27.2747, Review: Lang Acq; Socioling: Aboh (2015)
The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Mon Jun 27 17:35:41 UTC 2016
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2747. Mon Jun 27 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 27.2747, Review: Lang Acq; Socioling: Aboh (2015)
Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2016
25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Michael Czerniakowski <mike at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:35:16
From: Emmanuel Schang [emmanuel.schang at univ-orleans.fr]
Subject: The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36150557
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3889.html
AUTHOR: Enoch Oladé Aboh
TITLE: The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars
SUBTITLE: Language Contact and Change
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2015
REVIEWER: Emmanuel Schang, University of Orléans
Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar Dry
SUMMARY
The author of this book, Enoch Oladé Aboh (EOA), is professor of Linguistics
at the University of Amsterdam, chair of Learnability, and is well known for
his work on theoretical syntax, Haitian, Saramaccan and Gbe languages. He is
also involved in the African Linguistics School which focuses on the study of
African languages and linguistic theory and has taken place approximately
every two years since 2009. With this book, he provides the reader with an
articulated theory of creolization and language change in situations of
language contact, focusing on Haitian and Saramaccan. As phrased in the
postface, its claim is that ''there is no qualitative difference between a
child learning their language in a multilingual environment and a child raised
in a monolingual environment. In both situations, children learn to master
multiple linguistic subsystems that are in contact and may be combined to
produce new variants''. The central goal of the book is thus to show that
''monolithic theories that account for creole genesis exclusively by invoking
inheritance from the superstrate, substrate influence, language universals, or
fossilization of some early interlanguage stage are untenable.'' The
recombination of linguistic features from various sources produces hybrid
linguistic forms (creole languages). This book is prefaced by Salikoko
Mufwene, an expert in language contact and change (see Mufwene (2001 and
2005)), who designed the Feature Pool Theory, to which EOA often refers in
this work.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the topic of creolization. It clearly explains
the relevance of the study of creole languages for language change ('creoles
as a test bed'), based on the following assertions:
“- Creoles developed recently (within about four centuries) and have not lived
long enough for their original ingredients to fade out due to a long history
of linguistic change.
- Creoles result from the extensive contact between languages that are not
genetically related [...]. Thus creole languages differ from contact languages
which developed from the contact between languages that are genetically and
typologically related (Indo-European languages).'' (p.6)
The central claim put forth throughout this book is that creole speakers
create variants, not imperfect replicas of European languages.
Chapter 2 presents a very precise and detailed analysis of the geopolitical
and cultural aspects of the slave trade and their relevance for understanding
the linguistic situation to which the colonists and slaves were exposed. This
chapter relies on an impressive documentation of various historical sources.
EOA refers both to social, cultural and economic studies and to direct quotes
from sources (mainly documents written in French for which he provides a
perfect translation). Moreover, he exposes the key elements of the Aja
languages (Kingdom of Allada) which played a crucial role on the Slave Coast.
This chapter is very rich but remains reader-friendly. The author reveals an
outstanding erudition paired with an inside knowledge of West-Africa in
general and of the Slave Coast in particular. The key element here is that
slaves were exposed to a complex and rich panel of languages from which they
drew the features of their creole languages. This crucial point supports the
model of creolization proposed in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 3, EOA reviews some current hypotheses regarding the emergence of
creoles. He focuses on Chaudenson's (2001, 2004) superstratist theory,
Lefebvre's (1998) Relexification theory, Bickerton's (Bickerton 1992, 1999)
Bioprogramm Hypothesis and Plag's (Plag 2008a, 2008b, 2009) Interlanguage
Hypothesis. These theories share the common view that creole languages arose
from incomplete L2 acquisition by linguistically-heterogeneous learners
(slaves from many different areas with no shared languages). This chapter is
not a comprehensive presentation of the theories under discussion but rather a
list of the flaws that the author identifies in these approaches, and that the
model he presents in the next chapter seeks to correct.
Chapter 4 ('Competition and selection') presents the core of EOA's theory of
hybridization. Although this approach relies on Mufwene's (2001, 2005) feature
pool hypothesis and is therefore not totally new, EOA sheds a new light on
this theory, which was mainly based on socio-historical facts in Mufwene's
work, by couching his views in the Minimalist Program. EOA takes particular
care in presenting his model and relating the historical data of Chapter 2 to
his linguistic theory. He starts with an assessment of the socio-historical
situation, which leads him to conclude that both a European and an African
koinè were present alongside the emerging creole:
''Because all available targets contribute to the input from which the
speakers select features into the emerging creole; and because these speakers
varied from each other, the emerging creole 'inherited' features produced by
both (bilingual) L1 and L2 learners of the colony (i.e., Whites, Creoles, and
Black alike).''(p.132)
He then proceeds to present a clear exposition of his views on semantic and
syntactic recombination (section 4.3), based on numerous examples from Gungbe
and Saramaccan. He argues that feature selection (from the feature pool) leads
to feature recombination at three independent levels: phonology, morphosyntax
and semantics. Detailed linguistic analyses, e.g. nyan 'to eat' and aze-man
'witch' in Saramaccan bring empirical support to EOA's assertion that creole
languages are linguistic hybrids that emerged from different languages.
