Plenitude e funcionalidade da língua Guineense: um estudo sociolinguístico sob a perspectiva dos usuários

Abstract

Based on the assertion that languages generically called “creole” have different characteristics from other natural languages, the objective of this work is to point out whether the Guinean language (also known as “Guinean Creole” or Kriol) is a full, complete language, complex and functional for the Bissau-Guinean community, that is, if it covers all the communication needs of its users. In addition, this research intends to confirm whether the “creole languages” of the PALOP differ from each other, constituting independent systems of interaction. The theoretical perspectives of Crioulistics, Ecolinguistics and Sociolinguistics are used to debate the origin and formation of natural languages and also to characterize the languages considered “creole”. Although this debate contemplates different theoretical biases, this work is mainly guided by the assumptions of Labovian Sociolinguistics (LABOV, 2008, among others). The research methodology involves the submission of four semi-structured questionnaires, applied to Guineans, Cape Verdeans and Santomeans, with the aim of collecting data related to the communicative effectiveness of the Guinean language, the use of this language in real situations of community interaction, the evaluation of users about the different languages of the territory and about intercomprehension and intercommunication between Guinean, Cape Verdean and Santomean. In general, the results revealed that Guinean, in the view of users, is a language effectively used in daily communication, contemplating communication needs. The Guinean interviewees pointed out that there was no need to resort to another language, such as Portuguese, in their interactions, denoting even greater comfort in the use of the Guinean language. Considering users of different “creole” languages, it was possible to verify that there is no understanding between these forms of communication, confirming that they are different languages and not varieties of the same language. The interviewees from Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe and Guinea-Bissau revealed, in their interviews, that, despite being proficient in the “creole” languages of their respective countries, these do not have enough similarities between them to allow for mutual understanding, necessarily leading to, to the use of a common language between them, effectively, Portuguese. These results, in general, show, firstly, that Guinean, from the point of view of its speakers, is a full and functional language, meeting, effectively and efficiently, all the communicative needs of users. And, secondly, the results of the interviews with users of different languages called “Portuguese-based creoles” confirmed that, although there is a relationship between these linguistic systems, from the point of view of their origin, there is no intercomprehension between the languages, the which currently constitute independent forms of communication, permeated by different linguistic, social and historical influences.

Manga di anus linguas ku ta tchomadu di kriolus n’djutidu pa utrus piskizaduris, principalmente pa linguistas tradissonais, ku ta fala di kuma kriol i um lingua pôbri kuta dipindi di utrus linguas pa si funsonamentu. Pabia di és, nô sta na faci/skirbi és tarbadju pa sibi si na bardadi kil ku faladu pa és piskizaduris i bardadi ou i kafumban. Tambi nona n’pulma-n’pulma pa sibi si kriolus di PALOP, nes kasu di Guiné-Bissau, di Cabuverdi i Santumé i mesmu ô si kada um son i lingua diferente, pibia, pa linguistas tradissonais, kriolus i forinha di mesmu saku. No rekori a teoria di crioulistica, di Ecolinguística ku di Sociolinguística pa dibati sobri origen ku formasson di linguas naturais, assim suma di karaterizasson di lingua kuta konsideradu “kriolas”. Embora és dibati tissi manga tiorias, és tarbadju tene suma firkidja principal persupostus di Sociolinguística Lavboviana (LABOV, 2008, inda ku utrus). Na kil kuta fala di metodologia di nô tarbadju, nô submiti quatru kistonárius simistruturadus, ku nô aplika pa guiniensis, cabuverdianus ku santumenses, és quatru kistonárius tene suma panu di fundu otcha/konsigui dadus sobri efetividadi kumunikativa di lingua guinensi (“kriol”), impregu dés lingua na situassons reais di interasson di kumunidadi/vizinhança, avaliasson di si usuárius sobri diferentis linguas na país, assin suma interkomprenson e interkuminicasson entri guinienses, cabuverdianus ku santumensis. Di modu geral, resultudus mosntranu kuma lingua guinensi (“kriol”), na vison di djintis kuta papial, i um lingua plenu, kuta kontenpla necessidadis kumunikacionais. Intirvistadus guiniensis é fala di kuma é ka tene necessidade di rekori a utrus linguas, suma purtuguis, na ora ku é na papia. Além di kila, é fala é mâs ta sinti bem ora ku é na papia lingua guineense “kriol”). Na kil kuta fala di cabuverdianus, guiniensis ku santumensis, resultaldus mostranu, apesar di és intrivistadus tene suma profissiência “kriol” di kada país, i kata da pa ntindi kumpanher na ora di papia, pabia di kila, é ta usa lingua di kolon (putruguis). Di modu geral, és resultados mostra, na purméru lugar, di kuma lingua guineense, di pontu di vista di djintis kuta papaial i plenu i funsional, pabia ita atindi tudu nessessidadi di kumunikasson di si usuários. I, na sugundu lugar, resultadu di intirvista di usuárius di diferntis linguas ku ta tchomadu di “ kriolus di basi lexial purtuguis” pirmiti konfirma di kuma es tris linguas é diferenti, pabia di kila, é ka pudi konsideradu variedadi di mesma lingua, suma kita faládu manga di anus pa alguns linguistas tradissionais.

