Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Methodology and Results
Conclusion and Future Work
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Sociolinguistics

Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles

Profile image of Corinna BartolettiCorinna Bartoletti

2017, Language Ecology

https://doi.org/10.1075/LE.1.1.04FON
visibility

…

description

31 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Typological approaches involving the study of Creole languages have long triggered an unsettled dispute among creolists. Some claim that Creoles do not differ from non-Creole languages, and can only be defined socio-historically and not structurally, while others claim that Creoles are ʺdistinctʺ in many respects, and/or form a special class with specific typological properties. In an attempt to settle this dispute, Bakker et al. (2011) drew on a phylogenetic approach to provide evidence that Creoles form a structurally distinguishable subgroup within the world’s languages. However, their methods and conclusions appear to be questionable, as they are likely to be flawed. Standing as a challenge to the aforementioned article, this paper will reconsider their methodological and empirical approaches by re-evaluating the sets of Creoles and non-Creoles on the basis of identical or near-identical principles. It will ultimately appear that their conclusion could be an artefact of the sele...

Figures (19)
Figure 2. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes based on structure only (Bakker et al. 2011: 19)
Figure 2. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes based on structure only (Bakker et al. 2011: 19)
Figure 4. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes and English based on forms only.
Figure 4. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes and English based on forms only.
Figure 5. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes and English based on structures only
Figure 5. Phylogenetic network for Atlantic Englishes and English based on structures only
Figure 6. NeighborNet method for forms and structures combined.
Figure 6. NeighborNet method for forms and structures combined.
Table 1. CCS features applied to Vietnamese.
Table 1. CCS features applied to Vietnamese.
Figure 7. 18 Creoles and 12 non-Creole languages in a network (Bakker et al. 2011: 32
Figure 7. 18 Creoles and 12 non-Creole languages in a network (Bakker et al. 2011: 32
Table 3. Classification of Creole languages and the number of CCS and Creole features (Bakker et al. 2011: 22)
Table 3. Classification of Creole languages and the number of CCS and Creole features (Bakker et al. 2011: 22)
Table 6. CCS features and Creole features in a narrow sense
Table 6. CCS features and Creole features in a narrow sense
Table 8. Non-Creole languages analysed by CCS features
Table 8. Non-Creole languages analysed by CCS features
Figure 8. Phylogenetic network for 7 non-Creoles and 18 Creoles
Figure 8. Phylogenetic network for 7 non-Creoles and 18 Creoles
Figure 9. Phylogenetic network for 17 non-Creoles and 18 Creoles
Figure 9. Phylogenetic network for 17 non-Creoles and 18 Creoles

Related papers

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
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
Are creoles a special type of language? Methodological issues in new approaches to an old question.
Silvia Kouwenberg

Advances in contact linguistics. In honour of Pieter Muysken. Contact Language Library, 2020

This paper takes as its starting point Muysken’s (1988a:300) view of a ‘creole’ language as “just a language.” With this statement, Muysken rejects the idea of a creole prototype. Over the past 20 years, that idea has seen several new proponents. We provide a brief overview, before turning our attention to the work of Bakker et al. (2011; et seq.). That work relies on statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures which are not well understood by many linguists in the field of pidgin and creole studies. As a result, Bakker et al.’s methodologies have gone virtually unchallenged, although several critiques of their data – and by implication, of their conclusions – have been published. In this paper, we focus on the methodologies, providing detailed explanations of the statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures. We show that the data set used in the statistical procedure, a multiple regression analysis, fails to come anywhere near the minimum number of datapoints required for such an analysis to be meaningful. We show further that the apparent sophistication of the phylogenetic approach, which relies on a combination of computational packages to produce output in the form of reticulate networks, cannot remedy the flaws arising from questionable assumptions about linguistic features, pervasive errors in the data which are fed into the computation (including errors which appear to be systematic), the problematic treatment of gaps in the data, and the overinterpretation of output patterns. Contrary to Bakker et al.’s claims, Muysken’s (1988a) statement has not been disproven by these technologies.

