Pidgins and Creoles
1. Introduction
ÝÝÝÝÝ Most studies of pidgins and creoles (PC) have focused on their
origins, despite an undeniable increase during the 1990s in the number of works
on structural features. Recently, some creolists have also addressed the question
of whether, as a group, creoles can be singled out as a structural type of
languages. Space limitations make it impossible to discuss structural features
in this essay, aside from the fact that there are no features that are peculiar
to PCS, as explained below.
2. What are pidgins and creoles?
ÝÝÝÝÝ Strictly speaking, PCS are new language varieties which
developed out of contacts between colonial nonstandard varieties of a European
language and several non-European languages around the Atlantic and in the
Indian and Pacific Oceans during the 17th-19th centuries. Pidgins typically emerged in trade colonies which developed around
trade forts or along trade routes, such as on the coast of West Africa. They
are reduced in structures and specialized in functions (typically trade), and
initially they served as non-native lingua francas to users who preserved their
native vernaculars for their day-to-day interactions.. Some pidgins have
expanded into regular vernaculars, especially in urban settings, and are called
expanded pidgins. Examples include
Bislama and Tok Pisin (in Melanesia) and Nigerian and Cameroon Pidgin
Englishes. Structurally, they are as complex as creoles (FÈral 1989, Jourdan 1991). The latter vernaculars
developed in settlement colonies whoseÝ
primary industry consisted of sugar cane plantations or rice fields,
which employed massive non-European slave labor. Examples include Cape Verdian
Criolou (lexified by Portuguese) and Papiamentu in the Netherlands Antilles
(apparently ‚Portuguese-based but influenced by Spanish); Haitian, Mauritian,
and Seychellois (lexified by French); Jamai‚can, Guyanese, and Hawaiian Creole,
as well as Gullah in the United States (all lexified by English); and
Saramaccan and Sranan in Surinam (lexified by English, with the former heavily
influenced by Portuguese and the latter by Dutch). Note that although
Melanesian pidgins are associated with sugar cane plantations, they apparently
originated in trade settings and were adopted on the plantations (Keesing
1988).
ÝÝÝÝÝ The terms creole and pidgin have also been extended to some
other vari‚eties that devel‚oped during the same period out of contacts among
primarily non-European languages. Examples include Delaware Pidgin, Chinook
Jargon, and Mobilian in North America; Sango, (Kikongo-)Kituba, and Lingala in
Central Africa, Kinubi in Southern Sudan and in Uganda; and Hiri Motu in Papua
New Guinea (Holm 1989, Smith 1995). In the original, lay peopleís naming
practice, the term jargon was an
alternate to pidgin. However, Hall
(1966) and M¸hlh”usler (1997) argue that pidgins are more stable and jargons
are an earlier stage in the ìlife-cycleî that putatively progresses from
Jargon, to Pidgin, to Creole, to Post-Creole by progressive structural
expansion, stabilization, and closer approximations of the lexifieróthe language which contributed the largest part of a
creoleís lexicon.
ÝÝÝÝÝ However, Chaudenson (1992) and Mufwene (1997) argue that
creoles developed by basilectalizing
away from the lexifier, i.e. acquiring a basilect,
which is the variety the most different from the acrolect, the educated variety of the lexifier. Mufwene (2001)
emphasizes that creoles and pidgins developed in separate places, in which
Europeans and non-Europeans interacted differentlyósporadically in trade
colonies but regularly in the initial stages of settlement colonies. Moreover,
the term pidgin was coined in 1907
(Baker & M¸hlh”usler 1990), over 200 years after the term creole was used in reference to a
language variety. Pidgin English,
apparently a distortion of business
English, developed in Canton, a geographical area where no large colonial
plantation industry developed and no creoles have been identi‚fied.
ÝÝÝÝÝ The term creole was
originally coined in Iberian colonies, apparently in the 16th century, in
reference to non-indigenous people born in the American colonies. (See Mufwene
1997 for references.) It was adopted in metropolitan Spanish, then in French,
and later in English by the early 17th century. By the second half of the same
century, it was generalized to descendants of Africans or Europeans born in
Romance colonies. Usage varied from one colony to another. The term was also
used as an adjec‚tive to characterize plants, animals, and customs typical of
the same colonies (Valkhoff 1966).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Creole may not have
applied widely to language varieties until the late 18th century, though
Arveiller (1963) cites La Courbeís Premier
voyage (1688:192), in which it is used for ëcor‚rupted Portuguese spoken in
Senegalí. Such usage may have been ini‚tiated by metro‚pol‚itan Europeans to
disfranchise par‚ticular colonial varieties of their lan‚guages. It is not
clear how the term became associated only with vernaculars spoken primarily by
descendants of non-Europeans. Nonetheless, several speakers of creoles (or
pidgins) actually believe they speak dia‚lects ‚of their lexifiers (M¸hlh”usler
1985, Mufwene 1988).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Among the earliest claims that creoles developed from pidgins
is the following statement in Bloomfield (1933:474): ìwhen the jargon [i.e.,
pidgin] has become the only language of the subject group, it is a creolized language.î Hall (1962, 1966)
reinterpreted this, asso‚ci‚ating the vernacular function of creoles with
nativization. Since then, creoles have been defined inaccurately as ìnativized
pidgins,î i.e., pidgins that have acquired native speakers and have therefor
expanded both their structures and functions and have stabilized. Hall then
also introduced the pidgin-creole ìlife-cycleî to which DeCamp (1971) added a
ìpost-creoleî stage (see below).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Among the creolists who dispute the above connection is Alleyne
(1971). He argues that fossilized inflectional morphology in Haitian Creole
(HC) and the like is evidence that Europeans did not communicate with the
Africans in foreigner or baby talk (see below), which would have fostered
pidgins on the plantations. Chaudenson (1979, 1992) argues that plantation
communities were preceded by homesteads on which mesolectal approxi‚mations of
European lexifiers, rather than pidgins, were spoken by earlier slaves. Like
some economic historians, Berlin (1998) observes that in North American
colonies creole Blacks spoke the lexifier fluently. In ads on runaway slaves in
British North American colonies, bad English is typically associated with
slaves imported as adults from Africa. Diachronic evidence of creoles suggests
that the basilects developed during the peak growth of plan‚tations (in the
18th century for most colonies!), when infant mortality was high, life
expectancy was short, the plantation populations increased primarily by massive
impor‚tation of slave labor, and the pro‚por‚tion of fluent speakers of the
earlier colonial varieties kept decreasing (Baker & Corne 1986, Chaudenson
1992, Mufwene 2001).
ÝÝÝÝÝ According to the life-cycle model, as a creole continues to
co-exist with its lexifier, the latter exerted pressure on it to shed some of
its ìcreole features.î This developmental hypoth‚esis may be traced back to
Schuchardtís (1914) explanation of why African-American Eng‚lish (AAE) is
structurally closer to North American Eng‚lish than Saramaccan is to its
lexifier: coexistence with it in North America and absence of such continued
contact in Suriname. Jespersen (1921) and Bloomfield (1933) anticipated DeCamp
(1971), Bickerton (1973), and Rickford (1987) in invoking ìdecreolizationî
(ëloss of ìcreoleî featuresí) to account for speech continua in creole com‚munities.
ÝÝÝÝÝ It is in the above context that DeCamp (1971) coined the term post-creole continuum, which must be
inter‚preted charitably. If a variety is creole because of the particular
sociohistorical ecology of its development (see below), rather than because of
its structural peculiarities, it cannot stop being a creole even after some of
the fea‚tures have changed. Besides, basilectal and mesolectal features con‚tinue
to co-exist in these communities, suggesting that Creole has not died yet. ‚Lalla
& DíCosta (1990) present copious data against decreol‚iza‚tion in Carib‚bean
English creoles, just as Mufwene (1994) adduces linguistic and non-linguistic
arguments against the same process in ‚Gullah. On the other hand, Rickford and
Handler (1994) show that in the late-18th-century, Barbados had a basilect,
which now seems to have vanished. How the basilect was lost here but not
elsewhere in the Caribbean calls for an explanation.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Closely related to the
above issue is the common assumption that creoles are separate languages from
their lexifiers and ex-colonial varieties thereof spoken by descendants of
Europeans. Thus, the nonstandard French varieties spoken in Quebec and Loui‚siana,
as well as onÝ the Caribbean islands of
St. Barths and St. Thomas, are considered dialects of French rather than
creoles. Likewise New World nonstandard varieties of Spanish and Portuguese are
not con‚si‚dered creoles, despite structural similarities which they display
with creoles of the same lexifiers. Has the fact that similar varieties are
spoken by descendants of both Europeans and Africans in territories where the
latter are not majorities influenced the naming practice? Ignoring Hjelmslev
(1938) and Posner (1985), creolists have adopted uncritically this
socially-based naming ‚tra‚di‚‚tion in former European settlement colonies,
identifying as creoles those varieties of Euro‚pean languages which have been
appro‚priated as vernac‚u‚lars by non-European majorities. There is yet no
yardstick for measuring structural divergence from the lexifier, nor was the
latter the same in every contact setting. Contact was indeed a factor in all
colonial settings.
