Language bioprogram theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:44, 23 July 2012

Revision as of 06:00, 26 November 2012

Line 18:

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>

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.{{Citation needed|date=February 2008}} 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|Muhlhausler|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]]: