32.3242, Review: Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Typology: Williams, Schneider, Trudgill, Schreier (2019)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3242. Fri Oct 15 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.3242, Review: Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Typology: Williams, Schneider, Trudgill, Schreier (2019)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:23:56
From: John McCullough [mccullok at email.sc.edu]
Subject: Further Studies in the Lesser-Known Varieties of English

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36731237


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-2372.html

EDITOR: Jeffrey P. Williams
EDITOR: Edgar W. Schneider
EDITOR: Peter  Trudgill
EDITOR: Daniel  Schreier
TITLE: Further Studies in the Lesser-Known Varieties of English
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2019

REVIEWER: John K McCullough, University of South Carolina

SUMMARY

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Further Studies in the Lesser-Known Varieties of English”, edited by Jeffrey
P. Williams, Edgar W. Schneider, Peter Trudgill, and Daniel Schreier, is the
continuation of the first volume of “The Lesser Known Varieties of English”
published in 2010, exploring the documentation and designation of minority
Englishes around the world and contextualizing the historical and typological
factors that support their recognition as “lesser-known varieties of English”
(LKVEs). The volume’s purpose, as stated in the introduction by the editors
(Ch. 1) is an extension of the first volume’s objective of “the documentation
of overlooked and understudied varieties of English” and have “included more
varieties that have a deeper chronology…explored the boundaries of the upper
extent of the genesis of ‘new’ varieties” (3). These volumes encompass the
interests of several subdisciplines of linguistics, including but not limited
to dialectology, language birth and death, language contact, typology, and
variation and change. 

The 13 contributions are grouped geographically rather than with any attempt
at typological generalization, and are subgrouped regionally as Part I) Europe
(Chs. 2-4), Part II) The Americas (Chs. 5-8), and Part III) Asia and the
Pacific. The chapters’ main prompt was to present a documentation of the
variety within the framework of providing (i) sociohistorical origins, (ii)
sociodemographic data, (iii) structural features and (iv) assessment of the
future of the variety (3), overall evaluating the alignment with the 8 LKVE
characteristics outlined in the previous volume (Schreier, Trudgill, Schneider
and Williams 2010). Special attention has been given in this volume to
typological aspect (8) “are very often endangered”: the editors make it clear
that they are aligned with emerging scholarly discourses (e.g. Wolfram 2008)
that challenge the assumptive rhetoric of established canons of language
endangerment in the case of marginalized English varieties. What follows is a
summary of each contribution’s documentation and an evaluation of the volume
as a whole.

Part 1 Europe

Chapter 2: Maltese English

Chapter 2 documents the variety of English spoken on the islands of Malta, a
Maltese English (MaltE) that actually covers a continuum of contact features
and code switching and is used as a salient identity marker, contextualized by
factors such as L1, socioeconomic strata, and age. In their contribution, Krug
(Ch. 2) establishes the expansive nature of such a cover term, and focuses the
sketch on “acrolectal Malt E”, which represents an idealized variety elicited
from data from the Maltese component of the International Corpus of English
(ICE). MaltE exhibits considerable stylistic variation from surrounding
varieties in Malta, “sometimes consciously used, but often below the level of
awareness” (13) and acts as a second language in the nation, while Maltese is
the L1 for around 93 percent of the population. MaltE is not overtly codified;
the exonormative English standard remains British Received Pronunciation (RP).
The phonetic features of MaltE (e.g. inter-sonorant voicing from language
contact: /z/ in ‘basic’ from Malt. ‘bażic’; It. ‘base’) and lexical features
are more salient in the acrolect than morphosyntactic markedness. However,
covert prestige for the variety is increasing, and with it the use of
morphosyntactic features and discourse markers to co-index local Maltese
identity and formal education. Krug concludes that MaltE is approaching
‘endonormative stabilization’ (Schneider 2007) as an ‘indigenized L2’
(Kortmann and Lunkenheimer 2012) as it accumulates overt prestige.