ÝÝÝÝÝ It has also been claimed that creoles have more or less the
same structural design (Bickerton 1981, 1984; Markey 1982). This position is as
disputable as the counterclaim that they are more similar in the socio‚historical
ecologies of their developments (Mufwene 1986), or even the more recent claim
that there are creole prototypes from which others deviate in various ways
(Thomason 1997, McWhorter 1998). The very fact of resorting to a handful of
prototypes for the general creole structural category suggests that the vast
majority of them do not share the putative set of defining features, hence that
the features cannot be used to single them out as a unique type of language. On
the other hand, variation in the structural features of creoles (lexified by
the same language) is correlated with variation in the linguistic and
sociohistori‚cal ecologies of their developments (Mufwene 1997, 2001). The
notion of ëecologyí includes, among other things, the nature of the lexifier,
structural features of the substrate languages, changes in the ethnolinguistic
makeups of the populations that came in contact, the kinds of interactions
between speakers of the lexifier and those of other languages, and rates and
modes of population growth.
ÝÝÝÝÝ To date the best known creoles have been lexified by English
and French. Those of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean are, along with Hawaiian
Creole, those that have informed most theorizing on the development of creoles.
While the terms creole and creolization have been ap‚plied often
uncritically to various contact-induced lan‚guage vari‚eties, several dis‚tinc‚tions,
which are not clearly articulated have also been proposed, for instance,
between pidgin, creole, koinÈ, semi-creole, intertwined varieties, for‚eign
workersís vari‚eties of European languages (e.g., Gastarbeiter Deutsch),
and indigen‚ized varieties of Euro‚pean
languages (e.g., Nigerian and Sin‚ga‚porean Englishes). The denotations and
impor‚tance of these terms deserve re-examining (Arends et al. 1995, Mu‚fwene
1997, 2001).
3. The Development of Creoles
ÝÝÝÝÝ The central question here is: how did creoles develop? The
following hypotheses are the major onesÝ
competing today: the substrate, the superstrate, and the universalist
hypotheses.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Substratist positions are historically related to the baby talk hypothesis, which I have
traced back to 19th-century French creolists: Bertrand-BocandÈ (1849), Baissac
(1880), Adam (1883), and Vinson (1882). Puta‚tive‚ly, the lan‚guages previous‚ly
spoken by the Africans enslaved on New World and Indian Ocean plantations were
the primary reason why the European lexifiers which they appropri‚ated were
restructured into creoles. These French creolists assumed African languages to
be ìprimitive,î ìinstinc‚tive,î in ìnaturalî state, and simpler than the ìcu‚lti‚vat‚edî
Euro‚pean languages with which they came in contact. Creolesí systems were
considered to be reflections of those non-European languages.Ý The baby-talk connection is that, in order
to be understood, the Europeans supposedly had to speak to the Africans like to
babies, their interpretation of foreigner talk.
ÝÝÝÝÝ The revival of the substrate hypothesis (without its racist
compo‚nent) has been attributed to Sylvain (1936). Although she recognizes
influence from French dialects, She ar‚gues that African linguistic influence,
especially from the Ewe group of languages, is very significant in HC.
Unfortunately, she states in the last sentence of her conclusions that this
creole is Ewe spoken with a French vocabulary. Over two decades later, Turner
(1949) disputed American dialectol‚ogistsí claim that there was virtually no
trace of African languages in AAE and showed phonological and morphosyn‚tactic
similarities between Gullah and some West-African (especially Kwa) languages.
