Superstrate Theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Superstrate hypothesis
Another type of explanation postulates that creoles have developed (at least partly) from non-standard dialects of European languages, which were brought to the newly founded colonies by the migrating population. These European dialects, associated with higher prestige when compared to the African languages, come across as superstrate languages, hence the name of the hypothesis. It was believed that their influence would explain the often emphasized similarities between the creoles derived from the same language, as well as the differences between creoles derived from different languages. Moreover, it was argued that such a scenario would account for the ‘simple’ grammars of creoles – the assumption here was that non-standard varieties, being often only spoken and not written, are simpler than the ‘standard’ language.
Importantly, however, one should whether the grammars of creole languages are in any sense simpler than the grammatical systems of other languages. Simplicity itself is of course a relative term – languages differ greatly in their grammatical complexity, therefore to claim that a particular creole grammar is simple will always be an arbitrary decision to certain extent (Ansaldo & Matthews 2007). Things become even more complicated when one tries to make a statement about creole languages in general as there is no agreement which grammatical features (if any) are common to all creole languages.
Finally, this theory has been severely criticized on methodological grounds as the research was necessarily based on lexicographical studies of various dialects of European languages, which unfortunately show great inconsistencies as to their geographical coverage. Another methodological problem that has been often pointed to is the so called Cafeteria Principle, first articulated in Dillard (1970), that is the practice of arbitrarily attributing a certain linguistic item found in a creole language to a certain language variety. One has to remember that, logically speaking, there is no reason why a certain linguistic item, bearing in mind that linguistic signs are arbitrary, could not appear in two different languages. The question therefore is that of probability. And as was often pointed out it is methodologically unsound to browse through dictionaries of assorted European dialects in search of a certain entry: sooner or later one can find it, but it does not prove much. The question is rather whether a certain linguistic item from a particular dialect was in fact in use in a particular colony, which however is more difficult to establish.
In spite of all the problems associated with this theory it has attracted some attention during the last century. For more information see: Faine (1937), Lalla & D’Costa (1990), Chaudenson (1992). For criticism see for example: Baker (1982).
[edit] References
• Ansaldo, U. & S. Matthews (eds) (2007). Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Baker, P. (1982). On the origins of the first Mauritians and of the creole language of their descendants. A refutation of Chaudenson’s ‘Bourbonnais’ theory. In: Baker, P. & C. Corne (eds.) (1982). Isle de France Creole. Affinities and origins. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
• Chaudenson, R. (1992). Des iles, des hommes, des langues. Paris: L’Harmattan.
• Dillard, J.L. (1970). Principles in the history of American English: Paradox, virginity and cafeteria. Florida Foreign Language Reporter, 8.
• Faine, J. (1937). Philologie creole. Port-au-Prince: Imper. de l’Etat.
• Lalla, B. & J. D’Costa. (1990). Language in exile. Three hundred years of Jamaican Creole. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
