Evolutionary Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the creole theory. You may be looking for the concept of biological evolution. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation).

Main article: Creole language

[edit] The evolutionary perspective

In recent developments in creole studies evolutionary frameworks have attracted some attention. Acquisition of every language is understood here as the process of recreating the target language from the input – individual speakers select certain items from ‘a pool of features’, to which they have been exposed, and put them back together to form their idiolects. As the input, and therefore the selection of the features, is different in every case, the idiolects are never the same. Therefore ‘altered’ or ‘innovative’ reproduction is the default in language acquisition (Croft 2000). In case of creole languages, the only difference is that the feature pool includes more variants as more languages contribute to the input. However, the mechanism of selection driven by our innate capacity for language is crucially the same. This can be contrasted with Bickerton’s bioprogram hypothesis, where the inheritance from the contributing languages is marginal and creole grammars are attributed solely to the bioprogram. At the same time, this approach incorporates elements of both superstrate and substrate theories, emphasizing their influence, while pointing out that just like in other cases of language (re)creation, modification of the target language is the norm. This makes it possible to account for the fact that creoles contain items from all the languages in contact as well as items which did not appear in any of them, as modification results also form the influence of the emergent language itself. Finally, an evolutionary framework offers the possibility of combining sociolinguistic, historical and grammatical analysis (Croft 2000).

The fact that the development of creole languages is as natural as that of any other language has an important ideological consequence. No longer can creole languages be treated as ‘special’ or ‘impure descendants of their lexifiers’, which was the case in all the other theories. In fact, the mere distinction between creoles and non-creoles has been called into question, as all languages are ‘mixed’ in some way. So much so, that Mufwene (2002) points out that in fact it is only history that prevents us from considering some Romance languages as potential creoles. This also questions the discussion of ‘simplicity’ with respect to creole grammars (see also: Aboh & Ansaldo 2007).

To explain the mechanism of selection and the choices that the speakers have made in particular cases, the notion of markedness has often been introduced. However, according to Mufwene (1991, 2001) this notion has to be relativized to the particular ‘ecology of language’, that is the particular linguistic situation in hand. Such factors as frequency, regularity, transparency, salience etc. have to be assessed relative to the feature pool and not to some universal rankings based on statistical typological research, as what is unmarked in a particular ecology, can be marked in another.

For more details about this approach consult: Mufwene (2001), Sober (1984), Croft (2000).

[edit] References

• Aboh, E.O. & U. Ansaldo (2007). The role of typology in language creation. A descriptive take. In: Ansaldo, U. & S. Matthews (eds). (2007). Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.
• Mufwene, S.S. (1991). Pidgins, creoles, typology, and markedness. In Byrne, F. & T. Huebner (eds.) 1991). Development and Structures of Creole Languages: Essays in honor of Derek Bickerton. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Mufwene, S.S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mufwene, S.S (2002). Competition and Selection in Language Evolution. Selection 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
• Sober, E. (1984). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Theoretical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.