He con‚cluded that ìGullah is indebted to African sourcesî (254).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Mufwene (1990) identifies three main schools of the substrate
hypothesis today. The first, led by Alleyne (1980, 1996) and Holm (1988) is
closer to Turnerís approach and is marked by what is also its main weakness:
invocation of influence from diverse African languages without explaining what
kinds of selection principles account for this seemingly random invocation of
sources. This criticism is not ipso facto
an invalidation of substrate of substrate influence; it is both a call for a
more principled account and a reminder that the nature of such influence must
be reassessed (Mufwene 2001).
ÝÝÝÝÝ The second school has been identified as the relexification hypothesis. The
proponents of its latest version,Ý
Lefebvre (1998) and Lumsden (1999), argue that HC is a French relexi‚fication
of languages of the Ewe-Fon (or Fongbe) group. This account of the development
of creoles has been criticized for several basic shortcomings, including the
following: 1) its ìcomparativeî ap‚proach has not taken into account several
features that HC (also) shares with non‚stan‚dard varieties of French; 2) it
downplays features which HC shares also with sev‚eral other African lan‚guages
which were represented in Haiti dur‚ing the critical stages of its development;
3) it has not shown that the language appropriation strategies associated with
relexification are typically used in naturalistic second language acquisition;
and 4) it does not account for those cases where HC has selected structural
options which are not consistent with those of Ewe-Fon. Moreover,
relexificationists assume, disputably, that languages of the Ewe-Fon group are
struc‚turally identical and that no com‚pe‚tition of influence was involved
among them.
ÝÝÝÝÝ The least disputed version of the substrate hypothesis is
Keesingís (1988), which shows that substrate languages may impose their
structural features on the new, contact-induced varieties if they are
typologically homogeneous, with most of them sharing the relevant features.
Thus Melanesian pidgins are like (most of) their sub‚strates in having DUAL/PLURAL and INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE distinctions and in having
a transitive marker on the verb. Sankoff and Brown (1976) had shown similar
influence with the brac‚keting of rela‚tive clauses with ia. However, the pidgins have not inherited all the pecu‚liarities
of Melane‚sian languages. For instance, they do not have their VSO major
constituent order, nor do they have much of a nu‚mer‚al classifying system in
the combination of pela with
quantifiers. For an extensive discussion of substrate influence in Atlantic and
Indian Ocean creoles, see Muysken and Smith (eds., 1986) and Mufwene (ed.,
1993).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Competing with the above genetic views has been the dialectologist, or super‚strate, hypoth‚esis,
according to which the primary, if not the exclusive, sources of creolesí
structur‚al features are nonstandard varieties of their lexifiers. Speaking of
AAE, Krapp (1924) and Kurath (1928), for example, claimed that this variety was
an archaic retention of the non‚standard speech of low-class Whites with whom
the African slaves had been in contact. According to them, African substrate
influence was limited to some isolated lexical items such as goober ëpea‚nutí, gumbo, and okra. It would
take until McDavid (1950) and McDavid and McDavid (1951) before allowance was
made for someÝ African grammat‚ical con‚tri‚‚butions
to AAE. DíEloia (1973) and Schneider (1989) invoke several dia‚lec‚tal English
models to rebut Dillardís (1972) thesis that AAVE devel‚oped from an erstwhile
West-African Pidgin English brought over by slaves. Since the late 1980s, Shana
Poplack and her associates have shown that AAE shares many features with white
nonstandard vernaculars in North America and England, thus it has not developed
from an erstwhile creole. (See Poplack, ed. 1999 for a synthesis.) Because some
of the same features are also attested in creoles (Rickford 1998), we come back
to the question of whether most features of creoles did not after all originate
in their lexifiers.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Regarding French creoles, the dialectologist position was first
defended by Faine (1937), according to whom HC was essentially Norman French.
This position was espoused later by Hall (1958), who argues that ìthe ëbasicí
relationship of Creole is with seven‚‚teenth-century French, with heavy carry-overs
or survivals of African linguistic struc‚ture (on a more superficial structural
level) from the previous language(s) of the earliest speakers of Negro Pidgin
French; its ëlexicalí relationship is with nineteenth- and twentieth-century
Frenchî (1958:372). Chaudenson (1989, 1992) is more accommodating to substrate
influence as a factor that accounts for the more extensive structural
divergence of creoles from their lexifiers compared to their non-creole
colonial kin.
