Creolization as Typological Change

Abstract

SUMMARYIs 'creolization' a process that differs fundamentally from other kinds of linguistic change? Recent debate centers round Bickerto/i's 'Language Bioprogram Hypothesis' (LBH), according to which a pure 'creole' is a newly-created language utilising the lexical items of an unstructured contact-language (a jargon) and the grammatical theory innate in all human beings. Linguistic 'change', on the other hand, is a more gradual process in which tradition plays a part, without sudden breakdown of inherited structures, regarded as characteristic of creolization, which occurs only in certain social conditions. Romance Creoles are here contrasted with patois, in a attempt to discern crucial differences. French completive and relative structures are examined in some detail. The conclusion is that, while some features of Romance Creoles can be seen as continuing the tendencies of non-creole Romance, others involve more radical typological change, resulting, conceivably, from a drastic switch in the way new speakers understand the structure of the language to which they are exposed. A parallel is drawn with earlier periods in Romance history.RÉSUMÉLa 'creolisation' diffère-t-elle de faÇon fondamentale du change-ment linguistique 'normal'? Cet article examine surtout l'hypothèse de Bickerton (Language Bioprogram Hypothesis) qui propose qu'un creole 'pur' se cree d'un coup a partir des elements lexicaux d'un 'jargon de contact', agences par un bioprogramme linguistique inne et universel. En revanche, la tradition jouerait un role dans le changement propre-ment dit, qui s'avere plus graduel, et ne bouleversent pas de la même fa-Çon les structures heritees. Les conditions sociales qui provoquent la creolisation seraient à specifier. On fait le contraste des Creoles et des patois, pour degager des differences fondamentales: on examine surtout la syntaxe des completives et relatives en franÇais. La conclusion: bien que quelques aspects des Creoles ne fassent que prolon-ger les tendances des autres parlers romans, il y en a d'autres qui decoulent plutot d:une alteration typologique plus radicale, ce qui in— diquerait un decalage des attitudes linguistiques au moment de l'acqui-sition de la langue heritee. On fait la comparaison avec d'autres evé-nements au cours de l'histoire des langues romanes.ZUSAMMENFASSUNGGibt es einen grundsätzlichen Unterschied zwischen 'Kreolisierung' und anderen Arten von Sprachveranderung? Der vorliegende Aufsatz un-tersucht vor allem die sog. 'Sprachbioprogrammhypothese' (Language Bio-program Hypothesis) Bickertons, derzufolge ein reines Kreol eine neuer-zeugte Sprache darstellt, die lexikalische Elemente einer unstrukturier-ten Kontaktsprache (Jargon) zusammen mit einer universellen, eingebore-nen Grammatik verbindet. Dahingegen spielt die tüberlieferung bei regu-lärem, graduellen Sprachwandel eine gewisse Rolle, ohne abruptes Zusam-menbrechen überkommener Strukturen, wie sie in Fallen der Kreolisierung als charakteristisch gelten, die nur unter gewissen sozialen Bedingun-gen stattfindet, Es wird hier zwischen romanischen Kreolsprachen und Volksmundarten (patois) unterschieden, urn grundsatzliche Unterschiede herauszustellen. Hier werden insbesondere Erganzungs- und Relativ-sätze im Franzosischen untersucht. Das Ergebnis ist, daß, obschon ei-nige Aspekte der romanischen Kreolsprachen als Weiterentwicklung von Tendenzen der nicht-kreolisierten romanischen Sprachen angesehen werden konnen, enthalten andere radikalere typologische Veranderungen, die offenbar von einem drastischen Wandel herriihren in der Art, wie die neuen Sprecher die Struktur der Sprache verstehen, der sie ausgesetzt sind. Eine Parallele wird gezogen zu früheren Epochen in den romanischen Sprachen.

Why Study Pidgins and Creoles?

“…There seems to be an element of correctness (partial at least) in Posner's (1985) position that PC's are new varieties which are genetically related to their lexifiers but have drifted away from these typologically (i.e., in some of their parametric settings). Although the position does not explain the genesis itself, especially in that it does not resolve the question of whether universal, or substrate, or superstrate influence, or even an interaction of all these influences accounts for the typological drift, it captures the historical fact that the lexifier was the target language.…”

Linguists' most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism

“…Such evidence militates against the postulation of some combination of an exceptional and abnormal break of transmission with ab ovo creation in Creole diachrony. (For extended case studies and detailed discussion in a variety of theoretical frameworks, see Greenfield 1830;Posner 1985;Chaudenson 1992;Chaudenson & Mufwene 2001;DeGraff 1997DeGraff , 2000DeGraff , 2001aDeGraff ,b, 2002DeGraff , 2005Fattier 1998;Mufwene 2001, and references therein. ) The end of Creole Exceptionalism?…”

“…Creole Exceptionalism begins with the epistemological baggage that is entailed by the very term "Creole" and its derivative "creolization": As documented below, both terms have long been taken to involve sui generis linguistic-structural and cognitive-developmental properties that have no equivalent in the synchrony and diachrony of "normal" languages (see, e.g., Greenfield 1830;Posner 1985;Chaudenson & Mufwene 2001;see DeGraff 2001asee DeGraff ,b, 2002see DeGraff , 2005 for recent extended critiques within distinct frameworks). This exceptionalist baggage, a legacy of the race-theoretical assumptions that were promoted as part and parcel of Europe's mission civilisatrice in Africa and the Americas, has been forcefully dragged across time and space, and it is still central to much work in contemporary creolistics, independent of theoretical orientation.…”

“…In recent work, the joint investigation of language contact, language change, and language acquisition suggests that there is not, and could not be, any deep theoretical divide between the outcome of language change and that of Creole formation (see, e.g., Posner 1985;Muysken 1988;DeGraff 2005, to appear; Mufwene 2001 and references therein): "The very notion of a 'Creole' language from the linguistic point of view tends to disappear if one looks closely; what we have is just a language" (Muysken 1988:300). One basic insight in these and related works is that language contact, in some form or another, and language creation, whether seemingly gradual or seemingly abrupt, happens always and everywhere. "…”

Genetic linguistics and genetic creolistics

“…As argued in Mufwene (2000Mufwene ( , 2001, the concept of 'creolization' has no structural grounding (see also Thomason, 1997) and it represents no specific restructuring process or combination thereof. 4 Just so that some of us will remember that historical/genetic linguists are no more unified than creolists are on a number of issues, let me note that Posner (1985) was among the first heretics to argue that creoles are dialects of their lexifiers. Trask (1996, p. 179) follows suit in stating that there are "two more Romance languages that are spoken only in the Caribbean": Haitian Creole and Papiamentu.…”