Content deleted Content added
Copyedit. Date formats |
Megaman en m (talk | contribs) Added a basic criticism section. |
||
Line 140:
==Proposed empirical study==
Bickerton proposed in 1976 an empirical test of his theory, which involved putting families speaking mutually unintelligible languages on a previously uninhabited island for three years. Federal funding for the test was obtained, but the experiment was cancelled over concerns that [[informed consent]] could not be obtained, given the breadth of unknown possible hazards of participation.<ref>[http://www.pri.org/stories/2009-04-24/linguistic-island-experiment A linguistic island experiment.] The World, Public Radio International, 24 April 2009.</ref>
== Criticism ==
Several aspects of LBH have attracted criticism. Siegel (2007) disputes some of Bickerton's claims about Hawai'i Creole, claiming that children's linguistic input was not impoverished since it came from an expanded pidgin, not a rudimentary one. Siegel has also claimed 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Siegel|first=Jeff|date=2007|title=Recent evidence against the Language Bioprogram Hypothesis: The pivotal case of Hawai'i Creole|url=|journal=Studies in Language|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref>
==See also==
| |||