View PDFchevron_right
Linguistic Hybridization in the Emergence of Creoles
Salikoko S Mufwene

The Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry

In this article I show how ubiquitous hybridity is in cultures. It is enabled by layers of population movements and contacts since the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa around 50,000 years ago. I demonstrate how hybridization has proceeded in the emergence of creole language varieties and show that the same process has also driven, for instance, the emergence and differential evolution of English and the speciation of Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages. Differences in outcomes are determined by the specificities of the contact ecologies, including population structure, differences in the demographic proportions of the populations in contact and power relations between them, as well as patterns of population growth, among other factors. I argue that hybridity is not unique to languages. It is conspicuous in other domains of culture, including cuisine, music, clothing fashions, and technologies, for example. I submit a uniformitarian approach inspired by evolutionary biolog...

View PDFchevron_right
The Emergence of morphomic structure in Romance-based Creoles
Fabiola Henri

2011

View PDFchevron_right
On the origin of creoles: A Cartesian critique of neo-Darwinian linguistics
Michel DeGraff

Linguistic Typology, 2001

I start with some notes on historiography and methodology, connecting certain trends in 20th and 21st century creolistics to outdated (quasi) Darwinian concepts in early 19th-century comparative-historical linguistics. Then I move to linguistics per se, inspecting the ...

View PDFchevron_right
Review of Creoles, their substrates, and language typology. Edited by Claire Lefebvre. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2011
Patrick-André Mather
View PDFchevron_right
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
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
Creoles and the Creation Myth: A Report on Some Problems With the Linguistic Use of 'Creole'
Chris Corcoran

Chicago Linguistic Society, 2000

View PDFchevron_right

References (51)

