Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Genesis of PC
Genesis of PC
Genesis of PC
no doubt that of how they come about. This question is also a most
process that plays a major role in the development of pidgins and creoles,
levelling, is a social process; hence, the study of the emergence of pidgin and
12
The problem of the origin of pidgin and creole genesis has been
addressed from different points of view over the last century. This paper
summarises and evaluates the various theories proposed to account for the
that any theory aiming at explaining the origin of pidgin and creole
languages must be able to account for (section 2.1). The next three sections
2.2 reviews theories that share the property of having language varieties as
an object of study. Section 2.3 presents the first attempts to shift the focus
of pidgin and creole genesis studies from the language varieties to the
creole genesis within the framework of the processes that otherwise play a
concludes the paper and provides references identifying avenues for future
features.1 Any theory that seeks to explain the origin of these languages
bilingual communities, the speakers of one group will eventually learn the
does not have one common language. This situation creates the need for a
lingua franca (see e.g. Foley 1988; Hymes 1971; etc.), not only to permit
languages generally have very little access to the superstratum language (see
Thomason and Kaufman 1991). As Foley (1988: 163) puts it: “the
language of the dominant group is not easily made available to the members
Creoles that are more radical (i.e.!less like the superstratum language) come
from communities where language learners had very little access to the
Corne 1982; Bickerton 1977: 55; Thomason and Kaufman 1991; Valdman
more access to French in Louisiana than the African population had in Haiti.
Baker and Corne (1982) also discuss this issue on the basis of data from
Mauritius Creole, the proportion of native French speakers was much lower
and thus the West African speakers had a much stronger input into the
creole. Likewise, during the period where Haitian Creole was formed, the
proportion of West African speakers was much higher than that of French
speakers (see Singler 1996), such that West African speakers had a very
strong input into the creole (see Lefebvre 1998a, and the references cited
therein).
dialects are able to communicate, even though, over the course of centuries, a
new language may evolve (see Lightfoot 1979). By contrast, PCs are created
in a relatively short span of time (see e.g. Alleyne 1966; Bickerton 1984;
single language will ever solve, but from creole one can best learn how
a given language emerges from old data and develops, because here
from their source languages (see!Thomason and Kaufman 1991), such that
(1987: 265) claims that: “most of the principal characteristics that each
creole is now associated with were established during the first twenty-five
Ferraz (1983), Hymes (1971) and Mintz (1971) suggest that a creole can
develop within fifty years or less. Singler (1996) is of the opinion that it
takes sixty to eighty years for a creole to form. Whatever the outcome of this
issue may be, PCs constitute a unique case of accelerated linguistic change
(1985: 39). But it was Mufwene (1986, 1990, 1991) who clearly established
16
this property of PCs and the problem it poses for scholars who work on PC
genesis. Indeed, Mufwene has documented the fact that this tendency
appears to hold even when the contributing languages are not isolating
Sixth, it has long been noted in the literature that PCs derive some of
their properties from those of the substratum languages and some from
1988; etc.). Moreover, several scholars have noticed that the respective
les nègres guinéens, transportés dans ces colonies, ont pris au français
africaine, ou (...) d’une langue éwé à vocabulaire français.” [We are in the
presence of a French that has been cast in the mould of African syntax or …
(1975: 684) also remarks that “the use of morphemes borrowed by a pidgin
or a creole language (...) from a European language often diverges from the
use of the source morpheme in the source language” and often corresponds
remarks:
I had earlier been struck, when I had learned Solomons Pidgin in the
already spoke fluently, that this learning task mainly required learning
the Pidgin lexical forms were ultimately derived from English, I found
These observations suggest that PCs are not formed by an arbitrary mixture
of the properties of the languages present at the time they are being created.
The general pattern that seems to emerge from the observations reported
above is the following: while the forms of the lexical entries of a PC tend to
properties of these lexical entries tend to follow the pattern of the substratum
languages.
