АНГ – Левченко Я.С.

– ТМК – Research
THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE

LUHANSK TARAS SHEVCHENKO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The Chair of English Philology

Research on topic:

Pidgins and
Creoles as
standard
Languages?
Conducted by:
Yaroslav Levchenko,
the student of MA course,
specialization “English language and
literature”,
the faculty of foreign languages

scientific advisor:
Migovich I.V.

1
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

Luhansk – 2009

2
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
PLAN
Introduction.........................................................................................................3 – 5
Creoles and Pidgins comparison.......................................................................6 – 10
Suggested definitions of Pidgins and Creoles.................................................11 – 14
Conclusions.....................................................................................................15 – 17
References.......................................................................................................18 – 19

3
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

INTRODUCTION

Most languages are derived from their ancestors through an unbroken chain

of normal language transmission: each generation of speakers inherits their

language from previous generations intact, w/only a few minor changes.

• In this process, major changes can take place and new languages

emerge, but only over centuries and even millennia, only gradually.

• Exceptions to this process-- rapid growth or loss of languages-- are

nearly all due to contact between languages.

Contact can happen between very similar or very distinct languages, in pairs

or small numbers or large numbers, gradually or very rapidly. With Pidgins and

Creoles, we are only interested in a small part of the spectrum of language contact:

• contact between 3 or more linguistically diverse language types,

• in a situation providing great motivation for speakers to

communicate (and often of dramatic social inequality),

• resulting in very rapid language change and evolution.

Thus neither Ps nor Cs come about by normal language change &

transmission, in the technical sense used above, yet

• Both come about through normal processes of language contact, i.e.

4
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
• Both are natural, developed thru contact and not deliberately

"invented"

• However, Creoles are complete languages, Pidgins are not.

• This is because Pidgins are new, while Creoles have had time to

develop.

There's a continuum between Creoles and older languages -- i.e. a Creole

gradually develops grammatical machinery and the sorts of redundancies and

historical residue that characterize older languages. So we can't necessarily look at

any language today minus its social history and know whether or not it's a Creole

(though Pidgins are more obvious, given their general lack of complete

grammatical machinery).

For the same sorts of reasons, there's a continuum between Pidgins and

Creoles too: a Pidgin gradually expands its social contexts, and extends its

grammatical forms and repertoire to match them, spurred on by the nativizatin

process (by becoming the native language of a group of children, and eventually

the language of ethnic identification for a speech community). In other words,

• There's no reliable purely-structural definition of Cs, and similarly

• No hard-and-fast structural distinction between Ps and Cs.

5
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
• Social and historical information is necessary to distinguish them from

each other, and from older languages which developed through normal language

transmission.

Nevertheless, there are some widely-found tendencies and

generalizations linguists use in attempting to characterize Pidgins and Creoles.

There is great argument about the claims I've just made above, but they are

increasingly popular. There's also a consensus in the field that old-fashioned

treatments (e.g. those still found in many linguistics textbooks today!) of the

differences between Pidgins, Creoles and older languages have often been too

simple and evenfactually incorrect. This is partly because of the great progress in

careful description of Pidgin and Creole grammars in the last 20 or 25 years, and

also because of advances in our understanding of historical processes made

through careful case studies of individual languages.

6
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

CREOLES AND PIDGINS COMPARISON

Today, creolists think it's especially important to study Pidgins & Creoles

(and transitional varieties like AAVE) for many reasons, including:

• to deepen our knowledge of language change and contact

• to help us understand how new languages expand, age and decay

Also, there's some unsolved mystery about whether such processes of

language formation and growth are the same for all cases -- i.e.,

• whether all Pidgins share structural features because of their recent

formation, and

• whether all Creoles share structural features because of the pathways

of language change open to them. (The topic of grammaticalization is an important

one here.)

Let’s compare the case of typical Pidgins and Creoles with African

American Vernacular English (AAVE) -- a dialect of North American English

which may have had a Creole past. At any rate, it's certain that many of the same

social and linguistic conditions which led to Creole formation throughout the West

Indies were in place; and yet today AAVE is certainly not a Creole.

7
 АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

Comparison: Pidgins, Creoles & African American Vernacular English

Pidgin Creole AAVE

Contact language that arose Yes Yes (?

naturally contact?)

Has native speakers Not Always Yes

usually

Linguistic form and grammar are... Reduced* Expanded Full

Restricted in contexts of use Yes No Yes but...

Stable and independent norms No Yes Yes

Fully adequate natural language No Yes Yes

Short texts and example data

This example shows how the same lexical elements may be configured

differently in a Creole from its superstrate. GFC is actually more regular and

systematic than Standard French, in having both modifiers on the same side of the

head noun.

8
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
French versus Guadeloupéen French Creole
la table rouge "the red table" tab wouj la
Def table Adj table Adj Def

Pidgin Fijian:

Tamana tinana keitou sa mate tiko

Father mother 1pl Pred die Dur

"Our parents have died"

This example shows how reduced pidgin grammar may be when compared

to its input. Fijian, a Polynesian language with c. 200,000 speakers, has 35

formsfor pronouns corresponding to English's 3 in the first plural: we/us/our. This

is because Fijian distinguishes not just singular from plural, but singular

fromdual (=2) from paucal (=a few) from plural; while there are also different

forms for items that are edible vs. drinkable vs. other, etc. However, Pidgin

Fijian(spoken in Fiji by people of Polynesian, Indian and Chinese descent)

has only one pronominal form for this person/number: keitou.

This feature is an example of the "greater simplicity" that is often attributed

to Pidgins and Creoles. Linguists mean the following when we say simplicity:

9
 АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
o an increase in regularity (fewer exceptions, fewer forms), and/or

o a decrease in marking distinctions in the form of the language (lack of

inflectional morphemes, among other things)

Note that these trends aid the speaker more than the listener, so it's

not cognitively simpler. (Not mentally, that is -- of course Pidgin speakers know

the differences between few/many, edible/inedible etc!) More work has to be done

in inference, through pragmatics, because the syntax and morphology does less.

Solomon Islands Pidjin: verses from Mark 5:2-4

This example is from a Pacific Pidgin with English as its superstrate. (All of

these Pidgins and Creoles date from the 19th century, so they are relatively new, but

their early days are relatively well-documented; see Muhlhausler 1997 below for a

good treatment of them.) Missionary influence played a large role in many of these

languages, and often continues to in the from of development of materials for

language description, instruction and standardization. This New Testament text

and translation thus make an appropriate example.

2. Steretwe taem Jisas i go soa, 2. When he had stepped out of the boat

wanfela man wea i stap long berigiraon i immediately a man out of the tombs met him

kamaot fo mitim hem.

Desfala man ia devol nogud i stap long This man was possessed by an unclean spir

10
 АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

hem.

3. Ples bulong hem nao long berigiraon. 3. He lived in the cemetery;

Bikos hem i karangge tumas, and no-one could restrain him any more,

even with chains,

no man i save taemapim. because he was too strong.

4. Plande taem olketa i hankapem han 4. For he had often been restrained wit

an lek bulong hem, shackles and chains on his arms and legs,

bat hem i smasing olketa nomoa. but the chains he wrenched apart, and the

shackles he broke in pieces,

No man i storong fitim fo holem. and no one had the strength to subdue him.

11
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS FOR PIDGINS AND CREOLES

A lingua franca is a language used by people whose mother tongues are

different in order to communicate.

Any language could conceivably serve as a lingua franca between two

groups, no matter what sort of language it was. This is also true for some other

terms (cited by Wm. Samarin, Wardhaugh Chap. 3): "Contact Language,

International Language, Auxiliary Language, Trade Language". A pidgin could

serve as alingua franca, too; so could a creole. English often does. Lingua

franca is thus a purely functionally-defined term, i.e. linguistic structure of the

language involved plays no role.

A Pidgin

o is a contact language or lingua franca that arose naturally (not like

e.g. Esperanto)

o does not have native speakers

o is reduced in linguistic form and grammar

o is restricted in contexts of use

o is typically unstable and highly mixed

12
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
o may sometimes be a stable variety with norms of acceptability,

o but is NOT a fully adequate natural language.

Also, Pidgins:

o derive from the process of pidginization

o typically evolve from trade or plantation situations...

o ... where many languages occur but no one predominates;

o are the products of incomplete Second Language Acquisition, and

thus...

o ... have small core vocabularies, and borrow extensively,

o ... have very surfacy grammar, much variation but little system,

o ... and sociolinguistically have no (or incoherent) norms of

interpretation;

o have limited domains for expressive and communicative functions;

o typically either die out or evolve into creoles...

o ... through the process of creolization/nativization.

A Creole, on the other hand:

o does have native speakers

o has developed, thru expansion in linguistic form and grammar,

13
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
o and thru extension in use (communicative & expressive functions),

o into a full-fledged, complete and adequate natural language

o which is typically stable and autonomous in its norms

Also, Creoles:

o often evolve from pidgins, thru the creolization/nativization process;

o exist most often in post-colonial areas, where...

o ...they tend to be the vernacular of spontaneous daily use;

o are typically related to one widely-spoken language (often seen as a

'corruption' of it);

o are native languages acquired as mother tongues; thus...

o ...are products of First Language Acquisition, based on inadequate

input (Bickerton);

o may either stabilize, decreolize thru contact, or die out

o may or may not be highly mixed, depending on their age & current

language contacts;

o have established mechanisms for vocabulary extension

(borrowing/integration rules);

o have less elaborate/grammaticalized structures in grammar than older

languages do (whether standardized or not), but definitely more than pidgins;

14
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
o have much variation but coherent sociolinguistic norms (of

evaluation/interpretation)

o have wider domains & are used more for expressive/communicative

purposes...

o ... though they resemble non-standard dialects in terms of prestige;

o may remain stable over long periods or merge toward standard

languages (decreolize).

These definitions use "stable” and “autonomous" as relative terms. Creoles

are independent languages with their own communities & social life -- but not

resistant to change, nor impervious to outside influences!

15
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

CONCLUSIONS

Theories of Pidginization and Creolization divide up into those that are

basically historical, versus those that are basically universalist. The basic facts

they are both trying to explain are:

o why Creoles around the world, regardless of superstrate, are similar in

structure (are they?)

o why Pidgins around the world, regardless of superstrate, are similar in

structure (are they?)

o how and why Creoles and Pidgins are related:

 how they're similar, and how they're distinct

 how Creoles develop out of Pidgins (when and if they do)

The basic idea is, most pidgins and creoles are the product of European

colonialism going around the world and colliding with indigenous languages, often

either enslaving their speakers or shipping them off to remote non-native areas to

work as "indentured servants". So it originally seemed logical to try to explain as

much as possible by common descent from the politically-dominant European

"superstrate" languages and the "substrate" languages of the people they dominated

- African languages in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, Austronesian and other

16
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
languages in the Pacific, and so on - taking into account different social

circumstances that obtain over such a period of extended contact, which typically

result in development of pidgins early on, and creoles later on.

Input languages into Pidgins and Creoles are often referred to by the terms:

o Superstrate: a language spoken by people who held a

socially dominant position in the contact that produced them.

o Substrate: a language spoken by people who held a

socially subordinate position in the contact that produced them.

o Adstrate: another language involved that's neither in a dominant nor

a subordinate situation (often one that came into contact after the initial situation

applied).

The basic idea is that pidgins are the product of the same general kinds of

contact processes that would happen anywhere, no matter who was involved. So it

seems logical to try and figure out what those processes are, how they applied to

particular kinds of languages we know about, and how they would apply to others

if the chance arose; and to compare this process to second language learning

(SLA). Creoles, on the other hand, are supposed to be the product of nativization

of mixed, second languages (pidgins), and nativization is basically child first-

language learning (FLA) - which is thought to be the same everywhere, due to our

innate, genetically-programmed language learning mechanisms, no matter what

kinds of input children get. If creoles all have similar input, and undergo similar

17
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
processes, it's no surprise they should turn out to be similar even when they're

historically unrelated.

Over the last 10 – 15 years, there have been many modifications of these

sorts of positions. It's fair to say today that most creolists believe there are both

historical and universalist elements involved in the explanation of any particular

Pidgin or Creole's structure.

18
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research

REFERENCES

1. J Arends, P Muysken & N Smith, eds. Pidgins & Creoles, Chs. 1-2. (The

same book, Chs. 3 & 8-11, goes further in-depth.) Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishers.

2. JA Holm 1988 Pidgins and creoles. Vol. I: Theory and structure. Vol. II:

Reference survey. Cambridge Univ. Press. (A handbook on Ps & Cs around

the world.)

3. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: an

introduction. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Press. (A good book setting

creoles and pidgins in the general cnotext of language contact.)

4. S Romaine 1994, Language in Society, Ch. 3 (89-

98). Oxford Univ. Press. (Good chapter in a standard sociolinguistics

textbook.)

5. P Muhlhausler 1997 (2nd ed.) Pidgin and creole linguistics. London:

Battlebridge Press, Westminster Creolistics Series 2. (A good introductory

textbook on Ps & Cs.)

6. D Hymes ed. 1971 Pidginization and Creolization of

Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. JE Reinecke, SM Tsuzaki, D DeCamp, I Hancock & RE Wood

1975 A bibliography of Pidgin and Creole languages. (Oceanic Linguistics

Special Publication No. 14.)Honolulu: The University Press of Hawai'i.

19
АНГ – Левченко Я.С. – ТМК – Research
8. D Bickerton 1984 "The language bioprogram hypothesis" Behavioral &

Brain Sciences 7(2):173-221.

9. RB LePage & A Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of Identity: Creole-based

approaches to language &

ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. P Muysken and N Smith eds. 1986 Substrata versus universals in creole

genesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishers.

11. D Bickerton 1988 "Creole Languages and the Bioprogram" In Newmeyer,

ed., Language: Psychological & Biological Aspects. (Linguistics:

the Cambridge Survey, Vol. 3), 267-

284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. SG Thomason & T Kaufman 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, &

Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

13. S Mufwene ed. 1993 Africanisms in Afro-American language

varieties. Athens GA: University of Georgia Press.

14. J McWhorter 1998 "Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a

typological class." Language 74(4):788-81.

15. PL Patrick 1999 Urban Jamaican Creole: Variation in the

Mesolect. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins

20