Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Introduction
Summary
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures

Competition and selection in creole genesis

Profile image of Marlyse BaptistaMarlyse Baptista

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages

https://doi.org/10.1075/JPCL.32.1.05BAP
visibility

…

description

21 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper investigates the theories of creole genesis, particularly the roles of superstrates and substrates, and critiques the prevalent view that creoles are simply conventionalized interlanguages resulting primarily from second language acquisition. Using data from the Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures (APiCS), the analysis reveals significant morphological and syntactic variances across different creoles that contradict existing interlanguage hypotheses. The findings underscore the need for broader and more systematic comparative studies in creole languages to better understand their developmental processes and inherent linguistic properties.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What evidence counters the idea that creoles are simplified interlanguages?add

The study shows that creoles exhibit diverse features, with all six word orders attested, contradicting the notion of simplicity in interlanguages.

How does the competition and selection model explain creole language features?add

Mufwene's model suggests that linguistic features from superstrates and substrates compete, leading to unique grammatical innovations in creoles.

What do Bates and MacWhinney's findings reveal about language acquisition processes?add

Their research indicates that frequency of features in input plays a crucial role in determining acquisition order in language learning.

How do competing I-grammars influence creole word order selection?add

Lightfoot argues that creole choices reflect competing I-grammars that seek common grounds, exemplified by Berbice-Dutch's SVO order.

What challenges exist in distinguishing language internal change from contact-induced change?add

Winford critiques the lack of distinction between these types of changes, stressing that contact-driven innovations occur rapidly and distinctly from internal developments.

Related papers

Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar: The Case of Haitian Creole:Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar The Case of Haitian Creole
Paul B Garrett

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Review of Creoles, their substrates, and language typology. Edited by Claire Lefebvre. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2011
Patrick-André Mather
View PDFchevron_right
The genesis of creoles: when interim grammars become permanent
Marcel Bas
View PDFchevron_right
Morphology in Creole Genesis: Linguistics & Ideology
Michel DeGraff

_Ken Hale: A Life in Language_, Michael Kenstowicz, ed., Cambridge MA: MIT Press,, 2001

View PDFchevron_right
Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part 1
Silvia Kouwenberg

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 2010

The fields of creole studies and linguistic typology enjoy an uneasy relationship. The mutual unease is mainly centered around the idea of creole languages as a distinct type. I will argue that linguistic typology has more or less inherited the nineteenth-century perspective on creole languages which Hugo Schuchardt challenged, namely that which considered contact languages such as pidgins and creoles not to be fully legitimate objects of study. I will show how this manifests itself in typological surveys, in particular in the World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al., 2005), which is claimed to be setting new standards in typology.

View PDFchevron_right
GRAMMATICIZATION IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF CREOLES 1
Salikoko S Mufwene
View PDFchevron_right
Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles
Mikael Parkvall

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 2011

In creolist circles, there has been a a long-standing debate whether creoles differ structurally from non-creole languages and thus would form a special class of languages with specific typological properties. This debate about the typological status of creole languages has severely suffered from a lack of systematic empirical study. This paper presents for the first time a number of large-scale empirical investigations of the status of creole languages as a typological class on the basis of different and well-balanced samples of creole and non-creole languages. Using statistical modeling (multiple regression) and recently developed computational tools of quantitative typology (phylogenetic trees and networks), this paper provides robust evidence that creoles indeed form a structurally distinguishable subgroup within the world’s languages. The findings thus seriously challenge approaches that hold that creole languages are structurally indistinguishable from non-creole languages.

View PDFchevron_right
Grammaticization is Part of the Development of Creoles
Salikoko S Mufwene

Papia Revista Brasileira De Estudos Crioulos E Similares, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
The complex of creole typological features
Diana Guillemin

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 2012

This paper presents morphosyntactic and sentential information on Mauritian Creole (MC), a French-lexifier creole which has been underrepresented in many studies of Creole morphosyntactic typology. Typological features from Holm & Patrick (2007), Bickerton (1981, 1984), Taylor (1971, 1977), Markey (1982), and Dryer (1992), most of which have previously been assembled as being diagnostic of a language’s creole status, are presented here with examples from contemporary MC. MC sentences from sets of comparative creolistic sentences in Hancock (1975, 1987) are presented in Appendix A. The material demonstrates abundantly that MC exhibits the vast majority of features which have been deemed typical of creole languages over the past four decades.

