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
1
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,
2
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)
3
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 linguists
2
) 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)
4
(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 approach
3
. 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)
5
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
6
language. Creolization, it must finally follow, is a gradual and differential process to which
also Hawaiian makes no exception. Yet another conclusion to be drawn from all this is that
the scaling of different creoles according to degrees of "creoleness" cannot be considered
to be based on real-world fact, thus making groundless notions such as the one of "semi-
creoles", as advocated by Bickerton (see above).
Apart from these demographic considerations, I feel that other objections as to
Bickerton's methodology and manner of arguing have to be raised, as already hinted at by
Arends in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, I would now like to include some thoughts
of my own in relation to Bickerton's line of argumentation with respect to a paper called
"Creoles and West African languages: a Case of Mistaken Identity?" (1986)
4
. First of all, I
believe him to be superficial at pints as we have seen this is what he himself accuses
substratists of one example for this would be his explanation concerning a common focus
marker that can be found in Yoriba and Vata, two West African languages: Solely based on
the fact that the two are quite unrelated he claims this particular feature to be very common
and therefore widespread (28). Therefore, he speculate, from a substratist viewpoint it
should ideally be included in many creoles, thus jumping to conclusions which lack
empirical profoundness. This particular feature not behaving, as substratists allegedly
predict, he takes as sufficient proof of his own point of view. Also the mere fact that it is
only one property that he enlists followed by such a far reaching conclusion should be
regarded sceptically. Some vague claim is made about the possibility of there having been
a stage in Saramaccan when the creole patterned in one particular feature like Haitian
("...some historical evidence [...] which suggests...", 29), on this basis, though, he
concludes that it did so in general (35), thus implying creole-resemblances between Haitian
and Saramaccan on a very unsolid basis. He himself also disregards a possible superstrate
influence, claiming a universalist explanation where the substratist putatively fail to come
up with a satisfactory account. The differences between West African languages and
creoles pointed out by him, though, might be explained by superstrate influence (36). As
we will see later on, though, the superstrate role has been neglected badly in many other
approaches, as well, so one should perhaps not hold this too much against him individually.
Either way his reaction to the African genesis theory seems slightly opportunistic in my
eyes when he writes that: "If such rules happen to be present in the input in certain cases
4 A title, by the way, which mocks one of his critics, John Holm, who used the same phrase in one of his
papers (1986: 272)
0 comments