A SCHIZOPHRENIC METAPHOR? DISCIPLINING CREOLENESS

2013

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.

Chicago Linguistic Society, 2000

Different spaces, different voices: A rendezvous with decoloniality (edited by Sayan Dey), 2019

From preface by Sayan Dey: ""Through his research on linguistics and education in Haiti, Prof. DeGraff meticulously explores the importance of dismantling the globally and colonially constructed system of language. In this interview, he primarily focuses on the debate on ‘high language’ and ‘low language,’ and the way it has affected the education of children in Haiti. He also talks about the challenges that he and his colleagues face in their efforts to promote mother tongues like Haitian Creole as tools for opening up access to quality education. He concludes the interview by drawing an optimistic future map associated with the usage of local vernaculars across different parts of the world. He argues that, in spite of major political barriers, the gradual success of introducing Haitian Creole in the schools of Haiti can inspire other communities throughout the Global South that are trying to promote their own local vernaculars as media for education and for the production and transmission of knowledge."

Dans le présent chapitre, nous nous proposons d'examiner différents modèles sur la genèse des langues créoles qui ont été proposés ou défendus au cours des 40 dernières années par des linguistes francophones en Europe (notamment Chaudenson, Hazael-Massieux et Manessy), et en Amérique du Nord (notamment Lefebvre et Valdman), à savoir les modèles substratistes, universalistes et superstratistes (ou "eurogénétiques"). Nous examinerons les questions liées aux processus cognitifs responsables de la créolisation, notamment les processus d'acquisition et d'appropriation des langues première et seconde, mais aussi les facteurs externes telle l'histoire socio-économique des colonies où les langues créoles ont vu le jour. Ensuite, nous aborderons les débats théoriques et idéologiques relatifs aux rôles respectifs des langues européennes et africaines dans la genèse des créoles, étant donné que ces questions ont été, et demeurent, très controversées parmi les créolistes francophones. Enfin, nous présenterons l'un des modèles de créolisation les plus courants, ou modèle "gradualiste", à la lumière des recherches récentes parmi les créolistes francophones et autres. Pour l'illustrer, nous comparerons des structures de différents créoles français et de français langue seconde.

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 2022

It’s been 17 years since Michel DeGraff ’s seminal 2005 paper ‘Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism’ appeared in Language in Society. DeGraff called out the field of Linguistics for continuing the “postulation of exceptional and abnormal characteristics in the diachrony and/or synchrony of Creole languages as a class” (p.534) which he referred to as ‘Creole Exceptionalism’. He argued that this approach was at once rooted in the racial essentialism underpinning European colonial expansion and perpetuated the marginalisation of Creole languages and their speakers. DeGraff (2005) took exception to two pre-occupations of creolists at the time: (i) that Creoles have exceptional characteristics and can therefore be considered a separate typological class of language, most notably asserted in McWhorter’s (1998) Creole Prototype, but also earlier in Bickerton (1981); and (ii) that Creoles are created through exceptional mechanisms, the best known exemplars of this claim being Bickerton’s (1984) Bioprogram Hypothesis and Lefebvre’s (1998) Relexification Hypothesis. Both characteristics are understood to be derived fromthe assumption that only non-Creole languages are “mature languages with ancient pedigrees, deep phylogenetic histories, and full-fledged linguistic structures” (p.543). DeGraff’s (2005:534–535) thesis was that Creole Exceptionalism was embedded in a largely uncontested hegemonic discourse of (neo)colonialism, essentially the linguistic correlate of scientific racism.

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 2010

In the previous column, I argued that the sampling methodology employed in typological work results in a systematic bias against contact languages, including creole languages. In this column, I will consider how creolists interface with work and insights in linguistic typology.

Language, 2004

Creolists have long classified creole languages as ranging along a continuum from basilectal to mesolectal to acrolectal, with an implication that the basilectal range is the "purest" or even most prototypical representation of creolization. However, in light of John Holm's focus on the category of semi-creoles, in this paper I argue that most creole languages worldwide classify as "mesolectal", much more like semi-creoles than "basilectal" creoles like Sranan and Tok Pisin, and that this even includes the "basilectal" ranges of English Caribbean creoles. I propose that "mesolectal" creolization is in fact the usual result, and that the term "basilect" be restricted to the relatively few creoles that developed under the unusual circumstance of almost complete dissociation from their lexifiers. This includes the Surinam creoles, the Gulf of Guinea creoles, Tok Pisin and its relatives, and very few others

2005