Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
2016-06-30T00:00:00Z
Recent debates in the field of creole linguistics (creolistics) over the validity of a typological class of creole languages have inspired the adoption of new techniques to empirically test the...Show moreRecent debates in the field of creole linguistics (creolistics) over the validity of a typological class of creole languages have inspired the adoption of new techniques to empirically test the most prominent theories of creole origins and creole typology. Phylogenetic computational tools, i.e. phylogenetic trees and networks, have been utilized in linguistics to model evolutionary scenarios and to predict genetic relationships between languages, and more recently in creolistics to identify typological and genetic relationships between pidgin and creole languages. Following several recent analyses seeking to validate the creole typological class and to test theories of creole genesis and classification using phylogenetic computation (Bakker et al. 2011; Daval-Markussen & Bakker 2012; etc), the present thesis continues this line of research by applying the same methods in order to test an older, frequently overlooked theory of creole genesis—Derek Bickerton’s Language Bioprogram Hypothesis (LBH). Bickerton’s LBH attributes creole genesis to an innate human Bioprogram for language, invoked in situations where linguistic input is insufficient due to the influence of certain extralinguistic factors, resulting in a break in transmission of the lexifier language. This thesis seeks to test the accuracy of a set of LBH features in distinguishing between creoles and non-creoles in a phylogenetic network analysis, supplementing the results with a multiple regression analysis testing the correlation between the degree of creoleness and sociohistorical factors predicted by Bickerton’s theory. Following the specifications of the LBH, the network analysis was expected to show a clear distinction between creoles and non-creoles, as well as patterns within the cluster of creoles associated to the presence of certain extralinguistic factors. The output of the analysis indicates the validity of a creole typological class, yet the complete distribution of the languages in the networks cannot be entirely accounted for by the predictions of the LBH. While some of the clusters in the network can be attributed to prolonged contact with the superstrate language, which proved to be a significant factor in the regression analysis, other groupings are less predictable. The similar patterning of creoles and languages with low complexity scores according to Parkvall’s (2008) metric in the phylogenetic network analysis indicates the compatibility of Bickerton’s LBH and the proposal of a structurally less complex, synchronic class of creole languages. The variability in the patterning of creoles within the creole cluster in the phylogenetic network analysis is thought to be related to the unique combination of extralinguistic factors influencing the development of each individual creole. The structural variation among the class of creole languages is expected to increase with time.Show less