ÝÝÝÝÝ The universalist
hypotheses, which stood as strong contenders in 1980s and 1990s, have
forerunners in the 19th century. For instance, Adolfo Coelho (1880-1886) partly
anti‚ci‚pated Bickertonís (1981f) language
bioprogram hypothesis in stating that creoles ìowe their origin to the
operation of psychological or physiological laws that are everywhere the same,
and not to the influence of the former languages of the people among whom these
dialects are found.î Bickerton pushed things further in claiming that children
made creoles by fixing the parameters of these new language varieties in the
their unmarked, or default, settings as specified in Universal Grammar. To
account for cross-creole struc‚tural differences, Bickerton (1984:176-177)
invokes a ìPidginization Indexî (PI) that includes the following factors: the
proportion of the native to non-native speak‚ers during the initial stages of
colonization, the duration of the early stage, the rate of increase of the
slave population after that initial stage, the kind of social contacts between
the native speakers of the lexifier and the learners, and whether or not the
contact between the two groups continued after the formation of the new
language variety.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Some nagging questions with Bickertonís position include the
fol‚low‚ing: ‚Is his intuitively sound PI consistent with his creolization qua
abrupt pidgin-nativization hypothesis? Is the abrupt creolization hypoth‚esis
consistent with the social histories of the ter‚ri‚tories where classic creoles
developed (Mufwene 1999)? How can we explain simi‚larities between abrupt
creoles and expanded pidg‚ins when the stabilization and structural expansion
of the latter is not necessarily associated with restructuring by children? ‚Is
there convincing evidence for assuming that adult speech is less controlled by
Universal Grammar than child language is? How can we account for similari‚ties
between abrupt cre‚ol‚ization and naturalistic second-language acqui‚sition?
ÝÝÝÝÝ Not all creolists who have invoked universalist explanations
have made children critical to the emergence of creoles. For instance, Sankoff
(1979) and M¸hl‚‚h”usler (1981) make allowance for Universal Grammar to operate
in adults, too.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Few creolists subscribe nowadays to one exclusive genetic
account, as evidenced by the contributions to Mufwene (ed., 1993). The com‚plemen‚ta‚ry hypothesis (Baker &
Corne 1986; Hancock 1986; and Mufwene 1986, 2001) seems to be an adequate
alternative, pro‚vided we can articulate the ecological conditions under which
the competing influences (between the substrate and superstrate languages, and
with‚in each group) may converge or prevail upon each other. This position was
well anti‚cipated by Schuchardt (1909, 1914) in his accounts of the geneses of
Lingua Franca and of Saramaccan. More and more research is now under‚way
uncovering the sociohis‚torical conditions under which different creoles have
developed, for instance, Arends (1989f), Baker (1982f), Chaudenson (1979f),
Corne (1999), Mufwene (2001), and Arends (ed. 1995).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Still, the future of research on the development of creoles has
‚‚‚‚some problems to overcome. So far knowledge of the nonstandard varieties of
the lexifiers spoken by the European colonists remains limited. There are few
comprehensive descriptions of creolesí structures, which makes it diffi‚cult to
determine globally how the competing influences interacted among them and how
the features selected from diverse sources became integrated into new systems.
Few structural facts have been correlated with the conclusions suggested by the
socio‚his‚torical backgrounds of individual creoles. Other issues remain up in
the air, for in‚stance, regarding the markedness model that is the most
adequate to account for the selection of features into creolesí systems. For
developmental issues on PCs, the following edited collections are good starting
points: Hymes (1971), Valdman (1977), Hill (1979), Muysken and Smith (1986), Mu‚fwe‚ne
(1993), and Arends et al. (1995). More specific issues may be checked in
volumes of the Creole Lan‚guage Library (John Benjamins) and of Amsterdam
Creole Studies, in the Journal of Pidgin
and Creole Languages, and in Etudes
CrȂoles. Several issues of Pacific
Linguistics also include publications on Melanesian cre‚oles.
