Substrate Theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Substrate theories
As opposition to the monogenetic theories on the one hand, and the language modeling theories on the other, substrate theories emphasize the influence of the numerous non-European languages on creole genesis. The terms ‘substrate language’ and its logical correlate ‘superstrate language’ mean, respectively, the language of lower prestige and the language of higher prestige, which in the case of creoles usually comes down to non-European vs. European. Linguists such as Alleyne (1980), Mufwene (1993), Holm (1988) and Boretzky (1983) point for example to the influence of African languages on the emerging creoles.
Within this framework, similarities between creoles are attributed to the fact that these creoles share many features of African origin. These features are often assumed to be transferred from the substrate language to the creole during the relexification process. However, as has been shown the relexification hypothesis has its own disadvantages (DeGraff 2003). Moreover, it has been pointed out that African languages differ greatly among themselves – therefore it is doubtful whether one can speak of any homogenous substrate influence. At the same time, differences between creoles and the substrate languages are considerable, which suggests that there are other factors at work as well.
Moreover, to prove the existence of a substrate language, one has to provide two types of evidence: that a certain item is similar, or, ideally, identical to an item in an African language, and that this language was present in the community, where the creole emerged. One problem that immediately appears is the Cafeteria Principle discussed in the section on superstrate theory. Bickerton (1981) warns that, bearing in mind the number (and the diversity) of African languages, finding a correspondences between creole lexicon and that of some African language is just a matter of chance. Another problem is purely empirical: how to determine if a language was actually spoken by a group of people (usually slaves)? Where was it spoken? How many speakers were there? etc. Because of scarce historical data such evidence is in many cases an estimation.
In connection with this criticism is the point that, even if such influence was possible, it would be of little value without some principles regulating the selection of substrate elements. Research shows, however, that there are factors that can be responsible for promoting certain items. Siegel (1997) for example lists the following: frequency, regularity, salience, transparency, economy, unmarkedness. However, these factors have to be treated rather as guidelines than definitive rules.
[edit] References
• Alleyne, M.C. (1980). Comparative Afro-American. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
• Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
• Boretzky, N. (1983). Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
• DeGraff, M. (2003). Against Creole Exceptionalism. Language.
• Holm J. (1988). Pidgins and Creoles. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mufwene, S.S. (ed.) (1993). Africanisms in Afro-American language varieties. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
• Siegel, J. (1997). Mixing, Leveling, and Pidgin/Creole Development. In: Spears, A & D. Winford (eds.) (1997). The structure and status of pidgins and creoles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