View PDFchevron_right
The Evolution of Language: Hints from Creoles
Salikoko S. Mufwene
View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. Aboh, Enoch. 2004. The Morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001
  2. Aboh, Enoch. 2006. The role of the syntax-semantics interface in language transfer. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues, 221-252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.42.14abo
  3. Aboh, Enoch. 2009. Competition and selection: That's all! In Enoch O. Aboh & Norval Smith (eds.), complex processes in new languages, 317-344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.35.20abo
  4. Aboh, Enoch. 2015. The emergence of hybrid grammars: Language contact and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139024167
  5. Aboh, Enoch and Umberto Ansaldo 2007. The role of typology in language creation: A descrip- tive take. In Umberto Ansaldo, Steve Matthews and Lisa Lim (eds.) Desconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39-66.
  6. Aboh, Enoch & Michel DeGraff. 2014. Some notes on bare noun phrases in Haitian Creole and in Gungbe: A transatlantic perspective. In Tor A. Åfarlí & Brit Maehlum (eds.), The socio- linguistics of grammar, 203-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.154.11abo
  7. Aboh, Enoch & Norval Smith (eds.). 2009. Complex processes in new languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.35
  8. Baker, Philip. 1994. Creativity in creole genesis. In Dany Adone & Ingo Plag (eds.), Creolization and language change, 65-84. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
  9. Bao, Zhiming & Lionel Wee. 1999. The passive in Singapore English. World Englishes 18. 1-11.
  10. Baptista, Marlyse. 2002. The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento Varieties (Linguistics Today/Linguistik Aktuell 54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.54
  11. Baptista, Marlyse. 2005. New directions in pidgin and creole studies. Annual Review of Anthropology 34. 33-42. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120638
  12. Baptista, Marlyse. 2006. When substrates meet superstrate: The case of Cape Verdean Creole. In Jürgen Lang, John Holm, Jean-Louis Rougé & Maria João Soares (eds.), Cabo Verde - Origens da sua Sociedade e do seu Crioulo, Tübingen: Narr.
  13. Baptista, Marlyse. 2015. Continuum and variation in creole languages: Out of many voices, one language. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 30(2). 225-264. doi: 10.1075/jpcl.30.2.02bap
  14. Baptista, Marlyse. 2016a. Stepping back to move forward: An introspection on the history of some key questions driving our field. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages.
  15. Baptista, Marlyse 2016b. Creole formation and L2 acquisition: On re-evaluating processes and labels. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages.
  16. Baptista, Marlyse (in preparation). On the role of convergence in shaping linguistic innovations.
  17. Baptista, Marlyse, Susan Gelman & Erica Beck. 2015. Testing the convergence hypothesis in lan- guage acquisition with implications for creole genesis. International Journal of Bilingualism. 1-28 [online version appeared in November 2014].
  18. Bates, Elizabeth & Brian MacWhinney. 1987. Competition, Variation and Language Learning. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language change, 157-193. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
  20. Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 173-221. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00044149
  21. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  22. Chaudenson, Robert. 2001. Creolization of language and culture. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203440292
  23. Coetsem, Frans van. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
  24. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson.
  25. DeGraff, Michel. 1999. Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and de- velopment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  26. Glushko, Robert. 1979. The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 5. 674-691. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.5.4.674
  27. Kihm, Alain. 1990. Conflation as a directive process in creolization. Bochum Essener Kolloquium. Bochum: Brockmeyer. 111-137.
  28. Kihm, Alain. 1994. Kriyol Syntax: The Portuguese-based Creole Language of Guinea-Bissau (Creole Language Library, Vol.14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.14
  29. Kouwenberg, Silvia. 1992. From OV to VO: Linguistic negotiation in the development of Berbice Dutch Creole. Lingua 88. 263-299. doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90044-J
  30. Lang, Jürgen. 2000. Centre africain et périphérie portugaise dans le créole santiagais du Cap- Vert? In Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.), Degrees of restructuring in Creole Languages, 469-482. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cll.22
  31. Lightfoot, David. 1993. Why UG needs a learning theory: Triggering verb movement. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. Ed. C. Jones. London: Longman, 1993: 190-214
  32. Lightfoot, David. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambride University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511616204
  33. MacWhinney, Brian & Elizabeth Bates (eds.). 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence process- ing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber. 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13(1). 83-134. doi: 10.1075/dia.13.1.05muf
  36. Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612862
  37. Mufwene, Salikoko. 2008. Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  38. Plag, Ingo. 2008. Creoles as interlanguages: Syntactic structures. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 23(2). 307-238. doi: 10.1075/jpcl.23.2.06pla
  39. Plag, Ingo. 2011. Creolization and admixture: Typology, feature pools, and second language acquisition. In Parth Bhatt & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creoles and Typology. Special Issue of Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 89-110.
  40. Roeper, Thomas. 1999. Universal Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3). 169- 186. doi: 10.1017/S1366728999000310
  41. Santos, Rosine. 1979. Le créole des îles du Cap-Vert: Comparaison avec les langues africaines. Thesis, Dakar: Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Dakar.
  42. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1881. Anzeige von: C. Baissac, Étude sur Ie patois créole mauricien. F. Adolpho Coelho, Os dialectos ou neo-latinos na Africa, Asia e America. Zeitschrift für rom. Philologie 5. 580-581.
  43. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1909. Die Lingua franca. Zeitschrift für rom. Philologie 33. 441-461.
  44. Sprouse, Rex. 2009. Creoles and interlanguages, conclusions and research desiderata: A reply to Plag. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère. Au croisement de différents types d'acquisition: pourquoi et comment comparer? 283-301.
  45. Sylvain, Suzanne. 1976. Le Créole Haïtien: Morphologie et Syntaxe. Geneva: Slatkine. Reprints. Teyssier, Paul. 1959. La Langue de Gil Vicente. Paris: Klincksieck.
  46. Teyssier, Paul. 1990. La négation dans les créoles portugais. In Études de Littérature et de Linguistique. Paris: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian -Centro Cultural Portugues. 243-254.
  47. Thomason, Sarah. 2008. Pidgins, creoles and historical linguistics. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Singler (eds.), The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, 242-262. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
  48. Winford, Donald. 2014. On the unity of contact phenomena: the case for imposition. In Carole de Fe'ral (ed.), In and out of Africa: Languages in question. A Festschrift for Robert Nicolai. Louvain: Peeters.
  49. Winford, Donald. 2016. The ecology of language and the New Englishes: Toward an integrative framework. Ms. The Ohio State University.
  50. Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Related papers