(1989), an optimal theory must account for the fact that PC s emerge in
multilingual contexts, where there is a need for a lingua franca, and where
isolating languages even when they emerge from contact situations involving
19
only agglutinative languages. It must also account for the fact that PC s
it must explain why these properties are divided the way they are. Finally, an
enough so as to be falsifiable.
linguistic codes; the theory advocating that creole languages are nativised
respectively; and finally, the theory that creoles consist of language varieties
2.1.
sound theory of PC genesis must be able to account for all the seven features
features may, however, have not been formulated so as to account for this
20
on whether the theory under review, in its current formulation, may account
evaluate each theory for its own sake. However, I do provide the reader with
such as gender, number, case, etc. In this view, the plantation owners were
(1909) (as translated by Goodman 1964: 124) all hold some version of this
view. Similar proposals have also been made more recently. For example,
Ferguson (1971: 147) advocates the view that “the foreigner talk of a speech
community may serve as an incipient pidgin. This view asserts that the initial
talk registers of its speakers, rather than the grammatical structure of the
language(s) of the other users of the pidgin.” (See Naro 1978, for an
genesis as outlined in section 2.1? This approach does not explain why PC s
explain the need for the substratum speakers to develop a lingua franca (the
second feature). It does not account for the fact that these languages are
formed quite rapidly (the fourth feature), nor for the type of mix that these
has little access to the superstratum language in situations where PCs emerge
(the third feature), and of the lack of inflectional morphology, thus of the
isolating character of these languages (the fifth feature). Finally, the theory
falsified (the seventh criterion). The next paragraph shows how this
were not presented with these lexical items. This claim can be falsified if it
can be shown that the speakers of the substratum languages of a creole were
in fact presented with the pertinent data. As has been pointed out in Lefebvre
while it could well be the case that French speakers did not use a very
there is plenty of evidence from the Haitian lexicon that the speakers of the
22
(e.g. la, au), as in (1a), an agglutinated French partitive determiner (e.g. du),
These examples, and many more, show that the African population in Haiti
conclusion, based on Haitian, is in line with Alleyne (1971: 170), who states
that the African population of the Caribbean area was exposed to European
languages “in their full morphological and syntactic forms.” The above data
were not exposed to these categories. Instead, they show very clearly that the
superstratum functional categories, but that they did not identify them as
23
such because they did not have enough exposure to the superstratum
language.
The idea that creole languages are nativised pidgins emerged during
the late sixties and developed in the seventies. In this approach, a pidgin
the process of nativisation (see e.g. Bickerton 1981; Hymes 1971; Labov
section 2.1. It accounts for the fact that pidgins emerge in multilingual
communities (the first feature), for the fact that the members of communities
where pidgins emerge are in need of a lingua franca (the second feature),
and for the fact that creoles emerge rapidly, in this case in one generation
(the fourth feature). However, it does not account for the fact that substratum
speakers have little access to the superstratum language (the third feature),
nor for the isolating character of pidgin and creole languages (the fifth
feature), nor for the type of mix that pidgins and creoles manifest with
respect to their source languages (the sixth feature). Finally, as has been
pointed out in Lefebvre and Lumsden (1989: 253), without linguistic criteria
24
this point. Pidgins and creoles have long been considered as separate entities
on the basis of the following two sets of criteria. While pidgins have been
these reduced codes (see!e.g.!Hymes (ed.) 1971, and the references therein).
