Creolistics: Difference between revisions
imported>John Stephenson (revert: pidgins but not creoles are regarded as grammatically/functionally simpler than full languages; simplification involves more than just syntax) |
imported>John Stephenson (...but that paragraph is confusing, so attempting a rewrite here) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Creolistics''' is the study of both [[creole (language)|creole]]s and the [[pidgin (language)|pidgin]] [[language]]s from which creoles develop. Although the study of these ''[[contact language]]s'' is most often associated with [[linguistics]], particularly [[language acquisition]] and [[sociolinguistics]], it has expanded into related fields such as [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], [[history]] and [[literary studies]], because the creation of a creole invariably involves cross-[[culture|cultural]] contact.<ref>Siegel (2005: 141).</ref> Researchers who study creole phenomena may be known as ''creolists''. | '''Creolistics''' is the study of both [[creole (language)|creole]]s and the [[pidgin (language)|pidgin]] [[language]]s from which creoles develop. Although the study of these ''[[contact language]]s'' is most often associated with [[linguistics]], particularly [[language acquisition]] and [[sociolinguistics]], it has expanded into related fields such as [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], [[history]] and [[literary studies]], because the creation of a creole invariably involves cross-[[culture|cultural]] contact.<ref>Siegel (2005: 141).</ref> Researchers who study creole phenomena may be known as ''creolists''. | ||
Creolistics has provided some revealing and controversial insights into [[language evolution]], acquisition and use, though disagreements exist over what languages or varieties can be labelled a 'creole' or a 'pidgin', and debate continues over the nature of ''creolisation'': the | Creolistics has provided some revealing and controversial insights into [[language evolution]], acquisition and use, though disagreements exist over what languages or varieties can be labelled a 'creole' or a 'pidgin', and debate continues over the nature of ''creolisation'' (how creoles are formed). Major issues include: the amount of 'simplification' or 'simplicity' in the [[syntax (linguistics)|syntax]], [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], [[semantics (linguistics)|semantics]], [[phonology]] and functional uses of pidgins; the 'life cycle' of pidgins and creoles (e.g. 'Is a pidgin a necessary prerequisite for a creole to form?' 'Does creole genesis usually lead to a ''post-creole continuum'', in which varieties differ relative to the broadest forms of the creole and the language(s) from which most vocabulary is derived?'); and the origins of grammatical structures in creoles which are absent in any preceding pidgin.<ref>Siegel (2008: 3-7).</ref> | ||
The third of the above controversies is particularly contentious. For example, the ''[[language bioprogram hypothesis]]'' (LBH)<ref>e.g. Bickerton (1984).</ref> of [[Derek Bickerton]] claims that creole genesis supports ideas about the nature of language associated with [[Noam Chomsky]]; as creole [[generative grammar|grammar]]s are remarkably similar across the world,<ref>Sebba (1997: 70-72).</ref> this reflects the existence of an [[innatism|innate]] faculty for language. Bickerton does, however, go further than most creolists in explaining creole genesis as being largely biologically-based, and the LBH has been strongly critiqued.<ref>e.g Siegel (2008: 8; 66-78; 91-104; 133-134).</ref> Other controversial theories, such as ''[[relexification]]'',<ref>e.g. Lefebvre (1998, 2004).</ref> form part of current enquiry but as yet there is no widely-accepted account of creole genesis that satisfactorily explains most of the data. | The third of the above controversies is particularly contentious. For example, the ''[[language bioprogram hypothesis]]'' (LBH)<ref>e.g. Bickerton (1984).</ref> of [[Derek Bickerton]] claims that creole genesis supports ideas about the nature of language associated with [[Noam Chomsky]]; as creole [[generative grammar|grammar]]s are remarkably similar across the world,<ref>Sebba (1997: 70-72).</ref> this reflects the existence of an [[innatism|innate]] faculty for language. Bickerton does, however, go further than most creolists in explaining creole genesis as being largely biologically-based, and the LBH has been strongly critiqued.<ref>e.g Siegel (2008: 8; 66-78; 91-104; 133-134).</ref> Other controversial theories, such as ''[[relexification]]'',<ref>e.g. Lefebvre (1998, 2004).</ref> form part of current enquiry but as yet there is no widely-accepted account of creole genesis that satisfactorily explains most of the data. | ||
Revision as of 00:52, 9 October 2010
Creolistics is the study of both creoles and the pidgin languages from which creoles develop. Although the study of these contact languages is most often associated with linguistics, particularly language acquisition and sociolinguistics, it has expanded into related fields such as anthropology, sociology, history and literary studies, because the creation of a creole invariably involves cross-cultural contact.[1] Researchers who study creole phenomena may be known as creolists.
Creolistics has provided some revealing and controversial insights into language evolution, acquisition and use, though disagreements exist over what languages or varieties can be labelled a 'creole' or a 'pidgin', and debate continues over the nature of creolisation (how creoles are formed). Major issues include: the amount of 'simplification' or 'simplicity' in the syntax, morphology, semantics, phonology and functional uses of pidgins; the 'life cycle' of pidgins and creoles (e.g. 'Is a pidgin a necessary prerequisite for a creole to form?' 'Does creole genesis usually lead to a post-creole continuum, in which varieties differ relative to the broadest forms of the creole and the language(s) from which most vocabulary is derived?'); and the origins of grammatical structures in creoles which are absent in any preceding pidgin.[2]
The third of the above controversies is particularly contentious. For example, the language bioprogram hypothesis (LBH)[3] of Derek Bickerton claims that creole genesis supports ideas about the nature of language associated with Noam Chomsky; as creole grammars are remarkably similar across the world,[4] this reflects the existence of an innate faculty for language. Bickerton does, however, go further than most creolists in explaining creole genesis as being largely biologically-based, and the LBH has been strongly critiqued.[5] Other controversial theories, such as relexification,[6] form part of current enquiry but as yet there is no widely-accepted account of creole genesis that satisfactorily explains most of the data.