4. Creolistics and General Linguistics
ÝÝÝÝÝ There is much more literature on the genesis, sociology, and
morphosyntax of PCs than on their phonologies, seman‚tics, and pragmatics. With
the excep‚tion of time reference (e.g., Singler, ed. 1990, Michaelis 1993,
Schlupp 1997) and nominal number (see Tagliamonte & Poplack 1993 for
references), studies in semantics and pragmatics are scant. On the other hand,
the develop‚ment of quantitative socio‚lin‚guistics owes a lot to research on
AAE since the mid-1960s (see, e.g., Labov 1972) and Carib‚bean English creoles
(e.g., Rickford 1987). Numerous pub‚li‚cations in American Speech, Language in
Society, and Language Variation and
Change reflect this. There are also several surveys of creolistics today,
including the following: Romaine (1988), Holm (1988), Manessy (1994), Arends et
al. (1995), and M¸hlh”usler (1997). They vary in geographical areas of focus
and adequacy. Hopefully, Corne (1999) is the beginning of a new trend of
comparative studies of creoles lexified by the same language.
ÝÝÝÝÝ Studies of structural aspects of creoles have yet to inform
general linguistics beyond the subject matters of time reference and serial
verb construc‚tions. For instance, studies of lectal continua (e.g., Escure
1997) have had this potential, but little has been done by creolists to show
how their find‚ings may apply to other languages. The mixed nature of mesolects, those intermediate varie‚ties
combining features of both the acrolect
and the basi‚lect should have
informed general linguistics against the fallacy of assum‚ing monolithic
grammatical systems (Mufwene 1992, Labov 1998). However, little has been done
on the subject matter. Likewise, the debate on creole genesis could have
informed histor‚ical linguis‚tics on the importance of varying exter‚nal
conditions to lan‚guage change (Mufwene 2001).
ÝÝÝÝÝ Although lack of consensus among creolists may be invoked as a
general reason for this failure to influence general linguistics, alarming
indifference from theoret‚ical lin‚guists, especially those engaged in theories
of typology and universals, is a more impor‚tant reason. Consensus cannot be
expected of creolistics any more than of other sub‚fields of linguistics or any
other scientific discipline. However, in the broader context of language
contact (including second-lan‚guage acqui‚sition), studies of especially creole
genesis have been inspiring. For instance, Thomason & Kaufman (1988) is
widely cited in studies of indigenized Eng‚lishes. Ander‚sen, ed. (1983) was an
important step to consolidate common interests between second-language
acquisition and creole genesis. More cross-fertilization might be expected
between studies of creole genesis and those of (child) language development
(DeGraff, ed. 1999), as among diverse sub‚fields of linguistics.
References
Adam,
Lucien. 1883. Les idiomes nÈgro-aryens et
malayo-aryens: essai d'hybridol‚ogie linguisti‚que. Paris: Maison‚neuve.
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 1971.
Acculturation and the cultural matrix of creolization. Dell Hymes, ed., 169-86.
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 1980. Comparative Afro-American: An
historical-comparative study of English-based Afro-American dialects of the New
World. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 1996. Syntaxe historique crÈole. Paris:
Karthala.
Andersen, Roger, ed. 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language
acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Arends,
Jacques. 1989. Syntactic developments in
Sranan: Creolization as a gradual process. Doctoral thesis, University of
Nijmegen.
Arends,
Jacques, ed. 1995. The early stages of
creolization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arends,
Jacques, Pieter Muysken, and Norval Smith, eds. 1995. Pidgins and creoles: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arveiller,
R. 1963. Contribution ý líÈtude des
termes de voyage en franÁais (1505-1722). Paris: DíArtrey.
Baissac,
Charles.Ý 1880.Ý Etude
sur le patois crÈole mauricien. Nancy: Imprimerie Ber‚ger-Levrault.
Baker,
Philip. 1982. The contribution of
non-Francophone immigrants to the lexicon of Mauritian Creole. Ph.D.
Thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Baker,
Philip and Chris Corne. 1986. Universals, substrata and the Indian Ocean
creoles. In Muysken and Smith, eds., 163-83.
Baker,
Philip and Peter M¸hlh”usler. 1990. From business to pidgin. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
1.87-115.
Berlin, Ira. 1998. Many thousands gone: The first two centuries
of slavery in North America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bertrand-BocandÈ, E. 1849.
Notes sur la GuinÈe portugaise ou SÈnÈgambie mÈridionale. Bulletin de la SociÈtÈ de GÈographie 12.57-93.
