Substrate Theory

At the centre of this hypothesis lies the assumption that the grammatical structure of a pidgin is made available by the substrate languages. These comprise all indigenous languages involved in the contact situation – with the exception of the lexifier.

Resemblances between pidgins originating from different lexifiers must then be due to similarities of the substrate languages. For instance, Jamaican Creole (with an English lexifier), Haitian Creole (French-based) and Papiamentu (founded on Spanish) exhibit common features because of their historical relation to West African languages (Sebba, 1997: 78).

Some pidgins certainly display features that reinforce the theory of substrate influence. Tok Pisin, for example, distinguishes between inclusive and exclusive

45 In second-language research, one popular theory supposes different learner-varieties based on different interlanguage grammars: The first language as well as the target language influence the interlanguage grammar, which changes and becomes more refined the more a learner improves his or her L2 abilities. This is a very dynamic process and the ideal case would terminate with the complete control of the target language. See Klein (1986) for a detailed discussion.

‘we’ (yumi and mipela), as do many Pacific languages. Yet the lexifier language, English, makes no such differentiation, and there is no reason to assume that this feature developed as a result of grammatical simplification. Another example is the use of ‘give’ meaning ‘for’, displayed by a large group of creoles and indicative of a highly marked construction (ibid: 189f.). But examples such as these are difficult to find. Even though markedness is quite a standardised concept in phonology, it is rather difficult to show in syntax and morphology. Representatives of this theory therefore need to find many more similarities to support their arguments. Arends et al. also note that a feature, if it is to be acknowledged as having a substrate origin, must be marked, otherwise it could just as well be universal (1995: 100).

Although there is some controversy regarding the influence of the first language,⁴⁶ Sebba (1997: 91f.) lists a number of effects that are indeed caused by the substrates (in this case the speakers’ native languages). With respect to the lexicon, not only the lexifier, but also the substrate is, to a more or less considerable degree, “represented in the word-stock”⁴⁷ (ibid.: 92). Calques, which can be found in the substrate languages, are relexified, that is, “translated literally into the pidgin or creole”⁴⁸ (ibid.: 92), and there are also grammatical features in pidgins that are derived from all available target languages.

The theory has, however, been criticised by many authors.

Mühlhäusler, for instance, examines at what stage pidgins/creoles are liable to be affected by the substrate. He states that “‘finished’ systems are much more open to outside influence than developing ones” (1986: 128). In his opinion substrate influence is overrated, and conclusions are drawn from inadequately conducted research. After some grammatical considerations Mühlhäusler establishes that

[…] findings to the effect that substratum languages are the principal source of creole semantic structures (Huttar 1975) cannot be extended to the syntactic component and that, in the areas of syntax and morphology, linguistic universals will be the main source of structural

46 According to Sebba (1997: 91), authors such as Klein and Perdue (1993) claim a relative unimportance of first-language transfer in the pidginisation process.

47 One should not forget that the adoption of a function word or morpheme usually entails joint morphosyntactic characteristics as well (Arends et al., 1995b: 101), although examples supplied by Mühlhäusler (1986: 121ff.) show that the attributive adjectives in Tok Pisin derive from neither superstrate language (English or Tolai).

48 An example from Tok Pisin is bikhet = ‘big head’ = stubborn person.

expansion, irrespective of whether this expansion takes place with second-language pidgin speakers or first-generation creole speakers.

(ibid.: 129)

Furthermore, the author feels that a pidgin or creole should not be studied from a synchronic, but from a diachronic point of view,⁴⁹ and from the latter perspective a single-cause explanation is inadequate. It is more plausible to assume a “conspiracy between the different forces”, as Mühlhäusler puts it (ibid.: 132).

Another problematic aspect concerns not knowing “which substrate languages were represented when and where and with how many speakers” (Arends et al., 1995:

100). Also worth considering is the nature of the substrate, i.e. its homogeneity or heterogeneity. If the substrate is formed from many languages that are relatively distinct, its influence on the creole will probably be marginal.

Criticism of this theory is also formulated by Sebba:

[…] it is difficult to say to what extent the similarities between the pidgin grammar and the substrate grammar derive from the grammar of the substrate itself, and to what extent they are present in the pidgin as a result of simplification of the lexifier on the basis of ‘universal’

principles of simplification which could be applied to any language.

(ibid., 1997: 94)

Romaine (1988: 108f.) also believes in other sources of explanation than the substrate. She finds linguistic universals or general principles of simplification more appealing than to suppose that consistent structures could have evolved despite the dispersion of origin. Tok Pisin is a suitable candidate to cast doubts on the substrate theory, because the first languages of people speaking it are extremely numerous and diverse.

49 By giving several examples, Mühlhäusler discusses the danger of static comparison. Both Tolai (which was the main substrate language for Tok Pisin during the stages of formation and stabilisation) and Tok Pisin show cases of reduplication, so one might assume substrate influence of Tolai on Tok Pisin. On closer inspection this is not the case, however (see Mühlhäusler, 1986: 123f.

for details).