Also, while pidgins have been found to often constitute the second language
of the speakers who use them, a creole is considered to be a pidgin that has
(see!also Kay and Sankoff 1974; Sankoff and Laberge 1973). In more
recent literature, the distinction between pidgins and creoles has been levelled
out in view of the fact that there are some pidgins (still used as a second
language) that have been shown to have expanded in the same way as
extensive discussion of this point). Hancock (1980: 64) states: “I prefer not
formation.” Similarly, Mufwene (1990: 2) uses the term creole to refer “to
varieties traditionally called creoles but also to those called pidgins that serve
started referring to pidgins and creoles as PCs, suggesting that they fall into
distinguished on the basis of the processes that play a role in their formation
(see Woolford 1983, for a general discussion of this point). Indeed, the
25
human languages apply to both pidgins and creoles (see Keesing 1988;
Lefebvre 1998a, and the references therein). Since these languages cannot be
between them (see Lefebvre 1998a: 4). As will be seen further on, this will
PC genesis (see e.g. Alleyne 1971, 1980; Andersen 1980, 1983; Chaudenson
straightforward way for the fact that speakers of the substratum languages
pidgin and creoles emerge (the third feature), it fails to account for several of
the other characteristics enumerated in section 2.1. It does not account for
26
the fact that PCs emerge only in multilingual communities (the first feature),
nor for the fact that these communities need a lingua franca (the second
feature), nor for the fact that PC s are created rather rapidly (the fourth
feature), nor for the fact that PC s tend to be isolating languages (the fifth
feature). More importantly, this theory does not provide an explanation for
why PCs have ‘crystallised’ in the way they have with respect to their source
languages (the sixth feature). Finally, this theory does not satisfy the seventh
(1989: 254) point out, this theory “ne définit pas précisément les
l’acquisition d’une langue maternelle.” [does not define in a precise way the
language acquisition]. Hence, it is not falsifiable (but see section 2.4 for
How does this theory meet the criteria in section 2.1? This theory
may account for the fact that creoles only emerge in multilingual
communities where there is a need for a lingua franca, and where speakers
(the first three characteristics in section 2.1). However, it does not provide an
explanation for why creole languages are created in a relatively short period
of time, nor for why they tend to be isolating languages (the fourth and fifth
the contribution to the creole of both the substratum and the superstratum
languages to the creole (the sixth characteristic). Finally, this theory is not
Lefebvre and Lumsden (1989: 254), it does not account for the facts that
languages (or in language contact varieties) that are not known as PCs.
This approach may be said to account, to a certain point, for the fact
superstratum language (the third feature). It does not account, however, for
the fact that creoles only emerge in multilingual communities, where there is
a need for a lingua franca (the first two features). It does not account for the
relatively rapid formation of PCs (the fourth feature) nor for the fact that PC s
from a typological point of view, they pair with their substratum languages
rather than with their superstratum languages. On this view, Atlantic creoles
(see e.g. Lefebvre 1998a, and the references therein), whereas Pacific creoles
resemble their substratum languages in spite of the fact that the phonological
Haitian words are derived from French, the typological features of Haitian
pair with West African languages, not with French which shares features
with Romance languages. This situation argues that Haitian Creole cannot be
language. (For further discussion of this issue, see also Mufwene 1996b:
166.)
creoles may vary with respect to degrees of restructuring (see e.g. Baker
With the exception of the fact that some authors now acknowledge the
the same problems as the two positions discussed in 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2.
with respect to the features that any theory of PC genesis must be able to
account for.
30
2.2.5. The theory that creoles reflect the properties of Universal Grammar
The main proponent of the claim that creoles reflect the properties of
(Note that, in this view, pidgins and creoles are crucially different entities, see
creoles, such as Haitian, Sranan and Hawaiian, and on the alledged similarity
pidgin is an impoverished language variety that does not present all the
characterise the language of young children, and the unmarked grammar that
both creole languages and child language are closer to Universal Grammar
than other language varieties, for both present the unmarked options of
Universal Grammar (see also Seuren and Wekker 1986 for a similar view on
this point). Still on this view, in ordinary cases of first language acquisition,
children are exposed to linguistic data that are produced by the adults around
the special case of first language acquisition in the context of creole genesis,
children are deprived of an adequate adult model, in such a way that the
Bickerton claims that his theory accounts for both the hypothesised
Bickerton’s approach does not account for the fact that creole languages
and where language learners have little access to the superstratum language
(the first three features). Since the creole is nativised in one generation, this
theory can be said to account for the rapid development of creole languages
(the fourth feature). The theory does not account, however, for the fact that
pidgin and creole languages tend to be isolating languages nor for the fact
that they manifest the properties of both their substratum and superstratum
languages in the way they do (the fifth and sixth features). The theory is
on Lefebvre and Lumsden (1989: 255), the next paragraphs discuss several
processes. On the one hand, it has been demonstrated that pidgins and
creoles are not qualitatively different from one another (see in particular the
32
work of Sankoff, e.g. Sankoff and Brown 1980; Sankoff and Laberge
1980). On the other hand, as was mentioned in section 2.2.2. and, as will be
shown in section 2.4, pidgins and creoles are not distinguishable on the
basis of the processes that are at work in their formation. This constitutes a
conclusion that they are alike, a closer look at the data forces a revision of
this conclusion. An example in point is the fact that, while some creoles
Papiamento, Tok Pisin, etc.), others do not (e.g. Philippine Creole Spanish,
Likewise, while some creoles manifest the predicate cleft construction (e.g.
Haitian, Papiamento, etc.), others do not (e.g. Tok Pisin, Solomons Pidgin,
(1998a, 2001d), creoles tend to reproduce the semantic and syntactic features
This explains why Atlantic creoles manifest the predicate cleft construction,
the alleged similarity between creole languages falls short when data from
child language receives no support in current literature (see for example the
Fourth, the claim that creole languages reflect the unmarked case is
data are considered. For example, Singler (1996) shows that nativisation of
the Caribbean plantation societies was an extremely slow process. First, the
slave traders imported twice as many men than women (Curtin 1976);
second, the birth rate was very low (Kiple 1984); third, infant mortality was
very high (Singler 1993a); fourth, life span of Africans in the Caribbean was
recently arrived slaves from Africa”. Since the bulk of the Caribbean
population at the time the creoles were formed was adult, Singler (1996:
199) concludes that the principal agents of creole genesis must have been
adults. Moreover, as will be shown in section 2.4, the main process at work
competence.
34
2.2.6. Summary
In this section, six approches to creole genesis were reviewed. All share the
that lead to these language varieties. Each of these theories has been
evaluated against the seven features that need to be accounted for by any
languages, as per the criteria established in section 2.1. The results are
Table 2.1. Summary of the six theories of pidgin and creole genesis with
respect to the features that need to be accounted for by any theory that seeks
to account for the origin of these languages. (The symbols + and – indicate
whether a given theory accounts for a given feature)
FeaturesÆ Multi- Need for Little access Rapid Isolating Type Theory is
lingual a lingua to super- creation language of mix falsifiable
commu- franca stratum
nity language
theoriesØ
PC s as
reduced codes – – + – + – +
Creoles as
nativised + + – + – – –
pidgins
PCs as cases
of imperfect
second – – + – – – –
language
acquisition
PC s as
restructured
substratum + + + – – – –
varieties
PC s as
restructured
superstratum – – + – – – +
varieties
LBH – – – + – – +
35
As can be seen from Table 2.1, none of the six theories reviewed in
this section can account for all the features that need to be accounted for in
accounts for at least one of the features in the list, none of the theories
evaluated thus far can account for the type of mix that is manifested by PC s
from among their source languages. As will be seen in section 2.4, the
written as late as 1964; it was entitled ‘Trade Jargons and Creole Dialects as
109), etc., urged students of PCs to approach these languages in the same
papers on pidgins and creoles was edited by Dell Hymes in 1971. This
collection is still an extremely valuable source. In the late seventies and early
eighties, we begin to see discussions of pidgin and creole genesis within the
hunters of Canada and the Northern United States (see Bakker 1989, 1992,
1994; Papen 1988), and Inner Mbugu or Ma’a—a mixed language spoken
in Tanzania (see Goodman 1971; Möhlig 1983; Mous 1994, 1995, in press;
Thomason and Kaufman 1991), to name but a few, and the theories of their
scholars started to entertain the idea that the changes observed in pidgin and
language change in non-creole languages (see e.g. Adone and Plag (eds)
1994; Baker and Syea (eds) 1996; Hymes (ed.) 1971; Plag 1994a; Sankoff
formation of urban varieties out of various rural ones (see e.g. Domingue
1980, 1981; Jourdan 1985; Siegel 1995, 2002; Trudgill 1986) also had their
input into PC studies. Three major processes have gradually entered the
change; and dialect levelling, a process that takes place when various dialects
of the same language come into contact. In this section, I provide definitions
formation and development. The shift from the study of language varieties to
following subsections, however, this shift was not entirely successful on the
first round.