Bickerton, Derek. 1973. The
nature of a creole continuum. Language
49. 640-69.
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The
language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 7.173-221.
Bickerton, Derek. 1999. How
to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisi‚tionists can learn
from creoles. In Michel DeGraff, ed., 49-74.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Chaudenson, Robert. 1979. Les crÈoles franÁais. Paris: Fernand
Nathan.
Chaudenson, Robert. 1989. CrÈoles et enseignement du franÁais.
Paris: L'Harmattan.
Chaudenson, Robert. 1992. Des Óles, des hommes, des langues: essais
sur la crÈolisation linguistique et culturelle. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Coelho, F. Adolpho.
1880-1886. Os dialectos rom’nicos ou neolatinos na Africa, ‚Asia, ae America. Bolletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa.
2.129-96 (1880-1881); 3.451-478 (1882), 6.705-755 (1886).
Corne, Chris. 1999. From French to Creole: The development of
new vernaculars in the French colonial world. London: University of
Westminster Press.
DeCamp, David. 1971. Toward
a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In Hymes, ed., 349-70.
DeGraff,
Michel, ed. 1999. Language creation and
language change: Creolization, dia‚chrony, and development. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
D'Eloia, Sarah G. 1973.
Issues in the analysis of Negro nonstandard English. Review of Dillard (1972). Journal of English Linguistics 7.87-106.
Dillard, J.L. 1972. Black English: Its history and usage in the
United States. New York: Random House.
Escure, GeneviËve. 1997. Creole and dialect continua. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Faine, Jules. 1937. Philologie crÈole: Ètudes historiques et
Ètymologiques sur la langue crÈole díHaÔti. Port-au-Prince:Ý Imprimerie de l'Etat.
FÈral, Carole de. 1989. Pidgin-English du Cameroun. Paris:
Peters/SELAF.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1958.
Creole languages and genetic relationships. Word
14.367-373.
Hall, Robert A,, Jr. 1962.
The life-cycle of pidgin languages. Lingua
11.151-156.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1966. Pidgin and creole languages. Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Hancock, Ian. 1986. The
domestic hypothesis, diffusion and componentiality: An account of Atlantic
Anglophone creole origins. In Muysken and Smith, eds., 71-102.
Hill, Kenneth C., ed. 1979. The genesis of language. Ann Arbor:
Karoma.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1938.
Etudes sur la notion de parentÈ linguistique. PremiËre Ètude: rela‚tions de
parentÈ de langues crÈoles. Revue des
Etudes Indo-EuropÈennes 1.271-286.
Holm, John. 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Vol. 1: Theory and structure. Cambridge: Cam‚bridge
University Press.
Holm, John. 1989. Pidgins and creoles. Vol. 2: Reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hymes, Dell, ed., 1971. Pidginization and creolization of languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1921. Language: Its nature, development and origin.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Jourdan, Christine. 1991.
Pidgins and creoles: The blurring of categories. Annual Review of Anthropology 20.187-209.
Keesing, Roger M. 1988.Ý Melanesian
Pidgin and the Oceanic substrate.Ý
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Krapp, George Philip. 1924.
The English of the Negro. The American
Mercury 2.190-5.
Kurath, Hans. 1928. The
origin of dialectal differences in spoken American English. Modern Philology. 25.385-95.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in Black
English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. 1998.
Co-existent systems in African-American vernacular English. In African-American English: Structure,
history, and use, ed. by Salikoko S. Mufwene, John R. Rickford, Guy Bailey,
& John Baugh, 110-153. London: Routledge.
Lalla, Barbara and Jean
D'Costa. 1990. Language in exile: Three
hundred years of Jamaican Creole. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of
grammar: The case of Hai‚tian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lumsden, John. 1999.
Language acquisition and creolization. In Michel DeGraff, ed., 129-157.
Manessy, Gabriel. 1994. CrÈoles, pidgins, variÈtÈs vÈhiculaires:
procËs et genËse. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Markey, Thomas L. 1982.
Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole? Zeitschrift
fur Dialektologie und Linguistik 2.169-207.
McDavid, Raven, Jr. 1950.
Review of Lorenzo Dow Turner's Africanisms in the Gullah dialect. Language 26.323-33.
