Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Creolization (was Zhyler & Kele Babel Texts)

From:Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 19:14
Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:33:15AM -0700, Stone Gordonssen wrote: > > It is my understanding that pidgins become creoles when they move from > > being only an auxiliary language to being a 1st language for some body of > > speakers. > > That's correct. > > First language acquisition is fundamentally different adult or even > late-childhood language acquisition. The child isn't memorizing > the grammar, but inferring it, and since they have incomplete > information to work with, they can only infer languages that fit > the universal pattern followed by all human natlangs.
This is one predominant theory (one which I actually used to hold, as well). When you look at the evidence of how specific creoles/pidgins developed in the Americas, however, the problem is that in many cases, such as for example Gullah, there were several generations of slave-importation on a small scale before there was a large enough population of slaves to form distinct communities from their masters. This is especially true of the American south, where early on, in the 17th century, there were essentially no latifundia-style plantations. Slave-owners at this time usually had no more than four or five slaves. This small number of slaves meant that it was simply impossible to isolate the children of slaves from the speech of their European masters, and the speech of their European masters' children. This in turn meant that the children of slaves learnt the language of their masters more or less as the master's children did, which explains why AAVE is in most respects identical to dialects of rural Southern American English. Gullah is divergent, in this theory, because the isolation of that community from influences from the mainland was instituted long before (early 1700s) it was in the rest of the South (effectively mid 1800s). I would not discount Bickerton's bioprogram which you describe above entirely; there is always a role for markedness in any language change. However, he and sociolinguists like him have IMO vastly overstated the role of markedness. Two books I suggest for an alternative view of Pidgins and Creoles: "Explaining Language Change" by William Croft, and "The Ecology of Language Evolution" by Salikoko Muwfwene. ========================================================================= Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally, Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of 1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter. Chicago, IL 60637