Dubi bui windobe fi dendê (linguistábê) hoitini dendê wietédê “kriol”, bai bê wiai “kriol” ko dengal hoitugal, gal wadáki, walitortogal dendhe gothê ka yeutrerê mudun. Fi dun, hi men wadudê dhe golê, hâ men n’dara si ko góga, madun ko fenádê koko bê windhobhê wiata. Men dhabi andugal ê n’der dhê golê si dendhê “kriol” ka PALOP, madun Wien “kirol” wouletedhô Guiné-Bissau, Cabuverdi, kannhuma ê Santumé ko gótun, kâ hino sêdi, bai linguistabhên wiai kriol foi ko hudê wóterê. Ka der gola amen, men walitori tioriadji Crioulistica, Ecolinguística kanhun ê Sociolinguística fi yomen fámu honô dendên fundori, kanhun ê n’badi wiadi krioldjidin no djogui. Na uiruden bayo, goledhên no mari tioriadji bui, kona tugalal burugal maunidê, madun fórudhe, kô Sociolinguística Lavboviana (LABOV, 2008, kanhun ê wobhê). Ka metodologia goleden, men wadu landhê nai, men landi guiniensibhê, cabuverdianubhê, ê santumensibhê. Men wadu dhê landê nai fi yomen famu ko hone bhê yimbe hutorta dhê dendhê ka dente/ka tchaê tuma bhê woulata, ko hondun bhe fami fi mandjê, kanhunma ê si tuma guiniensibhê, cabuverdianubhê, ê santumensibhê woulata, si bhê famondirai. Resultadudjidin holiri wondwma kriol wouletdho Guiné-Bissau ko dengal wana denhê godhê, bhai tuma inbebhen woulata, bhê wutortá dendhê godhê. Landhábhê guinensibhen wihímen bhe hutor tá dendhe gô. Bhe wihímen kadi wondema tuma bhe woulata kriol, bhe weltotô bui. Ka landê fi woulobhê “krioldji” bissau, cabuverdianubhê, ê santumensibhê men fami wondema dhê dendhê no sédi, gol sedugol dendhê wadei bhê woulo ka purtuguis madhun dendhe gô. Madun si em fala em wiai, resultadudjidin holiri pidji Didi, wondema kriol guine Bissau on ko dengal wano dendhê purto, bai wimbebhen djogáki dificuldadi waulugol. Landhê fi kril dji bissau, cabuverdi, ê santumê faminiem wondema ko dendê sedudên, madun Wien na gotun, wana linguisticabe fedjunóbhêm wiainó.