...In this essay it will be argued that Middle English can not be considered a creole. First, I will define the word creole, and argue that, according to this definition, Middle English is not a good example of a creole. Then I will discuss some of the creolization criteria that have been used by Danchev in Fisiak. He claims that Middle English meets 7 criteria that would be characteristic of a creole language. I would like to argue that the arguments for the statement that Middle English would resemble a creole are not strong enough. Finally, I will look at the ‘creole hypothesis’, i.e. the hypothesis that Middle English would be a creole, in a sociohistorical and sociolinguistic framework. In this respect, I will state that Middle English could not be called a creole either....
The creoleness of Middle English
Middle English: a creole or not?
There is a view that Middle English was a creole. The argumentation for this view is that during the period following the Norman Conquest (1066) French had such an enormous impact on Middle English that it became a creole.
In this essay it will be argued that Middle English can not be considered a creole. First, I will define the word creole, and argue that, according to this definition, Middle English is not a good example of a creole. Then I will discuss some of the creolization criteria that have been used by Danchev in Fisiak. He claims that Middle English meets 7 criteria that would be characteristic of a creole language. I would like to argue that the arguments for the statement that Middle English would resemble a creole are not strong enough. Finally, I will look at the ‘creole hypothesis’, i.e. the hypothesis that Middle English would be a creole, in a sociohistorical and sociolinguistic framework. In this respect, I will state that Middle English could not be called a creole either.
There are two terms that need to be defined before going further. The first term is pidgin . In short, a pidgin is a language which has been drastically simplified in structure and vocabulary, in order to serve communication needs. It is no-one’s native language. Pidginization may arise when two language communities come into sudden direct contact, for instance in trade contact or military invasion.
The second term that needs to be defined is creole . A creole is usually preceded by a pidgin. This is how a pidgin may become a creole: In a few exceptional sociolinguistic circumstances, a pidgin may be adopted as the first language of a community and acquires native speakers. In this case it undergoes elaboration, i.e. creolization. Normally, there is also an expansion in function (Poussa 40).
According to the definition above, one of the characteristics of a creole is that it is preceded by a pidgin. Middle English, by contrast, is not preceded by a stable pidgin. Instead, a process of direct creolization is generally assumed for Middle English (Wallmannsberger in Markus 28). Therefore, in this respect Middle English could not be considered a paradigm case of a creole.
It was claimed above that another characteristic of a creole is the acquisition of native speakers. According to Poussa (1982), a Midland creole dialect originated due to the Danish conquest of 866, in which the Danish mixed with the English (Poussa 75). This Midland creole dialect indeed seems to have acquired native speakers. After all, when parents from different linguistic backgrounds, such as Danish and English, communicate among themselves and with their offspring in a makeshift pidgin, this pidgin is elaborated and adopted as a means of intercommunication by the next generation. In other words, the children “eventually speak a language that is both quantitatively and qualitatively different form that spoken by their parents” (Mühlhäusler 7). The children of these mixed marriages were thus the first native speakers of this new Midland creole dialect.
However, Woolford argues that “native speakers of a pidgin are generally an automatic by-product of a community in which a pidgin is used as the primary language.” Therefore, she argues further, “the correlation between native speakers and creoles may well be purely incidental” (Woolford 5). In other words, the acquisition of native speakers is an automatic by-product of a creole and not a characteristic.
A final characteristic that will be named here is an expansion in function. During the reigns of the Danish kings, many Scandinavians settled in England. Numbers are unknown. To govern England, one needed a lingua franca. According to Poussa (1982) “the Midland dialect would have been the most natural choice.” First, many people understood it. Also, the Midland dialect was easy for the conquerors to learn, because it was historically a Danish-English interlanguage. Further, it would be a natural language for the children of mixed marriages. Finally, the Midland dialect was a diplomatic compromise between the rival lobbies of Aethelred’s reign, the English and Scandinavian factions (Poussa 76). So, the Midland dialect became the lingua franca and expanded in function. In this way, then, Middle English could indeed be considered a creole.
To summarize, except for the expansion in function, there is no indication that Middle English would be a creole. First, Middle English was not preceded by a pidgin. Also, the acquisition of native speakers does not necessarily make Middle English a creole.
Now I will discuss some of the creolization criteria that have been used by Danchev in Fisiak. He wanted to find out if Middle English could be considered a creole. He claims that there are 16 criteria to decide if a language is a creole or not. He also claims that Middle English meets 7 of these criteria. I will have a look at each of these 7 criteria and argue that his arguments for the statement that Middle English would resemble a creole are not strong enough.
One criterium to take into consideration when one would like to know whether a language could be a creole or not is a simplified segmental phonology. Namely, the segmental phonology of creoles is generally believed to be simpler than the phonology of other languages. Most creoles have only the five basic vowels [a], [e], [o], [i], [u]. Middle English indeed has a simpler phonological structure than Old English. For example, one simplification concerns the loss of the more highly marked umlaut vowels /ü/, /ö/ and /ä/ (ae/) in most of the late OE and ME dialects (Danchev in Fisiak 86). In other words, Middle English does meet the criterium of a simplified segmental phonology.
A second criterium which could indicate that Middle English is a creole is a lack of (or reduced) noun morphology. The lack of case morphology is a feature of many creoles. There was indeed an accelerated loss of case endings in Middle English. This is usually referred to as “one of the most outstanding ME developments” (Danchev in Fisiak 87-88).
However, according to Danchev, the loss of case endings was already under way in Old English. Therefore, this loss of case endings can not be seen as an indication that Middle English would be a creole. Allen (1996) argues in this respect that “although language contact probably accelerated the reduction of case marking, the changes proceeded in too orderly a fashion to be the result of any sort of creolization process which involved the rapid stripping away of inflections, a characteristic of indisputable creoles” (Allen 64).
More specifically, syncretism of forms (i.e. one form taking over the functions of another) was already well advanced in Old English before contact with the Scandinavians or the French could have played a role (Allen 67). This indicates that there has been no radical change concerning the reduction of case marking. Further, Allen claims that contact with Scandinavian probably accelerated certain internally motivated innovation (Allen 74). That is, the contact with Scandinavian was not the instigator of the changes.
Görlach agrees with Allen on the view that Middle English does not meet this criterium. He writes that ‘creoles do not indicate case; but ME has -s genitive marking extended to the type father etc. (uninflected in the singular in OE). Datives are marked well into the 14th century. Creoles do not indicate number, but ME has –s marking extended to such words as things, horses, cases etc. (which had Ø in OE –or French), even in contexts where such marking is redundant (as after numerals)’ (Görlach 71). All in all, it could be argued that Middle English does not meet the criterium of a lack of (or reduced) noun morphology.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Anne-Katrin Wilking (Author), 2011, The Creoleness of Middle English, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/177149