BACKGROUND
The History of
Krio
Krio is an English-based creole
spoken mainly in Sierra Leone in West Africa. The name is
proposed to be derived from Yoruba a kiri yo (we
go-about-aimlessly full/satisfied) meaning "Those who
habitually go about paying visits after church service",
as the Krios were wont to do (Fyle & Jones 1980).
Circumstances leading to the emergence of Krio are highly
debatable.
One view argues that Krio
emerged from varieties of creoles used by settlers --
mostly freed slaves primarily from four areas -- who were
resettled in the Sierra Leone peninsula, including
Freetown, between 1787 and 1850 (Huber 1999, 2000). These
4 groups and their dates of arrival are identified as
follows (Huber 1999, 2000):
The Black Poor: The
Original Settlers (Black Poor) from England, numbering
about 328 settlers, arrived from England in 1787. There
is no evidence of any significant contribution of the
Black Poor to the development of present day
Krio.
The Nova Scotians:
Slaves in America were promised freedom and much better
living conditions in return for support for the British
during the American war. After the war, about 3,000
slaves were relocated, in 1783, in Nova Scotia, Canada (a
British colony), where they continued to endure economic
hardship and epidemics. In response to their protests,
the British decided to relocate them in a new colony in
West Africa -- the Sierra Leone peninsula, where most of
the slaves were originally from, in 1787. Most of the
first arrivals didn't survive the hostility of the native
community, primarily the Mendes. In 1792, close to 2000
freed slaves were shipped to Freetown from Nova
Scotia.
The Gullahs: Slaves from
West Africa and their descendants worked in plantations
in the American South East, between North Carolina and
Florida, and developed a pidgin, which later became
Gullah creole -- a mixture of English and West African
languages. Though, vocabulary was derived primarily from
English, its structure and pronunciation (including
intonation), as well as idiomatic expressions, proposed
to be were heavily influenced by those of the West
African languages that the slaves used as a primary
language. Gullah, still used in the American South, bears
some similarities with Krio.
The Maroons from
Jamaica: About 556 Jamaican Maroons (escaped slaves),
deported to Nova Scotia in 1796 after an unsuccessful
revolt, were transferred to the Sierra Leone peninsula in
1800. Creoles from the West Indies, particularly the
variety brought by the Jamaican Maroon settlers, are
proposed by Huber to have had significant input into what
has now evolved into present day Krio. There are lots of
similarities between Jamaican creole and Krio.
Another major group to be
considered in the development of Krio is that of the
Liberated Africans. After the British declared slavery
illegal for their Subjects, their fleet patrolled the
West African coast, intercepted slave ships and
recaptured slaves, and released and resettled them in the
Sierra Leone peninsula as the Liberated Africans (or
Recaptives). These were by far the largest group and were
resettled in the Sierra Leone peninsula over a period
that stretch from 1808 (when Sierra Leone was declared a
crown colony) to 1863. Huber estimates the number of
Liberated Africans resettled in the Sierra Leone
peninsula during this period at about 60,000, though only
about 37,000 were alive in 1840. In 1860, the Liberated
Africans and their descendants totaled 38,
375.
The Liberated Africans'
influence on the linguistic evolution of Krio is a
debated issue. Huber (2000: 278) acknowledges their
possible influence when he states that "the Recaptives
could very well have dominated the linguistic scene in
19th century Sierra Leone by swamping any other variety
that may have developed in the years prior to their
arrival."
The Liberated Africans
comprised mainly of speakers of West African Kwa
languages, including Yoruba (the most prominent), Igbos,
Akan, and Gbe. According to Huber, the Liberated Africans
were resettled in villages outside of Freetown in the
Sierra Leone peninsula, and there was little interaction
between them and the rest of the settlers in Freetown
between 1812 and 1830, as the communities were
segregated. There was increased contact, however, in the
1830s as the Liberated Africans were increasingly
employed as domestic servants in Freetown. They
originally spoke African languages only, but with
improved economic status and more interaction with the
Maroons and Nova Scotians, a new variety of creole
emerged that was described in transcripts written by
British colonists as a 'barbarous', 'defective',
'gibberish' and 'jargon' form of English (Huber 2000).
This variety incorporated features of the creoles used by
the Maroons and Nova Scotians, and it is reasonable to
assume that the cross-linguistic influence was
bi-directional: that is, the creoles used in Freetown
were influenced by the variety developed by the Liberated
Africans.