2.3.1. Relexification
where the phonological forms of major syntactic category lexical items (that
is, nouns, verbs and adjectives) are almost entirely derived from Spanish,
while the forms of the affixes and of the functional category system are
derived from Quechua. The examples in (2) and (3) illustrate this division.
(In the Media Lengua examples below, the forms derived from Spanish
Spanish, their semantic content is derived from Quechua. For example, the
phonetic form of the Spanish verb sentarse ‘sit down’ was used to replace
the Quechua verb tiya-ri ‘sit’, ‘live’, ‘locative be’, ‘there is’ yielding the
Media Lengua verb sinta-ri ‘sit’, ‘live’, ‘locative be’, ‘there is’. As
Muysken (1981a: 56) points out, a single Media Lengua word is substituted
for the Quechua word, preserving the various meanings of the latter even
lexical item: estar sentado ‘sit’, vivir ‘live’, estar ‘locative be’, hay ‘there
is’. Similarly, the phonetic form of the Spanish verb tener ‘to have, to hold’
was used to replace the Quechua verb chari- ‘to have’ yielding the Media
Lengua verb tini- ‘to have’ (see Muysken 1988c). The above examples
show that, although there is some overlap in the semantics of the verbs that
are associated in the replacement, the semantics of the new Media Lengua
verbs follows the details of Quechua rather than those of the Spanish lexical
entries.
What is the process that produces lexical entries having the division
which the only information adopted from the target language in the lexical
In this view, relexification is a mental process that builds new lexical entries
language. The nature of this process accounts for the division of properties
Michif, see Bakker 1989, 1992, 1994; for Inner Mbugu or Ma’a, see Mous
This process has also been claimed to play a role in PC genesis. For
Voorhoeve (1973), Whinnom (1977) and others have long claimed that this
is so. At one point, Muysken (1981a: 77) also proposed that relexification
played a role in the formation of PCs: “If it is the case that the Caribbean
creoles show numerous African survivals in their syntax and semantics, then
I think we can argue that it is not interference which led to these survivals,
but relexification.” In a more recent paper (Muysken and Smith 1990: 884),
role in language genesis only in bilingual situations, that is, only in the
40
bilingual situation.” This strong position had the effect of slowing down
seen in section 2.4, it did not have the effect of killing the idea altogether.
e.g. Heine and Reh 1984; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Lightfoot 1979, etc.).
lexical entry becomes the signal of another lexical entry (see e.g. Lightfoot
adverbs. For example, the Yoruba verbal expression sa ere ‘run race’ has
been reanalysed as an adverb: sere ‘quickly’ (see BámÌgbósÒé 1974; Lord
1976).
occurred in PCs have been analysed as cases of reanalysis. Such cases are
reported in Baker and Syea (eds) (1996), Bickerton (1988), Foley (1988),
(1990, 1991), Sankoff and Laberge (1973), Valdman and Highfield (eds)
from the pidgin or creole alone, and data from contributing languages to
cases of reanalysis were postulated to have occurred in PCs than had actually
lexical entries, there is less need to call upon reanalysis than was first
PCs (see e.g. Bruyn 1996; Keesing 1988; Lefebvre 1998a; Traugott 1999).
For example, Koopman and Lefebvre (1981, 1982) hypothesised that the
reanalysis involving both the preposition pou ‘for’ and the irrealis mood
reanalysis to explain the creole data, and that relexification alone turns out to
account for the full range of functions of the creole lexical entry.