Mather, P.-A. 2007. Creole studies. In Dalila Ayoun (ed.), French Applied Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007, pp. 400-424.
Patrick-André Mather

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.

View PDFchevron_right
Creoles and interlanguages, conclusions and research desiderata: a reply to Plag
Rex Sprouse

Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère

This article responds to Ingo Plag's recent (2008) columns in the Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages in which creoles are discussed as 'conventionalized interlanguages of an early stage' with consideration of infl ectional morphology and syntax. Here it is argued that Plag's traditional conception of transfer coupled with his uncritical acceptance of Processability Theory as a theory of interlanguage development make it diffi cult to offer a rigorous assessment of the basic claim. This article offers several critiques of Plag's argumentation and claims that Full Transfer/Full Access model offers accounts that are at least as satisfactory as those offered by Processability Theory. Nevertheless, while embracing Plag's Interlanguage Hypothesis, this article calls for quantitatively and qualitatively more ambitious studies of both interlanguage development and creole formation, based on typologically driven constellations of L1s/ substrates and the Target Languages/lexifi ers.

View PDFchevron_right
What you see is not always what you get: Apparent simplicity and hidden complexity in creole languages
Claire Lefebvre

Linguistic Typology, 2001

View PDFchevron_right
Second Language Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Same (I) processes, different (E) results. JPCL 21:2 (2006)
Patrick-André Mather
View PDFchevron_right
The simplicity of creoles in a typological perspective
Mikael Parkvall

Th is paper discusses the possibility of quantifying complexity in languages in general, and in creoles in particular. It argues that creoles are indeed diff erent from non-creoles, primarily in being less complex. While this has been argued before, this is the fi rst attempt to prove it through the use of an extensive typological database. It is noteworthy that the diff ering complexity is not related to the relative lack of morphology in creoles, since they are also simpler than analytical languages. Finally, the parallels between pidgins and creoles (and in particular the fact that languages sociologically intermediate between the two categories are also structurally intermediate) support the increasingly questioned belief that pidgins are born out of pidgins.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Pidgin and Creole Languages
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved