Creolization & Bioprogram Hypothesis
There are many different theories about the origin of pidgins and creoles. Some of these stress the importance of the superstratum language (e.g. theories that claim that pidgins are the result of imperfect learning of the target language (e.g. English), or the result of ‘baby talk’ by the superstratum speakers). Others put emphasis on the substratum languages (e.g. claiming that the pidgins/creoles are a result of simple ‘relexification’ of the original languages (e.g. African vernaculars)). A more ‘universalist’ theory with respect to the formation of creoles has been developed by Bickerton.
Bickerton (1981) questions the generally assumed link between pidgins and creoles, finding that the latter do not always simply develop gradually out of the former. He claims that in situations in which creoles (i.e. stabilized pidgins with native speakers) emerge, there is often no ‘normal’ continuity of language transmission (i.e. the handing down of a natural language from a generation to the next). In some situations, the creole-speaking community has been torn from their native cultures and native languages, while they have limited access to the superimposed language. Thus, the pidgin has not stabilized (i.e. become grammaticalized and unified) before it is acquired by children as a first language, which provides an exceptional situation for L1 acquisition.
The question that arises is how the children who are exposed to such an unstable pidgin in childhood acquired complex, rule-governed features that become part of the creole. According to Bickerton, the pidgin they are presented with is “unfit to serve as someone’s primary tongue”. Yet, they have a biological need for a native tongue that can fulfil all functions. This makes them turn the insufficient linguistic input into a fully fledged language by running it though an innate system universal to us all: the language bioprogram (cf. Chomsky’s 'language acquisition device').
An important thought behind this is that over thousands of years, biological, natural languages have come to encode features that diverge from a biological base, and are instead cultural. If there is no such cultural language available, though, the bioprogram kicks in and inserts ‘natural’ features into the gaps. (According to Bickerton, the same happens in L1 acquisition, though the cultural influence ultimately wins over the natural ones).
I cannot really make up my mind about this hypothesis, and do not know whether I should agree with it or not. The hypothesis is hard to disprove, as any elements that show up in pidgins or creoles that are not part of the bioprogram can be said to be culturally inherited. Any thoughts/opinions?
Bickerton (1981) questions the generally assumed link between pidgins and creoles, finding that the latter do not always simply develop gradually out of the former. He claims that in situations in which creoles (i.e. stabilized pidgins with native speakers) emerge, there is often no ‘normal’ continuity of language transmission (i.e. the handing down of a natural language from a generation to the next). In some situations, the creole-speaking community has been torn from their native cultures and native languages, while they have limited access to the superimposed language. Thus, the pidgin has not stabilized (i.e. become grammaticalized and unified) before it is acquired by children as a first language, which provides an exceptional situation for L1 acquisition.
The question that arises is how the children who are exposed to such an unstable pidgin in childhood acquired complex, rule-governed features that become part of the creole. According to Bickerton, the pidgin they are presented with is “unfit to serve as someone’s primary tongue”. Yet, they have a biological need for a native tongue that can fulfil all functions. This makes them turn the insufficient linguistic input into a fully fledged language by running it though an innate system universal to us all: the language bioprogram (cf. Chomsky’s 'language acquisition device').
An important thought behind this is that over thousands of years, biological, natural languages have come to encode features that diverge from a biological base, and are instead cultural. If there is no such cultural language available, though, the bioprogram kicks in and inserts ‘natural’ features into the gaps. (According to Bickerton, the same happens in L1 acquisition, though the cultural influence ultimately wins over the natural ones).
I cannot really make up my mind about this hypothesis, and do not know whether I should agree with it or not. The hypothesis is hard to disprove, as any elements that show up in pidgins or creoles that are not part of the bioprogram can be said to be culturally inherited. Any thoughts/opinions?