Chapters 5 ('The role of vulnerable interfaces in language change: the case of
the D-system'), 6 ('The emergence of the clause left periphery') and 7 ('The
emergence of serial verb constructions') are case studies showing how the
creole grammars (Haitian and Saramaccan) are distinct from French, English and
Gbe grammars. As regards the DP, EOA studies the emergence of creole
determiners and their functions. He argues that the DP left periphery (locus
of discourse / NP interface) is vulnerable to language contact and features
recombination, viz. hybridization. Chapter 6 investigates the clausal
left-periphery of Saramaccan as another locus of recombination. Chapter 7 is
an interesting discussion of serial verb constructions (SVCs) which revisits a
widely studied topic. EOA reviews the similarities (and differences) between
European and Creole languages w.r.t functional verbs and inflectional systems.
His main claim is that there is ''no serializing parameter that could be
isolated as responsible for the emergence of serialization in creoles''
(p.303).Chapter 8 concludes the book and addresses the issue of (alleged)
simplicity in new languages.
EVALUATION
This book is a major contribution to Creolistics and language change in
general. Its main strength is the tight link between socio-historical analysis
and a linguistic theory of the emergence of creoles. The historical part
presented in Chapter 2 is undoubtedly an important contribution to the field.
The number and quality of the quoted historical sources are impressive.. EOA
knows West Africa and he is able to interpret the historical sources in a way
that makes sense to the reader. Undoubtedly, being a speaker of (some) Gbe
languages helped the author in his comparison of Gbe and Haitian/Saramaccan.
There are plenty of examples and the analyses are very precise, up to the
standards expected for the study of better-known languages such as English or
French. The presentation of the theory (Feature Pool Hypothesis) is clear and
precise and the contrast with other competing theories is grounded.
However, when it comes to the Minimalist analyses (Chapters 5, 6, 7), a reader
with no strong knowledge of the cartographic approach (Rizzi's work) will
probably feel lost. This might prevent undergraduate students from reading
this book as their first book on Creolistics. At least Chapters 5,6,7 are for
certified creolists and more generally, for linguists with an interest in
language change. The author certainly had this readership in mind since the
text often refers to creolist papers (McWorther (2011), Bickerton (1999), Plag
(2008), etc.) and anticipates possible objections.
Surely, this book will foster new research in Creolistics: general claims
assuming imperfect L2 acquisition will have to face 1) the historical
arguments EOA presents and cannot be maintained without any new arguments, 2)
the precise linguistics analyses offered in this book, which call for
equally-thorough researches on other creoles.
Clearly, the coarse-grained overall studies regarding creoles as an
'exceptional' language type are challenged by this work. But this book also
raises many questions, and I list a few below:
- is the analogy with biology (genetics, DNA, phylogenesis, etc. in §4.2)
really necessary? The author (p.141) admits that the parallelism with DNA is
not correct. I think that the analyses defended in this book are strong enough
to stand alone, without any reference to other sciences.
- a precise study of the superstrate could balance the precise study of the
Gbe languages. Of course the French and dialects that were spoken in the
colonies were quite different from Modern French (see Chaudenson 2004). This
could lead to adopt alternative analyses. For DP, see Zribi-Hertz (2002) for
instance.
- the Feature Pool Hypothesis crucially relies on the identification of
grammatical features. However, the theory of features (as presented here) is
totally dependent on a particular approach (the Cartographic Approach of Rizzi
(1997), feature-checking as the explanation of movement). While one can
support EOA's claim for non-surfacist analyses, other theories also based on
features (HPSG for instance) could provide other types of explanations, in a
more lexicalist approach (syntax-semantic interface at word-level).
Notwithstanding, this book is certainly a new landmark in Creolistics.
REFERENCES
Bickerton, D. 1992. Language and species. University of Chicago Press.
Bickerton, D. 1999. How to acquire language without positive evidence;what
acquisitionists can learn from creoles. In
DeGraff, M. (2001). Language creation and language change: Creolization,
diachrony, and development. MIT Press.
Chaudenson,R. 2002. Creolization of language and culture. Routledge.
Chaudenson, R. 2004. La créolisation: théorie, applications,
implications. Editions L'Harmattan.
Lefebvre, C. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar. Cambridge:
CUP.
McWhorter, J. H. 2011. Linguistic simplicity and complexity: why do languages
undress? (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.
Mufwene, S. S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University
Press.
Mufwene, S. S. 2005. Créoles, écologie sociale, évolution linguistique.
Editions L'Harmattan.
Plag, I. 2008a. Creoles as interlanguages: Inflectional morphology. Journal of
Pidgin and Creole Languages, 23(1), 114-135.
Plag, I. 2008b. Creoles as interlanguages: Syntactic structures. Journal of
Pidgin and Creole languages, 23(2), 307-328.
Plag, I. 2009. Creoles as interlanguages: Phonology. Journal of Pidgin and
Creole Languages, 24(1), 119-138.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In
Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 2002. « The DP hypothesis and the syntax of identification »,
Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 31.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Emmanuel Schang is an associate professor in syntax at the University of
Orléans (France). He has published several papers on Saotomense and
Guadeloupean Creoles. He's in charge of the SEEPiCLa (Structure, Emergence and
Evolution of Pidgin and Creole Languages) International Research Group (CNRS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our
Student Editors for the coming year.
Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/
For all information on donating, including information on how to
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and
as such can receive donations through Indiana University Foundation. We
also collect donations via eLinguistics Foundation, a registered 501(c)
Non Profit organization with the federal tax number 45-4211155. Either
way, the donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your
state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the
IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.
Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department
and sending us a form that the Indiana University Foundation fills in
and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if
your company operates such a program.
Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2747
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list