that MQ LA-marked nouns all denote individual concepts. In contrast, the French definite article may be used all sorts of concepts.</footnote>
(21) **Rules of Vocabulary Insertion governing the realization of the definite article<fnref n="12" />**

a. D, [+FEM] ←→ *la*

b. D ←→ *le*

I posit that a process of feature recombination (Aboh 2015) is responsible for the MQ facts. The form of the French definite article has been reanalyzed as the phonological realization of *n* in MQ and, crucially, it is subject to the same gender-based conditioning. That is, the MQ cognate of a French noun is assumed to have the same gender. Thus, the MQ root √PASIANS is licensed by a [+FEM] variant of *n* on the grounds that its French cognate *patience* is also licensed by a [+FEM] variant of *n*. That this process of gender assignment is incomplete is reflected in the fact that there remain roots which remain uncategorized for gender, as evidenced by the fact that they are licensed by the null variant of *n* described in section 4.

Further evidence that this process of gender assignment has not reached its final stage is the fact that it has not yet spread beyond *n*. As a matter of fact, adjectives form the only other category which is sensitive to gender in MQ, but even they do not appear to have developed a sensitivity to gender which goes beyond natural gender. It remains to be seen whether MQ adjectives will become sensitive to grammatical gender.<fnref n="13" />

In summary, I assume that the paradoxical status of grammatical gender in MQ stems from an incomplete process of gender assignment driven by analogy with the French gender system.

**6 Conclusion**

In this paper, contra previous studies (e.g. Bernabé 1994; Neumann-Holzschuh 2006) I have argued that MQ is developing the category of grammatical gender. This claim is based on the observation that the realization of the so-called marker of semantic definiteness studied by Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis (2014) systematically matches that of the French definite article when they are used with cognates. In other words, it appears that the form of this marker is dictated by gender distinctions. I have argued that it is in fact the spell-out of a variant of *n* whose feature bundle includes [-SORTAL] and [±FEM]. Although these facts would suggest that grammatical gender exists in MQ, it may be too early to reach this conclusion as the observed agreement patterns do not (yet?) substantiate this claim. This, I have conjectured, follows from the fact that MQ is gradually developing grammatical gender under the influence of French, the other language spoken by the majority of MQ speakers. This incomplete development has not yet spread beyond *n*.

<footnote n="12">12 This is an obvious oversimplification. More needs to be said about, e.g., the plural form of the article. However, in this paper, I am only interested in the relation between the singular forms of the French article and the realizations of LA- in MQ.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 Gender on adjectives is necessarily an uninterpretable feature, while it may be interpretable on nouns. Whether (un)interpretability plays a role in the process of feature recombination must be left for future research, but it is quite possible that this is a key determinant in MQ's ability to develop gender distinctions beyond nouns.</footnote>
References

Aboh, Enoch. 2015. *The emergence of hybrid grammars: language contact and change.* Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bakker, Peter. 2003. Pidgin inflectional morphology and its implication for creole morphology. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), *Yearbook of morphology 2002*, Dordecht: Kluwer.

Baptista, Marlyse. 2002. *The syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento varieties*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baxter, Alan N. 2010. Vestiges of etymological gender in Malacca Creole Portuguese. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 25(1). 120–154.

Beck, Baptiste. 2018. La transmission des langues en Martinique, en Guadeloupe et à La Réunion. *Cahiers québécois de démographie* 46(2). 241–262.

Bellonie, Jean-David. 2011. Évolution du bilinguisme en Martinique : ce que nous apprennent les déclarations et les pratiques langagières des élèves du primaire. *Recherches Haïtiano-Antillaises* 7. 113–130.

Bernabé, Jean. 1994. Genre grammatical, genre naturel : contrastes, oppositions et interférences en anglais, en créole et en français. *Espace créole* 8. 29–59.

Bernabé, Jean. 2004. Eléments d'écolinguistique appliqués à la situation martiniquaise. In Colette Feuillard (ed.), *Créoles - langages et politiques linguistiques : Actes du XXVIe colloque international de linguistique fonctionnelle - 30 septembre - 7 octobre 2002 à Gosier (Guadeloupe)*, 13–29. Berne: Peter Lang.

Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. *Natural Language & Linguistic Theory* 27(3). 455–496.

Bošković, Željko. 2011. On valued uninterpretable features. *Proceedings of NELS 39* 109–120.

Confiant, Raphaël. 2007. *Dictionnaire créole martiniquais-français*. Matoury: Ibis rouge.

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. *Gender*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DeGraff, Michel. 2001. Morphology in creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), *Ken Hale: A life in language*, 53–121. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fuchs, Zuzanna & Jenneke van der Wal. 2022. The locus of parametric variation in Bantu gender and nominal derivation. *Linguistic Variation* 22(2). 268–324.

Grosjean, François. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware - the bilingual is not 2 monolinguals in one person. *Brain and Language* 36(1). 3–15.

Holm, John. 1990. Features in the noun phrase common to the Atlantic creoles. *Linguistics* 28(4). 867–882.

Holm, John. 2000. *An introduction to pidgins and creoles*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kihm, Alain. 2005. Noun class, gender, and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces: A comparative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), *The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax*, 459–512. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2013. Berbice Dutch structure dataset. In Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), *Atlas of pidgin and creole langauges online*, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Gender in Amharic: a morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. *Language Sciences* 43. 102–115.

Kramer, Ruth. 2015. *The morphosyntax of gender*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. *Journal of Semantics* 4. 279–326.

Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. *Journal of Semantics* 28(3). 279–333.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. *Linguistic Inquiry* 25(4). 609–665.

López, Luis. 2020. *Bilingual grammar*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

March, Christian. 1996. *Le discours des mères martiniquaises : diglossie et créolité, un point de vue sociolinguistique*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid. 2006. Gender in French creoles: The story of a loser. In J. Clancy Clements, Thomas A. Klinger, Deborah Piston-Halten & Kevin J. Rottet (eds.), *History, society and variation: In honor of Albert Valdman*, 251–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pustka, Elissa. 2006. Le mythe du créole L1–et la naissance du français régional aux Antilles. *Romanistisches Jahrbuch* 57. 60–83.

Winford, Donald & Ingo Plag. 2013. Sranan structure dataset. In Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), *Atlas of pidgin and creole languages online*, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne & Loïc Jean-Louis. 2014. From noun to name: Definiteness marking in modern Martinikè. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), *Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference*, 269–315. Leiden: Brill.

Stéphane Térosier
U. Leiden
# Morphologie verbale en créole guadeloupéen : arguments pour une organisation complexe

Delphine Tribout
U. de Lille & STL

Florence Villoing
U. Paris Nanterre & Modyco

Maxime Deglas
U. Paris 8

Fabiola Henri
U. of Buffalo

## 1. Introduction

Cet article se donne pour objectif de convaincre Anne Zribi-Hertz que la morphologie des verbes du créole guadeloupéen est plus complexe qu'elle ne parait, elle dont l'enthousiasme pour l'étude des langues créoles nous a tellement portés, nous conduisant, nous, morphologues et spécialistes du lexique, à vouloir traiter de morphologie là où la doxa reniait la pertinence de cette organisation de la grammaire dans les créoles (Valdman 1978, Seuren & Wekker 1986, McWhorter 1998, par exemple).

Cette question de la complexité morphologique des verbes en guadeloupéen nous a d'autant plus mobilisés que les spécialistes reconnaissent généralement que les verbes de ce créole ne présentent qu'une seule forme (Hazaël-Massieux 2002), alors que dans la plupart des créoles de l'Océan Indien (seychellois, mauricien, réunionnais) ainsi que le louisianais, les verbes connaissent une alternance de formes, traditionnellement appelées forme courte et forme longue (Corne 1982, Syea 1992, Henri 2010) et que nous désignerons simplement sous le nom de formes 1 et 2 (selon l'esprit des travaux de Bonami & Boyé 2002, 2003, dans le courant de la morphologie lexématique). Après un rapide décompte dans nos données, constituées de bases lexicales élaborées par Maxime Deglas et Alice Missud, qui seront décrites en détails en section 2, il semble en effet, que seule une vingtaine de verbes, sur un peu plus de deux mille, alternent entre deux formes (plus précisément, 25 verbes sur 2181, soit 1.46% des données)<fnref n="1" />. Le Tableau 1 fournit quelques exemples.

<footnote n="1">1 Ce chiffre pourrait être légèrement revu à la hausse en fonction des ressources consultées. Par exemple, le lexique verbal de (Henri 2019), élaboré sur la base de plusieurs dictionnaires, compte un peu plus de trente verbes connaissant une alternance de forme.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tableau 1 – Exemples de verbes à deux formes</caption><thead><tr><th>Verbe</th><th>Forme 1</th><th>Forme 2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BAY 'donner'</td><td>ba(n)</td><td>bay</td></tr><tr><td>FÈT 'faire'</td><td>fè</td><td>fèt</td></tr><tr><td>GADÉ 'regarder'</td><td>gay</td><td>gadé</td></tr><tr><td>KENBÉ 'tenir'</td><td>kenn</td><td>kenbé</td></tr><tr><td>MÉTÉ 'mettre'</td><td>mèt</td><td>mété</td></tr><tr><td>VINI 'venir'</td><td>vin</td><td>vini</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nous comptabilisons également quelques très rares verbes comptant trois formes. Le Tableau 2 ci-dessous, présente les quatre exemples trouvés dans nos bases de données. L'étude de ces verbes alternants n'étant, pour le moment, pas encore aboutie, nous ne prendrons pas position sur le fait que ces formes alternantes véhiculent ou non des valeurs grammaticales (c'est-à-dire s'employant dans des contextes morphosyntaxiques spécifiques), ou si elles correspondent plutôt à des variations libres, diatopiques ou diaphasiques. Dans la mesure où ces questions méritent d'être tranchées avant toute analyse, nous proposons de ne pas considérer ces verbes à deux ou trois formes dans notre analyse.

