Learning Journal #1 — Salikoko Mufwene on Pidgin-Creole -Part — 1

[embed]Salikoko Mufwene: Pidgin and Creole Languages Most studies of pidgins and Creoles (PC) have focused on their origins, despite an undeniable increase during the 1990s…mufwene.uchicago.edu

I am reading ‘Father Tongue, Motherland: The Birth of Languages in South Asia’ Book by Peggy Ramesar Mohan.This a briefing document on the paper by Salikoko Mufewe as mentioned in the book Father Tongue,Motherland- Page 14

Note: I am a newbie to this topic and curious to share my learnings..

Executive Summary

The central takeaway of this paper is that Pidgin-Creoles are new language varieties born from specific colonial contact situations, and their development is best understood through an ecological lens that considers a confluence of factors rather than a single, exclusive cause.

Key insights in this paper include:

• Distinct Origins: Contrary to a widely held belief, pidgins and creoles did not typically develop sequentially in a “life-cycle.” They emerged in separate sociohistorical settings: pidgins in trade colonies with sporadic contact, and creoles in settlement colonies with more regular interaction.
• Rejection of the “Life-Cycle” Model: The traditional model positing a progression from Jargon-> Pidgin->Creole (via nativization) ->Post-Creole is heavily contested. Evidence suggests creoles did not necessarily evolve from pidgins, and the concept of “decreolization” is disputed.
• The Complementary Hypothesis: The most robust explanation for Creole genesis is the “complementary hypothesis.” This framework posits that creoles developed from a combination of influences from the European lexifier (superstrate), non-European vernaculars (substrate), and universal linguistic principles, with the specific outcome determined by the unique “sociohistorical ecology” of each contact setting.
• Problematic Classification: The distinction between a “creole” and a non-creole colonial “dialect” (e.g., Haitian Creole vs. Quebec French) appears to be based on the ethnicity of the majority speakers (non-European vs. European), a sociopolitical classification rather than a purely linguistic one. There are no structural features that are uniquely and universally characteristic of all creoles.
• Impact on Linguistics: While creolistics has been foundational to the development of quantitative sociolinguistics, its profound insights into language change, grammatical systems, and contact-induced evolution have been met with “alarming indifference” from many theoretical linguists, limiting its broader impact on the field.

1. Defining Pidgins and Creoles (PCs)

Pidgins and Creoles are new language varieties that emerged between the 17th and 19th centuries from contact between nonstandard colonial European languages and various non-European languages. Despite extensive study, there are no structural features that are exclusive to PCs as a group. Their defining characteristics are rooted in the sociohistorical ecologies of their development.

Distinction Between Pidgins and Creoles

The source text argues that pidgins and creoles developed in fundamentally different environments, challenging the notion that one is simply a later stage of the other.

Etymology and Terminology

• Creole: The term originated in 16th-century Iberian colonies to refer to non-indigenous people born in the American colonies. It was later extended to descendants of Africans and Europeans, as well as local plants, animals, and customs. Its application to language varieties occurred later, possibly in the late 18th century, and may have been used by metropolitan Europeans to “disfranchise” colonial forms of their languages.
• Pidgin: The term was coined in 1807, over two centuries after “creole” was first used for people. The name “Pidgin English” is believed to be a distortion of “business English” and developed in Canton, a trade area where no creoles have been identified.

2. The “Life-Cycle” Model and its Critiques

A dominant historical theory, the “life-cycle” model, posits a linear evolution of contact languages. This model has been subjected to significant scholarly critique.

The Traditional Model

Popularized by linguists like Robert A. Hall Jr. and Derek DeCamp, this model outlines a putative progression:

1. Jargon: An early, unstable stage of contact with significant individual variation.
2. Pidgin: The jargon becomes stabilized with established linguistic norms.
3. Creole: The pidgin undergoes structural expansion and becomes a community’s native language, a process Hall termed nativization. Bloomfield (1933) stated, “when the jargon has become the only language of the subject group, it is a creolized language.”
4. Post-Creole: In situations of ongoing contact with the lexifier (the language that supplied most of the vocabulary), the creole is believed to shed its “Creole features” and move closer to the lexifier, a process known as decreolization. This can result in a post-Creole continuum of varieties ranging from the most divergent (basilect) to the closest to the lexifier (acrolect).

Fundamental Challenges to the Model

Several scholars have presented evidence and arguments that undermine the linear life-cycle theory.

Separate Development Paths: Mufwene (2001) argues that the different social ecologies of trade and settlement colonies led to the separate and independent development of pidgins and creoles, respectively.

Evidence Against a Pidgin Stage in Plantations:

• Mervyn Alleyne (1971): Argued that [fossilized inflectional morphology](http://Fossilized inflectional morphology refers to the permanent acquisition of incorrect or incomplete grammatical inflectional forms by a second language learner, even with extensive exposure to the target language.) in Haitian Creole indicates that Europeans did not communicate with Africans using simplified “baby talk” or “foreigner talk,” which would have been necessary to foster a pidgin.
• Robert Chaudenson (1992): Posited that large plantations were preceded by smaller homesteads where enslaved people spoke mesolectal (intermediate) approximations of European languages, not pidgins.

Critique of “Decreolization”:

• Mufwene argues that if a language’s “Creole” identity is defined by its unique sociohistorical origin, it cannot cease to be a Creole simply because some of its features change.
• The continued coexistence of [basilectal](http://Basilectal" is the adjectival form of "basilect," a linguistic term referring to a variety of a language that has less prestige and is furthest removed from the standard or most prestigious form of that language. It can describe a dialect or accent associated with a lower social status or a more localized, stronger regional variation, often found in areas where a creole has been or is spoken.) and [mesolectal](http://A mesolect is a variety of language in a creole continuum that sits between the acrolect (the most standard or prestigious variety) and the basilect (the most distinct or non-standard variety).) features in many communities suggests the creole has not disappeared.

Source: From Internet Search

• Lalla and D’Costa (1990) present substantial data arguing against the occurrence of decreolization in Caribbean English Creoles.

To be continued…