Language bioprogram theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:44, 20 April 2019

Latest revision as of 07:14, 7 February 2025

(21 intermediate revisions by 13 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:{{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> Bickerton inIn 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}} 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"

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 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 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 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==

Line 142:

== 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 has also claimedclaims 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 148 ⟶ 152:

*[[Origin of language]]

*[[Origin of speech]]

* [[Innateness hypothesis]]

==References==

Line 155 ⟶ 160:

*{{citation

|last=Bickerton

|first= Derek

|authorlink=Derek Bickerton

|title=Roots of Language

Line 161 ⟶ 166:

|year=1981

|isbn=0-89720-044-6

|url-access=registration

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

}}

*{{citation

Line 173 ⟶ 180:

|pages=116–122

|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0783-116

|bibcode= 1983SciAm.249a.116B

}}

*{{citation

Line 182 ⟶ 190:

|journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences

|volume=7

|issue= 2

|pages= 173–188

|doi= 10.1017/S0140525X00044149

|s2cid= 144264276

}}

*{{citation

Line 203 ⟶ 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=harvRHall

}}

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

*{{citation

|last=McWhorter

Line 222 ⟶ 248:

|year=1986

|chapter=The Universalist and Substrate Hypotheses Complement One Another

|title=Substrata versus universalsUniversals in creoleCreole gensisGenesis

|place=Amsterdam

|publisher=Benjamins

Line 228 ⟶ 254:

* {{citation

|last=Mühlhäusler

|first=P.Peter

|year=1986

|title=Pidgin and Creole linguistics

Line 235 ⟶ 261:

}}

*{{citation

|lastlast1=Thomason

|firstfirst1=Sarah

|authorlink=Sarah Thomason

|last2=Kaufman

Line 247 ⟶ 273:

|edition=first

}}

* {{Cite journal

|last=Siegel

|first=Jeff

Line 255 ⟶ 281:

|volume=31

|issue=1

|pages=51-8851–88

|doi=10.1075/sl.31.1.03sie

|ref=harv

}}

*{{citation

|last=Singler

|first=J.V.John Victor

|year=1986

|title=Short Note

Line 267 ⟶ 293:

}}

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

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Pidgins and creoles]]

[[Category:Language acquisition]]

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