Superstrate Theories

Pidgins and creoles emerged “in the context of European colonial and commercial expansion overseas”, and hence “[t]he first assumptions about the genesis of these languages were […] heavily Eurocentric” (Singh, 2000: 38). We are thus dealing with processes in which superstrate languages were (inadequately) transformed. Only the last among these hypotheses, the Common Core Theory, suggests an equivalent contribution of the contact languages involved.

a) Baby/Foreigner Talk

Many adults, when talking to babies or foreigners, adapt their manner of speaking.

With only few exceptions, a world-wide set of similar features is displayed.

According to den Besten et al. (1995: 95f.), it includes:

- accommodation (slower speech, repetitions, shorter and simpler sentences, etc.)

- imitation (simplified structures may be copied and thereby reinforced)

- telegraphic condensation (function words are deleted, only content words remain)

- adoption of conventions (the use of diminutives or epenthetic vowels)

The situation that arises when speakers of a superstrate come into contact with a group of substrate speakers can be approached from several different viewpoints:

One could ‘blame’ the substrate group for not possessing the capability to learn the superstrate language, which is why the speakers of the ‘higher’ group are ‘forced’ to resort to baby/foreigner talk. They imitate the incorrect speech of the ‘lower’ group, which in turn has no chance of improvement because the standard is not available.

Next, one might claim that the Europeans started off the whole process by simplifying their language to make themselves better understood, while the ‘lower’

group merely imitated the input. Or else one assumes that the ‘lower’ group tries to

learn the standard it hears, but simplifies it in order to make things easier. Errors are then reinforced by the dominant group (cf. Romaine, 1988: 72ff.). The last possibility would be to suggest a contribution by both parties: “The master stripped off from the European language everything that was peculiar to it, the slave suppressed everything in it that was distinctive. They met on a middle ground…”

(Schuchardt, 1914, cited in Holm, 2000: 34).

Proponents of this theory maintain that the processes of baby/foreigner talk produce attributes displayed by pidgins, namely a restricted lexicon, repetitions and simple structures in general. Den Besten et al. (1995: 97), however, feel that this argument is circular. Two further shortcomings of the hypothesis are noted by Todd (1974:

39ff.). In her opinion, it cannot account for the fact that pidgins are sometimes not understood by speakers of languages from which they were supposedly derived.

Additionally, some pidgins stemming from unrelated superstrate languages exhibit numerous syntactic similarities amongst each other, but not with their lexifiers. The baby/foreigner talk theory cannot explain why this is so. Mühlhäusler furthermore points out that “the importance of foreigner talk in pidgin formation appears to be restricted to relatively early stages of development” (1986: 106).

b) Imperfect L2-Acquisition

The assumption of this theory is that pidgins are the result of an inadequate learning of the superstrate language by a substrate group of speakers. As comparable mistakes are made by all learners of a second language (L2), it is not surprising that we find many resemblances to and between pidgins. In an academic environment, the learning process is controlled, which means that mistakes are corrected and rules are taught. Situations in which pidgins develop will differ concerning rectification.

Speakers of the ‘higher’ group will be inconsiderate of the ‘lower’ group’s inability to speak their language, so the latter will attempt to adopt the native speakers’

competence as quickly as possible. Since the inevitably arising mistakes are not remedied, they will become incorporated into the structure of the evolving pidgin (Singh, 2000: 41). Due to the many common features of interlanguage systems displayed by learners of second languages and pidgins, this theory is rather popular.

Amongst the characteristics listed by den Besten et al. are:

a. invariant verb forms, derived either from the infinitive, or from the least marked finite form of the verb;

b. either no determiners, or else the use of demonstratives as determiners;

c. the invariable placement of the negator in preverbal position;

d. the use of adverbs to express modality;

e. a fixed single word order, no inversion in questions;

f. reduced or absent nominal plural marking (ibid., 1995: 98)

Although one cannot account for all traits that characterise pidgins with the

‘Deficient L2-Acquisition Theory’, it should definitely be taken seriously as a possible source of explanation.

c) Common Core Theory

This explanation for pidgin and creole formation was also put forward by Hall (1961). In contact situations, the languages involved produce a pidgin that contains those traits of grammar that are shared by the respective languages. The common core of a pidgin grammar can be depicted as follows:

Figure 1: Structural Resources of a Pidgin Language (Mühlhäusler, 1986: 118)

The area of overlap between the parent languages supplies the structural resources of the pidgin language (Hall, 1961: 414). The similarities that exist between various pidgins could be explained by correspondences in the amalgamation of grammars:

Thus the combination of a European lexifier with African languages in the Caribbean might produce a similar result to the combination of another European language with indigenous Austronesian languages in the South Pacific, given that there are considerable structural similarities between most European languages on the one hand, and accidental similarities between African and Austronesian languages on the other.

(Sebba, 1997: 77)

English (French, etc.)

Pidgin Melanesian

(Chinese, African, etc.)

Examples of overlap can indeed be found, but this could just as much be due to language universals. The common core is likely to shrink and become more universal if the number of languages involved increases (ibid.: 78). Mühlhäusler (1986: 118ff.) compares the situation reflected in the diagram to second-language learning and interprets the hachured area as one of facilitation, since it contains those features that require the least effort on the part of the pidgin learner. The four objections to the theory he proposes are:

- these very elements might prove ineffective for communication

- the stagnancy of the model, which does not allow for modifications of the core⁴⁵

- the assumption that the learners must be perfect bilinguals who use all available systems equivalently, since shared qualities cannot be created until they are well-established. This is problematic, as the lexifier language is often unavailable

- numerous constructions exist that can be allocated to neither parent language Lexical items across languages and grammar across systems presumably do contribute to the grammatical development of pidgins; a common denominator for creoles, however, is difficult to discern, since the model languages are often withdrawn during the developmental stages.