Some Aspects of Decreolization in Creole French (original) (raw)
Related papers
Pidgin and Creole ecology and evolution
The Routledge handbook of Pidgin and Creole languages, 2020
This chapter outlines a research framework in which pidgin and Creole languages (PCL) are conceptualized as adaptive systems with inherent idiolectal variation, a prerequisite to evolutionary change. Although such variation is present in all languages, PCL evolve in highly heterogeneous and multilingual ecologies characterized by certain sociohistorical contexts. This basic fact about PC ecology has significant methodological and theoretical implications. First, despite the connection between transfer in second language (L2) acquisition and substrate influence in PC genesis, PCL cannot be simply viewed as L2 varieties of their lexifiers because of the complex transmission scenarios in a typical PC ecology. Second, we need to abandon the assumption that Creoles necessarily descend from a pidgin antecedent, and, consequently, are “simpler” than their lexifier language. Instead, not unlike other cases of language change, the structural outcome of a contact situation must be largely determined by the nature of the input systems involved.
The study of creoles and pidgins has been marked by controversy about how they emerged, whether they can be identified by their structural features, and how they stand genetically in relation to their lexifiers. There have also been disagreements about what contact-induced varieties count as creoles, whether expanded pidgins should be lumped together with them, otherwise what distinguishes both kinds of vernaculars from each other, and how other contact-induced language varieties can be distinguished from all the above. Another important question is what they contribute to the understanding of language from the phylogenetic, typological, and sociolinguistic perspectives.
What Do Creoles and Pidgins Tell Us About the Evolution of Language???
2000
4 2. Why creoles have not developed from pidgins 3 Most of the arguments summarized below are intended to provide a notional, not so speculative, background to the discussions in the following sections. Space limitations dictate that I not repeat here demonstrations that are elaborated in Chaudenson (2001) and Mufwene (2001). It is surprising that the pidgin-to-creole developmental scenario has hardly been disputed for almost a whole century, from Schuchardt (1914), Jespersen (1922), and Bloomfield (1933) to the present day. A simple look at the geographical distribution of our heuristic prototypes of creoles and pidgins -those lexified by European languages -suggests already that the alleged ancestor-to-descendant connection is tenuous. Most pidgins are concentrated on the Atlantic coast of the African mainland and on Pacific islands, whereas most creoles are concentrated on Atlantic and Indian Ocean islands (including places such as Cape Verde and São Tomé) and on the Atlantic coast of the Americas.
Dans le présent chapitre, nous nous proposons d'examiner différents modèles sur la genèse des langues créoles qui ont été proposés ou défendus au cours des 40 dernières années par des linguistes francophones en Europe (notamment Chaudenson, Hazael-Massieux et Manessy), et en Amérique du Nord (notamment Lefebvre et Valdman), à savoir les modèles substratistes, universalistes et superstratistes (ou "eurogénétiques"). Nous examinerons les questions liées aux processus cognitifs responsables de la créolisation, notamment les processus d'acquisition et d'appropriation des langues première et seconde, mais aussi les facteurs externes telle l'histoire socio-économique des colonies où les langues créoles ont vu le jour. Ensuite, nous aborderons les débats théoriques et idéologiques relatifs aux rôles respectifs des langues européennes et africaines dans la genèse des créoles, étant donné que ces questions ont été, et demeurent, très controversées parmi les créolistes francophones. Enfin, nous présenterons l'un des modèles de créolisation les plus courants, ou modèle "gradualiste", à la lumière des recherches récentes parmi les créolistes francophones et autres. Pour l'illustrer, nous comparerons des structures de différents créoles français et de français langue seconde.