25.939, Review: Historical Linguistics: Nordhoff (2012)

Tue Feb 25 15:43:06 UTC 2014

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-939. Tue Feb 25 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.939, Review: Historical Linguistics: Nordhoff (2012)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Joseph Salmons <jsalmons at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:42:03
From: Felicity Meakins [f.meakins at uq.edu.au]
Subject: The Genesis of Sri Lanka Malay

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-939.html&submissionid=23457049&topicid=9&msgnumber=1

Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=23457049

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-5267.html

AUTHOR: Sebastian  Nordhoff
TITLE: The Genesis of Sri Lanka Malay
SUBTITLE: A Case of Extreme Language Contact
SERIES TITLE: Brill's Studies in South and Southwest Asian Languages
PUBLISHER: Brill
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Felicity Meakins, The University of Queensland

SUMMARY
Studies of contact languages have often suffered from a dearth of data. In
many cases by the time the value of a contact language has been recognised, it
has had few speakers remaining with scanty information available about its
socio-historical origins. In the past 10 years, a number of documentation
projects focussed on actively-spoken contact languages have begun providing a
more solid foundation for the discussion of these varieties and their origins.
For example, Sri Lankan Malay, Gurindji Kriol and Angloromani have now been
sampled across various social domains and have been situated within their
respective socio-historical contexts. Other projects have targeted specific
communicative contexts, such as the work on Light Warlpiri and its
acquisition. As a result, detailed morpho-syntactic studies, ethnographic
descriptions of the language ecologies and information about the
socio-historical origins of these languages have become available. These
projects provide the field of contact linguistics with better data for the
discussion of these mixed varieties. The volume under review utilises data
from recent Sri Lankan Malay documentation projects (for example, the Sri
Lankan Malay DoBeS project: http://dobes.mpi.nl/projects/slm/) to address many
of the debates surrounding the development of this very interesting contact
language.

Sebastian Nordhoff in the 'Introduction' begins with a socio-historical
overview of immigration of Trade Malay (also called Bazaar or Vehicular Malay)
speakers from Java, Bali and other places to Sri Lanka and their subsequent
contact with speakers of Tamil and Sinhala. He then situates Sri Lanka Malay
within the field of creolistics by comparing Sri Lanka Malay with
commonly-identified creole structures. Nordhoff observes that the genesis of
Sri Lanka Malay occurred through a process of complexification (rather than
simplification which is often claimed for creole languages). For example, it
has developed inflectional morphology such as case morphology and TMA affixes.
Sri Lanka Malay has also retained its lexicon but has modified its grammar on
the basis of Tamil and Sinhala, the opposite of the process of relexification
observed for creole languages. This comparison with creoles provides a good
point of reference for Sri Lanka Malay, however a more broad-reaching
comparison would have been welcome. Some of the features Nordhoff discusses
are found in other contact varieties. For example, Ross refers to the
retention of lexical material accompanied by a typological restructuring as
metatypy (and indeed Bakker (2003: 118-120) and Ansaldo (2008, 2011) describe
the development of Sri Lanka Malay as a process of metatypy or convergence).
Similarly, mixed languages are other contact varieties which do not result
from simplification and Sri Lanka Malay has been included in discussions of
mixed languages (see Meakins, 2013: 177-78 for a recent discussion). Indeed
Nordhoff does provide a more comprehensive comparison of Sri Lanka Malay with
contact processes other than creolisation in the final chapter and it is
puzzling that he does not refer to this chapter or summarise his conclusions
in the introduction.

In 'Synchronic Grammar of Sri Lanka Malay', Nordhoff provides a sketch of Sri
Lanka Malay grammar, which is a reduced version of his two volume Grammar of
Upcountry Sri Lanka Malay (2009). The sketch gives a backdrop for the
remainder of the volume which focusses on diachronic development. (For another
sketch of Sri Lanka Malay see Slomanson (2013)). Nordhoff begins with an
overview of the phonology, highlighting some of its more interesting features
such as the presence of retroflex stops, which are not found in
Malay/Indonesian varieties but are found in Tamil and Sinhala. This is
remarkable given that the majority of the vocabulary is of Austronesian
origin. Such curious contact outcomes in phonology will undoubtedly be paid
more attention in future studies of contact languages (see already work on
phonological stratification in Michif (Rosen, 2000), Gurindji Kriol (Jones,
Meakins, & Muawiyath, 2012) and Media Lengua (Steward, 2011)). Nordhoff paints
a similar picture of Sri Lanka Malay word classes where distinctions reflect
that of Tamil and Sinhala, despite the Malay source of the vocabulary. The
rest of Nordhoff's sketch remains steadfastly synchronic, occasionally leaving
the reader ignorant of Malay/Indonesian, Tamil and Sinhala wondering about the
sources of word order, person and number distinctions in pronouns, TMA
categories in verbs and deixis distinctions in demonstratives. Nonetheless
many questions, for example about the origins of the case enclitics have been
answered in previous research (which could have been better referenced in
places) and other chapters in the volume (which could have been
cross-referenced more). As such this chapter remains a very useful starting
point for the other chapters, and indeed other papers on this language.

