Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T00:37:54.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of fi complements in Caribbean English Creole

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Donald Winford
Donald Winford*
Affiliation:
University of the West Indies, Trinidad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes a fairly rich area of complementation in Caribbean English Creole (CEC) within the broad framework of Chomsky's Revised Extended Standard Theory, and compares the description with other recent treatments. The area covered includes a number of complement types in which the CEC particle fi functions. It is argued that the key to understanding the syntax of the complement types lies partly in the variety, and sometimes ambivalence, of fi's functions. Earlier treatments are criticized for failing to clarify these functions, and for assuming too close a parallel between CEC and English complementation. In addition, it is suggested that the present analysis may provide a basis for explaining changes in the grammar of CEC complementation that result from the process of decreolization in continuum situations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 588 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank Jon Amastae, Frederick Newmeyer, John Rickford, Ian Robertson, Geoff Pullum, and Sarah Thomason for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any shortcomings that remain are, of course, entirely my responsibility.

References

Alleyne, Mervyn. 1980. Comparative Afro-American. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Ard, Josh. 1976. Rebracketing in diachronic syntax and Montague Grammar. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, ed. by Steever, Sanford S. et al., 1–8. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Bailey, Beryl. 1966. Jamaican Creole syntax: A transformational approach. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1971. Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7. 457–92.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1973. The structure of polylectal grammars. Report of the 23rd Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies (Monograph series on language and linguistics, 25), ed. by Shuy, Roger W., 17–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1977. Putting back the clock in variation studies. Lg. 53. 353–60.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1980. Decreolization and the creole continuum. Theoretical orientations in creole studies, ed. by Valdman, Albert & Highfield, Arnold, 109–28. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis. 1984. Fi and fu: Origins and functions in some Caribbean English-based creoles. Lingua 62. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter W. et al., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Christaller, Rev. Johann. 1933. A dictionary of the Ashante and Fante language called Tshi. Basel: Evangelische Missionsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1970. Locationals: A study of the relations between ‘existential’, ‘locative’ and ‘possessive’ constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals, Stanford University, 3:L1–L37.Google Scholar
Craig, Dennis R. 1980. A creole English continuum and the theory of grammar. In Day, 111–32.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1982. Syntax. New York. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Day, Richard. 1980 (ed.) Issues in English creoles: Papers from the 1975 Hawaii Conference. Heidelberg: Groos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Jay. 1974. African influence on the English of San Andres island. Pidgins and creoles: Current trends and prospects, ed. by Camp, David De & Hancock, Ian, 1–26. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Lg. 58. 591–638.Google Scholar
Gibson, Kean. 1984. The ordering of auxiliary notions in Guyanese Creole. University of the West Indies, Jamaica, ms.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl, 143–73. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Lefebvre, Claire. 1981. Haitian Creole pu. Generative studies on creole languages, ed. by Muysken, Peter, 201–21. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Patricia. 1976. Linguistic change in Gullah. Stanford dissertation.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1965. A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to. Glossa 16. 181–215.Google Scholar
Roberts, Peter. 1980. The adequacy of certain theories in accounting for important grammatical relationships in a creole language. In Day, 19–38.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Washabaugh, William. 1975. On the development of complementizers in creolization. Working Papers on Language Universals, Stanford University, 17. 109–40.Google Scholar
Washabaugh, William. 1977. Constraining variation in decreolization. Lg. 53. 329–52.Google Scholar
Washabaugh, William. 1980. From preposition to complementizer in Caribbean English Creole. In Day, 97–109.Google Scholar