  1. Aboh, Enoch O. 2016. Creole Distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2). 400-418.
  2. Aboh, Enoch and Michel DeGraff. To appear. A null theory of Creole formation, based on Universal Grammar. In Ian Roberts, ed. The Oxford Handbook on Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Ansaldo, Umberto. 2004. Contact, typology and the speaker: The essentials of language. Language Sciences 26: 485-494. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2003.11.004
  4. Ansaldo, Umberto and Stephen Matthews. 2007. Deconstructing creole: The rationale. In Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews and Lisa Lim, eds. Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-18. doi: 10.1075/tsl.73.02ans
  5. Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall and Ingo Plag. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-Creoles. In Parth Bhatt and Tonjes Veenstra, eds. Creoles and Typology, Special issue of Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1): 5-42. doi: 10.1075/jpcl.26.1.02bak
  6. Bakker, Peter. 2016. You've got Gungbe, but we've got the numbers: Feature pools show that Creoles are still typologically distinct. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2): 419-434.
  7. Bandelt, H.-J. and A. Dress. 1992. Split-decomposition: A new and useful approach to phy- logenetic analysis of distance data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1 : 242-252. doi: 10.1016/1055-7903(92)90021-8
  8. Benveniste, Emile. 1993 [1966].
  9. Problèmes de linguistique générale, I. Paris : Gallimard.
  10. Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
  12. Bickerton, Derek and Talmy Givón. 1976. Pidginization and language change: From SXV and VSX to SVX. In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker and Salikoko S. Mufwene, eds. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. 9-39.
  13. Binger, Louis-Gustave. 1886. Essai sur la langue Bambara, parlée dans le Kaarta et dans le Bélédougou, suivi d'un vocabulaire. Paris: Maisonneuve Frères et Ch. Leclerc.
  14. Bray, D. S. 1909. The Brahui Language. Vol. 1: Introduction and Grammar. ***Calcutta. Reprinted Delhi 1986: Gian.
  15. Chaudenson, Robert. 2003. La créolisation: théorie, applications, implications. Paris: L'Harmattan.
  16. Christaller, Johann Gottlieb. 1875. A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language called Tshi: Based on the Akuapem Dialect with Reference to the Other (Akan and Fante) Dialects. Basel: Basel Evangelical Missionary Society.
  17. DeGraff, Michel. 2001. Morphology in Creole genesis: Linguistics and ideology. In Michael Kenstowicz, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press.
  18. DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against Creole Exceptionalism. Language 79(2): 391-410. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0114
  19. DeGraff, Michel. 2005. Linguists' most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism. Language in Society 34(4): 533-591. doi: 10.1017/S0047404505050207
  20. Everett, Dan. 1986. Pirahã. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 1. Berlin: Moutin de Gruyter. 200-325.
  21. Fon Sing, Guillaume, Jean Leoue and Corinna Bartoletti. 2011. Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles. Paper presented at the GRGC Workshop 2011, Creole Grammars -Linguistic Theories. Paris. 23-24 June 2011.
  22. Fon Sing, Guillaume and Jean Leoue. 2012. Creoles are not typologically distinct from non- Creoles. Paper presented at the 9th Creolistics Workshop, Contact languages in a global context: Past and present. Aarhus University, Denmark. 11-13 April 2012.
  23. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Adrian C. Edwards. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  24. Givón, Talmy. 1973. The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49: 890-925. doi: 10.2307/412067
  25. Hancock, Ian. 1987. A preliminary classification of the anglophone Atlantic creoles with syn- tactic data from thirty-three representative dialects. In Glenn Gilbert, ed. Pidgin Creole Languages: Essays in Memory of John E. Reineck. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 264-333.
  26. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. A Grammar of Koyra Chiini: The Songhay of Timbuktu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  28. Holm, John and Peter L. Patrick, eds. 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge.
  29. Huson, Daniel H. and David Bryant. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolution- ary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(2): 254-267. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj030
  30. Kay, Paul and Gillian Sankoff. 1974. A language-universals approach to pidgins and creoles. In David DeCamp and Ian F. Hancock, eds. Pidgins and Creoles: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 46-84.
  31. Li, Charles and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  32. Maia, António da Silva. 1964. Lições de gramática de quimbundo: portugês e banto, dialecto omumbuim. Cucujães: Escola Tipográfica.
  33. Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  34. Markey, T.L. 1982. Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 49: 169-207.
  35. Maurer, Philippe. 1995. L'Angolar, un Créole Afro-Portugais parlé à São Tomé. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
  36. McWhorter, John H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788-818. doi: 10.2307/417003
  37. McWhorter, John H. 2001. The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3): 125-166. With peer commentaries: 167-387.
  38. McWhorter, John H. 2005. Defining Creole. New York: Oxford University Press.
  39. McWhorter, John. 2013. It's not over: Why it matters whether there is such thing as a creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(2): 409-423. doi: 10.1075/jpcl.28.2.05mcw
  40. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber, eds. 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. Moussay, Gérard. 2006. Grammaire de la langue Cam. Paris: Missions Étrangères de Paris, Les Indes Savantes.
  42. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612862
  43. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2007. Les créoles: De nouvelles variétés indo-européennes désavouées? In Marie-Paul Ensie, ed. Actes du colloque "Créolisation linguistique et Sciences Humaines". Paris: Presses Universitaires Haïtiano-Antillaises. 59-70.
  44. Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson, eds. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 265-285. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.17par
  45. Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and in history. In John Macnamara, ed. Language Learning and Thought. Academic Press. 185-214.
  46. Sneddon, James N. 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
  47. Taylor, Douglas. 1956. Language contact in the West Indies. Word 12: 391-414. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1956.11659610
  48. Traugott, E.C. 1977. Pidginization, creolization, and language change. In A. Valdman, ed. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 70-98.
  49. Troubetzkoy N.S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague. [Trad. Fr. 1947, Principes de phonolo- gie. Paris: Klincksieck].
  50. Véronique, Daniel. 2009. Review of John Holm and Peter L. Patrick, eds. Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. Journal of Language Contact -VARIA 2: 153-157.
  51. Appendix. Scores for each of the 97 features of CCS for 7 non-creoles of our study BAN 0000001011110100111000001000000100111100100011011100101110110010011100100110010010001000?11111110 ENG 100????0000001000000000000000?1?01111111100100001101111110??0000011?0010010001011?101101?01100000 FRE ????0000000001000000000000?11?110?11111?11111000??01110111??00000?1101100111011111111001?11111?10 ITA 00000000000000000000000000010?110111111?11111000??0111011?000000011101100111011110111001??111??10 KHM 1111000001001100000000000011?0??011111?11011?000?10?101001111111111?0011011001?001000000111011110 MAN 1111000001000110011000000011110?0111000110?1100001??111111111111111?0?11110000110?000000110011111 VIE 1111110101001101110100001011110?1111111111111101??0?111011111101011?00110010010000000000011111110

Related papers

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
Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches
Eeva Sippola

