The Sixth
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MALAY/INDONESIAN LINGUISTICS |
Nirwana Resort Hotel, Bintan Island, Riau, Indonesia
Hans den Besten University of Amsterdam/ACLC & HIL h.den.besten@hum.uva.nl In the literature on the diachrony of Afrikaans, it is often claimed that the change from the Dutch resumptive possessive construction (PC) [ DPi - pronouni - NP ], as in (1), into the Afrikaans particled PC [ DP se NP ], as in (2), may be partially due to Pasar (or Bazaar) Malay-speaking slaves, who were accustomed to the punya construction. (Similar substrate influences are being assumed for the [ DP di NP ] construction of Khoekhoe ('Hottentot') and the [ DP su NP ] construction of Asian Creole Portuguese.)
After having consulted colonial grammars of Malay (to find descriptions of Pasar Malay), I have came to the conclusion that that idea is wrong, or at least not precise enough - the main problem being that the semantics of the possessor phrase of the Malay punya construction and the Afrikaans se construction differ wildly: [+animate] in Pasar Malay, [±concrete] in Afrikaans. Nevertheless, Malay varieties have strongly influenced Afrikaans, so why not in this case? Possible answers to this question may run as follows:
The above proposals and considerations will be evaluated against the background of a theory that analyzes prenominal possessive constructions as instances of a universal structure of DP-internal possessive predication (cf. work by Mirjam van Staden). |