Language bioprogram theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:02, 7 April 2021

Revision as of 12:23, 7 September 2021

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}} 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 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==