Revision as of 11:44, 20 April 2019 edit Megaman en m (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 21,160 edits m →Criticism: grammar Tag: Visual edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:47, 11 May 2019 edit undo Megaman en m (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 21,160 edits m →Criticism: tense changes Tag: Visual edit Next edit →
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 ~~claimed~~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. ==See also==

Language bioprogram theory: Difference between revisions