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.
[...]
Table of Contents
Introduction
X. Setting up the Priorities - Some Miscellanea
1. Bickerton's Bioprogram – a Theory and its Opponents
1.1 The LBH vs Substrate Theory
1.2. Salikoko Mufwene on LBH
2. Substrate Theory Reconsidered
2.1 Mufwene and Arguments in Favour
2.2 Mufwene on the Shortcomings of the Substratist Framework
2.3 Creolization from an SLA Perspective
3. Mufwene and Alliances: a Universal-Substrate Synthesis
3.1. Defining Creole Genesis
3.2 The Role of Universals
3.3 The Nature of Universals
4. Concluding Remarks
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to conduct a theoretical investigation into the conflicting models of pidgin and creole formation, specifically contrasting Derek Bickerton’s universalist "Bioprogram" model with the functional-pragmatic, substratist-oriented perspectives championed by Salikoko Mufwene. The paper aims to evaluate the explanatory power of these frameworks in understanding the sociohistorical and linguistic processes of creolization.
- Theoretical debate between universalist and substratist frameworks.
- Evaluation of Bickerton’s Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH).
- Critique of linguistic determinism through Mufwene’s sociolinguistic approach.
- Integration of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies to explain creole genesis.
- Role of demographic and ecological factors in language restructuring.
Excerpt from the Book
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 (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.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the paper as a theoretical exploration of the debate between universalist and substratist approaches to creolization, identifying Salikoko Mufwene’s work as the central guiding perspective.
X. Setting up the Priorities - Some Miscellanea: The author defines specific hypotheses, such as the simplification hypothesis and the African geo-genetic hypothesis, that will be excluded from the core discussion due to their reliance on incomplete theoretical frameworks.
1. Bickerton's Bioprogram – a Theory and its Opponents: This chapter introduces Derek Bickerton’s Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH), detailing its core concepts like unigenerationality and the role of the bioprogram in creole creation.
1.1 The LBH vs Substrate Theory: A methodological critique of Bickerton’s work by Jaques Arends is presented, challenging the LBH through demographic and historical evidence that supports a more gradual, transgenerational view of language formation.
1.2. Salikoko Mufwene on LBH: Mufwene’s specific counterarguments to Bickerton are analyzed, focusing on the influence of substrate languages and the role of communicative pressure in creole genesis.
2. Substrate Theory Reconsidered: This chapter examines arguments supporting the substrate influence, citing examples like the inclusive/exclusive distinction in Oceanic creoles to counter the universalist claims.
2.1 Mufwene and Arguments in Favour: Further evidence is provided for substrate influence, emphasizing that linguistic features in creoles often reflect the typological characteristics of their parent languages.
2.2 Mufwene on the Shortcomings of the Substratist Framework: The author addresses critiques within the substratist camp itself, noting that some structural similarities in creoles cannot be explained by substrate influence alone.
2.3 Creolization from an SLA Perspective: The parallels between creolization and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) are discussed, particularly through Suzanne E. Carroll’s Autonomous Induction Theory, to highlight cognitive constraints on language formation.
3. Mufwene and Alliances: a Universal-Substrate Synthesis: This chapter synthesizes Mufwene’s framework, which draws from both universalist and substratist theories to provide a more holistic explanation of language evolution.
3.1. Defining Creole Genesis: The author reframes creolization in sociolinguistic terms as a process of nativization within an interlanguage stage, arguing against the "true creole" hierarchy.
3.2 The Role of Universals: This chapter clarifies Mufwene’s stance on language universals, positioning them as typological options rather than a biological blueprint.
3.3 The Nature of Universals: It is explained how universals manifest as basic lexical categories and grammatical distinctions necessary for effective language function.
4. Concluding Remarks: The paper concludes that creole studies should be integrated into the broader field of language typology and universals, advocating for an analytical, fact-oriented approach over rigid, sweeping generalizations.
Keywords
Creolization, Pidginization, Language Bioprogram Hypothesis, Salikoko Mufwene, Derek Bickerton, Universal Grammar, Substrate Theory, Sociolinguistics, Language Genesis, Second Language Acquisition, Typology, Markedness, Demographic factors, Language Restructuring, Interlanguage
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper provides a theoretical analysis of the long-standing debate in linguistics regarding how pidgins and creoles come into existence, focusing on the tension between universalist and substratist schools of thought.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include the critique of Bickerton’s Language Bioprogram Hypothesis, the importance of substrate influence, the role of demographic factors in language change, and the application of SLA (Second Language Acquisition) theories to creole studies.
What is the main objective or research question?
The central objective is to evaluate which theoretical framework—universalist or substratist—better explains the linguistic processes of creolization, while advocating for Mufwene’s synthetic, sociolinguistic approach.
Which scientific methods are primarily utilized?
The work employs a theoretical and comparative methodology, analyzing existing academic literature, case studies of specific creole languages, and arguments drawn from both sociolinguistics and cognitive science.
What does the main body cover?
The main body examines the Bickertonian model, Arends’ methodological critiques, Mufwene’s counterarguments, the integration of SLA theories, and the potential synthesis of these views within a broader typological framework.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as creolization, bioprogram, substrate, universalism, sociolinguistics, and cognitive maturation.
How does the author view the "true creole" concept?
The author considers the "true creole" concept—as advocated by Bickerton—to be an arbitrary and artificial hierarchy that inhibits real knowledge gain by forcing data into rigid categories.
What role do "universals" play according to Mufwene?
According to Mufwene, universals are not biological blueprints but rather typological options and basic cognitive categories that every language needs to function effectively.
Why is the superstrate influence often neglected?
The author argues that the superstrate influence is often overlooked because researchers traditionally focus on standard versions of languages, ignoring the unstable, non-standard vernaculars present during the actual colonization period.
- Quote paper
- Franziska Buch (Author), 2006, Reconciling Universalists and Substratists, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/118096
