Language bioprogram theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:15, 18 February 2017

Latest revision as of 07:14, 7 February 2025

(32 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Linguistic theory of creole language innovations}}The '''language bioprogram theory''' or '''language bioprogram hypothesis'''<ref>See the Wiktionary entry for ''[[:wikt:bioprogram|bioprogram]].''</ref> ('''LBH''') is a theory arguing that the structural similarities between different [[creole language]]s cannot be solely attributed to their [[superstratum|superstrate]] and [[substratum (linguistics)|substrate]] languages. As articulated mostly by [[Derek Bickerton]],<ref>See {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1981}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1983}} {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1984}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1988}}, and {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1991}}</ref> [[creolization]] occurs when the linguistic exposure of children in a community consists solely of a highly unstructured [[pidgin]]; these children use their innate language capacity to transform the pidgin, which characteristically has high syntactic variability,<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1983|p=116}}</ref> into a language with a highly structured grammar. As this capacity is universal, the grammars of these new languages have many similarities.

==Syntactic similarities==

By comparing [[Hawaiian PidginCreole]], and[[Haitian Creole{{which|date=February]] 2017}}and [[Sranan]], Bickerton identified twelve features which he believed to be integral to any creole:{{Citation neededHarvcoltxt|date=February 2008Bickerton|1984}}

*Sentence structure: [[subject–verb–object]] word order, with similar mechanisms for using word order to apply [[Focus (linguistics)|focus]] to one of these constituents.

*Articles: [[definite article]] applied to specific and identified noun phrase, [[indefinite article]] applied to specific and newly asserted noun phrase, and zero for nonspecific noun phrase.{{Dubious |Talk articles|date=February 2017}}

*TMA ([[tense–modality–aspect]]) systems

*distinction of realized and unrealized [[Complement (linguistics)|complements]]

*relativization and subject-copying

*negation

Line 16:

*passive equivalents

Having analyzed these features, he believed that he was able to characterize, at least partly, the properties of innate grammar.<ref name="Bickerton1983">{{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1983|p=122}}</ref> In his LBH, Bickerton defined very precisely what he considers to be a creole: a language that has arisen out of a prior pidgin that had not existed for more than a generation and among a population where, at most, 20% were speakers of the dominant language and where the remaining 80% were linguistically diverse.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}}

Although this hypothesis has enjoyed much popularity, it has been criticized.{{Who|date=February 2008}} Bickerton in his LBH, defined very precisely what he considers to be a creole: a language that has arisen out of a prior pidgin that had not existed for more than a generation and among a population where, at most, 20% were speakers of the dominant language and where the remaining 80% were linguistically diverse.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} Such a definition excludes many languages that might be called creoles.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} Moreover, lack of historical data makes it often impossible to evaluate such claims. In addition, many of the creole languages that fit this definition do not display all the twelve features,{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} while, according to {{Harvcoltxt|Mühlhäusler|1986}}, the left-out creoles often display more of them. Another problem, raised by {{Harvcoltxt|Mufwene|1986}}, is that if the same bioprogram was the starting point of all creoles, one must explain the differences between them, and language diversity in general, as the bioprogram is universal.

On the other hand, Bickerton, puts emphasis on children's contribution to the development of a creole and the abrupt character of this process. For example, in {{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1983}}, he exhibits ungrammatical utterances made by English-speaking children between the ages of two and four, and argues that they are very similar to perfectly grammatical sentences of [[English-based creole languages]]:

{| class="wikitable"

|-

!Child

!colspan=2|Creole

|-

Line 52 ⟶ 51:

==Verbal system==

The verb [[grammatical conjugation|conjugation]] is typically close to an ideal tense–modality–aspect pattern. In this system, the absence or presence of auxiliary [[verb]]s indicateindicates tense (concurrent or anterior), modality (realis or irrealis) and aspect (punctual or progressive), and when present these auxiliaries occur in that order, and typically are based on similar meaning words in the pidgin or superstrate language. Thus anterior tense may be marked by words such as ''bin'' in [[English language|English]]-based creoles (from ''been''), or ''té'' in French-based creoles (from ''été''), a future or subjunctive tense may be marked by ''go'' (from English ''go'') or ''al'' (from French ''aller''), and a non-punctual (non-stative) aspect by a word such as ''stei'' (from English ''stay'').

{| class="wikitable"

Line 60 ⟶ 59:

!colspan="3" style="background:#A89A9A"|Nonstative

!colspan="3" style="background:#81BFBE"|Stative

|-

!

|'''Hawaiian Creole'''||'''Haitian Creole'''||'''Sranan'''||'''Hawaiian Creole'''||'''Haitian Creole'''||'''Sranan'''

Line 71 ⟶ 70:

|li renmen

|a lobi

|-

!Nonpunctual (he is/was walking)

|he stay walk

Line 88 ⟶ 87:

|a ben lobi

|-

!Anterior + Nonpunctual (he was/had been walking)

|he bin stay walk

|li t ap mache

Line 129 ⟶ 128:

|}

The above table demonstrates syntactic similarities of creole languages. Stative verbs are those that cannot form the [[nonpunctual aspect]]. According to Bickerton, all observed creole languages strictly follow a structure that has the anterior particle precede the irreal particle, and the irreal particle precede the nonpunctual particle{{Dubious |Talk Tense Aspect Particle Ordering|date=February 2017}}, although in certain languages some compounded forms may be replaced by other constructions.