Peter Bakker begins the Sociology, History and Demography section with 'Sri
Lanka Malay: New Findings on Contacts'. Bakker goes to the heart of the two
major controversies in the Sri Lanka Malay literature: (i) what are the
respective contributions of Tamil and Sinhala to Sri Lanka Malay, and (ii) is
Sri Lanka Malay a creole language? In order to address the first question,
Bakker presents evidence from a study on the molecular genetics of Sri Lanka
populations previously uncited in the linguistic literature (Papiha, Mastana,
& Jayasekara, 1996). This study suggests that there has been little
intermarriage between the Malay and Tamil-speaking Moor populations in Sri
Lanka with the Malay group remaining close to their pre-Sri Lanka genetic
profile. Thus, as Bakker observes, the contact between Malay and Tamil must
have been mediated through different social relations. He then goes on to
examine primary source material and secondary historical sources to establish
that Malays had more contact with Tamils and Tamil-speaking Moors, than with
Sinhala speakers until the early 20th century due to trade and religious
allegiances. These conclusions based on historical work are then tested
against linguistic data based on Nordhoff (2009). Bakker comes to similar
conclusions, suggesting the linguistic evidence points to an early Tamil
influence on the development of Sri Lanka Malay with later influences coming
from Sinhala. Finally Bakker addresses the question of whether Sri Lanka Malay
is a creole language or not, a debate which has a long history in discussions
of this language (see in particular Ansaldo, 2008, 2011; Smith & Paauw, 2006;
Smith et al., 2004). Using phylogenetic methods, he compares 97 structural
features of Sri Lanka Malay, 8 non-creole languages, 18 identified creole
languages (which pattern as a separate typological group in other studies).
Sri Lanka Malay clusters with the non-creole languages, demonstrating
convincingly that this language is typologically dissimilar to creoles. Bakker
concludes by once again pointing to the metatypy and Sprachbund literature for
a story of the origins of Sri Lanka Malay. This small study embedded in this
chapter is another very interesting contribution to the growing field of
comparative creolistics which utilises biological methods (e.g. Bakker et al.,
2011).

Peter Slomanson in 'Known, Inferable and Discoverable in Sri Lanka Malay
Research' continues exploring the issue of the nature of the socio-historical
setting which led to the formation of Sri Lanka Malay. As with Bakker,
Slomanson first deals with the question of the relative influence of Tamil and
Sinhala on the early development of the language. He notes that Ansaldo (2008)
claims there is Tamil bias in the early literature on Sri Lanka Malay, arguing
that there was little intermarriage between Tamil-speaking Moors and Malays
(supported by Bakker's discussion of Papiha et al. (1996) in the previous
chapter). Slomanson presents the case for intermarriage by re-presenting the
Smith, Paauw and Hussainmiya (2004) position that the language is the result
of the children of mixed marriages learning an L2 variety of Malay from their
Moor Tamil-speaking mothers. While this scenario makes some sense with respect
to the resultant shape of Sri Lanka Malay, definitive evidence for extensive
intermarriage is lacking in the historical records (Slomanson himself
struggles to find it despite his criticism of Ansaldo (2008)) and the genetic
data (as demonstrated by Bakker in the previous chapter). Slomanson continues
to argue against Ansaldo (2008)'s claim for less Tamil and more Sinhala
influence by suggesting that an examination of residential patterns and
religion do not support this scenario but rather greater contact with
Tamil-speaking populations. Slomanson relies heavily on 'personal
communication' with historians for these arguments but nonetheless comes to
the same conclusion as Bakker -- Tamil, as spoken by the Moor population, was
the main early influence on Sri Lanka Malay. The paper then concludes with an
treatise on research that should be undertaken on Sri Lanka Malay, including
on the current sociolinguistic situation, the topic of the following chapter.

