1. Introduction
It could be as easy as that: pidgins equal second language acquisition (L2A) and creoles equal first language acquisition (L1A). But does this simple equation work out in reality? In the views of some researchers of contact languages and of language acquisition it clearly does. Others have a sceptical attitude towards this hypothesis and suggest different solutions in terms of creolization and acquisition. Creole genesis is a field of linguistic research that has been intensely debated on over the past few decades. Until today, no theory was commonly agreed upon and there are still many diverging explanatory approaches.
In my paper, I aim to throw light on this maze of different creole genesis theories. I will use a comparative approach in order to work out the similarities and differences of the researchers’ views. Often they agree in their overall assumption and only disagree in regard to smaller aspects. In other cases, their opinions are completely controversial and not able to bring in line with each other. In my account, I will also hint at the weak spots of the hypotheses and the criticism they are confronted with.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Different Views on Creolization and Acquisition
2.1 The Bioprogram Hypothesis
2.1.1 The Theory
2.1.2 Criticism of the Bioprogram Hypothesis
2.2 The Relexification Hypothesis
2.2.1 The Theory
2.2.2 Case Study: Nominal Structures in Haitian Creole
2.2.3 Criticism of the Relexification Hypothesis
2.3 The Gradualization Hypothesis
2.3.1 The Theory
2.3.2 Evidence in Regard to E-creolization
3. Conclusion
4. Bibliography
1. Introduction
It could be as easy as that: pidgins equal second language acquisition (L2A) and creoles equal first language acquisition (L1A). But does this simple equation work out in reality? In the views of some researchers of contact languages and of language acquisition it clearly does. Others have a sceptical attitude towards this hypothesis and suggest different solutions in terms of creolization and acquisition. Creole genesis is a field of linguistic research that has been intensely debated on over the past few decades. Until today, no theory was commonly agreed upon and there are still many diverging explanatory approaches.
In my paper, I aim to throw light on this maze of different creole genesis theories. I will use a comparative approach in order to work out the similarities and differences of the researchers’ views. Often they agree in their overall assumption and only disagree in regard to smaller aspects. In other cases, their opinions are completely controversial and not able to bring in line with each other. In my account, I will also hint at the weak spots of the hypotheses and the criticism they are confronted with.
2. Different Views on Creolization and Acquisition
In the following sections of this chapter I will introduce the most important views on this topic. I will give brief summaries of their contents as well as I will comment on their position in the current debate.
2.1 The Bioprogram Hypothesis
2.1.1 The Theory
Who takes a close look at issues of creolization and acquisition cannot escape one name during his or her investigations: Derek Bickerton. He came up with the Bioprogram Hypothesis in 1977 and extended, specified and last but not least defended it in his publications up to the late 1990s. This hypothesis often serves as the basis for further researchers, either they agreed with or rejected it. There is hardly any contribution to this field that does not quote his ideas – for whatsoever purpose.
According to Bickerton “the Bioprogram is […] an innate faculty which ensures that, given linguistic input, humans will develop a specific type of grammar in the same way they develop a particular skeletal structure” (Mather 2006:235). In other words, it is an innately prescribed schema and moreover universal that can help child acquirers to build new linguistic systems. In his view, children are the agents of creolization and creolization is first language learning with impoverished pidgin input (DeGraff 1999:10 f). “Adults can only acquire a language if the input is rich and robust” (Bickerton qtd. in DeGraff 1999:25). Bickerton is a universalist, putting emphasis in his theory on the universals of language acquisition.
The, compared to pidgin stages, relatively stable creole language can be regarded as the realization of ‘default’ instructions of the innate Bioprogram. Language-specific peculiarities are minimal and to be disregarded. It is in the development of every child, without exception, that this ‘default’ system appears. The normal process taking place in their further development is, that the ‘default’ system is “overrun by the idiosyncrasies of the language used in the country where each child is born” (Mather 2006:235). Derek Bickerton argues that the false suppositions children produce in their output are highly similar to structures found in creole grammar. Since the children are confronted with a restricted, variable and non-rule-governed pidgin speech (which their parents are communicating in), they make use of the ‘default’ systems of their Bioprograms. This usage takes place unconsciously.
