Creole Monogenesis Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Creole Monogenesis Theory

According to the theory of monogenesis in its most radical form all creole languages of the world can be ultimately traced back to one linguistic variety. This idea, first elaborated in Taylor (1961) and Thompson (1961), gained popularity in the 1960s and1970s. It assumes that some type of pidgin language based on Portuguese was spoken from the 15th to 18th century in the forts established by the Portuguese on the West African coast. This variety, referred to as West African Pidgin Portuguese (WAPP), was the starting point of all the pidgin and creole languages. This would explain to some extent why Portuguese lexical items can be found in many creoles, but more importantly it would account for the numerous grammatical similarities which are believed to be shared by such languages. Obviously, however, many creoles around the world have lexicons based on languages different than Portuguese – English, French, Spanish, Dutch, to name but a few. In order to explain this, it was hypothesized that such creoles were derived from WAPP by means of relexification – the process of replacing (in this case Portuguese) lexical items by the items from a different language (English, French etc.).

However, within this framework it is difficult to explain how certain grammatical features, not present in Portuguese, have made their way into creoles. To solve this problem it has been sometimes proposed that relexification, apart from the word-for-word substitution of lexical items, may involve the transfer of some grammatical functions of the words.

Another question is whether relexification itself is a real process. Muysken (1981, 1994) and Bakker & Mous (1994) show that there are languages which derive their grammar and lexicon from two different languages respectively, which could be easily explained with the relexification hypothesis. However, in cases of such mixed languages, as Bakker & Mous (1994) call them, there is never a one-to-one relationship between the grammar (or lexicon) of the mixed language and the grammar (or lexicon) of the language they attribute it to. Therefore it might be asked whether the difference is not purely quantitative. In any case, the question remains whether relexification plays a role in the creation of creoles, to what extent and at which stage of the creole development. Importantly, if the relexification hypothesis is true, it becomes difficult to establish which language was first as there might be more than one phase of relexification involved.

Moreover in order to defend the idea of monogenesis, one should ideally be able to prove that something like WAPP existed and that there was a connection between it and a particular creole. In many situations (for example, pidgins based on African languages spoken in the Indian continent) such a link, however indirect, seems highly unlikely.

A general methodological problem with creole genesis theories is that there has been little historical linguistic data, as these languages often lacked written form at the beginning. Moreover, the data available usually comes from non-native speakers (missionaries, colonial officers, travelers etc.) and as such cannot be fully trusted. This makes it difficult not only to evaluate the monogenesis scenario, but any other theory of creole genesis, as most of them at some point have to refer to some historical data.

For more information see also Hancock (1986), Smith (1987), Hull (1979), Schwegler (1999).

[edit] References

• Arends, J. et al (1994). Pidgins and Creoles. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Bakker, P & M. Mous (eds.) (1994). Mixed Languages. Amsterdam: IFOTT
• Hancock, I.F. (1986). The domestic hypothesis, diffusion and componentiality: An account of Atlantic Anglo-phone creole origins. In: Muysken, P & N. Smith (eds.) (1986). Substrata versus universals in creole genesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Hull, A. (1979). On the origin and chronology of the French-based creoles. In: Hancock et al. (eds.) (1979). Readings in creole studies. Ghent: Story-Scientia.
• Muysken, P. (1981). Halfway between Spanish and Quechua: The Case for Relexification. In: Highfiled, A. & A. Walden (1981). Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
• Muysken, P. & T. Veenstra (1994). Universalist Approaches. In: Arends et al. (1994). Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Taylor, D.R. (1961). New languages for old in the West Indies. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3.
• Thompson, R.W. (1961). A note on some possible affinities between the creole dialects of the Old World and those of the New. In: Le Page, R.B. (ed.) Creole Language Studies, Vol II. • Schwegler, A. (1999). Monogenesis Revisited: The Spanish Perspective. In: Ricjford, J. & S. Romaine (eds.) (1999). Creole Genesis, Attitudes and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Smith, N. (1987). The genesis of the creole languages of Surinam. Doct. Diss. University of Amsterdam.