Capítulo II. Perspectivas acerca de la noción de riesgo
2.4 El riesgo desde Niklas Luhmann
The English-based Creole languages known as Ndjuka, Saramaka, Paramaka, and Aluku (language name is the same as Noir Marron tribe that belonged) include lexical items from many distinct African and European sources (Huttar, 2012; Smith & Cardoso, 2004). The Saramaka established the first creole language in Surinam (Renault-Lescure & Goury, 2009), which is characterized for a high influence of Portuguese words (language of Portuguese Jewish masters) (see Table 7). The English language was introduced in Surinam between 1650 and 1667, during the British colonization (Huttar, 2010). Currently, Noir Marron groups present a lot of characteristics in their culture and language (Price, 2001). For instance, the linguistic similitudes between Saramaka and Ndjuka languages are very close, as for the linguistic similitudes between Aluku, Paramaka, and Ndjuka languages (Huttar & Huttar, 1994; Leglise et al., 2013). Interestingly, none Noir Marron group spoke Taki-taki, which is the mother tongue of diverse ethnic groups in Surinam such as Afro-Surinam Creoles known as Sranan and Tongo (Price & Price, 2003).
In the course of the past decade, an increasing number of historical linguists have used newly- developed classification techniques, borrowed from biology techniques, in order to provide a classificatory tool, which helps uncover the evolutionary histories of Creole language types. Several attempts at classifying creoles languages based on shared features have been undertaken (Baker, 1999; Baker & Huber, 2001; Hancock, 1987). However, none have successfully achieved to present a clear picture of relationships between these languages, mainly because of the extremely complex sociohistorical conditions under which creole languages were developed.
47 Table 7: Origin of several words from Creoles languages spoken for Noir Marron and their influence
from European (English (angl.), Duth (holl.), and Portuguese (port.)), Amerindian (amérind.) and African (afr.) languages (Price & Price, 2003).
To unravel questions about evolutionary histories of Creole language types, Daval-Markussen & Bakker (2011) provided a classification of English-based creoles based on a selection of lexical and typological features encoded as binary pairs (“1” versus “0”). These data was used to provide a classification according to the estimated evolutionary scenario for the development of English-based creoles. This approach adopted the network-based method of split- decomposition for computing phylogenies (Bandelt & Dress, 1992) and was applied with the software SplitsTree (Huson & Bryant, 2006), which has been developed to estimate evolutionary splits or phylogenetic network based on the degree of similarity between biological species.
48
Based on that approach, Daval-Markussen & Bakker (2011) studied the relationships between 33 Atlantic English-based creoles: Saramaka (Sar), Boni or Aluku (Bon), Paramaka (Par), Ndjuka (Dju), Matawai (Mat), Kwinti (Kwi), Sranan (Sra), Guyana (Guy), Bahamas (Bah), Sea- Islands Creole English or Gullah (Sea), Afro-Seminole (Afr), Providencia (Pro), Belize (Bel), Cayman (Cay), Jamaica (Jam), Saint-Thomas (StT), Saint-Eustatius (StE), Saba (Sab), Saint- Kitts (StK), Antigua (Ant), Saint-Vincent (StV), Carriacou (Car), Grenada (Gre), Tobago (Tob), Barbados (Bar), Trinidad (Tri), Liberia (Lib), Cameroon (Cam), Nigeria (Nig), Krio (Kri), two Pacific varieties Norfolk (Nor), American Black English (Bla), and Hawaii (Haw). The geographical locations of these languages represent the most extensive database on English- based creoles (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Map of geographic distribution of Atlantic English-based creole languages in the Americas,
except Lib, Cam, Nig, Kri, Nor, Bla, and Haw (Daval-Markussen & Bakker, 2011).