The evidence for the Bioprogram Hypothesis, that Bickerton and many of his supporters among others rely on, is that creoles in the different regions of the world share numerous syntactic as well as semantic properties despite their enormous geographical separation. Even according to Carden and Stewart who go for a Gradualist Approach in terms of creolization (see chapter 2.3), “it would be uncontroversial to talk about a ‘typical creole syntax’” (1). But for them the account for these similarities is not necessarily attributable to Bickerton’s hypothesis.
In one of his more recent publications, Bickerton compares the pidgin-to-creole-cycle with utterances of children before and after their second birthday. He sees parallels in that the transition from pidgin to creole and the two-year-old stage are both marked by an explosion of syntax. At the age of two, children start to use grammatical morphemes and the nature of their talk moves from “parataxis to syntax” (DeGraff 1999:25). We do not find syntax in pidgins and the language of under-twos. Bickerton ascribes this to “the abrupt coming-on-line of a specific neurological module devoted to syntactic processing – a module that must be triggered within a quite narrow temporal window” (65).
Again, in the initial stage of the creole genesis children are exposed to speech with little grammatical structure. Their innate Bioprogram enables them to restructure the input into Universal Grammar (UG)[1] -consistent grammar, “with very little owed to their parents’ L1s” (Mather 2006:236).
2.1.2 Criticism of the Bioprogram Hypothesis
Different researchers have provided evidence that challenges the plausibility of Bickerton’s hypothesis. Much of this evidence is in turn target for criticism itself.
Sebba for example points out that Bickerton’s claim, children who acquired a creole were merely capable of this one language, does not hold up to the plantation reality on the Caribbean Islands. This assertion rules out that the children had knowledge of their parents’ L1s. In Sebba’s view, there actually were several cases of bilingualism and “bilingualism rather than monolingualism in the creole is likely to be the norm in such a community” (qtd in Mather 2006:237). Given this fact, the children might have adopted structures from their parents’ native languages into the creole at its initial stage.
A second challenge posed to this hypothesis is that the two creole criteria Bickerton drew up in order to ensure an impoverished pidgin input were in many cases not fulfilled. First, Bickerton proposed that creoles developed out of pidgins which arose not more than one generation ago. And second, the creole was created in an environment in which not more than 20% of all people were native speakers of the dominant language and 80% of the population were composed of speakers of diverse languages. According to Mather, in several instances the pidgin expanded and was the mode of communication over a period of several generations – together with the substratum languages. He therefore doubts that, as Bickerton suggested, only the pidgin language could serve as grammatical model for the creole.
In regard to Bickerton’s second criterion, Chaudenson hints to the fact that in the time preceding the sugar boom in the Caribbean colonies, over one fifth of the population was white, i.e. speakers of the dominant language. In the following time the number slaves brought to the plantations increased until they made up 80% of the population. In contrast to Bickerton’s claim, the majority of the slaves came from a single language family and they were not speakers of diverse languages. Due to these historical facts, Chaudenson states that the theory only applies to one English lexifier creole, namely Hawaiian Creole English.
McWorther however rejects the theory’s application to Hawaii since he argues that the Hawaiian pidgin data Bickerton relied on stemmed from the wrong period (Mather 2006:236-239).
2.2 The Relexification Hypothesis
2.2.1 The Theory
Representatives of the Relexification Hypothesis view adults as the agents of creolization and they view this process as an instance of second language acquisition. What this theory shares with the Bioprogram Hypothesis, is that both regard creolization as an instant process which takes place within a single generation. The most prominent advocates of this theory are Claire Lefebvre and John S. Lumsden.
[...]
[1] According to “A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics”, […] universals provide a theory of a human language faculty – those properties of language which are biologically necessary – which is thought to be an important step in the task of understanding human intellectual capacities (483-484).
- Citar trabajo
- Inga Herrmann (Autor), 2008, Creole Languages and Acquisition, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/135211
-
-
-
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X.