Foreigner talk theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Foreigner talk theory

One of the answers to the question of creole genesis involves the so-called ‘foreigner talk’ (FT) – that is, the simplified version of a language that native speakers use in order to address other speakers for whom this language is not a native one, especially speakers who do not know the language at all. Because of the similarities found in this type of speech and the speech which is usually directed at children, it is also sometimes called ‘baby talk’ (see for example, Ferguson 1971). According to this hypothesis, FT, a reduced and simplified version of a language, is the basis of the emergent pidgin and creole.

The simplification of input was supposed to account for creoles’ simple grammar, if one assumes they are simple, and for a number of similarities between creoles and their lexifiers. The question is, however, if there is any universal pattern of foreign talk – do such versions of a language share any features as a result of the special character of the speech event. If yes, it would explain why creoles share certain features.

Arends et al (1994) suggest for example that four different processes are involved in creating FT: accommodation, imitation, telegraphic condensation and conventions. This could explain why creole languages have much in common, while avoiding a monogenetic model. However, there is much debate on whether such universal features of FT in fact exist. On the other hand, Hinnenkamp (1984) who analyzes German FT, claims that FT is too inconsistent and unpredictable to provide any model for language learning.

An important question is whether non-native speakers are aware that they are exposed to a simplified version or whether they think that what they hear is the standard version. It seems desirable to assume that non-natives take it as a normal language – this would mean that they would incorporate the simplified rules into their version of the target language. It would explain the psychological mechanism behind the pidgin/creole origin. This could be contrasted with a situation where a non-native speaker of a certain language, who possesses certain knowledge of it, is exposed to FT and, thanks to his knowledge, recognizes it and therefore is aware that this is not the ideal model of the language. According to Silverstein (1972), the first case of misconception in situations where the speakers do not know each other’s languages at all is common, and in fact provides the basis for communication, as both sides believe that they are speaking the language of the other.

One problem with the FT explanation is, however, its potential circularity. Bloomfield (1933) points out that FT is often based on the imitation of the incorrect speech of the non-natives, that is the pidgin. Therefore one may be mistaken in assuming that the former gave rise to the latter. Moreover, this theory is not borne out by data: pidgins and creoles contain elements which are often not present in FT.

Although there are not many theories of pidgin/creole development which rely exclusively on the idea of FT, it seems that potentially this type of explanation could shed some light on the matter at hand. However, it still remains to be proven to what extent could FT influence the formation of pidgins and creoles.

For examples of a theory of pidgin/creole genesis based to a certain extent on FT see Naro (1978, 1988, 1993), Seuren & Wekker (1986). For criticism, see Clements (1992), Goodman (1987).

[edit] References

• Arends, J. et al (1994). Pidgins and Creoles. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
• Clements, J. (1992). Foreigner Talk and the origin of Pidgin Portuguese. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 7.
• Ferguson, C.A. (1971). Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity: A Study of Normal Speech, Baby Talk, Foreigner • Talk and Pidgins. In: Hymes, D. (ed.). Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodman, M. (1987). The Portuguese element in the American creoles. In: Gilbert, G.G. (ed.) (1987). Pidgin and creole languages. Essays in memory of E. Reinecke. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
• Hinnenkamp, V. (1984). Eye-witnessing pidginization? Structural and Sociolinguistic Aspects of German and Turkish Foreigner Talk. In: Sebba, M. & L. Todd (eds.) (1984). Papers from the York Creole Conference, September 24-27 1983. York Papers in Linguistics, 11.
• Naro, A.J. (1978). A Study on the origins of pidginazation. Language, 54
• Naro, A.J. (1988). A reply to ‘Pidgin origins reconsidered’ by Morris Goodman. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 3.
• Naro, A.J. (1993). Arguing about Arguin. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 8.
• Seuren, P.A.M. & H.C. Wakker (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Muysken, P. & N. Smith (eds.) (1986). Substrata versus universals in creole gensis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Silverstein, M. (1972). Goodbye Columbus: Language and Speech Community in Indian-European Contact Situations. Unpublished manuscript.