Chapter 3: Gibraltar English

The third chapter provides an overview of the English of Gibraltar, a small
territorial island located off the southern point of the Iberian peninsula
known for its tourism economy and complex national identity of British loyalty
in deeply Spanish sovereign territory. Although English is the only official
language, it exists in a relative heteroglossia with both Spanish and the
local variety Yanito, both of which have had effects on Gibraltar English and
complexified notions of prestige and linguistic identity in the region. As
Gibraltar has historically been a harbor for multiple ethnic groups and
occupation throughout history, notably Italian and Spanish until British
sovereignty in 1830, it is an artifact of multilingual mixing with nationalism
increasingly tied to language choice. Levey provides a survey of features that
distinguish this variety of English, with many previously marked features
(e.g. mergers of the kit/fleece, foot/goose, lot/thought, and trap/strut
vowels) being lost in younger generations with more non-domestic English
exposure. Consonantal features are also moving away from non-English phonology
in younger speakers as can be seen in loss of merged phonemes /b/ /v/ and /ʃ/
/t/ʃ/, and disappearance of the “Spanish coloured trill [r]” in the non-rhotic
variety. Gibraltar English has high degrees of codeswitching in four patterns
(Levey Ch. 3): (i) alternation (between participants); (ii) (intrasentential
syntactic) combination; (iii) (lexical) insertion; and (iv) insertion of
ritualized (expression). Yanito as a local variety with high covert prestige
is emblematic of the metalinguistc awareness and control of (especially
younger) Gibraltarians, wherein speakers see no incongruence of Gibraltarian
and British identity intertwined with Spanish language and culture.

Chapter 4: Irish Traveller English

Chapter 4 concerns Irish Traveller English (TE), a variety representative of
the eponymous nomadic ethnic group in Ireland, whose identity is typified both
by its insecure legal status and the use of the language variety as a
deliberately obfuscating cryptolect to prevent out-group comprehension. The
current study by Rieder is drawn from a forty thousand word corpus study from
an ethnographic project, which provides much of the context for the group,
i.e. their history (coalesced from the first half of the 19th century),
placement in the modern Irish socioeconomic and cultural landscape, and the
effect of their itinerant nature and tight in-group social network on the
variety. TE retains many archaic features of Irish English (IE) that are
recessive, with the variety holding a high covert prestige despite some
accommodation of the variety towards an IE metropolitan variety. These archaic
features can be most strongly observed in the phonology, especially regarding
frequency of schwa centralization/reduction, lack of participation in the
foot-strut split, verbal apheresis for unstressed prefixes and metathesis. TE
also has highly marked word stress (penultimate) and intonation (HLH) as a
distinct prosodic shibboleth. The variety deviates from IE morphosyntactically
and lexically as well, particularly with its retention of archaic forms and
the Northern Subject Rule (Rieder Ch 4); these features seen as evidence/the
result of a unique family network structure with high solidarity in a
marginalized community.

Part 2 The Americas

Chapter 5: American Indian English

The fifth chapter describes the characteristics of American Indian English
(AIE), which is a heterogeneous LKVE with up to four million speakers,
primarily those with indigenous heritage. Although Native American and First
Nations languages have been the study of robust linguistic and anthropological
studies, the variety of English intersecting with these cultures and minority
languages lacks the same depth of academic research. This is in part due to
the historical genocide and stigmatization of indigenous cultures and
languages in North America, as well as continuing contemporary marginalization
of natives, e.g. the aftereffects of non-voluntary ‘civilizing’ boarding
schools for indigenous youth. Like many other LKVEs, AIE is increasingly seen
as a symbol of pride and belonging in the community with high covert prestige.
AIE is non-monolithic; however, Coggshall gives three main features that index
the variety as well as distinguish it from other non-standard English speech
communities and features: (i) a relatively small pitch range, (ii) glottal
stop insertion, and lack of gendering in third-person pronouns. AIE prosody is
typified by a smaller pitch range, high rising terminal in declarative
sentences, and syllable-timed utterances (cf. English stress-timed). Glottal
stops replace stops in AIE, but individual varieties differentiate whether
this is affected by voicing and intra-word position. Pronominal gender loss is
variable; however, the chapter does not detail if there is an unmarked form or
preferential expression of this feature. The chapter concludes that AIE will
exist as long as American Indians exist as separate social entities, but the
de-isolation and urbanization of communities may affect maintenance of the
variety.

Chapter 6: Bequia English

Chapter 6 documents the English of Bequia, a small and relatively isolated
island located in the Eastern Caribbean with a population of around five
thousand. Similar to other Caribbean histories, the island had passed from
French to English rule with slave-based colonial labor throughout; the modern
sociocultural situation can be described as “racially and ethnically mixed”
(Price 1988) with social identity based on affiliation with local villages and
communities. Bequia English (BE) co-exists with a local English-based creole,
which characterizes an isoglossic creole continuum based on geographic area
(i.e. Southside, Paget Farm, Southside, Mount Pleasant, and Hamilton). In
terms of phonology, the variety is variably rhotic and also exhibits marked
stridentization and palatalization, with a prosody that is “characteristically
Caribbean” (Walker and Meyerhoff Ch. 6). The bulk of attention is given to the
morphosyntax, as BE contains many creole or post-creolized features (depending
on an individual speaker’s placement on the continuum), such as past marker
‘bin’ and complementizer ‘fə’. The same pronominal forms can be systematically
used throughout as subjects, objects, and possessives, and reflexive pronouns
have a variable form of the general pronoun combined with ‘-self’ (e.g
‘weself’). Some of the unique features of the variety (e.g. three-way
existential construction based on village) are at risk of being lost as the
island opens up more to outside influence and younger speakers acquire greater
(socioeconomic and geographic) mobility.

Chapter 7: Saban English

Chapter 7 follows up with another Caribbean variety, Saban English (SE),
characterized by the small size and isolation of the island of Saba. Unlike
Bequia, Saba’s rugged physiography discouraged a tourism industry until
relatively recently, also fostering isolation and a lack of intra-island
communication between the four main communities: The Bottom, Windwardside, St.
Johns, and Hell’s Gate. While Saba has briefly been under English rule, the
island became a permanent Dutch municipality in the early 19th century.
Identity in Saba centers around a colonial social framework of race (Williams
and Myrick Ch. 7) where English, Dutch, and African languages were tied to
ethnicity and class, and later to village affiliation. Ideologies of language
decay are attributed to an increase in mobility for younger speakers, but SE
also has become emblematic of a distinct Saban national identity in William’s
(2012) Euro-Caribbean Anglophone Linguistic Area (ECALA), with its covert
prestige and national pride providing variety maintenance. SE vowels tend to
be lowered and monophthongized (cf. fronted diphthong price), the consonant
system has plosive glottalization throughout, and the variety has
socially-indexed rhoticity, wherein speakers with more education trend towards
r-fulness. SE morphosyntax is comparable with ECALA varieties overall;
however, its usage of a-prefixing to indicate progressive is a marked feature.
Also of note is the use of prepositions ‘by’ or ‘to’ for locative “at”, which
may be an effect of the Dutch substrate.

Chapter 8: St. Eustatius English

Chapter 8 continues the survey of the Caribbean with the Statian English
spoken on the island of St. Eustatius; as the island was a commercial center
of the Dutch Caribbean rather than a planation society like many of the
surrounding islands, Aceto notes that the dialect is distinct and
understudied, with his 2006 work representing the first focused publication on
the variety. Although Dutch (language and nationalism) is encouraged, Statian
English is the ubiquitous native language of the approximately two thousand
residents. Statian English, called simply English by Statians, contains
features corroborating Mufwene’s (2000, 2001) view of creolization as a social
process wherein the speaker population proportions create “dialect creole
varieties” (Aceto 2003) (e.g. the Bahamas) than a creole proper (cf. Antigua).
Statian lacks many of the typical Caribbean creole features (making it
typologically unique compared to surrounding varieties), with its total lack
of preverbal past-tense markers (e.g. ‘bin’, ‘mi(n)’, ‘woz’, ‘di(d)’) being an
exceptional absence. Because of the use of English as a commercial lingua
franca throughout the history of the island, creole-like features can be seen
as later language contact with St. Kitts rather than the variety decreolizing
since emancipation. Aceto notes that decreolization itself is a subpar model
to account for the types of language change and evolution occurring on St.
Eustatius and other Caribbean islands often seen as loci of creole languages.

Chapter 9: The English of Gustavia, St. Barthélemy

Chapter 9 covers another Caribbean English, that of the port city Gustavia on
the French island of St. Barthélemy (St. Bartholomew or St. Barths/Barts). The
Leeward island has a population of approximately 2.3 thousand, with its
Afro-European demographic being the chief community of speakers for Gustavian
English (GE)—its remaining, mostly white population Francophone. English has
had a history in St. Barths since 1785 where it was used alongside French and
Swedish, but began to diverge and koineize as quickly as 1785-1815. Because
the island was centered around port trade and not plantations, the resulting
slave to free persons population meant that the speech of slaves, freed
persons of color, and later Afro-Caribbeans was relatively similar to
Anglophone whites on the island and less similar to Caribbean English Creoles
(CECs). In fact Decker states that GE lacks any evidence of (de)creolization,
sharing more features with the English of Ireland, Scotland, and Northern
England. Compared to CECs, GE has considerable variation in open syllable
vowels, and its inventory contains non-CEC phonemes including trap and strut
vowels. Few CEC-associated lexical items are used in GE, and Decker finds that
the community may be shifting towards French and an “erosion of their English
fluency” (Decker Ch. 9). Morphosyntactically, GE also more closely resembles
non-Caribbean Englishes than CECs—Decker explains the few similarities as
exceptional or from contact effects. GE represents a unique non-plantation
variety of Caribbean English that is indicative of early-stage African and
European contact where slaves acquired English through close contact and
having similar population proportion to Anglophone whites.

Chapter 10: Anglo-Paraguayan English

The tenth chapter concerns the English of the Anglo-Paraguayan community,
specifically the heritage language of the descendants of Australian immigrants
to the country, themselves a socialist group who attempted (but ultimately
failed) to establish a communist society. While an exceptional inception of a
speech community in its own right, the situation is further complexified by
the heteroglossic situation of Paraguay which includes Spanish, Guarani
(Tupo-Guarani), the mixed Guarani-Spanish jopará, and English. Due to internal
conflicts of the community which centered around teetotalism, totalitarianism,
and the requirement of maintaining a non-miscegenation “color line”, the
settlers split into two camps: New Australia and Colonia Cosme. While the
settlements had different trajectories of language shift and mixing, both are
unique in that they represent a “well-organized English speaking community
shift[ing] from English to an indigenous language”. Second-generation
Paraguayan English (PAE) was non-rhotic with voiceless intervocalic /t/,
indicating that the Cosme PAE in particular closely resembled British Standard
English. Later generations diverged, gaining postvocalic /r/ and intervocalic
voiced /t/, as well as losing the lax distinction between ‘kit’ and ‘fleece’
vowels. Third and fourth generations also include Spanish (final consonant
cluster reduction) and Guarani (glottal stop insertion) contact features. As
expected from extended contact, PAE includes significant non-English loans,
and a few Australian English terms are retained as community shibboleths (e.g.
‘tucker’). Perez-Inofuentes concludes with a reframing of English as a
ubiquitously “killer language” (Mufwene 2008), since PAE’s trajectory of
indigenous language supplanting prestige language indicates that the social
mobility value of language does not ensure its local instrumental value.

Chapter 11: Gullah West: Texas Afro-Seminole Creole

Chapter 11 surveys the Texas Afro-Seminole Creole (Seminole or ASC), an
English-lexified creole derived from the Sea Island Creole (Gullah, Geechee,
or SIC) spoken along the southeastern United States coast. ASC is the language
of the Afro-Seminole indigenous community; due to the community’s historical
independence and isolation, the variety is much more conservative of its
original features than SIC. Hancock posits a common ancestor of this and
several other Atlantic-based English-lexified creoles as Guinea Coast Creole
English (GCCE). This GCCE was a product of (creole-like) levelling and became
a “common denominator” variety which was transported through the slave trade
to the Atlantic plantation colonies, but the historical and geographic
isolation of Gullah produced a particular type of Black language. The ASC
branch developed from the integration of Black and Native American escapees
into Spanish Florida, who were then sent west after the Third Seminole War.
ASC lacks the non-English allophones (Turner 1949) and much of the
African-derived lexicon of SIC, instead having Spanish and American Indian
loans (e.g. ‘banyuh’; Sp. ‘baño’), but shares most of its other features with
(historical) Gullah, including complementizer ‘fuh’, preverbal negator ‘no’,
and Atlantic anglophone creole lexical items such as ‘teet’ ‘tooth’ and ‘nuff’
‘plenty of’. Both SIC and ASC continue to go through language shift from
de-isolation and contact, the former continuing to assimilate to nearby
varieties (i.e. anglicizing) and ASC declining due to lack of
intergenerational transmission.

