Table of Contents

Introduction 1

X. Setting up the Priorities - Some Miscellanea 2

1. Bickerton′s Bioprogram ­ a Theory and its Opponents 3

1.1 The LBH vs Substrate Theory 4

1.2. Salikoko Mufwene on LBH 7

2. Substrate Theory Reconsidered 10

2.1 Mufwene and Arguments in Favour 10

2.2 Mufwene on the Shortcomings of the Substratist Framework 11

2.3 Creolization from an SLA Perspective 13

3. Mufwene and Alliances: a Universal-Substrate Synthesis 16

3.1. Defining Creole Genesis 17

3.2 The Role of Universals 19

3.3 The Nature of Universals 20

4. Concluding Remarks 22

Bibliography 25

---

Introduction

By way of an introduction to the following paper, I would like to draw here on a quote

taken from one of Salikoko Mufwene′s essays: "...creolists generally agree on the nature of

the sociohistorical contexts which have produced these languages, but they disagree

essentially on the natures of the linguistic processes which resulted in them." (1986:129).

This sentence quite neatly captures what the general pidgin/creole-debate is all about.

The various approaches to pidginization and creolization and on how, i.e. by which

underlying processes, the respective language systems supposedly came into being have

this one thing in common: they all entail, respectively proceed from the assumption in the

first place, that they have something decisive to say about the nature of language in general.

Therefore the different positions are often defended most decidedly, trying, or so it seems,

to lay claim to a final definition of language in one or the other light. As such, I like to

describe this phenomenon as some kind of linguistic-philosophical debate. And this is what

the subject of the following paper shall be about: What are the various approaches, how

convincing are they, i.e., who has the best arguments or is able to disprove opposing views

best? In this sense, the following will be a theoretical rather than practical, case-study

paper. The discussion can be roughly described in terms of two major opposing viewpoints:

the universalist one and a more cognitive-oriented, functional-pragmatic. The latter is

called substratist for the most. The two camps tend to put either more weight on the

structural or the sociohistorical aspect respectively. It is especially the nativization phase,

known as creolization, which interests me most in this paper.

Providing the major part of the material to be discussed, Salikoko Mufwene′s work will

serve as a guiding line through this paper; this being for two reasons: first, he quite simply

seems to have to say something about every aspect of creolization and how they work

together. Second, he does so by, quite convincingly I should say, drawing from a well-

structured minimal set of principles on which he can act in various discussion points. I

hope to be able to make the meaning of this more obvious as the paper proceeds. For this

purpose, selected papers will now be looked at in detail, for one part stemming from the

work of Derek Bickerton, on his part being the most influential representative from the

universalist of the two opposing sides. On the other hand the very Salikoko Mufwene will

be regarded and, to a lesser degree, Jacques Arends, those taking the part of the critical

voices. I am going to try, though, to take into account comments made by other parties, as

well. To this effect also other essays will, if only in parts, be considered. Structure-wise,

1

---

the main body will be threefold: one part focusses on the specifics of the Bickertonian

universalist model, another one is dedicated to the substratist line of argumentation and a

third will give a general overview of Mufwene′s theoretical contributions. The Bickerton-

related part will be dealt with in more detail than the substratist one. This is for the mere

and simple reason that Bickerton′s work and theorizing has traditionally effected many

arguments than any individual representative of the substratist side. This I wish to account

for by including one specific contribution by Jaques Arends, selected for its exemplary

character with regard to criticism of Bickerton′s work in general and preceded by a brief

recapitulation of the specifics of the same. Apart from that, both sides, universalist and

substratist, will be discussed in the light of this paper′s title ­ i.e. from a Mufwenian

viewpoint ­ be it in methodological and conceptual terms or simply good or bad theorizing.

The aim here is to lay out the relative position Mufwene is taking towards substratist and

universalist theory respectively. For the sake of completeness I am also going to insert

some considerations regarding Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies. The focus

here will be on the contributions made by S. E. Carroll, who seems to draw on principles

very similar to those of Mufwene′s. Having thus established a number of facts we will look

at the conceptual framework that Mufwene proposes as a whole.

The title of this paper most obviously excludes approaches other than the ones specifically

named, but this is for a reason. This reason, then, I will briefly explain in a first, or rather

preposed, part which has the mere function of forming a basis from which to start. This is

hopefully going to justify the focus I will be taking concerning the two major camps. For

this purpose, I chose a structure that in a way violates the usual one by putting "minor"

thoughts at the very beginning. It will be along the lines of Mufwene′s argumentation, as

well, that I am going to do so.

X. Setting up the Priorities - Some Miscellanea

The purpose of this chapter is in principle to define those theories to be excluded from

the discussion in this paper: the simplification hypothesis and Hancock′s (1986) "African

geo-genetic hypothesis"1. As the case lies, we can be quite straightforward in listing the

reasons for doing so. In fact, we can limit ourselves to a single one: either party, advocates

to the simplification approach or Hancock, finally has to resign to one or the other higher

1 a term coined by Mufwene (1986:131)

2

---

framework, universal or substratist in character. In Mufwene 1986, the author points out

that Hancock himself believes that either substrate influence or universals had a role to

play in the formation of one African language, called Guinea Coast Creole English (132),

which he believes to be the source of the English-based Caribbean languages. As for the

simplification hypothesis (as advocated by well-established linguists2) Mufwene again, and

righteously so, asks for an explanation as to "what principles guided and constrained the

putative simplifications" (132) which were to result in structures showing undeniable

similarities among creole languages world-wide. Although Schuchardt and Silverstein

apparently go for a universalist tendency, in general there has been no attempt at a

wholesome explanation so far, neither is the nature of the proposed universals at all made

clear. Again, it all boils down to the revelation that there must be either some inter-

language forces at work, universals as that, of the languages participating in a given

contact situation ­ as proposed by Bickerton. Or, alternatively, substrate grammatical

features must be looked at with regard to a possible explanation as claimed substratists

such as Jaques Arends. As it were, either of the two will have a role to play in the chapter

to follow.