2017

chapter 6 Creole typology II: Typological features of creoles: From early proposals to phylogenetic approaches and comparisons with non-creoles Aymeric Daval-Markussen and Peter Bakker chapter 7 West African languages and creoles worldwide Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Kristoffer Friis Bøegh and Peter Bakker chapter 8 The typology and classification of French-based creoles: A global perspective Aymeric Daval-Markussen vi Creole Studies-Phylogenetic Approaches chapter 9 The simple emerging from the complex: Nominal number in Juba Arabic creole Yonatan Goldshtein chapter 10 Dutch creoles compared with their lexifier Peter Bakker chapter 11 Similarities and differences among Iberian creoles Eeva Sippola chapter 12 Afro-Hispanic varieties in comparison: New light from phylogeny Danae M. Perez, Sandro Sessarego and Eeva Sippola chapter 13 Cognitive creolistics and semantic primes: A phylogenetic network analysis Carsten Levisen and Kristoffer Friis Bøegh chapter 14 Lexicalization patterns in core vocabulary: A cross-creole study of semantic molecules Carsten Levisen and Karime Aragón chapter 15 The semantics of Englishes and Creoles: Pacific and Australian perspectives Carsten Levisen, Carol Priestley, Sophie Nicholls and Yonatan Goldshtein chapter 16 Feature pools show that creoles are distinct languages due to their special origin Peter Bakker chapter 17 Complementing creole studies with phylogenetics Eeva Sippola Table of contents vii chapter 18 From basic to cultural semantics: Postcolonial futures for a cognitive creolistics Carsten Levisen chapter 19 Linguistics and evolutionary biology continue to cross-fertilize each other and may do so even more in the future, including in the field of creolistics Finn Borchsenius chapter 20 Epilogue: Of theories, typology and empirical data Bettina Migge Languages index

View PDFchevron_right
The Evolution of Language: Hints from Creoles
Salikoko S. Mufwene
View PDFchevron_right
Competition and selection in creole genesis
Marlyse Baptista

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages

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

2009

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • History
  • Language Ecology

    • Cited by

    Are creoles a special type of language? Methodological issues in new approaches to an old question.
    Silvia Kouwenberg

    Advances in contact linguistics. In honour of Pieter Muysken. Contact Language Library, 2020

    This paper takes as its starting point Muysken’s (1988a:300) view of a ‘creole’ language as “just a language.” With this statement, Muysken rejects the idea of a creole prototype. Over the past 20 years, that idea has seen several new proponents. We provide a brief overview, before turning our attention to the work of Bakker et al. (2011; et seq.). That work relies on statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures which are not well understood by many linguists in the field of pidgin and creole studies. As a result, Bakker et al.’s methodologies have gone virtually unchallenged, although several critiques of their data – and by implication, of their conclusions – have been published. In this paper, we focus on the methodologies, providing detailed explanations of the statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures. We show that the data set used in the statistical procedure, a multiple regression analysis, fails to come anywhere near the minimum number of datapoints required for such an analysis to be meaningful. We show further that the apparent sophistication of the phylogenetic approach, which relies on a combination of computational packages to produce output in the form of reticulate networks, cannot remedy the flaws arising from questionable assumptions about linguistic features, pervasive errors in the data which are fed into the computation (including errors which appear to be systematic), the problematic treatment of gaps in the data, and the overinterpretation of output patterns. Contrary to Bakker et al.’s claims, Muysken’s (1988a) statement has not been disproven by these technologies.

    View PDFchevron_right
    The emergence of hybrid grammars: A rejoinder to Peter Bakker
    enoch aboh

    <i>WORD</i>, 2017

    Peter Bakker's review of my book The emergence of hybrid grammars: Language contact and change, published in Word 62, 4. 228-243, amounts to a catalogue of misrepresentations and misconceptions of the positions I developed there. These claim 12 of his 14-page review. In what follows, I first summarize the hypotheses I developed in the book, intended now for those who have not read it yet, and then I expose Bakker's inability or unwillingness to interpret the book accurately and critique it competently. 1. The emergence of hybrid grammars: background information and clarification In the abstract of his review, Bakker writes: Creoles are seen as a result of failed acquisition. It is shown in the article that Bantu speakers were more numerous than Gbe speakers, on the basis of historical, genetic and linguistic evidence. Still, Bantu languages are structurally quite different from the creoles, which can be taken for an argument that Gbe as well only had a minimal influence on the grammatical structures of the creoles. The analytic structures are argued in the article to be as diverse for creoles as they are for the Gbe languages. Some structures are found to be different in all three creoles and five varieties of Gbe. (228)

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved