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.