(see e.g. Domingue 1980, 1981; Siegel 1985, 1987, 1995, 1997; Trudgill
1986; etc.) refers to the reduction of variation between dialects of the same
(1997: 21) puts it, “dialect differences are reduced as speakers acquire
features from other varieties as well as avoid features from their own variety
42
that are somehow different. This may occur over several generations until a
1981) and English as spoken outside of England (see e.g. Siegel 1997;
Trudgill 1986).
and nineties), it has been suggested that dialect levelling also plays a role in
the further development of these languages (see e.g. Harris 1991: 199;
1980: 34; etc.). For example, Siegel (1997: 26) asserts that: “Mixing and
creole languages... When the various versions of the superstrate are then
With the exception of Siegel who claims that variation within a given
2.3.4. Summary
In the late nineteen seventies and in the eighties there was a shift in
the focus of enquiry about PC genesis from the study of language varieties
to the study of the processes yielding these varieties. Three major processes
43
to also play a role in the creation and development of PCs. As we saw earlier,
the use of these processes in the study of P C genesis was not entirely
successful on the first round. There are two major reasons for this situation.
The first one is due to the lack of systematic and detailed comparative work
between PCs and their source languages. For example, the overestimation of
the role of reanalysis mentioned in section 2.3.2 is without doubt due to this
factor. The second reason is due to the fact that there was no theory on how
these three processes apply and interact in PC genesis. Each process was
being considered for its own sake. Since none of the three processes taken
second phase, the field was left, so to speak, in a state of flux. The turning
point into the third phase of studies on PC genesis was marked by the debate
between substratists and universalists (see Muysken and Smith (eds) 1986)
languages. At the same time, another piece of comparative research had been
possible to account for the formation of PCs in terms of the processes that
1998a, and the references therein; Lefebvre and Kaye (eds) 1986; Lefebvre
and Lumsden 1989, 1994a, 1994b). Another assumption was that the
the time the creole was formed. Because of the importance of this research in
section 2.1.
Lefebvre and Kaye (eds) 1986; Lefebvre and Lumsden 1989, 1994a, 1994b;
etc.) tested by the research reported on in this section is that the creators of a
that, in creole genesis involving situations where there is little access to the
the substratum languages as the main tool for acquiring a second language:
questions: when was Haitian Creole formed? What were the salient
Who were the people present at the relevant time? What was their linguistic
archives of France was carried out by John Singler (see Singler 1993a,
colonists decreased and the number of slaves exploded; this had the effect of
Caribbean population at the time Haitian Creole was formed was adult (see
details in section 2.2.5). As for the languages that these adults were
speaking, Singler (1993b) shows that they were all Niger-Congo languages,
more particularly Kwa (Gbe and Akan) and Bantu. During the formative
period of Haitian Creole, Gbe speakers made up more than 50% of the
46
Lumsden (1994b), the overall situation found in Haiti between 1680 and
1740 presented all the prerequisites for the emergence of a creole language:
there was a multilingual community, in need of a lingua franca, and the bulk
comparison of the lexicon and grammar of Haitian Creole with those of its
culture on that of Haiti (with respect to religion and art, see e.g. Bastide
1967; Herskovits 1975), Fongbe, a language of the Gbe cluster, was chosen
1993b; Lefebvre and Kaye (eds) 1986).16 This choice turned out to be a
good one, in view of Singler’s finding that the Gbe speakers outnumbered
speakers of the other West African languages at the time Haitian Creole was
formed. As has been pointed out in Lefebvre and Lumsden (1994a), the
methodological choices that were made had the effect of making the
methodology of the research and the validity of the linguistic test, see
Lumsden (1994a, 1994b), one or two examples either way are not enough to
support or falsify the hypothesis. The test must involve quantity as well as
quality.
To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that sufficient
its superstratum and substratum sources. The global results of this threeway
research.
the 1989–1994 UQAM project with respect to how the three processes
and Lumsden (1989, 1992, 1994a, 1994b) and in Lumsden and Lefebvre
(1994).
have enough exposure to this language to learn the details of its lexical
the lexical entries of their respective lexicons on the basis of phonetic strings
derived (see e.g.!Carden and Stewart 1988; Lefebvre 1984; Lefebvre and
because speakers of the substratum languages have very limited access to the
the superstratum language. These speakers thus try to relexify the functional
been relexified on the basis of the postposed French adverb là, yielding
well as major category lexical entries, provides the speakers of the various
there must be partial semantic overlap between the source and target lexical
for an original lexical entry. Due to space limitations, such cases are not
franca within the creole community. When the relexified lexicons become
the target of the creole community, a new language is born. At this point, the
relexification: the incipient creole. At this stage, two other processes come
several lexicons thus creates variation within a creole. This scenario allows
studies as the ‘cafeteria principle’ – a term used first by Dillard (1970) and
later by Bickerton. As Bickerton (1981: 49) puts it: “As things stand, we are
creole could mix fragments of Yoruba, Akan, Igbo, Mandinka, and Wolof
(but need not) be levelled out with time. The proposal that dialect levelling
An original lexical entry that was not relexified (either because the
creators of the creole did not find an appropriate form in the superstratum
with a similar meaning. The periphrastic expression may later become the
51
(1998a).
The theory accounts for the fact that creole languages emerge in
multilingual societies in need a lingua franca (the first and second features).
It accounts for the fact that the creators of the creole have little access to the
language.
language. The relexification theory of creole genesis thus accounts for the
fact that creoles reflect the properties of both their superstratum and their
creoles are generally isolating languages also follows from the above
language, or from reanalysis, and since these categories are typically free
fifth feature).
Finally, the theory that the bulk of a creole’s lexical entries are
languages were to show that the syntax and semantics of the creole are not
languages, then the theory would be falsified. Likewise, the theory that the
creators of the creole use the parametric values, the semantic interpretation
properties of a creole with those of its source languages were to show that
the properties of the creole are not systematically parallel to those of the
of theories in Table 2.1, all the features that need to be accounted for would
2.4.4. Summary
The core of the results of the UQAM Haitian projects can be found
relexification account of creole genesis (see also chapter 3). The detailed
the same direction as well. As more cases are being documented, we deepen
our understanding of the process itself and of the constraints upon it.
2.5. Conclusion
summarised in this paper. The first phase includes six major approaches.
These approaches were shown to have in common the fact that they all focus
on linguistic varieties. It was shown that none of them can account for all the
was characterised by an attempt to shift the focus of study from the language
varieties to the processes that are at work in creating these language varieties.
various reasons discussed in section 2.3, the first attempt at applying these
processes to pidgin and creole genesis and development was not entirely
54
successful. The third phase of studies in pidgin and creole genesis made a
PCs cast within the framework of the processes which otherwise play a role
languages.18
What is ahead in the study of pidgin and creole genesis? Surely, the
documentation of more cases will provide new questions for the theory (see
for example the papers in Siegel 2000). Types of studies that are needed for
getting new insights into the theory are discussed in Lefebvre (2002), of
theory of PC genesis will be adopted, researchers must bear in mind the fact
Notes to chapter 2
*
This paper has been written as part of the project “Research builds on research”
financed by SSHRCC. I want to thank the following colleagues for their most useful
comments on an earlier version of this paper: Bernard Comrie, Christine Jourdan, Jeff
Siegel and Kevin Tuite. Thanks to Marijo Denis and Virginie Loranger for their help
in editing the manuscript, and to Andrée Bélanger for formatting it.
1
The content of this section builds on a preliminary discussion in Lefebvre and
Lumsden (1989, 1994a) updated in Lefebvre (1998a: 1–4).
2
There is a general consensus in the literature that multilingualism is a required feature
of communities where creoles may emerge. However, this proposal has recently been
challenged by Smith, Robertson and Williamson (1987), who claim that Berbice
55
Dutch emerged out of contact between only two languages: Dutch and Eastern Ijo.
Assuming that Berbice Dutch is a true creole, and that Ijo was the sole African
language present at the time this creole was formed, this case would constitute the
first documented evidence against Whinnom’s widely accepted claim. For further
discussion of this issue, see also Foley (1988) and Thomason (1997b).
3
Within this general approach to creole genesis, two views have been advocated: the
monogenetic and the polygenetic theory of creole languages. The former approach
claims that European-based creoles are derived from a single pidgin, the Portuguese
pidgin that emerged during the 15th century on the route of the Portuguese merchants.