Romola Rassool's paper 'Issues of Power and Privilege in the Maintenance of
Sri Lanka Malay' leaves behind the issue of the socio-historical origins of
Sri Lanka Malay and considers the contemporary situation of this language
which is now highly endangered in some Malay communities. Rassool notes that
the 1956 Official Language Act, which privileges Sinhala over English, Malay
and Tamil (although it is named as an official language), has indirectly
contributed to the demise of Malay in Sri Lanka. As a result of this Act,
English is no longer taught in schools and many Malay parents have shifted to
English rather than Malay as a home language because they want their children
to learn English. Rassool also observes that revitalisation attempts are
focused on standard Malay (a move she characterises as Malay imperialism)
which is undermining the vitality of Sri Lanka Malay. Rassool goes on to
criticise Ansaldo (2008)'s assessment of Malay endangerment in the Sri Lanka
context where he describes the level of Malay knowledge according to different
age groups and social classes in a number of Sri Lanka Malay communities. She
suggests that an assessment of the vitality of Sri Lanka Malay needs a more
fine-grained approach. For example she finds that Lim and Ansaldo's (2007)
bleak assessment of the vitality of the language in Colombo only applies to
the more powerful segment of the community, with Sri Lanka Malay continuing to
be spoken as a home language in suburban Colombo. Lim and Ansaldo (2007) go on
to suggest that the linguistic identity of the Malay community is more closely
aligned to multilingualism than to Sri Lanka Malay itself and the orientation
to standard Malay does not undermine their identity. Rassool argues that this
view is influenced by the Sri Lanka Malay elite, does not adequately represent
the community's views as a whole and, if implemented, would widen social class
divides amongst Malay descendants. While this is a fair criticism, Rassool is
somewhat un-self-reflexive in this assessment of Lim and Ansaldo's views given
that the five Malay people she interviewed for this paper clearly influenced
her own view of Sri Lanka Malay revitalisation and endangerment. For these
interviewees there is a clear link between Sri Lanka Malay identity and the
language (rather than multilingualism). Nonetheless this view should also not
be taken to reflect that of the whole Malay community. As such, the strength
of this paper is to demonstrate the divide which is commonly found within
minority communities about the path forward for small languages.

Scott Paauw's paper, 'The Lexical Sources of Sri Lanka Malay Revisited',
begins the linguistic analysis section by revisiting his (2004) work with new
data. He also reexamines Adelaar’s (1991) and Gil’s (2010) surveys of the
historical sources of the Sri Lanka Malay lexicon in light of this new data.
Paauw (2004) found that 88.4% of the lexicon was of Malay origin, mostly
Indonesian Malay (from Java and Maluku). Gil's (2010) analysis of Vehicular
Malay, the language which formed the lexical basis of Sri Lanka Malay, comes
to similar conclusions. The study presented here draws on a list of 1710 Sri
Lanka Malay words derived from various sources and comes to similar
conclusions as his 2004 study and Gil's (2010) study of Vehicular Malay,
although with more weight given to Malay derived from Java rather than Maluku.
Paauw then looks in detail at the pronoun paradigm which is of particular
interest due to the variation in first and second person singular pronoun
forms across Malay/Indonesian dialects. He finds that these pronouns are
derived from the Java region unlike the rest of the pronoun paradigm which
finds its origins in the Maluku region. In general this study gives Java a
stronger role in the origins of Sri Lanka Malay vocabulary than previous work.

In his chapter, 'Sri Lanka Languages in the South-South Asia Linguistic Area:
Sinhala and Sri Lanka Malay', James Gair situates Sri Lanka Malay within the
South-South Asia Linguistic Area (SSLA), comparing it with Sinhala which is
used as a reference point for SSLA. (Gair himself observes that this is a
controversial choice for a point of comparison given the debate over the
relative contribution of Sinhala and Tamil to the development of Sri Lanka
Malay). Gair examines nine features which he claims are characteristic of
SSLA: postverbal interrogatives, edge-marking subordinate clause affixes,
preposed relative clauses, correlatives which use QH, sentence-final quotative
'say', subject-less nominalised sentences, focused (nominal cleft) sentences,
various negative features, conjunctive participles which occur with overt
lexical subjects, and sentence-final reportatives. Gair examines each of these
in detail for Sinhala, Sri Lanka Malay and occasionally Tamil, noting that Sri
Lanka Malay exhibits most of these SSLA characteristics. These results are
unsurprising given that Sri Lanka Malay is a restructured variety of Malay
based on Tamil (and perhaps Sinhala) which is already a member of the
South-South Asia Linguistic Area.