<table><caption>Tableau 2 – Exemples de verbes à trois formes</caption><thead><tr><th>Verbe</th><th>Forme 1</th><th>Forme 2</th><th>Forme 3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FALÉ 'devoir'</td><td>fo</td><td>falé</td><td>fodré</td></tr><tr><td>SAVÉ 'savoir'</td><td>sa</td><td>sav</td><td>savé</td></tr><tr><td>SÉ 'être'</td><td>sé</td><td>yé</td><td>èt</td></tr><tr><td>TINI 'avoir'</td><td>ni</td><td>tin</td><td>tini</td></tr></tbody></table>

Si nous laissons de côté les verbes qui alternent, tous les autres verbes sont *a priori* à considérer comme des lexèmes à forme unique, conduisant ainsi à envisager un paradigme verbal à une seule case en guadeloupéen, comme l'illustre le Tableau 3.

<table><caption>Tableau 3 – Paradigme verbal provisoire</caption><thead><tr><th>Lexème</th><th>Forme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ADMIRÉ 'admirer'</td><td>admiré</td></tr><tr><td>ANRICHI 'enrichir'</td><td>anrichi</td></tr><tr><td>BLOUZÉ 'bouffer'</td><td>blouzé</td></tr><tr><td>CHODÉ 'échauder'</td><td>chodé</td></tr><tr><td>DÉCHOUKÉ 'déraciner'</td><td>déchouké</td></tr></tbody></table>

Cependant, tous les aspects de la morphologie des verbes n'ont pas été pris en compte. Ont notamment été ignorés certains contextes particuliers des verbes tels que le participe présent et le gérondif pour la morphologie flexionnelle, ainsi que la dérivation (affixation et conversion)
et la composition pour la morphologie constructionnelle. C'est à la lumière de ces contextes
morphologiques que nous montrons, dans la suite de l'article, que les verbes guadeloupéens
comptent en réalité deux radicaux qui se distribuent différemment, morphosyntaxiquement
comme morphologiquement.

Nous présentons dans la section 2 les données que nous avons utilisées pour fonder nos
analyses. La section 3 introduit la morphologie lexématique et les espaces thématiques. Les
sections 4 et 5 présentent les arguments qui nous ont conduits à postuler un espace thématique
à deux thèmes pour les verbes guadeloupéens.

## 2. Données

Les analyses présentées sont principalement fondées sur la base de données élaborée par
Maxime Deglas à partir de sa compétence de locuteur natif d'une part, et d'enquêtes de terrain
d'autre part. Celles-ci ont été menées sur différentes îles de la Guadeloupe de 2014 à 2022
(Basse-Terre, Grande-Terre, Marie-Galante, Terre-de-Bas, Terre-de-Haut, Désirade) auprès de
locuteurs natifs du guadeloupéen issus d'une grande diversité de milieux sociaux et âgés de 18
à 85 ans. Enfin, une veille terminologique régulière s'appuyant sur des romans (cf. les auteurs
Joël Perrot, Roger Valy-Plaisant, Malo Thierry dit Timalo, par exemple), des contes, des films,
des émissions radiophoniques et télévisuelles en créole, ainsi que des dictionnaires ou lexiques
du guadeloupéen a permis de compléter la base. Cette base de données contient aujourd'hui plus
de 10.000 entrées lexicales (10 572, pour être précis) dont 2279 verbes et 6601 noms<fnref n="2" />. Elle
présente le triple avantage d'être de taille plus importante que celle des rares et essentiels
dictionnaires ou lexiques existants (Poullet & alii 1984 ; Tourneux & Barbotin, 2009 ; Ludwig
& alii 2012 ; Bernini et alii 2013), de recenser un vocabulaire authentique et contemporain et
d'être enregistrée sous format électronique (permettant une exploitation automatique). De plus,
elle fournit des informations linguistiques concernant la phonologie, la classe syntaxique, le
sens, l'étymologie et des contextes d'emploi traduits (cf. Figure 1, ci-dessous, pour une image
partielle des premiers verbes de la base de données).

