Book contents
- English and Spanish
- English and Spanish
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: English and Spanish in Contact – World Languages in Interaction
- 2 The Emergence of Global Languages
- 3 Some (Unintended) Consequences of Colonization
- 4 Dialect Contact and the Emergence of New Varieties of English
- 5 The Emergence of Latin American Spanish
- 6 Creole Distinctiveness?
- 7 Contact Scenarios and Varieties of Spanish beyond Europe
- 8 Pluricentricity and Codification in World English
- 9 Spanish Today
- 10 Uncovering the Big Picture
- 11 Morphosyntactic Variation in Spanish
- 12 English and Spanish in Contact in North America
- 13 ‘The Spanish of the Internet’: Is That a Thing?
- 14 Alternating or Mixing Languages?
- 15 The Persistence of Dialectal Differences in U.S. Spanish
- 16 Identity Construction
- Index
- References
6 - Creole Distinctiveness?
Insights from English-Lexifier Pidgins, Creoles, and Related Varieties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 September 2021
Book contents
- English and Spanish
- English and Spanish
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: English and Spanish in Contact – World Languages in Interaction
- 2 The Emergence of Global Languages
- 3 Some (Unintended) Consequences of Colonization
- 4 Dialect Contact and the Emergence of New Varieties of English
- 5 The Emergence of Latin American Spanish
- 6 Creole Distinctiveness?
- 7 Contact Scenarios and Varieties of Spanish beyond Europe
- 8 Pluricentricity and Codification in World English
- 9 Spanish Today
- 10 Uncovering the Big Picture
- 11 Morphosyntactic Variation in Spanish
- 12 English and Spanish in Contact in North America
- 13 ‘The Spanish of the Internet’: Is That a Thing?
- 14 Alternating or Mixing Languages?
- 15 The Persistence of Dialectal Differences in U.S. Spanish
- 16 Identity Construction
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter revisits the question of creole distinctiveness, i.e. the idea that creoles constitute a special type of language, not just historically but also structurally. It first sketches the two most influential proposals claiming creole uniqueness, i.e. Bickerton’s Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (1981) and McWhorter’s Creole Prototype (2005), and outlines some of the criticism that has been levelled against them. It then discusses the recent shift in research approaches from deductive to inductive, which represents an enormous progress in the understanding of creole distinctiveness while also raising new issues, such as sample size and bias as well as feature selection. The chapter then looks at how English-based pidgins and creoles can be separated from their lexifier. The comparison focuses on the expression of perfect, perfective, and other past-reference verb situations across a set of thirty English-lexifier pidgins, creoles, and other high-contact varieties, and the resulting variety clusters not only correlate with geographical distribution and sociohistorical evidence but also align easily with those described in other studies, both traditional and recent quantitative.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- English and SpanishWorld Languages in Interaction, pp. 92 - 114Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aboh, Enoch O. 2016. Creole distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Studies 31: 400–418.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1982. The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-specific category. In Paul, J. Hopper, ed. Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 227–264.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto, and Matthews, Stephen. 2007. Deconstructing creole: The rationale. In Ansaldo et al., eds., 2007: 1–18.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto, Matthews, Stephen, and Lim, Lisa, eds. 2007. Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto, Lim, Lisa, and Mufwene, Salikoko. 2007. The sociolinguistic history of the Peranakans. What it tells us about ‘creolization.’ In Ansaldo et al., eds., 2007: 203–226.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques. 1992. Towards a gradualist model of creolization. In Francis, Byrne and John, Holm, eds. Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arends, Jacques. 2008. A demographic perspective on creole formation. In Kouwenberg & Singler, eds., 2008: 309–331.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip. 1995. Motivation in creole genesis. In Philip, Baker, ed. From Contact to Creole and Beyond. London: University of Westminster Press, 3–15.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip, and Huber, Magnus. 2001. Atlantic, Pacific, and world-wide features in English-lexicon contact languages. English World-Wide 22: 157–208.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Daval-Markussen, Aymeric, Parkvall, Mikael, and Plag, Ingo. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26: 5–42.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 173–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudenson, Robert. 2001. Creolization of Language and Culture. Revised in collaboration with Salikoko S. Mufwene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, and Velupillai, Viveka. 2013. The perfect. In Dryer & Haspelmath, eds., 2013 <http://wals.info/chapter/68> (23 June 2017).+(23+June+2017).>Google Scholar
Daval-Markussen, Aymeric. 2013. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45: 274–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2005. Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism. Language in Society 34: 533–591.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin, eds. 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://wals.info/> (17 June 2017).Google Scholar
Gibson, Kean. 1984. Evidence against an anterior time system in Guyanese and Jamaican Creoles. York Papers in Linguistics 11: 123–129.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2001. Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian. Linguistic Typology 5: 325–371.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2007. Creoles, complexity and associational semantics. In Ansaldo et al., eds., 2007: 67–108.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Glenn G. 1980. Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected Essays by Hugo Schuchardt. Edited and translated by Gilbert, Glenn G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie. 2004. Urban Bahamian Creole: System and Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie. 2012. Regional profile: The Caribbean. In Kortmann & Lunkenheimer, eds., 2012: 704–733.Google Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie. 2019. The perfect in English-lexifier pidgins and creoles: A comparative study. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 34: 195–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie, and Anne, Schröder. 2014. Comparing tense and aspect in pidgins and creoles: Dahl’s questionnaire and beyond. In Mergenthal, Silvia and Nischik, Reingard M., eds. Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: WVT, 349–360.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Is creole distinctiveness what we want to know about? Diversity Linguistics Comment. <http://dlc.hypotheses.org/343> (23 June 2017).+(23+June+2017).>Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27: 529–572.Google Scholar
Holm, John, and Patrick, Peter L., eds. 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 1999. Ghanaian Pidgin English in its West African Context: A Sociohistorical and Structural Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huson, Daniel H., and Bryant, David. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 254–267.Google Scholar
Jourdan, Christine. 2008. The cultural in pidgin genesis. In Kouwenberg, Silvia and Singler, John V., eds. The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Leonard, and Rousseeuw, Peter L.. 1990. Finding Groups in Data. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas B. 2011. Typology of creole phonology: Phoneme inventories and syllable templates. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26: 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. 2012. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://ewave-atlas.org> (17 June 2017).Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia &, and Singler, John Victor, eds. 2008 The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar. The Case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa, and Ansaldo, Umberto. 2013. Singlish structure dataset. In Michaelis et al. 2013b. http://apics-online.info/contributions/21 (11 January 2016).Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa, and Ansaldo, Umberto. 2016. Languages in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Tone. In Dryer and Haspelmath, eds., 2013 <http://wals.info/chapter/13> (17 June 2017).+(17+June+2017).>Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron, and Bakker, Peter, eds. 2003. The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress? Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria. 2014. Sampling in contact linguistics: What is a typical creole feature? Paper presented at “Time and Space in Linguistics: Interdisciplinary Computational Approaches and Cross-Creole Comparisons,” Aarhus.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin, and Huber, Magnus. 2013a. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin, and Huber, Magnus. 2013b. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://apics-online.info> (17 June 2017).Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13: 83–134.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred, eds. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265–285.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <https://www.R-project.org> (20 September 2019).+(20+September+2019).>Google Scholar
Roberts, Sarah J. 1998. The role of diffusion in the genesis of Hawaiian Creole. Language 74: 1–39.Google Scholar
Schneider, Agnes. 2012. Typological profile: Pidgins and creoles. In Kortmann and Lunkenheimer, eds., 2012: 874–904.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. 2012. Regional profile: North America. In Kortmann and Lunkenheimer, eds., 2012: 734–763.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1914. Die Sprache der Saramakkaneger in Surinam. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Selbach, Rachel, Cardoso, Hugo C., and van den Berg, Margot, eds. 2009. Gradual Creolization: Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2007. Sociohistorical contexts: Transmission and transfer. In Ansaldo et al., eds., 2007: 167–201.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2010. Contact languages of the Pacific. In Hickey, Raymond, ed. The Handbook of Language Contact. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 814–836.Google Scholar
Singler, John Victor. 1995. The demographics of creole genesis in the Caribbean: A comparison of Martinique and Haiti. In Arends, Jacques, ed. The Early Stages of Creolization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 203–232.Google Scholar
Singler, John Victor. 2012a. Liberian settler English. In Kortmann and Lunkenheimer, eds., 2012: 358–368.Google Scholar
Singler, John Victor. 2012b. Vernacular Liberian English. In Kortmann and Lunkenheimer, eds., 2012: 369–381.Google Scholar
Smith, Ian. 2008. Pidgins, creoles, and Bazaar Hindi. In Kachru, Braj B., Kachru, Yamuna, and Sridhar, S. N., eds. Language in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 253–268.Google Scholar
Spears, Arthur. 1990. Tense, mood, and aspect in the Haitian creole preverbal marker system. In Singler, John Victor, ed. Pidgin and Creole Tense-Mood-Aspect Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins 119–142.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Temürcü, Ceyhan. 2006. Semantic maps. In Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 131–134.Google Scholar
van de Vate, Marleen Susanne. 2011. Tense, aspect and modality in a radical creole. The case of Saamáka. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes. 2008. Creole genesis: The impact of the language biopgrogram hypothesis. In Kouwenberg and Singler, eds., 2008: 219–241.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2003. Hawai’i Creole English: A Typological Analysis of the Tense-Mood-Aspect System. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2015. Pidgins, Creoles, and Mixed Languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N., and Ripley, B. D.. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1996. Common ground and creole TMA. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 11: 71–84.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2000. Tense and aspect in Sranan and the creole prototype. In McWhorter, John H., ed. Language Change and Language Contact in Pidgins and Creoles. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 383–442.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2001. On the typology of creole TMA systems. Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Paper No. 29. St. Augustine: University of the West Indies School of Education.Google Scholar