1. Bickerton′s Bioprogram ­ a Theory and its Opponents

Again, a Mufwenian quote will serve for establishing a starting point: "...the fact that the

same basic distinctions obtain word-wide among various creoles is certainly significant"

(1986:139).

Obviously, these similarities are the main reason why universalist ideas developed in

the first place. This in mind, I would like to first sum up the prototype of all universalist

theory, i.e., its pivotal ideas. One central concept developed by Bickerton with regard to

his Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH) is probably the one of unigenerationality,

meaning in essence that, according to "the innate bioprogram that determines the form of

human universals" (Bickerton 1981: 134), a nativized creole is to unfold within the 1st

generation of plantation-born children, slaves for the most, or not at all. Furthermore he

believes pidginization to be an act of SLA whereby gradual relexification and restructuring

of the native language takes place (1977, 1981a). Creolization then he sees as the

realization of the language bioprogram, only fully operative during first language

acquisition (FLA) and producing so called "rogue grammars" in absence of an input

2 such as Schuchardt (1914), Jespersen (1922), Bloomfield (1933), Hall (1966) and Silverstein (1972)

3

---

(mother tongue) language. The latter he believes not to play any role in creole formation.

This he argues on the grounds that the pidgin input which first generation children

encounter is said to be "degenerate" (1996:34) and highly diffuse, thus forcing the speaker-

to-be to resort to this inherent mechanism. He also assumes a specific scale of "creoleness"

whose core terms are "semi-creolization" and the one of "true creoles" which he makes

conditional on certain linguistic prerequisites. The basis for his theoretical framework is

essentially made up of his own studies, conducted on Hawaiian Pidgin and Creole.

In defence of his bioprogram against substratist views, he argues that the similarities

between creoles and certain African languages, as pointed out by substratists can all but be

called "superficial[...]" (1986: 25). He says that "producing [a] superficially similar surface

structure" cannot give sufficient proof; to this end only a grammar can be acceptable. He

especially stresses the notion of "surface structure", thus already implying an inherently

U(niversal)G(rammar)-based approach and way of argumentation (25). Rules, he goes on

to argue, that make for differences between languages on the surface structure do not exist

at deep structure. While this may be perceived as a bit of a killer argument which can do

away with a number of objections, his theory still offers some points which lend

themselves to heated discussions.

1.1 The LBH vs. Substrate Theory

In this subchapter I will first turn to a general discussion initiated by Jaques Arends (1992)

which is essentially of a methodological nature, criticising Bickerton, as will be seen, for

drawing wrong conclusions from the wrong kind of data. I am also going to include some

thoughts of my own, in part triggered by Arend′s critique, finally followed by a focus on

Mufwene′s wordings. But first we shall have a look at the details of Arends′ comments on

the well-known approach of Bickerton.

One of the many points of dispute is the ad hoc ­ gradualness-distinction implying the

first-generation creolization idea (Bickerton) on the one hand and a step by step approach

on the other, this being suggested by Arends (1992), among others. Arends provides the

grounds for, respectively derives an explanation out of sociohistorical and demographic

facts which is in line with Mufwene′s theory. Therefore, we can fit in this part within a

Mufwene-based approach3. His first critique of Bickerton′s

ab ovo

approach bears on the

latter′s claim that the creoles as we know them are not related to each other whatsoever; a

3 Mufwene actually draws on Arends in his own argumentation (see e.g. 2000: 69)

4

---

claim so central to his theory that it would be rendered absolutely worthless as soon as it

was to be refuted convincingly. After all, in this case one single substrate source could be

assumed to have existed which simply spread its features among the many creole

languages, just to mention one possible alternative. As opposed to Bickerton, he takes a

"transgenerational" view, as he calls it (374), meaning essentially that it took several

generations for a Creole to come about as a fully working system. He draws his conviction

from the assumption that Bickerton′s data could not possibly reflect the real creolization

processes involved in the respective formations.

He states the faults as follows: In view of the fact that Bickerton draws on current

creolization data one cannot assume those to reflect exactly this first stable stage that a

language at some point "culminates" into (371). The 20th century data may only work

within a synchronic approach which, it follows, can impossibly explain a diachronic

phenomenon such as language formation, here pidginization/creolization, in the course of

time. Bickerton, he goes on, seems to be justifying this by just another unproven

assumption, namely just the one concerning unigenerationality: If a creole develops within

one generation during which unalterable universalist structural elements come into action,

then there is "no need for Bickerton to take historical records [...] into account even if they

had been available to him" (372). As he makes clear, there are historical records available

for evaluation (372) which must not simply be ignored if one really wanted to get at the

truth. Furthermore, he quotes sources from which it seems to be obvious for mere

demographical reasons that nativization by children cannot have occurred in most cases:

there had been too few of them around to have had a significant influence. So he believes

that the continuous creolization process was not primarily carried out by locally-born

children acquiring a creole as their 1st language, simply because there had been only one

or two children present on the Hawaiian plantations during a longer period of time which

roughly coincided with the "critical phase" (he states the years between 1670 and 1690, p.

375). There must have been, then, a longer stage in which SLA was the foremost language

formation process. From data drawn from Price (1976) he derives a mere 10% of creole

speakers for a significant period of time who, in turn, were surrounded by "salt water

slaves" (375) that were posing a counterweight to a possible nativization process. So the

demographic factors seem to be working against Bickerton′s account. Arends also argues

that restructurings of Sranan between 1750 and 1850 can only have been effected by the

successive cohorts of adult African slaves learning English as their second or third

5

---