<footnote n="2">2 Ces chiffres prennent en compte le dédoublement de certaines entrées pour des raisons de polysémie ; ces dédoublements motivés par la sémantique n'ont pas été pris en compte pour l'étude des radicaux morphologiques que nous menons, ce qui explique que le nombre de verbes que nous étudions est un peu moins important (cf. les 2181 verbes annoncés dans l'introduction).</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th>unités lexicales</th><th>Phonétique</th><th>Cat grammatique</th><th>sens unités lexicales</th><th>Etymologie/racine</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>abo</td><td>[abo]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>essayer sans succès</td><td>&lt; Fr. avoir beau</td></tr><tr><td>aboli</td><td>[aboli]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>annuler juridiquement une pratique</td><td>&lt; Fr. abolir</td></tr><tr><td>aboné</td><td>[abone]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>passer une convention avec un fournisseur</td><td>&lt; Fr. abonner</td></tr><tr><td>abouti</td><td>[abuti]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>obtenir un résultat, avoir une issue favorable</td><td>&lt; Fr. aboutir</td></tr><tr><td>abréjé</td><td>[abreje]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>faire plus court qq chose</td><td>&lt; Fr. abréger</td></tr><tr><td>acharné</td><td>[ajarne]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>poursuivre qq chose avec ardeur</td><td>&lt; Fr. acharner</td></tr><tr><td>achté</td><td>[afte]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>obtenir un bien contre paiement</td><td>&lt; Fr. acheter</td></tr><tr><td>adapté</td><td>[adapte]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>s'ajuster à une circonstance particulière</td><td>&lt; Fr. adapter</td></tr><tr><td>adisyonné</td><td>[adisjone]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>ajouter des nombres l'un à l'autre</td><td>&lt; Fr. additionner</td></tr><tr><td>admét</td><td>[admet]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>reconnaître pour vrai</td><td>&lt; Fr. admettre</td></tr><tr><td>admiré</td><td>[admire]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>éprouver de l'admiration pour qqn ou qqcchose</td><td>&lt; Fr. admirer</td></tr><tr><td>adépté 1</td><td>[adopte]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>faire sien par choix</td><td>&lt; Fr. adopter</td></tr><tr><td>adépté 2</td><td>[adopte]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>prendre pour enfant</td><td>&lt; Fr. adopter</td></tr><tr><td>adoré 1</td><td>[adore]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>rendre une culte à Dieu</td><td>&lt; Fr. adorer</td></tr><tr><td>adosé</td><td>[adose]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>appuyer le dos contre qqchose</td><td>&lt; Fr. adosser</td></tr><tr><td>adrésé</td><td>[adrese]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>exprimer qqchose à l'intention de qqn</td><td>&lt; Fr. adresser</td></tr><tr><td>afalé</td><td>[afale]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>tomber d'épuisement</td><td>&lt; Fr. affaler</td></tr><tr><td>afiché 1</td><td>[afije]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>se montrer en public</td><td>&lt; Fr. afficher</td></tr><tr><td>afiché 2</td><td>[afije]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>publier par voile d'affiche</td><td>&lt; Fr. afficher</td></tr><tr><td>afolé</td><td>[afole]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>perdre la tête dans l'action, s'agiter</td><td>&lt; Fr. affoler</td></tr><tr><td>agasé</td><td>[agase]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>causer un état de nervosité</td><td>&lt; Fr. agacer</td></tr><tr><td>agrafé</td><td>[agrafe]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>fixer au moyen d'agrafes</td><td>&lt; Fr. agrafer</td></tr><tr><td>agrandi</td><td>[agrädi]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>rendre plus grand</td><td>&lt; Fr. agrandir</td></tr><tr><td>agravé</td><td>[agrave]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>devenir plus grave, empirer</td><td>&lt; Fr. aggraver</td></tr><tr><td>agripé</td><td>[agripe]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>se saisir de qqchose et s'y accrocher</td><td>&lt; Fr. agripper</td></tr><tr><td>ajansé</td><td>[aʒãse]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>combiner et ordonner les parties d'1 tout</td><td>&lt; Fr. agencer</td></tr><tr><td>aji</td><td>[aʒi]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>s'exprimer par des actes</td><td>&lt; Fr. agir</td></tr><tr><td>ajisté</td><td>[aʒiiste]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>adapter une chose à une autre</td><td>&lt; Fr. ajuster</td></tr><tr><td>ajouté</td><td>[aʒute]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>joindre qqchose à ce qui existait déjà</td><td>&lt; Fr. ajouter</td></tr><tr><td>akablé</td><td>[akable]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>assaillir qqn de reproches, d'insultes</td><td>&lt; Fr. accabler</td></tr><tr><td>akaparé</td><td>[akapare]</td><td>Verbe</td><td>s'emparer pour son profit</td><td>&lt; Fr. accaparer</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>contextes d'emploi</th><th>traduction</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I abo antréné i pé'é jen kouri pli vit ki Alen.</td><td>Il a beau s'entraîner, il ne courra pas plus vite qu'Alain.</td></tr><tr><td>Yo aboli lèsklavaj an 1848.</td><td>L'esclavage a été aboli en 1848.</td></tr><tr><td>Gran-manman mwen té aboné a jounal 'Clartés'.</td><td>Ma grand-mère était abonnée au journal 'Clartés'.</td></tr><tr><td>Tout mannèv i pòtè, sa pa abouti a ayen.</td><td>La hâte dont il a fait preuve ne lui a pas été bénéfique.</td></tr><tr><td>Kouzen abréjé istwa a'w la, i two long.</td><td>Cousin abrège ton histoire, elle est trop longue.</td></tr><tr><td>Pa acharné w si sé ti zèb-la, an ké mèt dézèrban.</td><td>Ne t'acharne pas sur les petites herbes, j'utiliserai du desherbant.</td></tr><tr><td>Ou ké achté pen-la èvè ki lajan?</td><td>Avec quel argent veux-tu que j'achète le pain ?</td></tr><tr><td>An pa enmé lodè a fimyé-la, mé an ké adapté mwen.</td><td>Je n'aime pas l'odeur du fumier mais je m'adapterai.</td></tr><tr><td>Si w adisyonné lajan a nou tout ni asé pou kado-la.</td><td>Si tu additionnes nos quotes-parts ce sera suffisant pour le cadeau.</td></tr><tr><td>An pé pa admét kè tomat ka kouté osi chè sé jou-lasa.</td><td>Je n'arrive pas à admettre que les tomates coûtent si cher en ce mèt.</td></tr><tr><td>Asé admiré w konsa douvan glas-la !</td><td>Cesse de t'admirer comme tu le fais devant le miroir.</td></tr><tr><td>On lanné Patrik pasé Dominik, i adépté tout mès a yo.</td><td>Patrick a passé une année à Dominique, il en a adopté les us et co.</td></tr><tr><td>Si an pa té ni timoun an té'é adépté on tifi.</td><td>Si je n'avais pas eu d'enfants j'aurais adopté une petite fille.</td></tr><tr><td>Nou adoré Léspri-Sen san konprann. M Rippon. Pègmèl.</td><td>Nous avons adoré l'esprit saint sans comprendre de quoi il s'agisse.</td></tr><tr><td>Moun-la ki adosé si pòt-la sé prèmyé fiy a mè-la.</td><td>La personne adossée à la porte est la première fille du maire.</td></tr><tr><td>Dépi mwa pasé Mariz pa'a adrésé mwen lapawòl.</td><td>Maryse ne m'a pas adressé la parole depuis le mois dernier.</td></tr><tr><td>Si ou ka chèché Polo, i afalé an bèrsèz-la.</td><td>Si tu cherches Polo tu le trouveras affalé dans le siège à bascule.</td></tr><tr><td>Ou pò' jen vwè mè-la afiché y èvè madanm a'y.</td><td>Je n'ai jamais vu le maire s'afficher avec sa femme.</td></tr><tr><td>Yo ké afiché rézilta a bak dèmen a uitè.</td><td>Ils afficheront les résultats du baccalauréat demain à huit heures.</td></tr><tr><td>Pa afolé w, nou ké touvé on solisyon.</td><td>Ne t'affole pas, nous allons trouver une solution.</td></tr><tr><td>Pa agasé Anita i ja ni asé sousi pou jòdila.</td><td>N'agace pas Anita, elle a déjà eu assez de soucis aujourd'hui.</td></tr><tr><td>Agrafé sé fèy-la ansanm pou distribiyé yo.</td><td>Agrafe les feuilles ensemble afin de les distribuer.</td></tr><tr><td>Aprézan Toni ni twa timoun, fò'y agrandi kaz-la.</td><td>Maintenant Toni a trois enfants, il faut qu'il agrandisse sa maison.</td></tr><tr><td>Léta a manman agravé, fò nou menné y lopital.</td><td>L'état de notre mère s'est aggravé, il faut qu'on l'emmène à l'hôpital.</td></tr><tr><td>Si y pa té agripé y a pyé-bwa-la, an sèten i té'é néyé.</td><td>S'il ne s'était pas agrippé à l'arbre, je suis sûr qu'il se serait noyé.</td></tr><tr><td>Ni li, ni fanm a'y pa ni pon gou pou ajansé mèb a yo.</td><td>Lui et sa femme n'ont aucun goût pour agencer leurs meubles.</td></tr><tr><td>Moun ki ka aji pa ni tan palé.</td><td>Ceux qui agissent n'ont pas le temps de parler.</td></tr><tr><td>Lenj a Kristina toujou byen ajisté.</td><td>Les vêtements de Christina sont toujours ajustés à sa taille.</td></tr><tr><td>Ajouté tibwen sèl an diri-la.</td><td>Ajoute un peu de sel dans le riz.</td></tr><tr><td>Pa akablé y, dèpi madanm a'y pati i pa ni tout tèt a'y.</td><td>Ne l'accable pas, depuis que sa femme est partie, il n'a plus toute.</td></tr><tr><td>Sé vòlè-la akaparé tou sa ki té an magazen-la.</td><td>Les voleurs ont accaparé toutes les marchandises du magasin.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Figure 1 – Premiers verbes de la base de données de Deglas.

Nous avons complété nos données d'analyse avec les listes élaborées par Alice Missud à partir d'un corpus constitué automatiquement sur la base de données textuelles et orales variées extraites de pages internet (cf. Missud 2018; www.pluritalice.wordpress.com; onglet « Créoles »). Ce corpus rassemble une grande variété de genres textuels (poésies, essais, extraits d'ouvrages littéraires et contes, proverbes, paroles de chansons de musique traditionnelle – gwoka – ou moderne – rap, bouyon, zouk, reggae) et un corpus oral. Ce corpus du guadeloupéen contient 93 258 tokens (« mots ») pour 12 550 types (« entrées de dictionnaire »), dont ont été extraites les paires verbe-nom/adjectif.

### 3. Présentation de la morphologie lexématique et des espaces thématiques

Notre étude s'inscrit dans le cadre de la morphologie lexématique qui établit la distinction entre le lexème, unité lexicale abstraite de tout contexte syntaxique (noté en petites capitales), et ses différentes réalisations concrètes dans des contextes syntaxiques, appelées mots-formes (notées en italiques) (Matthews 1972). La plupart des lexèmes possèdent un ensemble organisé de radicaux, ou thèmes, qui sont nécessaires à la formation de leur paradigme flexionnel (Bonami & Boyé 2002, 2003) et qui constituent ce qu'on appelle son espace thématique. Chaque thème permet de construire une ou plusieurs formes fléchies du lexème. Par exemple, dans le cas du lexème *BOIRE*, le thème /byv/ permet de construire les formes fléchies des première et deuxième personnes du pluriel au présent de l'indicatif *buvons* (/byvɔ:l/) et *buvez* (/byvɛ:/) mais aussi toutes formes de l'imparfait : *buvais* (/byvɛ/), *buvait* (/byvɛ/), *buviez* (/byvje/) etc.

Un thème est une forme pure, un *morphome* dans les termes d'Aronoff (1994) : il ne porte aucune information sémantique ni morphosyntaxique, comme le montre l'exemple du thème /byv/. En effet, celui-ci est exploité par la flexion pour former plusieurs mots-formes du paradigme sans qu'il n'y ait aucun trait morphosyntaxique commun à tous ces mots-formes. Il est aussi utilisé par la dérivation puisque ce même thème permet de construire les dérivés *BUVEUR* et *BUVABLE*, sans que ces derniers ne présentent aucun trait sémantique ou morphosémantique commun avec les formes fléchies de l'imparfait ou des première et deuxième personnes pluriel du présent de l'indicatif. Un thème peut permettre de former une forme fléchie par suffixation, comme dans le cas de *buvons*, *buvez*, *buvais*, *buvait*, *buviez*, etc. qui sont toutes suffixées à partir du thème /byv/. Mais il peut aussi donner lieu à une forme fléchie par identité : ainsi, le lexème *BOIRE*, possède un thème /bwa/ qui permet de construire les formes *bois* (/bwa/) et *boit* (/bwa/) sans ajout de suffixe.

Tous les lexèmes d'une même catégorie ont le même espace thématique. Pour le français, Bonami et Boyé ont montré qu'il est nécessaire de postuler 12 thèmes dans l'espace thématique des verbes afin de rendre compte de tous les cas observés. Ces thèmes sont numérotés de 1 à 12 et servent à construire les différentes parties du paradigme. Des règles d'implication permettent de déduire un thème à partir d'un autre, de sorte qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de connaître les 12 thèmes de chaque verbe. Par exemple :

* par défaut le thème 2 est identique au thème 1 ;

* par défaut le thème 3 est identique au thème 2 ;

* par défaut le thème 9 est identique au thème 1+ /e/ etc.

Le Tableau 4 ci-dessous illustre les trois premiers thèmes pour cinq verbes.
<table><caption>Tableau 4 – Trois premiers thèmes de l’espace thématique</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Emploi</th><th>LAVER</th><th>FINIR</th><th>MOURIR</th><th>DEVOIR</th><th>BOIRE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>ind. présent 1/2 PL<br>imparfait</td><td>lav</td><td>finis</td><td>muï</td><td>dəv</td><td>byv</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>ind. présent 3PL</td><td>lav</td><td>finis</td><td>mœï</td><td>dwav</td><td>bwav</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>ind. présent SG</td><td>lav</td><td>fini</td><td>mœï</td><td>dwa</td><td>bwa</td></tr></tbody></table>

La morphologie constructionnelle peut également utiliser plusieurs thèmes d’un même lexème pour construire ses différents dérivés. Par exemple pour le verbe *BOIRE*, la suffixation en *-eur* construit *BUVEUR* à partir du thème 1 (/byv/), tandis que la composition construit *BOIT-TOUT* à partir du thème 3 (/bwa/). Par ailleurs, Bonami, Boyé et Kerleroux (2009) ont montré qu’il est nécessaire de postuler un treizième thème dans l’espace thématique des verbes pour rendre compte de plusieurs procédés dérivationnels, notamment les suffixations en *-eur/-rice* (ex. FORMATEUR), en *-ion* (ex. FORMATION) et en *-if* (ex. FORMATIF).

Dans la suite de cet article, nous montrons que le paradigme verbal du créole guadeloupéen est plus complexe que ne l’affirme la tradition et que ce paradigme repose sur un espace thématique dont nous identifions les différents thèmes.

# 4. Identification du thème A des verbes guadeloupéens

## 4.1. Arguments flexionnels

Comme cela a été évoqué dans l'introduction, les verbes guadeloupéens sont généralement considérés comme des lexèmes ayant une seule forme fléchie, si bien que leur paradigme semble se limiter à une seule case (cf. Tableau 3). Cependant, tous les contextes d'emploi des verbes n'ont pas été pris en compte. En effet, en plus de la forme jusqu'ici reconnue, la plupart des verbes ont une forme de participe présent, comme le montrent les exemples en (1).

(1) DECHOUKE 'déraciner' → déchoukan 'déracinant'
DEKALFOUKE 'se comporter violemment' → dékalfoukan 'se comportant violemment'
GOUME '(se) battre' → gouman 'battant'
KOURI 'se déplacer rapidement' → kouran 'se déplaçant rapidement'
MADRAGE 'escroquer' → madragan 'escroquant'
MANGANNE 'se lamenter' → mangannan 'se lamentant'
MIGANNE 'mélanger' → migannan 'mélangeant'
PIPIGNE 'faire des petites bouchées' → pipignan 'faisant des petites bouchées'
POUPOULE 'irriter' → poupoulan 'irritant'

Ces formes en -an apparaissent très souvent dans la construction “an X” équivalente au gérondif en français, comme le montrent les exemples (2) à (4).

(2) an déchoukan pyé-mango-la Jan koupé men a'y en déraciner-PRS.PTCP manguier DET Jean couper main à 3SG 'en déracinant le manguier, Jean s'est coupé la main'
(3) sé an madragan frè é zanmi kè Pòl fè kaz a'y c'est en escroquant-PRS.PTCP frère et ami que Paul faire maison à 3SG 'c'est en escroquant frères et amis que paul a construit sa maison'

(4) Pa désann an kouran, ou ké tonbé. NEG descendre en courant, 2SG FUT tomber 'Ne descends pas en courant, tu vas tomber'

Notons que l'existence d'une forme de participe présent n'est pas nécessairement partagée par tous les locuteurs ni pour tous les verbes, des tournures syntaxiques étant parfois privilégiées en lieu et place des participes présents. En effet, il semblerait que les formes de participe présent des verbes soient davantage réalisées dans des textes récents et par des locuteurs plutôt jeunes, laissant supposer une influence du français contemporain<fnref n="3" />. Le fait que le créole guadeloupéen et le français soient des langues en contact, que la seconde est la langue lexificatrice de la première et qu'en conséquence, des phénomènes de code switching et d'emprunts (possiblement biunivoques) existent entre les deux langues, pourraient expliquer cette évolution. Nonobstant ces préférences et variations, les enquêtes que nous avons menées auprès des locuteurs natifs nous conduisent à considérer l'existence d'une forme de participe présent pour les verbes du créole guadeloupéen, au moins dans certaines variétés et pour certains locuteurs.

Indépendamment des verbes qui alternent (et que nous ne traitons pas ici, cf. Tableaux 1 et 2 ci-dessus), il faut donc réviser la doxa et considérer un paradigme verbal à au moins deux cases comme dans le Tableau 5.

<table><caption>Tableau 5 – Paradigme verbal définitif</caption><thead><tr><td>Lexème</td><td>Participe présent</td><td>Autre forme</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DÉCHOUKÉ</td><td>déchoukan</td><td>déchouké</td></tr><tr><td>DÉKALFOUKÉ</td><td>dékalfoukan</td><td>dékalfouké</td></tr><tr><td>GOUMÉ</td><td>gouman</td><td>goumé</td></tr><tr><td>KOURI</td><td>kouran</td><td>kouri</td></tr><tr><td>MADRAGÉ</td><td>madragan</td><td>madragé</td></tr><tr><td>MANGANNÉ</td><td>mangannan</td><td>manganné</td></tr><tr><td>MIGANNÉ</td><td>migannan</td><td>miganné</td></tr><tr><td>PIPIGNÉ</td><td>pipignan</td><td>pipigné</td></tr><tr><td>POUPOULÉ</td><td>poupoulan</td><td>poupoulé</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="3">3 Comme nous le suggère un relecteur anonyme que nous remercions, il faudrait également vérifier l'influence de l'existence d'un cognat français pour chaque verbe, la formation du participe présent pouvant être dépendante de ce facteur.</footnote>
Dans la mesure où le paradigme verbal comprend deux mots-formes, il paraît nécessaire de postuler un thème permettant de les construire. D'après les données que nous avons observées, et dont le Tableau 5 constitue une illustration, ces mots-formes pourraient être construits par suffixation de -an pour la forme de participe présent, et par suffixation de -é ou -i pour l'autre forme, à partir d'un thème commun se terminant généralement par une consonne. Nous proposons d'appeler ce thème, le thème A. L'espace thématique des verbes guadeloupéens pourrait donc ressembler au Tableau 6.

<table><caption>Tableau 6 – Espace thématique provisoire</caption><thead><tr><td>Lexème</td><td>Thème A</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DÉCHOUKÉ</td><td>déchouk</td></tr><tr><td>DÉKALFOUKÉ</td><td>dékalfouk</td></tr><tr><td>GOUMÉ</td><td>goum</td></tr><tr><td>KOURI</td><td>kour</td></tr><tr><td>MADRAGÉ</td><td>madrag</td></tr><tr><td>MANGANNÉ</td><td>mangann</td></tr><tr><td>MIGANNÉ</td><td>migann</td></tr><tr><td>PIPIGNÉ</td><td>pipign</td></tr><tr><td>POUPOULÉ</td><td>poupoul</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2. Arguments constructionnels

Dans la mesure où la morphologie constructionnelle utilise l'espace thématique d'un lexème pour construire ses dérivés, comme nous l'avons vu en section 3, elle apporte un second argument à la postulation du thème A. En effet, nous avons analysé différentes règles de suffixation formant des noms ou des adjectifs à partir de verbes et toutes argumentent en faveur d'un thème A dans l'espace thématique des verbes.

Ainsi, nous avons observé un certain nombre de suffixes déverbaux du guadeloupéen qui répondent aux critères suivants : (i) les lexèmes faisant apparaître ces suffixes sont en relation morphologique avec des verbes, qui correspondent à leur base ; (ii) ces suffixes permettent de former de façon réglée des lexèmes guadeloupéens inexistants en français, ce qui témoigne du fait qu'ils relèvent de la morphologie du créole (bien que certains lexèmes portant également ces suffixes puissent être hérités du français). Les exemples en (5) illustrent la suffixation en -aj, ceux en (6) la suffixation en -asyon, ceux en (7) la suffixation en -ad, et ceux en (9) la suffixation en -man, qui forment toutes des noms d'événement ou de résultat à partir de verbes. Les exemples en (8) illustrent la suffixation en -è/èz qui forme des noms d'agent.

(5) BOKANTE 'échanger' → BOKANTAJ 'échange'
CHODE 'échauder' → CHODAJ 'spécialité culinaire'
DECHOUKE 'déraciner' → DECHOUKAJ 'fait de déraciner'
LYANNE 'unir' → LYANNAJ 'association'
MAWONNE 's'évader, vivre comme un marron' → MAWONNAJ 'marronage'
RAKASIYE 'faire les finitions' → RAKASIYAJ 'finitions'
(6) ANMERDE ‘emmerder’ → ANMERDASYON ‘emmerde’
ASASINE ‘assassiner’ → ASASINASYON ‘massacre, tuerie’
DEKALFOUKE ‘se comporter violemment’ → DEKALFOUKASYON ‘action violente’
DRIVAGE ‘aller ça et là sans but fixe’ → DRIVAGASYON ‘balade sans but précis’
MOUVMANTE ‘agiter’ → MOUVMANTASYON ‘désordre’
PROFITE ‘tirer profit’ → PROFITASYON ‘action d’abuser de la faiblesse de qqn’

(7) BABOULE ‘se moquer de’ → BABOULAD ‘différent entre deux personnes’
GLINGSE ‘glisser’ → GLINGSAD ‘glissade’
GOUYE ‘remuer’ → GOUYAD ‘mouvement léger’
TRANBLE ‘trembler’ → TRANBLAD ‘le fait de trembler’