Among the tenants of this theory, we find Alleyne (1971), Goodman (1964), Hancock
(1968), Stewart (1962), Whinnom (1956, 1965, 1971), to name but a few. On this
view, the original pidgin would have been diversified with the dispersion of its
speakers in the various countries of colonisation. As it became the native language of
a first generation of speakers, this original pidgin language would have evolved into
mutually unintelligible creoles due to borrowing from different colonial languages (see
e.g. Stewart 1967: 47). The polygenetic theory of creole genesis (see e.g. Hall 1966),
stipulates that different pidgins gave rise to different creoles. In this view, a French-
based pidgin would be the source of French-based creoles, an English-based pidgin
would be the source of English-based creoles, and so on and so forth. The debate on
this issue has raised enormous methodological problems. Some of these are discussed
in Frake (1971), Goodman (1971), Grimshaw (1971), Hymes (1971), Southworth
(1971), etc. To the best of my knowledge, no one advocates a monogenesis theory of
PCs anymore.
4
For a discussion of similar and contrastive properties of second language acquisition
and creolisation, see e.g. Véronique (1994).
5
Note that Bickerton’s (1981) Language Bioprogram and Chomsky’s (1986) Language
Acquisition Device are sometimes considered as being equivalent. In my understanding
of the two approaches, however, these two devices are quite different. On Bickerton’s
view, it is the lack of pertinent data that activates the Language Bioprogram, whereas
on Chomsky’s view, it is the presence of pertinent data that activates the Language
Acquisition Device. It thus seems that the two devices are not equivalent with respect
to the trigger that activates them. The association of these two devices thus appears to
be erroneous.
6
Thanks to John Reineke for having brought PCs to the attention of linguists.
7
Languages that are being referred to as mixed languages emerge in contexts where only
two languages are spoken in contrast to PCs which emerge in contexts involving more
than two languages, as we saw in section 2.1. For an extensive discussion of the
differences and similarities between PCs and mixed languages, and the situations in
which they emerge, see Lefebvre (1998a: 29–30, and the references therein).
8
For a summary of the role of relexification in the formation of various mixed
languages, see Lefebvre (1998a: 18–29).
9
There is an ongoing debate on whether cases of grammaticalisation and of reanalysis
constitute a single process or two separate ones. For example, Heine and Reh (1984:
97), Hopper and Traugott (1993: 32) and Lefebvre (1998a: 41–45) consider that
reanalysis subsumes cases of grammaticalisation. Haspelmath (1998, 1999), however,
strongly argues for formal differences between them. Since nothing in the present
discussion hinges on possible distinctions between reanalysis and grammaticalisation,
I do not pursue the discussion of this point here.
10
I take the process of reanalysis to apply within a particular language. There are other
acceptions of the term, however. For example, some authors consider calques as cases
of reanalysis. Such cases are not included in my use of the term reanalysis.
56
11
For an extensive discussion of how cases of reanalysis reported to have taken place in
PCs are of the same kind as those observed in other languages, see Lefebvre 1998a:
30–33).
12
For this reason it is not possible to discuss the proposals reviewed in this section
against the seven features in section 2.1.
13
A summary of the history of these projects can be found in the Preface to Lefebvre
(1998a).
14
For a complete statement of the human and financial resources allocated to these
projects, see the Preface to Lefebvre (1998a).
15
See Lefebvre (1998a) and Lefebvre and Brousseau (2002, and the references therein).
16
In no way does this methodological choice entail that Haitian is Fongbe relexified.
For further discussion of this point, see Lefebvre 1998a: 52–77.
17
Creoles which less resemble their superstratum languages are referred to as radical
creoles.
18
At the symposium “Pidgin and Creole Linguistics in the 21st century” (1998), Glenn
Gilbert asked participants the following question: “What place will universalist
theories retain in 21st-century pidgin and creole linguistics?”. My reply to his
question was the following (see Lefebvre 2002: 247–286):
(For further discussion of this issue, see also chapter 8 of this book.)