==Creole Prototype Theory==

[[John McWhorter|McWhorter]] contributed to the LBH with his Creole Prototype Theory, which argues that creoles exhibit some features that may be used to distinguish them from other languages without referring to the socio-historical dimension. According to {{Harvcoltxt|McWhorter|1992}}, creoles are much less likely than other languages:

#to use grammatical inflection via affixing,

#to develop productive, nontransparent derivational affixes, or

#to use tone to either mark lexical differences or as grammatical markers.

TheseThose features do not appear in creoles, because creoleswhich are relatively young languages, but they may appear later on in their grammars, asafter the languages changehad changed. HeMcWhorter doesclaims not claim that all creoles are ideal examples of the prototype, ratherbut that they exhibit varying degrees of conformity with the prototype.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}}

==Proposed empirical study==

Bickerton proposed in 1976 an empirical test of his theory, which involved putting families speaking mutually unintelligible languages on a previously uninhabited island for three years. Federal funding for the test was obtained, but the experiment was cancelled over concerns that [[informed consent]] could not be obtained, given the breadth of unknown possible hazards of participation.<ref>[http://www.pri.org/stories/2009-04-24/linguistic-island-experiment A linguistic island experiment.] The World, Public Radio International, 24 April 2009.</ref>

== Criticism ==

Several aspects of the LBH have attracted criticism. {{Harvcoltxt|Siegel|2007}} disputes some of Bickerton's claims about Hawai'i Creole, claiming that the linguistic input of the children was not impoverished, since it came from an expanded pidgin, not a rudimentary one. Siegel also claims the features of Hawai'i Creole are not that similar to other creoles and that the substrate languages (especially [[Cantonese]] and [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]) were a significant source of grammatical features. Siegel also makes the point that Hawai'i Creole emerged over two generations, not one.

{{Review|paragraph|date=September 2021}}

Although this hypothesis has enjoyed much popularity, it has been criticized.{{Who|date=February 2008}} Bickerton in his LBH, defined very precisely what he considers to be a creole: a language that has arisen out of a prior pidgin that had not existed for more than a generation and among a population where, at most, 20% were speakers of the dominant language and where the remaining 80% were linguistically diverse.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} Such a's definition excludes many languages that might be called creoles.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} Moreover, lack of historical data makes it often impossible to evaluate such claims. In addition, many of the creole languages that fit this definition do not display all the twelve features,{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} while, according to {{Harvcoltxt|Mühlhäusler|1986}}, the left-out creoles often display more of them. Another problem, raised by {{Harvcoltxt|Mufwene|1986}}, is that if the same bioprogram was the starting point of all creoles, one must explain the differences between them, and language diversity in general, as the bioprogram is universal.

==See also==

Line 147 ⟶ 152:

*[[Origin of language]]

*[[Origin of speech]]

* [[Innateness hypothesis]]

==References==

Line 154 ⟶ 160:

*{{citation

|last=Bickerton

|first= Derek

|authorlink=Derek Bickerton

|title=Roots of Language

|publisher=Karoma Publishers

|year=1981

|isbn=0-89720-044-6

|url-access=registration

|url=https://archive.org/details/rootsoflanguage0000bick

}}

*{{citation

Line 165 ⟶ 173:

|first= Derek

|authorlink=Derek Bickerton

|year=1983

|title=Creole Languages

|journal=Scientific American

Line 172 ⟶ 180:

|pages=116–122

|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0783-116

|bibcode= 1983SciAm.249a.116B

}}

*{{citation

Line 181 ⟶ 190:

|journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences

|volume=7

|issue= 2

|pages= 173–188

|doi= 10.1017/S0140525X00044149

|s2cid= 144264276

}}

*{{citation

Line 202 ⟶ 215:

|journal=Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages

|volume=6

|pages=25–58

|doi=10.1075/jpcl.6.1.03bic

}}

* {{Cite book

|last=Hall

|first=Robert

|authorlink = Robert A. Hall Jr.

|year=1966

|title=Pidgin and Creole languages'

|url=https://archive.org/details/pidgincreolelang0000hall

|url-access=registration

|publisher = [[Cornell University Press]]

|___location = Ithaca

|isbn=9780801401732

|ref=RHall

}}

* Hall, Robert (1966). ''Pidgin and Creole languages''. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

*{{citation

|last=McWhorter

|first=John H.

|authorlink=John McWhorter

|year=1992

|title=Substratal influence in Saramaccan serial verb construction

|journal=Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages

|volume=4

Line 221 ⟶ 248:

|year=1986

|chapter=The Universalist and Substrate Hypotheses Complement One Another

|title=Substrata versus universalsUniversals in creoleCreole gensisGenesis

|place=Amsterdam

|publisher=Benjamins

Line 227 ⟶ 254:

* {{citation

|last=Mühlhäusler

|first=P.Peter

|year=1986

|title=Pidgin and Creole linguistics

Line 234 ⟶ 261:

}}

*{{citation

|lastlast1=Thomason

|firstfirst1=Sarah

|authorlink=Sarah Thomason

|last2=Kaufman

Line 245 ⟶ 272:

|publisher=University of California Press

|edition=first

}}

* {{Cite journal

|last=Siegel

|first=Jeff

|year=2007

|title=Recent evidence against the Language Bioprogram Hypothesis: The pivotal case of Hawai'i Creole

|journal=Studies in Language

|volume=31

|issue=1

|pages=51–88

|doi=10.1075/sl.31.1.03sie

}}

*{{citation

|last=Singler

|first=J.V.John Victor

|year=1986

|title=Short Note

Line 254 ⟶ 292:

|volume=1

}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2019}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Pidgins and creoles]]

[[Category:Language acquisition]]

[[Category:Linguistic theories and hypotheses|Bioprogram theory]]