Re: LUNATIC again

Lojbab wrote:

>And yes I recognize that in other countires, where Chomskyans did not come to
>dominate, it might be easier for linguists to look at pidgins, conlangs,
>and other such things with respect.  But I will note that Matt, while
>defining "language" more broadly, did say the same thing - that
>linguists are interested (only) in natural languages and creoles, but not
>necessarily pidgins.
This is as far as I know.  I know that many linguists study creoles, and
there is an extensive literature on creolisation, which deals with the
evolution of creoles from pidgins, and the relationship between creoles
and substrate languages.  But I think that most linguists would regard
a pidgin as being something 'less than a language' (to put it vaguely),
something more akin to a sophisticated argot than a natlang.

Matt.

------------------------------------
Matt Pearson
mpearson@ucla.edu
UCLA Linguistics Department
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
------------------------------------