•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of language contact and multilingualism on the expression of location and space in the heritage variety of Javanese spoken in Suriname. Alongside Javanese, this community also speaks Sranantongo and Dutch. It is found that Surinamese speakers tend to use simple locative constructions more frequently than baseline speakers, at the expense of complex constructions. It is shown that the individual speaker variables age, generation, place of residence, and network play a role in explaining the usage of simple versus complex locative constructions in Surinamese Javanese: the more language contact speakers experience, the more they will use simple constructions at the cost of complex ones.

References

ABS (Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek). 2012. Censusstatistieken 2012; Districten naar ressort en etnische groep census 8. Paramaribo: Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek, Censuskantoor.

Arps, Ben, et al. 2000. Hedendaags Javaans. Leiden: Leiden University, Opleiding Talen en Culturen van Zuid-Oost Azië en Oceanië. [Semaian 20.]

Deusen-Scholl, Nelleke van. 2003. “Toward a definition of heritage language; Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations”, Journal of Language, Identity and Education 2(3): 211–230. [DOI:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0203.]

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hermawan, Yeremiah. 2017. “The locative constructions in frog story narratives; A comparative study between Surinamese Javanese and Java Javanese”. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Hickey, Raymond. 2010. The handbook of language contact. Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. [DOI:10.1002/9781444318159.]

Hoefte, Rosemarijn. 1987. “Het politiek bewustzijn van Hindostaanse en Javaanse contractarbeiders, 1910-1940”, Oso 6(1): 25–34.

Jansen, Bert, Josien Lalleman, and Pieter Muysken. 1981. “The alternation hypothesis; Acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers”, Language Learning 31(2): 315–336.

Johanson, Lars. 2002. “Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework”, in: Jones, Mari C. and Edith Esch (eds), Language change; The interplay of internal, external, and extra-linguistic factors, pp. 285–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Contributions to the sociology of language 86.]

Klamer, Marian. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar; Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, California, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lestiono, Riski. 2012. “Spatial relations in frog story narratives; A comparative study between Surinamese Javanese and Java Javanese”. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Moro, Francesca. 2016. Dynamics of Ambon Malay; Comparing Ambon and The Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Prada Pérez, Ana de. 2015. “Spanish-Catalan bilingual subject pronoun production and the vulnerability hypothesis”. [Paper, Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone World Conference, Leiden, 14-16 January.]

Şahin, Hülya. 2015. Cross-linguistic influences; Dutch in contact with Papiamento and Turkish. Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1994. Language contact and change; Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 2008. “The limits of convergence in language contact”, Journal of Language Contact 2: 213–224.

Sneddon, James Neil, et al. 2010. Indonesian reference grammar. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.

Staden, Miriam van, Melissa Bowerman, and Magriet Verhelst. 2006. “Some properties of spatial description in Dutch”, in: Levinson, Stephen C. and David P. Wilkins (eds), Grammars of space; Explorations in cognitive diversity, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/ CBO9780511486753.014.]

Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization patterns; Semantic structure in lexical forms”, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic descriptions, vol. 3; Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03032-1.]

Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman. 1991. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Villerius, Sophie. 2017a. “Developments in Surinamese Javanese”, in: Yakpo, Kofi and Pieter Muysken (eds), Boundaries and bridges; Multilingual ecologies in the Guianas, pp. 151–178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [DOI: 10.1515/9781614514886-006.]

Villerius, Sophie. 2017b. “Modality and aspect marking in Surinamese Javanese; Grammaticalization and contact-induced change”, in: Heiko Narrog, Kees Hengeveld, and Hella Olbertz (eds), The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality, pp. 111–132. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Villerius, Sophie. 2017c. “Het Surinaams-Javaans anno 2016”, Oso 36(1): 274–290.

Yakpo, Kofi, Margot van den Berg, and Robert Borges. 2015. “On the linguistic consequences of language contact in Suriname; The case of convergence”, in: Eithne B. Carlin, et al. (eds), In and out of Suriname; Language, mobility, and identity, pp. 154–195. Leiden: Brill. [DOI: 10.1163/9789004280120_009.]

Yakpo, Kofi and Pieter Muysken. 2014. “Language change in a multiple contact setting; The case of Sarnami (Suriname)”, in: Buchstaller, Isabelle, Anders Holmberg, and Mohammad Almoaily (eds), Pidgins and creoles beyond Africa-Europe encounters, pp. 101–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Download

Share

COinS