Content deleted Content added
Haimaunten (talk | contribs) m Undid revision 991410953 by Haimaunten (talk) |
m →Verbal system: c/e |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 7 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 Creole]], [[Haitian Creole]] and [[Sranan]], Bickerton identified twelve features which he believed to be integral to any creole:{{
*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}}
{| class="wikitable"
Line 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
{| class="wikitable"
Line 130:
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, although in certain languages some compounded forms may be replaced by other constructions.
==Creole Prototype Theory==
[[John
#to use grammatical inflection via affixing,
#to develop productive, nontransparent derivational affixes, or
#to use tone to
==Proposed empirical study==
Line 143:
== 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}}
Bickerton'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 176 ⟶ 180:
|pages=116–122
|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0783-116
|bibcode= 1983SciAm.249a.116B
}}
*{{citation
Line 185 ⟶ 190:
|journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences
|volume=7
|issue= 2
|pages= 173–188
|doi= 10.1017/S0140525X00044149
|s2cid= 144264276
}}
*{{citation
Line 206 ⟶ 215:
|journal=Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
|volume=6
|pages=25–58
|doi=10.1075/jpcl.6.1.03bic
}}
* {{Cite book
Line 217 ⟶ 228:
|publisher = [[Cornell University Press]]
|___location = Ithaca
|isbn=9780801401732
|ref=RHall
}}
Line 236 ⟶ 248:
|year=1986
|chapter=The Universalist and Substrate Hypotheses Complement One Another
|title=Substrata versus
|place=Amsterdam
|publisher=Benjamins
Line 249 ⟶ 261:
}}
*{{citation
|
|
|authorlink=Sarah Thomason
|last2=Kaufman
Line 269 ⟶ 281:
|volume=31
|issue=1
|pages=
|doi=10.1075/sl.31.1.03sie
}}
*{{citation
|