(8) CHOME ‘s’amuser’ → CHOME/EZ ‘personne qui aime faire la fête’
DJOBE ‘travailler’ → DJOBE/EZ ‘travailleur/euse’
DRIVE ‘flâner’ → DRIVE/EZ ‘flâneur/euse’
KOURI ‘courir’ → KOURE/EZ ‘coureur/euse’
PIPIGNE ‘faire des petites bouchées’ → PIPIGNE/EZ ‘personne qui mange lentement’
RAPYANNE ‘vivre chichement’ → RAPYANNE/EZ ‘avare’

Une première étude de Villoing & Deglas (2016, § 4.3.2.), qui n’envisageait pas l’existence du thème A des verbes parce que ne reconnaissant qu’une seule forme verbale (celle à finale vocalique), comme le voulait la tradition, proposait l’analyse suivante : les suffixes -aj, -è/èz, et -asyon, en s’adjoignant au verbe, se substituent systématiquement à la finale vocalique du verbe de base, afin d’éviter un hiatus à la frontière entre radical et suffixe. Les auteurs concluaient ainsi à une allomorphie du verbe dans le contexte (très majoritaire) où celui-ci présente une finale vocalique. Cette allomorphie résulte alors de l’élision de la voyelle finale du verbe devant la voyelle initiale du suffixe. Ainsi, un verbe comme BOKANTE ‘échanger’ qui se termine par la voyelle -é, et un verbe comme KOURI ‘courir’ qui se termine par -i, étaient analysés comme subissant l’élision de leur voyelle finale afin d’adjoindre les suffixes déverbaux à initiale vocalique pour former les dérivés comme BOKANTAJ ‘échange’ et KOURE ‘coureur’.

Cependant, avec le thème A tel que celui-ci a été postulé en section 4.1, il n’est pas nécessaire de recourir à l’élision de la voyelle finale des verbes lors d’une suffixation. En effet, toutes les suffixations présentées dans les exemples (5) à (8) peuvent être analysées comme construites à partir du thème A du verbe base. En outre, Henri, Stump & Tribout (2020) ont montré que la voyelle finale du verbe disparait également devant le suffixe à initiale consonantique -man, comme le montrent les exemples (9).

(9) CHOUBOULE ‘bouleverser’ → CHOUBOULMAN ‘action de provoquer une vive émotion’
DEBOULE ‘dévaler, dégringoler’ → DEBOULMAN ‘éboulement, glissement de terrain’
DEBONDATE ‘presser qqn’ (métaphorique) (lit. ‘lever son cul de la chaise’ (vulgaire))
→ DEBONDATMAN ‘action de presser qqn’ ‘action de lever son cul de la chaise’
POUPOULE ‘agacer, embêter’ → POUPOULMAN ‘agacement’
PROTEJE ‘protéger’ > PROTEJMAN ‘amulette pour se protéger des mauvais sorts’

Les dérivés en -man ne peuvent pas être le résultat d’une élision de la voyelle finale du verbe qui serait conditionnée phonologiquement. Ils ne peuvent donc s’analyser autrement que par le recours au thème A du verbe.
Ainsi, les différentes suffixations étudiées apportent un argument supplémentaire à la présence d'un thème A dans l'espace thématique des verbes guadeloupéens : les dérivés en -man parce que leur forme n'est pas explicable sans l'existence de ce thème A et les dérivés en -aj, -ad, -asyon et -è/èz parce qu'ils sont plus facilement analysables grâce au thème A. En effet, une fois posée l'existence du thème A, nécessaire pour rendre compte du participe présent et des dérivés en -man, il est moins coûteux d'analyser les dérivés en -aj, -ad, -asyon et -è/èz comme formés sur le thème A que par élision de la voyelle finale du verbe.

## 5. Identification du thème B des verbes

Jusqu'à maintenant, nous avons montré que les verbes guadeloupéens ont un paradigme à deux formes : une forme de participe présent et une autre forme, non spécifiée. Nous avons aussi argumenté en faveur d'un thème A qui permettrait de construire ce paradigme : le participe présent serait alors formé en suffixant -an au thème A, tandis que l'autre forme serait obtenue en suffixant -é ou -i au thème A, selon les verbes. Ces différents suffixes seraient donc des suffixes flexionnels, ou, en d'autres termes, des désinences, qui permettraient de construire les formes fléchies du verbe, au même titre que -ons ou -ez en français forment les première et deuxième personnes du pluriel au présent de l'indicatif.

Cependant, l'examen des données formées par la morphologie constructionnelle nous amène à postuler un second thème dans l'espace thématique des verbes. En effet, comme nous allons le voir dans cette section, la préfixation, la composition et la conversion n'opèrent pas sur le thème A du verbe, mais semblent requérir un autre thème.

### 5.1. Préfixation

Un premier témoignage de la nécessité d'un thème supplémentaire est apporté par le préfixe dé- qui sélectionne des bases verbales pour former des verbes dont le sens indique le processus inverse de celui qui est dénoté par sa base (10).

(10) BWARE 'enlacer' → DEBWARE 'désenlacer'
FACHE 'être faché' → DEFACHE 'ne plus être fâché'
GARE 'garer, stationner' → DEGARE 'sortir de la place de garage, de stationnement'
LAKE 'mettre un appât (pêche)' → DELAKE 'perdre son appât'
LYANNE 's'unir' → DELYANNE 'se désunir'
MAYE 'marier' → DEMAYE 'rompre un mariage'
PLEN 'remplir' → DEPLEN 'vider un récipient de son contenu'
RESPEKTE 'respecter' → DERESPEKTE 'manquer de respect'
VIRE 'tourner' → DEVIRE 'tourner en sens inverse'

Comme le montrent les exemples (10), les verbes préfixés en dé- ne sont pas construits à partir du thème A de leur base, qui est gar pour GARE et vir pour VIRE, par exemple, comme nous pouvons le voir dans les exemples (11) mettant en jeu le participe présent des verbes GARE et VIRE. De la même façon, le Tableau 7, qui met en regard certains verbes préfixés de (10) avec les dérivés suffixés de leur base, montre que les préfixés en dé- ne sont pas construits sur le même thème que les suffixés.
(11) a. Fè atansyon a masonn-la an **garan** vwati-la
Faire attention à mur DET en garant voiture DET
‘Fais attention au mur en garant la voiture’

b. Sé an **viran** two vit kè Jan fè aksidan-la
C'est en virer trop vite que Jean faire accident DET
'C'est en tournant trop vite que Jean a eu l'accident'
<table><thead><tr><td>Verbe base</td><td>Thème A</td><td>Dérivés par suffixation</td><td>Préfixés en dé-</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BWARÉ</td><td>bwar</td><td>BWARAJ 'êtreinte'</td><td>DÉBWARÉ</td></tr><tr><td>GARÉ</td><td>gar</td><td>GARAJ 'garage'</td><td>DÉGARÉ</td></tr><tr><td>LYANNÉ</td><td>lyann</td><td>LYANNAJ 'association'</td><td>DÉLYANNÉ</td></tr><tr><td>VIRÉ</td><td>vir</td><td>VIRAJ 'virage'</td><td>DÉVIRÉ</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tableau 7 – Exemples de suffixés et de préfixés dérivés des mêmes verbes.</caption><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Si les préfixés en *dé-* étaient construits à partir du thème A de leur verbe base, nous devrions observer les verbes dérivés *DEBWAR, *DEFACH, *DEGAR, *DEVIR, etc., plutôt que DEBWARE, DEFACHE, DEGARE, DEVIRE, etc. Cependant, ces verbes n'appartiennent pas au créole guadeloupéen. Une autre solution pour rendre compte de la construction des verbes préfixés à partir du thème A, envisagée par un de nos relecteurs, consisterait à former ces verbes en deux étapes : une première étape construirait une forme préfixée sur le Thème A (par exemple DE-BWAR, DE-FACH, DE-GAR, DE-VIR), et une seconde étape construirait la forme des verbes en (10) par suffixation en *-é* (par exemple DEBWAR-E, DEFACH-E, DEGAR-E, DEVIR-E). Cependant, cette analyse ne nous convainc pas dans la mesure où l'étape intermédiaire Préfixe-Thème A (*DEBWAR, *DEFACH, *DEGAR, *DEVIR) n'existe pas. Il nous semble ainsi plus convaincant d'envisager que les verbes préfixés en *dé-* ne soient pas formés à partir du thème A de leur base mais construits en ajoutant le préfixe *dé-* à la forme non spécifiée du verbe. Or, on considère généralement, suite aux discussions qui ont particulièrement animé la littérature entre les années 1970 et 2000 (par exemple, Matthews 1974, Anderson 1992, Booij 1996, Fradin 2003, Kerleroux 2004, parmi d'autres), que la morphologie constructionnelle s'applique à des lexèmes (et, d'un point de vue phonologique, aux thèmes de ces lexèmes) et non à des formes fléchies. Cela signifie que ce qui correspond à la forme fléchie non spécifiée constitue également un thème du verbe, tout comme *lav, fini, mœv, dwa* ou *bwa* en français (cf. Tableau 4).

## 5.2. Composition

La composition offre un autre argument en faveur d'un thème supplémentaire dans l'espace thématique des verbes guadeloupéens.