The language and traditions of
settlers of Yoruba origins have had a strong influence on
the language, social life and customs of Krio speakers in
Freetown. The influence of the languages (including
Yoruba) of the Liberated Africans on the grammatical
development of Krio should therefore not be
underestimated and should be considered at least a
contributing factor in the development of the grammar of
Krio.
A contrary view of the origin
of Krio Hancock (1986, 1987) maintains that the original
"core" creole emerged along the Upper Guinea Coast of
West Africa in the 1600s, long before the Trans-Atlantic
Slave Trade. There is evidence of British settlement on
the Upper Guinea Coast and written reports of
interaction, including intermarriages, between Europeans
and Africans during this period. Products of the
intermarriages -- referred to as Mulattos -- became the
first creole speakers. Creoles in the Americas partly
originated from this original creole (Guinea Coast Creole
English (GCCE)), which was transmitted to the Americas by
slaves transported by English and Dutch traders. Hancock
suggests that the grammar of GCCE continued to be
influenced by the properties of West African languages as
a result of its extensive use by second language speakers
in the region. According to Hancock, present day Krio is
an offshoot of GCCE. Eyewitness recorded transcripts of
GCCE in the 17th and 18th centuries illustrate similar
grammatical features and lexical items between modern
Krio and GCCE. The presence of these features and items
in present day Krio, Hancock maintains, is evidence that
the emergence of Krio pre-dates the resettlement of freed
slaves in Sierra Leone.
Attitudes and
Current Use of Krio
Present day Krio now exists in
a variety of forms. There is an ambivalent attitude
towards Krio by native Krio speakers: It is a symbol of
identity (not only for native Krios but also for Sierra
Leoneans in general. However, it is also perceived as a
distortion (an inferior form) of English and hence has a
negative influence on the development of English.
English, as the official language and medium of
instruction in academic institutions, continues to hold
the status as the language of prestige, sometimes
resulting in the use of the Acrolect variety of Krio (the
variety closest to English) as a symbol of status or
education. This has thus resulted in the co-existence of
parallel forms (broad vs. proper Krio) used to symbolize
class, education, and upbringing.
(In the following, the symbol
E is used for the sound of 'e' in 'bet' and
O is used for the sound of 'aw' in '
awful'.)
For example: winda
vs.windo ('window'); bred vs. brEd
('bread'); rEs vs. rays ('rice'); was an
besin (literally, 'wash-hand basin') vs.
sink ('sink'); bokit vs. bOkEt
('bucket'); kaka vs. stul ('feces'). This
had its origin from colonial times when the British
assumed that Krio was a distortion of English and
continued to stress importance of English over local
languages, a trend that successful Krio families
followed. Krio linguists are now trying to reverse the
trend by encouraging the use of Mesolect and Basilect
varieties, as a means of preserving Krio and slowing
down, if not halting, the continued influence of
English.
More recently, there has been
influence from non-native Krio speakers as a result of
its extensive use as a second language. As a result,
other varieties of Krio are emerging resulting in
coexistence of parallel forms. For example:
wetin yu bring fO
mi? (Native speech) versus
wetin yu sEn fO mi?
(Non-native)
'What did you bring (home)
for me?'
dEn di bil os.
(Native) (literally: they progressive build
house) versus
dEn de pan bil os.
(Non-Native) (lit.: they prog in-the-process-of
build house)
'They are building a
house.'
Though some native Krio
speakers, accepting change as inevitable, incorporate
non-native forms into their speech, others would like to
maintain the 'purity' of the language and have maintained
use of the original native forms.
The official attitude to Krio
has also been ambivalent. It is one of the languages
recognized in broadcasting, but its use by school
children could result in strong disciplinary action.
Since 1977, there has been contemplation by different
political regimes of using an indigenous language or
indigenous languages in formal education. Pilot studies
included Mende and Temne (comprising about 50% of the
population) and Limba (the next most populous). Krio was
not considered because of its small base of native
speakers (about 10% or less of the population). There
have been recent talks of possibly using Krio in some
official capacity because of its widespread use as lingua
franca, but not much progress has been made. Current
negative attitudes (by native and non-native Krio
speakers) to the linguistic status of the language and
the lack of a well-developed and publicized standard
writing system have made this a low priority issue for
succeeding governments in Sierra Leone.
BACK
TO TOP SOUNDS VOCABULARY GRAMMAR REFERENCES