Creolization and the Tense-Aspect-Modality System of Nigerian Pidgin

Transfer and the Substrate Hypothesis in Creolistics

“…With the significance of proper names (approximately 87% of the items discussed by Turner) disputed and with some of the other words being in restricted usage (e.g., only in songs), the contribution may, from a dialectologist perspective, be only minimal. 12 Nonetheless, Turner has inspired considerable research on African substrate influence in the New World's Creoles, including: Alleyne (1971Alleyne ( , 1979Alleyne ( , 1980Alleyne ( , 1986Alleyne ( , 1988, Allsopp (1977), Boretzky (1983Boretzky ( , 1988, DeBose and Faraclas (1988), Faraclas (1987Faraclas ( , 1988a, Gilman (1986), Holm (1980aHolm ( , 1980bHolm ( , 1986Holm ( , 1988aHolm ( , 1988b, Holm and Oyedeji (1984), Koopman (1986), Lefebvre (1986Lefebvre ( , 1988, Manessy (1985aManessy ( , 1985bManessy ( , 1986, Maurer (1987), Robertson (1988), Singler (1984Singler ( , 1988a, and Smith, Robertson, and Williamson (1987). 13 Many of these have shown little improvement over Turner's methodology (discussed in the next section), a weakness that has contributed not only to the stagnation of the substrate hypothesis (at least until recently 14 ) but also to its being slow in convincingly countering the exaggerated significance of Bickerton's LBH.…”

“…The former may have been subsequent to and may have needed the latter to support it. It may also be convenient to distinguish those who invoke substrate influence from single languages or groups of typologically related languages (e.g., Alleyne, 1988;DeBose & Faraclas, 1988;Faraclas, 1987Faraclas, , 1988aLefebvre, 1986Lefebvre, ,1988Sylvain, 1936) from those who refer to, for instance, all the languages of the coast of western and central Africa. One of the problems, particularly with such major works as Alleyne (1980), Holm (1988a), Jourdain (1956), and Turner (1949), is random reference to various African languages, down-playing the typological differences between them.…”

“…There are simply no general African linguistic features that would not be shared by the European lexifiers of Atlantic Creoles. Works such as Faraclas (1987Faraclas ( , 1988a, Gilman (1986), Manessy (1985aManessy ( , 1985bManessy ( , 1986, Sankoff (1984), and Sankoff and Brown (1976), which associate substrate influence with areal features, 18 are a small antidote to the deep-rooted trend, especially among Atlantic Creole substratists, to invoke African linguistic features randomly from languages sometimes belonging in different typological groups. This dominant research style has seriously undermined the substrate hypothesis.…”

Codeswitching: Black English and standard English in the African‐American linguistic repertoire

“…The methodology adopted for the present study was first developed in Nigeria by Faraclas (1987) for the sociolinguistic study of Nigerian Pidgin. Its successful application to the study of Black English in Oakland, California (DeBose & Faraclas, in press) resulted in the corpus of data from which the instances of codeswitching discussed in this paper were extracted.…”

Linguistic Emergence on the Ground

“…markers. Aspectual distinctions in creole varieties are widely held to be marked by preverbal particles (e.g.,Bickerton 1975;Bickerton 1984;Faraclas 1987). In English-based Creoles, theseThe Handbook of Language Emergence, ed.…”