Suivant les hypothèses de la morphologie lexématique, nous considérons que certaines constructions relèvent de la composition morphologique à la condition minimale qu'elles associent des thèmes de lexèmes selon une relation phonologique, catégorielle et sémantique réglée et stable (cf. Fradin 2003, Booij 2005, Montermini 2010, Villoing 2012, entre autres). Le créole guadeloupéen exploite plusieurs schémas de composition, mais nous ne retenons que la composition Verbe-Nom (désormais « composition VN ») pour exemplifier précisément notre propos, et excluons de l'étude la composition Verbe-Verbe dans la mesure où les frontières entre ce schéma de formation et les séries verbales restent encore à définir (cf. Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis 2021). Nous excluons également les mots composés issus de la lexicalisation d'une phrase ou d'un syntagme, tels que ceux en (12), qui, par définition, ne relèvent pas d'une formation morphologique (12a. est un syntagme verbal directement hérité de la langue lexificatrice, le français ; 12b. suit la syntaxe standard d'un syntagme ou d'une phrase du créole guadeloupéen).
(12) a. LESE-PASE (lit. ‘laisser-passer’) ‘esquive’
b. RETE-TRANKIL (lit. ‘rester tranquille’) ‘mauvais sort’

Parmi les composés VN qui serviront de base à notre démonstration, ne seront pas pris en compte les noms et adjectifs composés VN hérités du français (cf. 13), non pas parce qu’ils sont hérités (nous suivons Henri (2021) selon laquelle le lexique français hérité peut aussi faire système dans les langues créoles) mais parce que ces composés hérités l’ont été en très petit nombre et qu’ils ne semblent pas productifs. En effet, notre base de données ne compte que de rares exemples de noms et adjectifs composés VN construits en créole guadeloupéen (cf. les exemples en (14), dénotant des entités (14a) ou des événements (14b) et l’adjectif composé en (15)). À la différence des composés VN du français, les composés VN du guadeloupéen ne construisent que très rarement des noms ou des adjectifs : sur les 70 composés VN guadeloupéens de nos données, seuls 11 relèvent des catégories nom ou adjectif, ne représentant que 16% des données.

Ces rares exemples laissent ainsi supposer que ce schéma morphologique n’a pas survécu en créole guadeloupéen, ou éventuellement à la marge.

(13) GAD-MANJE ‘garde-manger’ ( ← GADE ‘garder, conserver’)
GANGN-PEN ‘gagne-pain’ ( ← GANGNE ‘gagner’)
POT-KLE ‘porte-clé’, POT-MONNE ‘porte-monnaie’, POT-WVA ‘porte-voix’ ( ← POTE ‘porter’)
SER-JWEN ‘serre-joint’, SER-TET ‘serre-tête’ ( ← SERE ‘serrer’)
TAY-KREYON ‘taille-crayon’ ( ← TAYE ‘tailler’)
TIR-BOUCHON ‘tire-bouchon’ ( ← TIRE ‘tirer’)
TOUNVIS ‘tournevis’ ( ← TOUNE ‘tourner’)

(14) a. GADE ‘protéger’ → GAD-KOKOT ‘chaperon’ (lit. garder-cocotte)
GADE ‘protéger’ → GAD-VAN ‘brise-vent’ (lit. garder-vent)
GRAJE ‘râper’ → GRAJE-MANGNOK ‘chant lors des tâches liées au manioc’ (lit. râper-manioc)
MANJE ‘manger’ → MANJ-ZEB ‘oiseau’ (lit. manger-herbe)
MANJE ‘manger’ → MANJ-MOUN ‘sauvage, rustre’ (lit. manger-homme)
CHANTE ‘chanter’ → CHANTE-CHARI ‘chant de labour’ (lit. chanter-charrue)
FLERI ‘fleurir’ → FLERI-NWEL ‘plante qui fleurit à Noël’ (lit. fleurir-Noël)
b. CHANTE ‘chanter’ → CHANTE-NWEL ‘réunion pour chanter les cantiques de Noël’ (lit. chanter-Noël)

(15) KOLE ‘coller’ → KOLE-JIMEL ‘se dit de fruits jumeaux’ (lit. coller-jumeaux)

Parmi les composés VN présents dans nos bases de données, nous n’étudions donc que ceux formés en créole et qui semblent manifester une certaine productivité, à savoir les verbes composés VN. En effet, sur les 70 composés VN guadeloupéens de nos données, 59 sont des verbes, représentant ainsi 74% des composés VN (exemples en (16), avec un contexte d’emploi). Ce schéma morphologique, bien qu’inexistant en français est cependant parfaitement disponible pour d’autres langues, dont le chinois mandarin (cf. Basciano 2010, Ceccagno & Basciano 2007, Ceccagno & Basciano 2009), le japonais (cf. Kageyama (2009), ou le néerlandais (cf. Don 2009), pour ne citer qu’elles.
(16) a. **CHIRE** 'déchirer' → **CHIRE-BIYE** 'cesser d'être en bons termes (lit. déchirer-billet)
Mariz é Chantal chiré-biyé dépi jou a plaj-la.
Mayse et Chantal brouiller depuis jour à plage DET<fnref n="4" />
'Maryse et Chantal sont brouillés depuis notre fameux jour de plage'

b. **FOUTE** 'donner, mettre' → **FOUTE-FE** 's'y mettre avec intensité (pop)' (lit. donner-fer)
Si nou pa fouté-fè nou pé ké fin koulé dal-la jòdla.
Si 1PL NEG activer 1PL NEG FUT finir couler dalle DET aujourd'hui
'Si nous n'activons pas, nous n'aurons pas fini de couler la dalle aujourd'hui.'

c. **GADE** 'regarder' → **GADE-ZAFE** 'pratiquer la croyance' (lit. 'regarder-affaire')
Lidi, fiy a Adòlfa ka gadé-zafè dèpi mwa pasé
Lydie fille à Adolpha IMP pratiquer_la_voyance depuis mois passé.
'Lydie, la fille d'Adolpha pratique la voyance depuis le mois dernier'

d. **KONTE** 'conter' → **KONTE-REZON** 'rouspéter' (lit. conter-raison)
Lè ou ké fin konté-rézon, ay achté pen-la.
Quand 2sg FUT finir rouspéter aller acheter pain DET
'Quand tu auras fini de rouspéter, va acheter le pain'

e. **MONTE** 'monter' → **MONTE-KONPLO** 'comploter' (lit. monter-complot)
An sèten zò monté-konplo pou Erik pa rivé prèmyé an kous-la
1SG certain 2PL comploter pour Eric NEG arriver premier dans course DET
'Je suis sûr que vous avez comploté afin qu'Éric ne soit pas le premier à la course'

f. **PLERE** 'pleurer' → **PLERE-GWODLO** 'pleurer à chaudes larmes' (lit. pleurer-gros-eau)
A pa pas zanmi a'w pa vin pou'w pléré-gwodlo konsa.
C'est NEG parce_ que ami à 2SG NEG venir pour 2SG pleurer beaucoup ainsi
'Ce n'est pas parce que ton amie n'est pas venue, qu'il faut pleurer à chaudes larmes
comme tu le fais'

g. **VIRE** 'tourner' → **VIRE-DO** 'abandonner' (lit. tourner-dos)
Si'w pa té viré'y do, Klòd té ké mété dézòd an ménaj a'w.
Si 2SG NEG ANT virer. 3SG-dos Claude ANT FUT mettre désordre dans ménage à 2SG
'Si tu n'avais pas coupé les ponts avec lui, Claude aurait brisé ton ménage'

Comme dans le cas des préfixés, les exemples (16) de composés VN productifs du créole guadeloupéen montrent que la construction sélectionne systématiquement un radical qui n'est pas le thème A du verbe. En outre, le Tableau 8, qui met en regard les composés avec des suffixés dérivés des mêmes verbes bases, montre également que les composés VN ne sont pas construits sur le thème A du verbe base, contrairement aux suffixés.

<table><thead><tr><td>Verbe</td><td>Thème A</td><td>Suffixés</td><td>Composés VN</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CHIRÉ</td><td>chir</td><td>chiran (pprésent)</td><td>CHIRÉ-BIYÉ</td></tr><tr><td>FOUTÉ</td><td>fout</td><td>foutan (pprésent)</td><td>FOUTÉ-FÈ</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="4">4 Abréviations utilisées dans les glosses : DET = déterminant. 1, 2, 3 = première, deuxième, troisième personne. SING = singulier. PL = pluriel. NEG = négation. ANT = antérieur. IMP = imperfectif. FUT = futur</footnote>
<table><caption>Tableau 8 – Exemples de composés VN et de suffixés formés à partir des mêmes verbes.</caption><tr><td>GADÉ</td><td>gad</td><td>gadan (pprésent)</td><td>GADÉ-ZAFÈ</td></tr><tr><td>KONTÉ</td><td>kont</td><td>KONTÈ ‘conteur’<br>KONTÈZ ‘conteuse’</td><td>KONTÉ-RÉZON</td></tr><tr><td>MONTÉ</td><td>mont</td><td>montan (pprésent)</td><td>MONTÉ-KONPLO</td></tr><tr><td>PLÉRÉ</td><td>plér</td><td>pléran (pprésent)</td><td>PLÉRÉ-GWODLO</td></tr><tr><td>VIRÉ</td><td>vir</td><td>VIRAJ ‘virage’</td><td>VIRÉ-DO</td></tr></table>

Comme dans le cas des préfixés, la composition verbale VN semble opérer sur la forme non spécifiée du verbe. Cette préférence pourrait bien aussi se manifester dans un autre schéma de composition propre au guadeloupéen impliquant un verbe et construisant des verbes, la composition Verbe-Adjectif, dont nous fournissons quelques exemples en (17), sans davantage d'analyse.