Ian Smith's chapter 'Hijacked Constructions in Second Language Acquisition:
Implications for Sri Lanka Malay' considers the role of untutored L2
acquisition in the development of Sri Lanka Malay, arguing for the status of
Sri Lanka Malay as a creole (derived from L1>L2 influence) rather than a
converged language (derived from L2>L1 influence). Smith examines one
construction, the Dravidian verbal noun in Tamil and four languages in contact
with Tamil: Sinhala, Sourashtra, Sri Lanka Portuguese and Sri Lanka Malay. He
carefully outlines the functions of the verbal noun in Tamil which includes
nominalised clauses, (past) experiential negative, (present) habitual
negative, focus/cleft constructions, etc. Smith then demonstrates the presence
of verbal nouns and similar functions in Sinhala, Sourashtra, Sri Lanka
Portuguese and Sri Lanka Malay. Of particular interest is Sri Lanka Malay
where the nominalised noun is formed through the Malay-derived prefix 'yang-'
(and circumfix Cə-VERB-an), rather than a 3SG.NHUM suffix which is found in
Tamil. Despite structural differences, this construction performs a similar
(though not perfectly matched) range of functions as the verbal noun in Tamil.
Nonetheless, Smith notes that many of these functions have parallels in
Malay/Indonesian so a contact story is not straightforward. Smith claims that
Sri Lanka Malay has 'hijacked' (what might elsewhere be seen as 'L1 transfer'
or 'substrate influence') the Malay-derived 'yang-' and repurposed it under
the influence of Tamil. He claims this is the result of untutored L2
acquisition which is common to creole genesis, rather than the result of L2>L1
influence which results in converged languages. Smith presents this as
evidence in favour of categorising Sri Lanka Malay as a creole, but notes that
'hijacking' is not unique to creole formation and is found in other contact
varieties. Indeed the issue of whether or not Sri Lanka Malay is a creole
relates to the theme of the first section of the book which examined the
socio-historical circumstances through which the language developed. The most
likely socio-historical scenario for creole genesis would have been mixed
Tamil-Malay marriages with children learning an L2 variety of Malay from their
Tamil-speaking Moor mothers. Nonetheless Bakker's paper conclusively rejects
this scenario and both Bakker’s and Slomanson's papers point to Tamil
influence in other domains which more strongly supports a L2 influence > L1
scenario (or metatypy) and therefore the status of Sri Lanka Malay as a
converged (or 'converted') language. And so the debate goes on!

In his chapter 'Serial Verb Constructions in Sri Lanka Malay' Mohamed Jaffar
describes the range and function of complex verbs in Sri Lanka Malay. Although
not stated explicitly, his description of SVCs in Sri Lanka Malay seems to fit
Aikhenvald's (2006) category of asymmetrical serial verbs (first identified
and discussed by Sebba (1987) and Durie (1997)), where one verb derives from
an open class and the other verb derives from a restricted set and contributes
aspectual, valency, deictic or limited semantic information to the verb
complex. The structure of the asymmetrical serial verb construction is not
described in detail here but seems to consist of the open class verb and the
closed class verb (which Jaffar calls a vector verb cf. Nordhoff (2009),
something referred to as a minor verb elsewhere in the literature on these
constructions). TMA information seems to be encoded on either the open or
closed class verb or as separate auxiliary verb. Jaffar compares the functions
of minor verbs Sri Lanka Malay with Sinhala and Tamil varieties: 'take'
(benefactive, ingressive, inceptive, inchoative, reciprocal), 'thrash'
(intensity), 'be struck by' (passive hit, come into contact with), finish
(completive), 'give' (benefactive), 'sit' (durative), etc. Many of these
asymmetrical verb constructions such as 'finish', 'sit' and 'give' have
parallels in other languages (Aikhenvald, 2006). Jaffar concludes that these
serial verbs developed in Sri Lanka Malay as a result of contact with Tamil.
This analysis would have been more stronger with the addition of Vehicular
Malay to the comparison given that serial verbs are not uncommon in
Austronesian languages (e.g. Senft, 2008). It may well be that the
construction preexisted in Vehicular Malay, but further developed following
the pattern of Tamil serial verbs. Indeed this is the analysis Paauw (2004)
and Nordhoff (this volume) give. Interestingly this reinforcement and
expansion scenario is also the case for another contact language, Gurindji
Kriol, which contains asymmetrical serial verbs related to but not entirely
like complex verbs in its source languages (Meakins, 2010).