Part 3 Asia and the Pacific

Chapter 12: Palmerston Island English

Chapter 12 documents the English of the isolated Palmerston Island, an atoll
in the Cook Islands with a current population of less than one hundred
individuals. The island is characterized by its near-total isolation and
restrictive limits on visitor and tourist interactions; this makes it possible
to “(a) record all Palmerston Islanders, and (b) track all external influences
on the language” (Hendery Ch 12). Three main familial groups exist on the
island but with little dialect variation between them, with the main dichotomy
being between northern ‘beachfellas’ and southern ‘bush people’. The islanders
also delineate themselves from other Cook Island speech communities and
maintain negative ideologies towards those surrounding Englishes. Basilectal
Palmerston Island English (PIE) contains phonological features similar to Cook
Island Māori (e.g. no labio- or interdental fricatives). The pronominal system
uses English forms grafted onto the Polynesian systems of the region,
producing syncretic elements, e.g. the dual third-person mixed sex form
‘himshe’. Other Cook Island Māori substrate influence or language contact
effects include predicate fronting and lexical items. Several semantically
shifted or archaic retentions from earlier English varieties are also found,
combining with PIE’s systems of relatively flexible word class and
reduplication (e.g. ‘chuck-chuck’ ‘to do something enthusiastically). While
Palmerston Island is an invaluable resource in understanding the mechanisms of
language contact and genesis in Pacific Englishes, its environmental
vulnerability threatens to displace the islanders to New Zealand, where the
variety will likely not be maintained.

Chapter 13: Pasifika Englishes in New Zealand

Chapter 13 describes the forms of English spoken by Polynesian populations of
New Zealand, with about two hundred and sixty-six thousand individuals or
about seven percent of the NZ population. Because of the relative
socioeconomic mobility afforded in NZ compared many of the islands of Oceania,
there has been consistent migration to NZ which has caused a general decline
in Polynesian island population as well as speaker numbers of indigenous
languages compared to the reinforced status of English as the language of
education and administration. The Pasifika English (PE) of NZ is a direct
result of generations of migration from Polynesia and Oceania into NZ, with
generational divides often showing different stratifications of
multilingualism between Polynesian varieties, English, and PE. PE is
necessarily a heterogeneous variety in order to encapsulate the pan-ethnic
identity of its speakers, including non-Polynesian Fijians; however, a shared
set of features differentiates it from New Zealand English (NZE) and Māori
English (ME). This includes a relatively small consonantal inventory, use of
non-prevocalic /r/, and monophthongization in most vowels. Morphosyntactic
features consist of unmarked plurals and nonstandard agreement of third-person
plurals, and expectedly PE exhibits high amount of substrate lexical borrowing
and code-switching. The authors note that the variety is increasing in
positive indexical value and representation for younger Pacific Islanders,
with a possibility of diglossia developing as shifts towards English L1
proficiency and less Polynesian language L1 intergenerational transmission
occur in the diaspora.

Chapter 14: Palauan English

The final chapter concludes with the history and sociolinguistic situation of
the Republic of Palau and Palauan English (PalE). The independent nation state
is comprised of about 350 islands with a population of twenty thousand and a
long history of colonial control, settler migration, and emergence of the
anglophone speech community. Britain and Mastumoto draw on Schneider’s (2007)
postcolonial ‘Dynamic model’ to situate Palau and its nascent English in the
context of American colonialism, considering four constitutive parameters: (1)
sociopolitical background, (2) identity constructions, (3) sociolinguistic
conditions and (4) linguistic effects. Palauan, an Austronesian language,
underwent contact with English in the post-World War II period, producing a
diglossic system from which PalE emerges. PalE shares many features with its
closest anglophone neighbor of Philippine English (PhilE), including high
variability of /a/, lack of aspiration in voiceless stops, devoicing of stops,
and semirhoticity. Zero verbal marking is common, as is adverbial marking of
past, negative concord, and pro-drop. High amounts of code-switching and
borrowing from Tagalog, Palauan, and Japanese reflect its heterogenous
linguistic contact history, and its portrayal as a postcolonial English
similar to PhilE helps to situate it as illustrative of substrate-superstrate
language contact of Malayo-Polynesian speech communities. The legacies of
Japanese and American colonialism are still salient for Palau and PalE, but
the variety seems to be undergoing exonormative stabilization given its
diglossic situation and lack of direct English ideological imposition.

