1. Introduction
It could be as easy as that: pidgins equal second language acquisition (L2A) and creoles equal first language acquisition (L1A). But does this simple equation work out in reality? In the views of some researchers of contact languages and of language acquisition it clearly does. Others have a sceptical attitude towards this hypothesis and suggest different solutions in terms of creolization and acquisition. Creole genesis is a field of linguistic research that has been intensely debated on over the past few decades. Until today, no theory was commonly agreed upon and there are still many diverging explanatory approaches.
In my paper, I aim to throw light on this maze of different creole genesis theories. I will use a comparative approach in order to work out the similarities and differences of the researchers’ views. Often they agree in their overall assumption and only disagree in regard to smaller aspects. In other cases, their opinions are completely controversial and not able to bring in line with each other. In my account, I will also hint at the weak spots of the hypotheses and the criticism they are confronted with.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Different Views on Creolization and Acquisition
2.1 The Bioprogram Hypothesis
2.1.1 The Theory
2.1.2 Criticism of the Bioprogram Hypothesis
2.2 The Relexification Hypothesis
2.2.1 The Theory
2.2.2 Case Study: Nominal Structures in Haitian Creole
2.2.3 Criticism of the Relexification Hypothesis
2.3 The Gradualization Hypothesis
2.3.1 The Theory
2.3.2 Evidence in Regard to E-creolization
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to investigate the complex field of creole genesis by comparing three prominent linguistic theories. Through a comparative analysis, the research explores the similarities and differences between these explanatory approaches, while simultaneously highlighting their respective strengths, weak points, and the criticisms they face within the current academic debate.
- The Bioprogram Hypothesis and its universalist claims.
- The Relexification Hypothesis as an alternative based on adult second language acquisition.
- The Gradualist Approach, which challenges the idea of instantaneous creole formation.
- A comparative analysis of syntactic features and creole genesis models.
- The role of I-language versus E-language in the formation of creole varieties.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 The Theory
Who takes a close look at issues of creolization and acquisition cannot escape one name during his or her investigations: Derek Bickerton. He came up with the Bioprogram Hypothesis in 1977 and extended, specified and last but not least defended it in his publications up to the late 1990s. This hypothesis often serves as the basis for further researchers, either they agreed with or rejected it. There is hardly any contribution to this field that does not quote his ideas – for whatsoever purpose.
According to Bickerton “the Bioprogram is […] an innate faculty which ensures that, given linguistic input, humans will develop a specific type of grammar in the same way they develop a particular skeletal structure” (Mather 2006:235). In other words, it is an innately prescribed schema and moreover universal that can help child acquirers to build new linguistic systems. In his view, children are the agents of creolization and creolization is first language learning with impoverished pidgin input (DeGraff 1999:10 f). “Adults can only acquire a language if the input is rich and robust” (Bickerton qtd. in DeGraff 1999:25). Bickerton is a universalist, putting emphasis in his theory on the universals of language acquisition.
The, compared to pidgin stages, relatively stable creole language can be regarded as the realization of ‘default’ instructions of the innate Bioprogram. Language-specific peculiarities are minimal and to be disregarded. It is in the development of every child, without exception, that this ‘default’ system appears. The normal process taking place in their further development is, that the ‘default’ system is “overrun by the idiosyncrasies of the language used in the country where each child is born” (Mather 2006:235). Derek Bickerton argues that the false suppositions children produce in their output are highly similar to structures found in creole grammar. Since the children are confronted with a restricted, variable and non-rule governed pidgin speech (which their parents are communicating in), they make use of the ‘default’ systems of their Bioprograms. This usage takes place unconsciously.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the study and outlines the comparative methodology used to evaluate diverging creole genesis theories.
2. Different Views on Creolization and Acquisition: This chapter provides a detailed analysis of three primary theories—the Bioprogram, Relexification, and Gradualization hypotheses—including their core theoretical foundations and relevant critical arguments.
3. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that no single theory currently enjoys universal consensus, and suggests that future research should focus on diachronic data and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Keywords
Creolization, Creole Genesis, Bioprogram Hypothesis, Relexification Hypothesis, Gradualist Hypothesis, Second Language Acquisition, Language Universals, Syntax, Haitian Creole, Substratum influence, I-language, E-language, Linguistic contact, Language acquisition, Pidgin.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on the process of creole genesis, investigating how creole languages emerge and the specific acquisition processes involved.
What are the three main theoretical models compared in the work?
The study examines the Bioprogram Hypothesis, the Relexification Hypothesis, and the Gradualist (or Transgeneral) Approach.
What is the central research question addressed by the author?
The author seeks to clarify the "maze" of existing creole genesis theories by comparing their similarities, differences, and the arguments presented by their respective proponents.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative approach to evaluate theories, assessing them against empirical evidence from case studies and existing critical literature.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body provides deep summaries of the three hypotheses, evidence provided by researchers like Bickerton, Lefebvre, and Arends, and critical rebuttals regarding the feasibility of these models.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Creolization, Creole Genesis, Bioprogram, Relexification, Gradualist Approach, and Second Language Acquisition.
What role does the Bioprogram Hypothesis assign to children?
In this hypothesis, children are seen as the primary agents of creolization, using an innate biological faculty to transform impoverished pidgin input into a structured, universal grammar.
How does the Relexification Hypothesis differ from the Bioprogram approach?
The Relexification Hypothesis views creolization as an adult-driven process involving second language acquisition, where speakers map phonetic labels from a superstrate language onto the semantic and syntactic structures of their native substrate language.
How does the Gradualist Hypothesis challenge the idea of an "instantaneous" creolization?
It argues that creole formation is a process extending over several generations, driven by continuous second language acquisition and reanalysis, rather than a sudden event occurring in a single generation.
What does the author conclude regarding the current state of creole studies?
The author concludes that because most research applies only to specific datasets or lexifier languages, there remains no single universally accepted theory, highlighting the need for more diachronic data.
- Quote paper
- Inga Herrmann (Author), 2008, Creole Languages and Acquisition, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/135211