McDavid, Raven Jr. and
Virginia McDavid. 1951. The relationship of the speech of the American Negroes
to the speech of whites. American Speech
26.3-17.
McWhorter, John H. 1998.
Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74.788-818.
Michaelis, Susanne. 1993. Temps et aspect en crÈole seychellois:
valeurs et interfÈrences. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1986.
Les langues crÈoles peuvent-elles Ítre dÈfinies sans allusion ý leur histoire? Etudes CrÈoles 9.135-50.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1988.
Why study pidgins and creoles? Column. Journal
of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3.265-76.
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
1992.Ý Why grammars are not monolithic.
In The joy of grammar: A festschrift in
honor of James D. McCawley, ed. by Gary Larson et al., 225-50. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., ed.
1993.Ý Africanisms in Afro-American language varieties. Athens: University
of Georgia Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1994.
On decreolization: The case of Gullah. In Language,
loyalty, and identity in creole situations, ed. by Marcyliena Morgan,
63-99. Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1997.
Jargons, pidgins, creoles, and koinÈs: What are they? In Pidgins and creoles: Structure and status, ed. by Arthur Spears and
Donald Winford. Amster‚dam: John Benjamins.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1999.
The language bioprogram hypothesis: Hints from Tazie. In Michel DeGraff, ed.,
95-127.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
M¸hlh”usler, Peter. 1981.
The development of the category of number in Tok Pisin. In Generative studies on creole languages, ed. by Pieter Muysken,
35-84. Dordrecht: Foris.
M¸hlh”usler, Peter. 1985.
The number of pidgin Englishes in the Pacific. Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics No.1 Pacific Linguistics, A-72.25-51.
M¸hlh”usler, Peter. 1986. Pidgin and creole linguistics. New York:
Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Muysken, Pieter, and Norval
Smith, eds. 1986. Substrata versus
universals in creole genesis.Ý
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poplack, Shana, ed. 1999. The English history of African-American
English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Posner, Rebecca. 1985.
Creolization as typological change: Some examples from Romance syntax. Diachronica 2.167-88.
Rickford, John R. 1987. Dimensions of a creole continuum:Ý History, texts, and linguistic anal‚ysis of
Guyanese creole. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rickford, John R. and Jerome
S. Handler. 1994. Textual evidence on the nature of early Barbadian speech,
1676-1835. Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages 9.221-255.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1988. Pidgin and creole languages. London:
Longman.
Sankoff, Gillian. 1979. The
genesis of a language. In The genesis of
language, ed. by Kenneth C. Hill, 23-47. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Sankoff, Gillian, and
Penelope Brown. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok
Pisin relatives. Language 52.631-66.
Schlupp, Daniel. 1997. ModalitÈs prÈdicatives, modalitÈs
aspectuelles, et auxiliaires en crÈole. T¸bingen: Max Niemeyer.
Schneider, Edgar W. 1989. American earlier Black English:
Morphological and syntactic variables. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1909. Die
Lingua Franca. Zeitschrift fur Romanische
Philologie 33.441-61.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1914. Die Sprache der Saramakkaneger in Surinam.
Amsterdam: Johan‚nes Muller.
Singler, John Victor, ed.
1990. Pidgin and creole tense-mood-aspect
systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Smith, Norval. 1995. An
annotated list of pidgins, creoles, and mixed languages. In Jacques Arends et.
al., eds., 331-374.
Sylvain, Suzanne. 1936. Le crÈole haÔtien: morphologie et syntaxe.
Wettern, Belgium: Imprimerie De Meester.
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Shana
Poplack. 1993. The zero-marked verb: Testing the creole hy‚poth‚‚esis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
8.171-206.
Thomason, Sarah G., and
Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact,
creolization, and genetic linguistics.Ý
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Turner, Lorenzo Dow. 1949. Africanisms in the Gullah dialect.
Chicago: University of ÝÝÝ Chicago Press.
Valdman, Albert, ed. 1977. Pidgin and creole linguistics.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Valkhoff, Marius F. 1966. Studies in Portuguese and creoleówith
special reference to South Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University
Press.
Vinson, Julien. 1882.
CrÈole. Dictionnaire des sciences
anthropologiques et ethnologiques. Paris.
Salikoko S. Mufwene
University of Chicago