|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 29, 2004, 4:51|
Chris Bates wrote:
> > Isaac wrote:
> > Oh dear! This is what I had been led to believe was the current
> > thought on pidgin > creole formation. Could you possibly point me to a
> > website or paper (on- or offline) that discusses this?
> As I already said I'm really interested in pidgins and creoles and their
> formation at the moment, so the request for more information is
> seconded. :)
Some good books on the subject:
Salikoko Mufwene _The Ecology of Language Evolution_
Michel Degraff _Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization,
Diachrony, and Development_
The first is cheaper and a good introduction. The latter is more expensive,
and more indepth.
> Perhaps the reason languages often called pidgins are as
> complete as normal languages is because people have kept calling them
> pidgins when they've long since become creoles? (assuming for a second
> that the traditional view of pidgins and creoles is true). If not, is
> there any difference? Or can we safely drop the word "pidgin" and simply
> refer to all such languages as creoles?
Well, in many cases the names have become stuck. The key is to acknowledging
the variety of sources for language change and not reducing it solely to some
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