In that study, they reported different phylogenetic networks to reflect the most likely evolutionary developments and affinities among English-based creoles (Figure 23 and 24). Interestingly, there are three main consistent clusters reflecting affinities among English-based creoles in the split network reported (Figure 23). The most distant and best differentiated group
49
is made up of the creoles of French Guiana and Surinam (clustered as Sar/Mat, Dju/Bon, Kwi/Par, and Sra; the latter branching off further away from the rest of the cluster). The languages in this group have been shown to be highly related historically (Price, 1996; Price & Price, 2003). The second group can be decomposed into four less obvious subgroups: the restructured vernaculars of West Africa (Kri/Cam/Nig), the North American varieties (Sea/Afr), the Eastern Caribbean cluster (StK/Tob and Ant/Guy), and the Western Caribbean cluster (Pro/Bel/Jam/StV and Bah). The third group is made up of five clusters: the Pacific cluster (with vernaculars Haw/Nor), two Eastern Caribbean clusters (Bar/Tri and Gre/Car), and two other clusters seemingly unrelated (Sab/Cay/StE and StT/Bla/Lib). This unrooted graph estimated the most feasible evolution of the different languages relatively to one another, and therefore better reflected the interactions that may have occurred in the course of their respective histories.
Figure 23: Phylogenetic network for form and structure of principal creoles languages in the Americas.
Image modified from Daval-Markussen & Bakker (2011).
In that study, 122 linguistic features were used as dataset, which were classified and divided according to their formal properties (such as historical, phonetics/phonology, semantics, and specific forms) and structural properties (such as categories, morphology, nominal syntax, sentential syntax, tense, mood, and aspect). Those features were coded as binary oppositions (“1” versus “0”) (Daval-Markussen & Bakker, 2011). Furthermore, in order to root the network, English language (Eng) was included in the dataset as outgroup (Figure 24). As expected the most European Creoles varieties appeared near the root of the tree with English, and languages belonged to the Noir Marron communities appeared noteworthy far away from the root in a differentiated branch (Daval-Markussen & Bakker, 2011).
50 Figure 24: Rooted phylogenetic network for form and structure of principal creoles languages in the
Americas. Image modified from Daval-Markussen & Bakker (2011).
Therefore, Marron Creole languages spoken today in French Guiana and Surinam are the most widely accepted branching of the Atlantic English-based creoles, and retained more African identity than any other linguistic group (Bakker et al., 2011; Daval-Markussen & Bakker, 2011). This split can also be explained based on the sociohistorical background of these languages. While the speakers of Sranan are the descendants of the slaves brought in by the British, principally from Barbados, who firmly established in Surinam within the first sixteen years of the settlement of the colony and remained on the plantations (Arends, 1995); the ancestors of the speakers of the Noir Marron groups were runaway enslaved Africans who had escaped from
plantations in the 17th and the 18th century (Price, 1996).
The distribution of these languages in both phylogenetic networks implied that the pair Saramaka and Matawai (Sar/Mat) developed separately from the other subgroups, however using a similar original linguistic input, which is supported by the historical scenario (Smith, 1987). The clusters Ndjuka and Boni (Dju/Bon) and Kwinti and Paramaka (Kwi/Par) suggested a parallel development from a common source, on a par with the last member of the group Sranan (Sra). Linguistically, the presence of these subgroups can be explained as reflecting the influence of Portuguese as well as the African elements in these languages (Smith, 1987). The chronology of this group is partially reflected in the phylogenetic networks. In the beginning of
51
Developed in the late 18th century, remnant runaway enslaved Africans were re-joined by other
fugitive bands, some of whom founded the Ndjuka group, Aluku, Paramaka, and Kwinti (Price, 1996; Smith, 1987).
Although Sranan was probably not the first Creole vernacular spoken in Surinam, it appears further from the other members of the group (Figure 23) and nearer the root (Figure 24). It is most likely that Sranan developed on the plantations in continued contact with English (Arends, 2001). It resulted in a less abrupt creolization than its closest relatives, which were more rapidly cut-off from their lexifier (Bakker et al., 2011; Daval-Markussen & Bakker, 2011).