Sebastian Nordhoff ends the volume's thread about the socio-historical and
linguistic origins of Sri Lanka Malay with a compromise piece entitled: 'The
Genesis of Sri Lanka Malay as a Multi-Layered Process'. He observes that
different explanations for its origins exist, with the main contenders being
creolisation (Smith et al., 2004) and metatypy (Ansaldo, 2008; Bakker, 2003).
He then examines the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics
of Sri Lanka Malay for features which developed post-1873, when the Malay
regiment in Sri Lanka was disbanded. This period is considered pivotal in the
development of Sri Lanka Malay because this is when Sri Lankan features
(whether via Tamil or Sinhala) were first imposed on Malay. Nordhoff observes
that it was during this time that Tamil-like word order changes and the
development of inflectional morphology were first attested. He identifies 22
features in all and assesses them against other situations of creolisation and
metatypy. He notes that the sorts of typological features typical of creole
genesis situations where a breakdown in the communicative system + successive
reinvention (à la Bickerton) (or indeed successive periods of imperfect L2
learning à la Mufwene) occurs do not explain the changes in word order and
morphological expansion found in the development of Sri Lanka Malay (see also
Bakker this volume). Instead Nordhoff observes that these types of
developments are most commonly seen in situations of convergence and metatypy
where structures from languages of wider communication are transferred to
minority languages. Nordhoff's focus on the relevant period of Sri Lankan
history, the broad reach of features examined and his comparison with other
contact situations produces very convincing conclusions.

EVALUATION
The strength of this volume is its representation of the different
perspectives on the origins of Sri Lanka Malay, particularly with regards to
the type of relationship Malay immigrants had with Tamil (and Sinhala)
communities, the degree of influence Tamil exerted over Malay (compared with
Sinhala influence) and the characterisation of this influence as either a
process of creolisation or metatypy. Although these different views are
represented in this volume and reiterated from previous work (most notably
Umberto Ansaldo's research), the reader can only conclude that Sri Lanka Malay
is a Malay/Indonesian variety heavily restructured under the influence of
Tamil (and only more recently Sinhala) which occurred as a result of sustained
social contact with Tamil-speaking Moors (though not extensive intermarriage)
and pervasive Malay-Tamil bilingualism among Malay descendants. A number of
arguments against this view seem difficult to sustain, including pervasive
Tamil-Malay intermarriage (e.g. Slomanson this volume and Smith et al.
(2004)), a strong and old Sinhala influence (Ansaldo, 2008) and creolisation
(Smith this volume, Smith and Paauw (2006)). The volume’s other strength is
the continuing linguistic analysis of structural features of Sri Lanka Malay
(in particular Jaffar and Smith papers and Nordhoff's final paper).

Some improvements could have been made to the introductory chapters to ease
the uninitiated Sri Lanka Malay reader into some of the controversies
surrounding this language and the themes of the previous (and quite extensive)
literature. For example, a review of research on the structural features of
Sri Lanka Malay would have been welcome in the introduction. A number of very
interesting papers exist on the development of case morphology (Aboh &
Ansaldo, 2007; Smith, Paauw, & Hussainmiya, 2004) and the TMA system (Smith &
Paauw, 2006) which are not discussed elsewhere in the volume. Similarly the
sketch grammar could have referenced this work. Instead this literature is
largely ignored. Nonetheless this book will be of great value to linguists
interested in the importance of socio-historical context in the development of
contact languages and the interaction of structural features between languages
in contact.

