The Language Bioprogram theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Language Bioprogram hypothesis and the gradualist model

Universalist approaches can be divided into several groups according to the type of universals that they concentrate on. Foreigner talk theory and Imperfect second language learning theory rely on the assumption that there are universal principles behind such cases of language modeling. However, universalist approaches in creole studies are usually associated with theories that incorporate the idea that universal aspects of human language capacity somehow determine the features of creoles.

Universalists claim that the assumed similarities between different creoles cannot be solely attributed to the superstrate or substrate languages. According to this theory, represented mainly by Bickerton, children exposed to a pidgin, that is, a highly unstructured (according to Bickerton) language variety, have to use their innate language capacity in order to transform this input into a fully-fledged language. As this capacity is universal, the process follows the same path and the resulting creoles are alike. This hypothesis, often referred to as the Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH), assumes that adults play no role in creole genesis (for more details, see for example Bickerton 1981,1984,1988,1991).

By comparing Hawaiian Pidgin and Creole, Bickerton identified 12 features which he believed to be part and parcel of any creole. Having analyzed these features, he believed that he was able to characterize, at least partly, the Bioprogram. Although this hypothesis has enjoyed much popularity, it has ultimately been criticized on many grounds. First of all, 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. Such a definition excludes many languages that might be called creoles. Moreover, lack of historical data makes it often impossible to evaluate such claims. What is more, many of the creole languages that fit this definition do not display all the 12 features, while, according to Muhlhausler (1986), the left-out creoles often display more of them. This to the conclusion that probably the Bickerton set of 12 features should probably be reformulated if not replaced altogether. Another obvious problem, raised by Mufwene (1986), is that if the same bioprogram was the starting point of all creoles, one must explain the differences between them, and in fact language diversity in general, as the bioprogram is universal.

More problems appear when the communicative setting that Bickerton suggests is analyzed in detail. Firstly, what seems implicit in the LBH is the assumption that monolingualism is the norm: that the input that children are exposed to in the default case of language acquisition is stable, monolingual and complete. It has to be asked, however, if this is really the default case or just a projection of the European linguistic tradition onto that of the rest of the world. Bilingualism and multilingualism seem to be the norm in many linguistic communities. Moreover, even within a monolingual community, the input is never perfect and never identical, therefore creole genesis cannot be viewed as an exceptional case, but only as a certain point on a continuum.

On the other hand, Bickerton, in putting emphasis on children’s contribution to the development of a creole and the abrupt character of this process, implies in fact that the two generations in such a community, the children and the adults, in fact constitute two different linguistic communities. However, as Thomason & Kaufman (1988) point out, it is far simpler and more consistent with the data from multilingual communities to assume that the two groups form one speech community, and that both make a contribution to the development of the emergent creole. Finally Singler (1986) informs us that children were scarce on plantations, where creoles appeared, for several reasons such as: absence of women, high rates of sterility, abortion, infant mortality. The extent to which children and/or adults contribute to the creole development has in fact turned out to be another dividing line between creolists, which demarcates the so-called gradualists.

In most of the creole genesis theories, it has been assumed that the difference between a pidgin and a creole language bolies down to the process of nativization, that is to say, the creoles are nativised pidgins. Such idea can be found for example in Hall (1966) in the form of the pidgin-creole life circle, in Muhlhausler (1986) as the developmental continuum, or in Bickerton (1988, 1991) as the bioprogram hypothesis.

However, according to a different model, represented for example in Carden & Stewart (1988), Arends (1993), McWhorter (1992), creolization is seen to be a gradual process, which takes many generations to reach its final stage and does not require the appearance of native speakers. In this theory, similarities between creoles are often attributed to the fact that they all evolve in similar communicative contexts.

Demographic research has shown that the proportion of locally-born blacks to African-born blacks was changing very slowly, so that abrupt nativization of a pidgin seems unlikely. Moreover, some pidgins expanded into full-blown languages before being nativized – this is for example the case with Tok Pisin according to Romaine (1988). This poses the question whether the distinction between pidgin and creole is really of any importance. Arends (1993) also presents a detailed study of creolization, in which it is pictured as a gradual, continuous process carried mostly by adults and not children.

However, according to Muhlhasusler (1986), the differences between the speech of children and adults in Tok Pisin are so big that communication is drastically hindered. What is debatable, however, is whether it means that there is in fact some qualitative change between a pidgin and a creole, that can be attributed to children-nativizing influence, or whether it is a case of language change. In other words, the influence of children, who tend to speak faster as they learn the language from birth, and therefore introduce phonological reductions, which in turn might lead to grammaticalization, is simply a case of language change, though faster than usual.

The last model to be mentioned in this section is McWhorter’s Creole Prototype Theory, which similarly to Bickerton’s idea, assumes that creoles are the result of a special form of language acquisition. What is implied here is that creole speakers, having no stable language input to rely on, turn to their inner language capacity when acquiring a creole. McWhorter goes on to claim that due to this exceptional acquisition, creoles exhibit some features that may be used to distinguish them from other languages without referring to the socio-historical dimension. According to him, creoles as opposed to other languages do not:
 use grammatical inflection via affixing
 develop productive, nontransparent derivational affixes
 use tone to either mark lexical differences or as grammatical markers

These features do not appear in creoles because creoles are relatively young languages, but they may appear later on in their grammars. However, he does not claim that all creoles are ideal examples of the prototype – rather they exhibit varying degrees of conformity with the prototype.

McWhorter’s claims therefore point again towards the idea that creole grammars are simpler then those of other languages, the idea that has been quite strongly criticized because:
 the very notion of simplicity in relation to a grammar is very relative: languages exhibit different means of expressing grammatical functions, and it is difficult to day, if not impossible, that some languages are ‘simpler’.
 some non-creole languages are as “simple” or simpler than some creoles
 the notion of simplicity is deeply grounded in ideological debates about the creole origin – it is inextricably linked to the idea that creoles are in some way ‘imperfect’ versions of their lexifiers.

[edit] References

• Arends, J. (1993). Towards a gradualist model of creolization. In: Byrne, F. & J. Holm (eds) (1993). Atlantic meets pacific. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Arends, J. et al (1994). Pidgins and Creoles. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
• Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7.
• Bickerton, D. (1988). Creole languages and the bioprogram. In: Newmeyer, F.J. (ed.) (1988). Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bickerton, D. (1991). On the supposed ‘gradualness’ of creole development. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 6.
• Carden, G. & W.A. Stewart (1988). Binding theory, bioprogram, and creolization: Evidence from Haitian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 3.
• Hall, R.A. (1966). Pidgin and Creole languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• McWhorter, J. (1992). Substratal influence in Saramaccan serial verb construction. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 4.
• Mufwene, S.S. (1986). The Universalist and Substrate Hypotheses Complement One Another. In: Muysken, P. & N. Smith (eds.) (1986). Substrata versus universals in creole gensis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Muhlhausler, P. (1986). Pidgin and Creole linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Romaine, S. (1988). Pidgins and Creole Languages. London: Longman.
• Thomason, S.G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Singler, J.V. (1986). Short Note. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 1.