### (17) Verbes composés VA du guadeloupéen

LEVE ‘lever’ → LEVE-CHO ‘se mettre en colère’ (lit. lever-chaud)

MACHE ‘marcher’ → MACHE-KOCHI ‘boiter’ (lit. marcher-crochu)

PALE ‘parler’ → PALE-GRA ‘parler de façon triviale’ (lit. parler-gras)

PASE ‘passer’ → PASE-FYE ‘marcher sans s’intéresser aux autres’ (lit. passer-fier)

PE ‘cesser de parler, se taire’ → PE-SEK ‘se taire et ne pas broncher’ (lit. se taire-sec)

Dans la mesure où la morphologie constructionnelle sélectionne des thèmes et non des formes fléchies, la composition VN vient renforcer l'hypothèse déjà développée à la lumière de la préfixation que la forme non spécifiée des verbes correspond aussi à un thème.

## 5.3. Conversion

Pour finir, la conversion constitue un troisième argument en faveur d'un second thème dans l'espace thématique du verbe.

Bien qu'elle ait été étudiée dans des cadres théoriques très divers et qu'elle ait reçu différents noms, la conversion est généralement reconnue comme un cas particulier de dérivation dans lequel le lexème base et le lexème dérivé sont identiques (Aronoff & Fudeman 2005, Corbin 2004). Comme cela a déjà été souvent relevé dans la littérature, une des difficultés majeures posées par la conversion est celle de l'orientation de la dérivation (voir, entre autres, Marchand 1963, 1964; Kerleroux 1996; Balteiro 2007; Rodrigues Soares 2009). En effet, dans la mesure où les deux lexèmes sont identiques, il est impossible d'identifier grâce à leur forme quel lexème dérive de l'autre. Différents critères, historiques, sémantiques, phonologiques, statistiques, ont été proposés dans la littérature pour permettre d'identifier l'orientation de la conversion (notamment par Marchand 1964, Balteiro 2007, Rodrigues Soares 2009, Lohmann 2017). Mais Tribout (2020) a montré que ces critères ne sont pas opératoires et que dans la grande majorité des cas l'orientation de la conversion ne peut pas être établie. Dans la suite de cette section nous étudions donc les cas de conversion entre verbe et nom sans tenir compte de l'orientation. Ces conversions seront présentées sous la forme “verbe/nom” et non “verbe→nom” afin de signifier que l'orientation n'est pas déterminée. Certains des exemples proposés pourront donc être perçus par les locuteurs comme des conversions nom→verbe et d'autres comme des conversions
verbe→nom, sans toutefois que la question puisse être tranchée. Différents exemples de conversion en guadeloupéen sont donnés en (18)⁵.

(18) ANVIv 'AVOIR ENVIE / ANVI_N 'ENVIE'
BALYEV 'BALAYER' / BALYEN 'BALAI'
BOBIV 'somnoler' / BOBIN 'assoupissement'
CHANTEV 'chanter' / CHANTEN 'chanson'
DANSEV 'danser' / DANSEN 'danse'
DEBOULEV 'défiler rapidement' / DEBOULEN 'défilé'
GOUMEV 'se battre' / GOUMEN 'combat'
KAKAV 'déféquer' / KAKAN 'excrément'
LELEV 'touiller / LELEN 'touillette'
MANJEV 'manger' / MANJEN 'repas, mets'
MAYEV 'se marier' / MAYEN 'marriage'
PETEV 'faire un pet' / PETEN 'pet'
POZEV 'se poser' / POZEN 'pause'
SIZEV 's'asseoir' / SIZE_N 'fait d'être assis'
TETEV 'téter' / TETEN 'sein'

Ces exemples montrent que, quelle que soit l'orientation de la conversion, les noms impliqués dans une relation de conversion avec un verbe sont toujours identiques à la forme non spécifiée du verbe et jamais au thème A. De la même façon, le Tableau 10, qui met en contraste de potentiels noms converts avec des dérivés suffixés des mêmes verbes bases, montre que ces noms, s'ils dérivent bien de verbes, ne sont pas formés comme les dérivés suffixés de ces verbes sur leur thème A.

<table><caption>Tableau 10 – Exemples de potentiels noms converts et de suffixés dérivés des mêmes verbes</caption><thead><tr><td>Verbe</td><td>Thème A</td><td>Noms suffixés</td><td>Noms converts</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CHANTÉ</td><td>chant</td><td>CHANTÈZ 'chanteuse'</td><td>CHANTÉ</td></tr><tr><td>DANSÉ</td><td>dans</td><td>DANSÈZ 'danseuse'</td><td>DANSÉ</td></tr><tr><td>DÉBOULÉ</td><td>déboul</td><td>DÉBOULMAN 'éboulement'</td><td>DÉBOULÉ</td></tr><tr><td>MANJÉ</td><td>manj</td><td>MANJÈ 'mangeur'</td><td>MANJÉ</td></tr><tr><td>POZÉ</td><td>poz</td><td>POZISYON 'position'</td><td>POZÉ</td></tr></tbody></table>

Kerleroux (1999) ayant montré que la conversion opère sur les thèmes des lexèmes et non sur leurs formes fléchies, les exemples de conversion en (17) montrent, comme la préfixation et la composition auparavant, que la forme non spécifiée du verbe doit également correspondre à un thème.

## 5.4. Conclusions sur le thème B

Ainsi, la préfixation en *dé*-, la composition verbale VN et la conversion verbe/nom ont servi d'arguments pour montrer qu'il est nécessaire de postuler un second thème dans l'espace

5 Sur la suggestion d'un relecteur, les exemples (18) pourraient être analysés comme formés sur une racine commune, à l'aide de deux suffixes -é homonymes, l'un nominalisateur, et l'autre verbalisateur. Une telle analyse est cependant incompatible avec le cadre théorique de notre étude, la morphologie lexématique, pour laquelle les lexèmes construits sont formés sur des lexèmes et non sur des racines.
thématique des verbes. Pour pouvoir rendre compte de ces trois schémas de formation morphologique, ce second thème, que nous appelons thème B, doit être identique à la forme non spécifiée du verbe. L'espace thématique des verbes guadeloupéens comprend donc deux thèmes, comme cela est illustré dans le Tableau 11.

<table><caption>Tableau 11 – Espace thématique des verbes (définitif)</caption><thead><tr><td>Lexème</td><td>Thème A</td><td>Thème B</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DÉCHOUKÉ</td><td>déchouk</td><td>déchouké</td></tr><tr><td>DÉKALFOUKÉ</td><td>dékalfouk</td><td>dékalfouké</td></tr><tr><td>GOUMÉ</td><td>goum</td><td>goumé</td></tr><tr><td>KOURI</td><td>kour</td><td>kouri</td></tr><tr><td>MADRAGÉ</td><td>madrag</td><td>madragé</td></tr><tr><td>MANGANNÉ</td><td>mangann</td><td>manganné</td></tr><tr><td>MIGANNÉ</td><td>migann</td><td>miganné</td></tr><tr><td>PIPIGNÉ</td><td>pipign</td><td>pipigné</td></tr><tr><td>POUPOULÉ</td><td>poupoul</td><td>poupoulé</td></tr></tbody></table>

D'après cet espace thématique à deux thèmes, nous pouvons envisager la formation du paradigme verbal de la façon suivante :

* la forme de participe présent est construite à partir du thème A en suffixant -an (19)

* la forme non spécifiée est construite à partir du thème B par identité (20)

(19) déchoukan est formé sur le thème A déchouk
madragan est formé sur le thème A madrag
pipignan est formé sur le thème A pipign

(20) déchouké est formé sur le thème B déchouké
madragé est formé sur le thème B madragé
pipigné est formé sur le thème B pipigné

Comme nous l'avons déjà indiqué dans la section 3, il est tout à fait possible qu'un mot-forme soit formé à partir d'un thème par identité. Cela est même très fréquent dans la conjugaison des verbes en français (cf. /bwa/ permettant de former bois, boit).

## 6. Conclusion

Dans cet article, nous avons tout d'abord montré que, contrairement à ce qui est généralement défendu dans la littérature portant sur les créoles, les verbes guadeloupéens présentent au moins deux formes fléchies : une forme non spécifiée utilisée en discours quel que soit le contexte (ex. déchouké), et une forme de participe présent (ex. déchoukan).
L'existence de ce paradigme flexionnel à deux formes et la prise en compte de la morphologie constructionnelle nous ont ensuite conduits à postuler un espace thématique à deux thèmes que nous avons appelés thème A et thème B. L'existence du thème A est justifiée par la formation du participe présent et celle des dérivés suffixés du verbe. Le thème B, quant à lui, est justifié par les données relevant de la morphologie constructionnelle, en particulier la préfixation en dé, la composition verbale VN et la conversion verbe/nom, qui s'appliquent toutes trois à un thème différent du thème A et identique à la forme non spécifiée du verbe. Ces deux thèmes permettent ainsi de construire le paradigme des verbes guadeloupéens : la forme du participe présent est formée sur le thème A par suffixation de -an et la forme non spécifiée est formée à partir du thème B par identité.