REFERENCES
Aboh, E., & Ansaldo, U. (2007). The role of typology in language creation. In
U. Ansaldo, S. Matthews & L. Lim (Eds.), 'Deconstructing Creole' (pp. 39-66).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Adalaar, S. (1991). Some notes on the origin of Sri Lanka Malay. In H.
Steinhauer (Ed.), 'Papers in Austronesian Linguistics' (pp. 23-37). Canberra:
ANU Press.

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2006). Serial verb constructions in typological
perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), 'Serial Verb
Constructions' (pp. 1-68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ansaldo, U. (2008). Sri Lanka Malay revisited: Genesis and classification. In
D. Harrison, D. Rood & A. Dwyer (Eds.), 'Lessons from documented endangered
languages' (pp. 13-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ansaldo, U. (2011). Metatypy in Sri Lanka Malay. In G. Sharma & R. Singh
(Eds.), 'Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics' (pp. 3-16).
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bakker, P. (2003). Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Y. Matras & P.
Bakker (Eds.), 'The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances'
(pp. 107-150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M., & Plag, I. (2011). Creoles are
typologically distinct from non-creoles. 'Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages', 26(1), 5-42.

Durie, M. (1997). Grammatical structures in verb serialisation. In A. Alsina,
J. Bresnan & P. Sells (Eds.), 'Complex predicates' (pp. 289-354). Stanford:
CSLI.

Gil, D. (2010). 'Malay/Indonesian Dialect Geography and the Sources of Sri
Lanka Malay'. Paper presented at The Workshop on Sri Lanka Malay, Leipzig
(Germany).

Jones, C., Meakins, F., & Muawiyath, S. (2012). Learning vowel categories from
maternal speech in Gurindji Kriol. 'Language Learning', 62(4), 997–1260.

Lim, L., & Ansaldo, U. (2007). Identity alignment in the multilingual space:
The Malays of Sri Lanka. In E. Anchimbe (Ed.), 'Linguistic Identity in
Multilingual Postcolonial Spaces' (pp. 218-243). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Press.

Meakins, F. (2010). The development of asymmetrical serial verb constructions
in an Australian mixed language. 'Linguistic Typology', 14(1), 1-38.

Meakins, F. (2013). Mixed languages. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), 'Contact
Languages: A Comprehensive Guide' (pp. 159-228). Berlin: Mouton.

Nordhoff, S. (2009). A Grammar of Upcountry Sri Lanka Malay. Utrecht: LOT
Dissertation Series, 226.

Paauw, S. (2004). 'A Historical Analysis of the Lexicon of Sri Lanka Malay.'
(Master of Arts), York University, Toronto.

Papiha, S., Mastana, S., & Jayasekara, R. (1996). Genetic variation in Sri
Lanka. 'Human Biology', 68, 707-737.

Rosen, N. (2000). 'Non-Stratification in Michif.' University of Toronto,
Toronto.

Sebba, M. (1987). 'The Syntax of Serial Verbs.' Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Senft, G. (Ed.). (2008). 'Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan
languages.' Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Slomanson, P. (2013). Sri Lanka Malay. In S. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M.
Haspelmath & M. Huber (Eds.), 'The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages: Vol.
III' (pp. 77-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, I., & Paauw, S. (2006). Sri Lanka Malay: Creole or convert. In A.
Deumert & S. Durrleman (Eds.), 'Structure and variation in language contact'
(pp. 159-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Smith, I., Paauw, S., & Hussainmiya, B. A. (2004). Sri Lankan Malay: The state
of the art. In R. Singh (Ed.), 'Yearbook of South Asian Languages 2004' (pp.
197-215). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Steward, J. (2011). 'A Brief Descriptive Grammar of Pijal Media Lengua and an
Acoustic Vowel Space Analysis of Pijal Media Lengua and Imbabura Quichua.'
(Master of Arts), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Felicity Meakins is a research fellow at the University of Queensland
(Brisbane, Australia). Her main research interests include Australian
languages and language contact. Most of her work is on Gurindji Kriol, a mixed
language spoken in northern Australia. She is the author of 'Case-Marking in
Contact' (Benjamins 2011), 'Bilinarra to English Dictionary' (Batchelor Press
2013) and a co-author of 'A Grammar of Bilinarra' (Mouton 2014), and the
'Gurindji to English Dictionary' (Batchelor Press 2013). All of this work has
been the result of fieldwork over the last 14 years in the Victoria River
District of the Northern Territory (Australia).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $75,000. This money will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2014 site!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-939	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/