An overt marker which expresses habitual aspect often fulfils other functions as well. This feature asks about the additional functions that an overt habitual marker may have.
From our comparative perspective, it is not important whether the habitual function of the marker is the basic function.
We only look at overt markers. If habituality is expressed by the bare verb without any overt marker (as for example in English), we treat the language as lacking a habitual marker (value 1).
This chapter is closely related to Chapter 47, which deals with the uses of the progressive marker (see that chapter for some definitions).
We distinguish the following nine values:
|No overt habitual marker||17||0||17|
|Only habitual function||17||13||30|
|Habitual and progressive||5||2||7|
|Habitual and current state||1||0||1|
|Habitual and future||2||0||2|
|Habitual, progressive, and current state||9||2||11|
|Habitual, current state, and future||5||1||6|
|Habitual, progressive and future||1||5||6|
|Habitual, progressive, current state, and future||5||5||10|
Note that most values of this feature are very similar to values of feature 47 on the uses of the progressive marker since in many languages the progressive and the habitual function can be expressed by the same marker. The differences are due to the fact that some languages use a specific habitual marker or a specific progressive marker.
Value 1 (no overt habitual marker) occurs in all nine APiCS pidgin languages, in five French-based languages (Guyanais, Mauritian Creole, Reunion Creole, Seychelles Creole, Tayo), and in two Malay-based languages (Ambon Malay, Sri Lankan Malay). Note that in some languages with several overt tense and aspect markers, such as Guyanais or Seychelles Creole, the habitual is rendered by the zero-marked verb, which then has a functional load. This contrasts with (mostly pidgin) languages which have no, or only one, overt tense and aspect marker and where the zero-marked verb has no functional load.
Value 2 (only habitual function) is the most widespread value. It is found in six Ibero-Romance-based languages, in fifteen English-based languages, in two French-based languages, in two Dutch-based languages, in Kikongo-Kituba, Sango, in Hawai‘i Creole, and in the bilingual mixed languages Michif and Gurindji Kriol.
Value 3 (habitual and progressive) occurs in four English-based languages (Belizean Creole, Cameroon Pidgin English, Nigerian Pidgin, Singlish), in Kikongo-Kituba, in Juba Arabic, and in Mixed Ma’a/Mbugu.
Value 4 (habitual and current state) is only found in Lingala.
Value 6 (habitual, progressive, and current state) occurs in five Ibero-Romance-based languages (Diu Indo-Portuguese, Batavia Creole, Cavite Chabacano, Ternate Chabacano, Zamboanga Chabacano), in four English-based languages (Early Sranan, Sranan, Ghanaian Pidgin English, Bislama), as well as in Berbice Dutch and in Media Lengua.
Value 9 (habitual, progressive, current state, and future) occurs in two Ibero-Romance-based languages (Cape Verdean Creole of São Vicente, Papiamentu), in five English-based languages (Bahamian Creole, Gullah, Nengee, Saramaccan, Pichi), in two French-based languages (Guadeloupean Creole, Martinican Creole), and in Kinubi.
The values of this feature do not display any particular areal distribution, except for value 7, which occurs in five out of nine West African Portuguese-based creoles (as well as in Juba Arabic), and value 9, which only occurs in the Atlantic area (as well as in Kinubi).
In some languages, the habitual marker is derived from a full verb that does not function as a marker of habituality in the lexifier languages. Examples are the verb ‘can’ (kan in Negerhollands, kin in Krio, kìn in Pichi), ‘know’ (konn in Haitian Creole, kone in Louisiana Creole, sa in Papiamentu, sa ~ save in Tok Pisin, save in Bislama), or ‘love’ (Saramaccan lo).