Cet article constitue une première tentative d'étude la plus large possible de la morphologie verbale du créole guadeloupéen, considérée aussi bien sous l'angle de la morphologie flexionnelle que sous celui de la morphologie constructionnelle. Cette étude soulève d'autres questions pour lesquelles nous n'avons pas encore de réponse, notamment la question de la relation entre les deux thèmes identifiés pour le moment : est-ce le thème A qui dérive du B par soustraction de la voyelle finale ? ou au contraire le thème B qui dérive du A par suffixation d'une voyelle ? Une autre possibilité serait d'appliquer le même type de proposition que font Boyé et Cabredo Hofherr (2006) pour les thèmes du subjonctif présent et de l'indicatif présent de l'espagnol : le verbe ne compte qu'un seul thème, un thème sous-jacent auquel sont associés deux thèmes de surface. La relation entre les deux thèmes de surface et le thème sous-jacent est toujours la même et consiste en la suppression de la voyelle finale. Ce cas de figure semble proche du nôtre. Cependant, dans le cas de l'espagnol, une étude exhaustive de tous les verbes a permis aux auteurs de montrer que la relation entre les thèmes de surface et le thème sous-jacent était sytématiquement identique. Or, notre présente étude du créole guadeloupéen ne repose pas sur une étude exhaustive des verbes mais uniquement sur les verbes majoritairement représentés dans nos données qui sont ceux se terminant par les voyelles -é et -i. Il n'est donc pas exclu que la relation entre les thèmes A et B diffèrent du cas de l'espagnol si d'autres données sont prises en compte. En particulier si nous intégrons dans notre analyse les verbes dont la forme fléchie non spécifiée se termine par une autre voyelle, principalement -è (dékouvè 'découvrir', kouvè 'couvrir', wouve 'ouvrir', bwè 'boire', pèsivwè 'apercevoir', wousouvrè 'recevoir') ou une consonne (par exemple konprann 'comprendre', travay 'travailler', admèt 'admettre', détenn 'déteindre'). Enfin, il reste également à rendre compte des quelques verbes qui, outre le participe présent, présentent deux voire trois formes distinctes en discours (par exemple METE, VINI, SAVE ou TINI). Ces verbes alternants servent également de base à la dérivation et à la composition, et l'étude des formes verbales servant à l'une ou l'autre de ces formations pourrait bien nous apporter des surprises. Ces différentes questions nous laissent encore envisager de beaux et trépidants projets d'analyse morphologique du créole guadeloupéen que nous ne manquerons pas de soumettre à la sagacité d'Anne.

Références

Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). *A-morphous Morphology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aronoff, Mark. (1994). *Morphology by Itself*. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman. (2005). *What is Morphology?* Oxford: Blackwell.

Balteiro, Isabel. (2007) *The Directionality of Conversion in English. A Dia-Synchronic Study*. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Basciano, Bianca. (2010). *Verbal compounding and causativity in Mandarin Chinese*. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Basciano, Bianca, Nancy Kula & Chiara Melloni. (2011). Modes of compounding in Bantu, Romance and Chinese. *Italian Journal of Linguistics* 23(2), 203-249.

Bernini-Montbrand, Danièle, Ralph Ludwig, Hector Poullet & Sylviane Telchid. (2013). *Dictionnaire créole-français (Guadeloupe)*, Orphie.

Booij, Geert. (2005). *The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology*, Oxford, Textbooks in Linguistics.

Bonami, Olivier & Gilles Boyé. (2002). Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In Franck Van Eynde, Lars Hellan & Dorothee Beerman (eds.), *Proceedings of the HPSG'01 Conference*. pp. 51–70. Stanford: CSLI publications.

Bonami, Olivier & Gilles Boyé. (2003). Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. *Langages* 152, 102–126.

Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé & Françoise Kerleroux. (2009). L'allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction. In Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux & Marc Plénat (éds.), *Aperçus de morphologie du français*, 103-125. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

Boyé, Gilles & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. (2006). The structure of allomorphy in Spanish verbal inflection. *Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset* 13, 9-24.

Booij, Geert. (1996). Inherent versus contextual infection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Geert Booij & Jasper van Marle (éds.) *Yearbook of Morphology* 1996, pp. 1-16, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Ceccagno, Antonella & Bianca Basciano. (2007). Compound headedness in Chinese: an analysis of neologisms. *Morphology*, 17(2), 207-231.

Ceccagno, Antonella and Bianca Basciano. (2009). Sino-Tibetan; mandarin Chinese. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (Eds.) (2009), pp. 478-490.

Corbin, Danielle. (2004). Français (indo-européen : roman). In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopetas (eds.), *Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation*. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1285-1299.

Corne, Chris. (1982). A contrastive analysis of Reunion and Isle de France Creole French: two typologically diverse languages. In Philip Baker & Chris Corne (eds.) *Isle de France Creole: Affinities and origins*, 8-129. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Don, Jan. (2009). IE, Germanic: Dutch. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (éds.) (2009), pp. 370-385.

Fradin, Bernard. (2003). *Nouvelles approches en morphologie*. Paris:PUF.

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

Henri, Fabiola. (2010). *A constraint-based approach to verbal constructions in Mauritian*. Thèse de Doctorat, University of Mauritius et Université Paris Diderot.

Henri, Fabiola. (2019). *Guadeloupean Creole verb Lexicon*. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NKI4JW. Harvard Dataverse, V1.

Henri, Fabiola. (2021). Morphemic structure in Mauritian Kreol: On change, complexity and creolization. *Morphology* 31, 447–489.

Henri, Fabiola, Gregory Stump & Delphine Tribout. (2020). Derivation and the morphological complexity of three French-based creoles. In Peter Arkadiev & Francesco Gardani (eds.) *The Complexities of Morphology*. pp. 105-135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kageyama, Taro. (2009). Isolate: Japanese. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (éds.) (2009), pp. 512-526.

Kerleroux, Françoise. (1996). *La coupure invisible*. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.

Kerleroux, Françoise. (1999). Identification d'un procédé morphologique : la conversion. *Faits de Langue* 14, 89-100.
Kerleroux, Françoise. (2004). Sur quels objets portent les opérations morphologiques de construction ? *Lexique* 16, 85-123.

Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Stekauer. (2009). *The Oxford Handbook of Compounding*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lohmann, Arne. (2017). Phonological properties of word classes and directionality in conversion. *Word Structure* 10(2). 204–234.

Ludwig, Ralph, Danièle Bernini-Montbrand, Hector Poullet & Sylviane Telchid. (2012). *Dictionnaire créole-français Guadeloupe, avec un abrégé de grammaire créole, un lexique français-créole, les comparaisons courantes, les locutions et plus de 1000 proverbes*. Paris : Orphie.

McWhorter, John. (1998). Identifying the Creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. *Language* 74, 788–818.

Marchand, Hans. (1963). On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterized words. *English Studies* 44. 176–187.

Marchand, Hans. (1964). A set of criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words unmarked by derivational morphemes. *Indogermanische Forschungen* 69. 10–19.

Matthews, Peter H. (1972). *Inflectional morphology*. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, Peter H. (1974). *Morphology*. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Missud, Alice. (2018). *Un corpus de créoles à base française issu du web pour l'extraction de paires base-dérivé*. Séminaire des Grammaires Créoles, Structures Formelles du Langage, UMR 7023 (http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/grammaires-creoles-alice-missud-nanterre).

Montermini, Fabio. (2010). Units in compounding”. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (éds.) *Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding*, Amsterdam : Benjamins.

Poullet, Hector, Sylviane Telchid & Danièle Bernini-Montbrand. (1984). *Dictionnaire des expressions du créole guadeloupéen*. Fort-de-France : Hatier-Antilles.

Rodrigues Soares, Alexandra. (2009). Portuguese converted deverbal nouns : Constraints on their bases. *Word Structure* 2 (1). 69–107.

Seuren, Pieter & Hermann Wekker. (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in Creole genesis. In Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (éds.) *Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis*, 57–70. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Syea, Anand. (1992). The short and long forms of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism. *Theoretical Linguistics* 18, 61-97.

Tourneux, Henry & Maurice Barbotin. (2009). *Dictionnaire pratique du créole de Guadeloupe*, Paris : Karthala

Tribout, Delphine. (2012). Verbal stem space and verb to noun conversion in french. *Word Structure* 5(1), 109–128.

Tribout, Delphine. (2020). Nominalization, verbalization or both? Insights from the directionality of noun-verb conversion in French. *Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation* 4(2), 187–207.

Valdman, Albert. (1978). *Le créole : structure, statut et origine*. Paris : Klincksieck.

Villoing, Florence. (2009). Les mots composés VN. In Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux & Marc Plénat (éds.) *Aperçus de morphologie du français*. pp. 175-198. Saint-Denis : Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

Villoing, Florence. (2012). French compounds. *Probus, International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics*, 24 (1), 29-60.

Villoing, Florence & Maxime Deglas. (2016). La formation de verbes dénominaux en guadeloupéen : la part de l’héritage et de l’innovation. In *5ème CMLF 2016*, Tours, France.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne & Loïc Jean-Louis. (2021). The syntax of directional Serial Verb Constructions in French-based creoles. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages*, 37(1).
La grammaire est une fête / Grammar is a moveable feast

Mélanges offerts à / A Webschrift for Anne Zribi-Hertz, 2023
Pictures on the title page

Centre
universitaire
de
Vincennes

2 rue de la liberté
Université Paris 8
93000 St Denis

EHESS
105 Boulevard Raspail
75006 Paris

Faculté de Linguistique
Appliquée (FLA)
Université d'État d'Haïti
Port-au-Prince
Haïti

UPS Pouchet
59 rue Pouchet
75017 Paris

Irène et Bernard
58 Rue Gauthey
75017 Paris

Comptoir Saudade
27bis Rue de la Jonquière
75017 Paris