Social and political status Because of the generally low status of the Creole peoples in the eyes of prior European colonial powers, creole languages have generally been regarded as degenerate languages, or at best as rudimentary dialects of the politically dominant parent languages. Because of this prejudice, the word creole was generally used by linguists in opposition to language, rather than as a qualifier for it.[16] This prejudice was compounded by the inherent instability of the colonial system, leading to the disappearance of creole languages, mainly due to dispersion or assimilation of their speech communities.[16] Another factor that may have contributed to the relative neglect of creole languages in linguistics is that they do not fit the 19th-century neogrammarian tree model for the evolution of languages, and its postulated regularity of sound changes (these critics including the earliest advocates of the wave model, Johannes Schmidt and Hugo Schuchardt, the forerunners of modern sociolinguistics). This controversy of the late 19th century profoundly shaped modern approaches to the comparative method in historical linguistics and in creolistics.[12][16][17] Creole in use at car rental counter, USA Because of social, political, and academic changes brought on by decolonization in the second half of the 20th century, creole languages have experienced revivals in the past few decades. They are increasingly being used in print and film, and in many cases, their community prestige has improved dramatically. In fact, some have been standardized, and are used in local schools and universities around the world.[12][13][18] At the same time, linguists have begun to come to the realization that creole languages are in no way inferior to other languages. They now use the term creole or creole language for any language suspected to have undergone creolization, terms that now imply no geographic restrictions nor ethnic prejudices. Classification of creoles Historic classification According to their external history, four types of creoles have been distinguished: plantation creoles, fort creoles, maroon creoles, and creolized pidgins.[19] By the very nature of a creole language, the phylogenetic classification of a particular creole usually is a matter of dispute; especially when the pidgin precursor and its parent tongues (which may have been other creoles or pidgins) have disappeared before they could be documented. Phylogenetic classification traditionally relies on inheritance of the lexicon, especially of core terms, and of the grammar structure. However, in creoles, the core lexicon often has mixed origin, and the grammar is largely original. For these reasons, the issue of which language is the parent of a creole — that is, whether a language should be classified as a Portuguese creole or English creole, etc. — often has no definitive answer, and can become the topic of long-lasting controversies, where social prejudices and political considerations may interfere with scientific discussion.[12][13][20] Substrate and superstrate The terms substrate and superstrate are often used when two languages interact. However, the meaning of these terms is reasonably well-defined only in second language acquisition or language replacement events, when the native speakers of a certain source language (the substrate) are somehow compelled to abandon it for another target language (the superstrate).[21] The outcome of such an event is that erstwhile speakers of the substrate will use some version of the superstrate, at least in more formal contexts. The substrate may survive as a second language for informal conversation. As demonstrated by the fate of many replaced European languages (such as Etruscan, Breton, and Venetian), the influence of the substrate on the official speech is often limited to pronunciation and a modest number of loanwords. The substrate might even disappear altogether without leaving any trace.[21] However, there is dispute over the extent to which the terms substrate and superstrate are applicable to the genesis or the description of creole languages.[22] The language replacement model may not be appropriate in creole formation contexts, where the emerging language is derived from multiple languages without any one of them being imposed as a replacement for any other.[23][24] The substratum-superstratum distinction becomes awkward when multiple superstrata must be assumed (such as in Papiamentu), when the substratum cannot be identified, or when the presence or the survival of substratal evidence is inferred from mere typological analogies.[9] On the other hand, the distinction may be meaningful when the contributions of each parent language to the resulting creole can be shown to be very unequal, in a scientifically meaningful way.[25] In the literature on Atlantic Creoles, superstrate usually means European and substrate non-European or African.[26] Decreolization Since creole languages rarely attain official status, the speakers of a fully formed creole may eventually feel compelled to conform their speech to one of the parent languages. This decreolization process typically brings about a post-creole speech continuum characterized by large scale variation and hypercorrection in the language.[12] It is generally acknowledged that creoles have a simpler grammar and more internal variability than older, more established languages.[27] However, these notions are occasionally challenged.[28] (See also language complexity.) Phylogenetic or typological comparisons of creole languages have led to divergent conclusions. Similarities are usually higher among creoles derived from related languages, such as the languages of Europe, than among broader groups that include also creoles based on non-Indo-European languages (like Nubi or Sango). French-based creoles in turn are more similar to each other (and to varieties of French) than to other European-based creoles. It was observed, in particular, that definite articles are mostly prenominal in English-based creole languages and English whereas they are generally postnominal in French creoles and in the variety of French that was exported to the colonies in the 17th and 18th century.[29] Moreover the European languages which gave rise to the creole languages of European colonies all belong to the same subgroup of Western Indo-European and have highly convergent grammars; to the point that Whorf joined them into a single Standard Average European language group.[30] French and English are particularly close, since English, through extensive borrowing, is typologically closer to French than to other Germanic languages.[31] Thus the claimed similarities between creoles may be mere consequences of similar parentage, rather than characteristic features of all creoles. Creole genesis There are a variety of theories on the origin of creole languages, all of which attempt to explain the similarities among them. Arends, Muysken & Smith (1995) outline a fourfold classification of explanations regarding creole genesis: Theories focusing on European input Theories focusing on non-European input Gradualist and developmental hypotheses Universalist approaches Theories focusing on European input The monogenetic theory of pidgins and creoles The monogenetic theory of pidgins and creoles hypothesizes that they are all derived from a single Mediterranean Lingua Franca, via a West African Pidgin Portuguese of the 17th century, relexified in the so-called slave factories of Western Africa that were the source of the Atlantic slave trade. This theory was originally formulated by Hugo Schuchardt in the late 19th century and popularized in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Taylor,[32] Whinnom,[33] Thompson,[34] and Stewart.[35] However, this hypothesis is no longer actively investigated.
Posted on: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:46:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015