EVALUATION

Further Studies in the Lesser-Known Varieties of English (FSLKVE) is an
extremely important survey and documentation of understudied global Englishes.
The editors draw from a wide variety of scholarship to give representation to
many of these isolated, rare, or otherwise endangered languages in a way that
both humanizes the communities involved and legitimizes the status of ways of
speaking routinely stigmatized as dialectal, accentual, or un-noteworthy. The
volume achieves its goal of being an appropriate overview of many of these
seemingly incongruous systems, being both accessible and consistent for a
scholarly audience that seeks to understand how global Englishes develop in
various postcolonial, post-imperial and national contexts. The book coheres
well with its previous volume, The Lesser Known Varieties of English, and the
constraints of the nature of the chapter formats themselves (i.e. (i)
sociohistorical origins, (ii) sociodemographic data, (iii) structural
features, and (iv) assessment of the variety’s future) work in favor of the
text by allowing for examination of key similarities and contrasts of these
language situations. 

A major advantage of the wide range of Englishes depicted is the potential
avenues of future research, both empirically and theoretically. These
lesser-documented varieties often lack extensive linguistic analysis and
fieldwork, and a contemporary rigorous examination of the language and speech
community (particularly through an ethnographic lens) would provide a
continuing illustration of the effects and vitality of regional world
Englishes. From a theoretical standpoint, many of the authors provide
compelling evidence of idiosyncratic linguistic feature emergence and
maintenance in several varieties; this challenges preconceived notions and
pre-existing frameworks that are taken as linguistic and ideological axiom,
especially in the case of postcolonial Inner Circle Englishes. It is only
because of the collating of these surveys that a clearer and more complex
picture of linguistic innovation emerges in cases of prolonged language
contact. 

While the majority of the volume is pleasantly consistent in how the
information is provided and theoretical frameworks are well-evidenced, it does
become apparent that some chapters are also co-utilized as opportunities to
posit perspectives that run against the grain of established frameworks, even
those supported by surveys of other chapters. This is most jarring and obvious
in Aceto’s “St. Eustatius English”, wherein the author rallies against the
conceptualizations of decreolization and creole languages (“so-called
creoles”) in general. While this counter-viewpoint to creolegenesis and
language contact is fascinating and warrants further description and evidence,
it disrupts the cohesion between this chapter and others concerning Caribbean
Englishes, as well as entering into seemingly incongruous discourse concerning
scientific tampering and Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle of light
photons. Despite that relatively minor deviation, FSLKVE is an overwhelmingly
satisfying and competent documentation of the passion of its authors, their
passion for the language and communities they work with, and these “overlooked
and understudied” varieties of English.

REFERENCES

Aceto, Michael. 2003. What are creole languages? An alternative approach to
the anglophone Atlantic world with special emphasis on Barbudan Creole
English. In M. Aceto and J. P. Williams, ed., Contact Englishes of the Eastern
Caribbean. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121-40.

Kortmann, Bernd and Kerstin Lunkenheimer, eds. 2012. The Mouton World Atlas of
Variation in English. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2000. Creolization is a social, not a structural,
process. In Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh and Edgar W. Schneider, eds., Degree of
Restructuring in Creole Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65-84.

--------. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge University Press.

--------. 2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition, and Change. London:
Continuum.

Price, Neil. 1988. Behind the Planter’s Back: Lower-Class Responses to
Marginality in Bequid island, St. Vincent. London: Macmillan.

Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World.
Cambridge University Press.

--------. 2007. Postcolonial Englishes. Cambridge University Press.

Schreier, Daniel, Peter Trudgill, Edgar W. Scneider and Jeffrey P. Williams,
eds. 2010. The Lesser-Known Varieties of English: An Introduction. Cambridge
University Press.

Turner, Lorenzo Dow. 1949. Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. University of
Chicago Press.

Williams, Jeffrey P. 2012. English varieties in the Caribbean. In Raymond
Hickey, ed. Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Mouton: de Gruyter,
133-60.

Wolfram, Walt. 2008. When islands lose dialects. The case of Ocracoke Brogue.
Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 2(1)1: 1-13.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

John ''Spud'' McCullough is an instructor and PhD candidate of
Sociolinguistics in the Linguistics Program at the University of South
Carolina. His research interests include raciolinguistics, language
ideologies, and sociophonetics of marginalized language varieties,
particularly English-lexified creole languages of the coastal United States.
His dissertation focuses on the effects of coastal tourism on Gullah Geechee,
a creole language spoken in the southeastern United States lowcountry.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3242	
----------------------------------------------------------