 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
BY
ERNIE A. SMITH PH.D.
The most publicized and by a 1979 federal court decree vested with
a veneer of being a cogent and authentic theory, on the origin and
historical development of African American speech, is the
Pidgin/Creole Hypothesis. The linguists and social scientists who
hold this view are commonly called Creolist. In their view,
writes William Stewart (1971:351)
"The American Negro dialects probably derived from a
creolized form of English once spoken on American
plantations by Negro slaves and seemingly related to
Creolized forms of English, which are still spoken by
Negroes in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean..."
The Pidgin/Creolists contend that, by systematically comparing,
contrasting, and tracing certain similarities in the phonological,
morpho-syntactical, and semanto-lexemic features (sound, word
formation and word meanings) in existing Creole dialects in West
Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States, one can observe a
quite evident high degree of commonality in the speech patterns of
these communities. According to the Pidgin/Creolists, the
similarity and commonality in these dialects is evidence of a
"genetic kinship" that exists in their underlying deep structures.
They posit that, although it is obscured by certain surface
modifications, the deep structure of contemporary African American
speech is akin to and can be traced to the English language
continuum. (see Bailey, 1969; Dalby, 1972; DeCamp, 1969; Dillard
1972; Key, 1973; Taylor, 1969.)
The Pidgin/Creolists contend that with the exception of a few
vocabulary items, here and there, there are no African elements in
Black American speech at all. In their view, from the very
inception of the colonial era contacts made between the Niger-
Congo African and the European people the hybrid vernaculars which
emerged, for trading and other transactions between them, were the
unique linguistic inventions and creations of the Europeans.
The Pidgin/Creolists posit that, when European and West African
languages first converged, what developed initially on the West
Coast of Africa was a mixed or hybrid contact vernacular called
"pidgin"(1). In Pidgin/Creole linguistics it is held that, by
1 Pidgin: "refers to a language which has no native speakers. It
thus exists only as a lingua franca. When the pidgin becomes the
only language of a speech community, it then becomes a creole.
(Dillard, 1972:303)
virtue of the fact that all pidgin dialects emerged as contact
vernaculars, expressly to facilitate communication, as primarily a
trading or transactional hybrid vernacular, these mixed African
and European pidgin dialects were essentially lingua francas(2).
As Robert Hall states, (1962:152)
"A pidgin normally owes its origin to relatively casual,
short-term contact between groups which do not have a
language in common...a pidgin can arise on occasion,
even in the space of only a few hours - whenever an
emergency situation calls for communication on a minimal
level of comprehension" (see DeCamp p. 20 in Dell Hymes
1977)
In pidgin/creole linguistic theory, actually any language that
facilitates communication, between two people who cannot speak
each others native language, is a lingua franca. On this basis
the Pidgin/Creolists posit that all "pidgins" are lingua francas.
They caution however that, while all pidgins are lingua francas,
not all lingua francas are pidgins. This is because, as is often
the case, a third completely autonomous language that is shared or
spoken in common can be utilized for such purposes. All
Pidgin/Creolists view the worlds pidgin and creole dialects as
being European
2 Lingua Franca: "..a language used for purposes of wider
communication, especially in a group when the native language of
no member of the group will suffice. If a Puerto Rican, a German,
Israeli, and an Icelander speak to each other in English, then
English is being used as a lingua franca. The Mediterranean
lingua franca known as Sabir was an outstanding example of such a
language. A lingua franca which has no native speakers (like
Sabir, but unlike English) is a PIDGIN (q.v.) (Dillard 1972:302)
inventions. However, on the issue of origins and kinship, i.e.,
the genesis and familial affinity of pidgin and creole dialects,
Pidgin/Creolists are divided into to two camps, those who posit a
"polygenetic" view, and those who posit a "monogenetic" view.
The Pidgin/Creolists who posit the polygenetic view are those who
view the world's pidgin and creole dialects as having been created
by the European colonials who settled in the African, Asian,
Caribbean and Latin American diaspora wherein each pidgin emerged.
Their contention is that, in the beginning, as primarily a lingua
franca, used for trading interactions, in the Portuguese colonies
there emerged a Portuguese Pidgin. In the Spanish colonies there
emerged a Spanish Pidgin, and in the Dutch, French and English
colonies a Dutch, French, and English Pidgin emerged,
respectively.
The polygenesists contend that, as time passed and the slave trade
flourished on the West coast of Africa, in the Caribbean, and in
the colonial North and South American diaspora, many slave
descendants were born on plantations, and in other colonial
European social environments, in which these transactional lingua
francas or plantation pidgin dialects were acquired as their
native languages or mother tongues. The Pidgin/Creolists posit
that, over time, in the new world colonies or diaspora, the pidgin
vernaculars that were initially created on the West coast of
Africa for trading and other transactions, became the principle
vehicle for communication between the captive Africans and their
European slave-masters.
According to the polygenesists, being born in captivity and
exposed only to a plantation pidgin dialect, when African slaves
acquired these hybrid contact vernaculars, as their primary
language or mother tongues, the slaves and the hybrid dialects
they acquired were distinguished as being Creoles(3). Thus, in
the Portuguese colonies, Portuguese Pidgin became Portuguese
Creole. In Spanish colonies, Spanish Pidgin became Spanish
Creole. In Dutch, French and English colonies, Dutch Pidgin,
French Pidgin and English Pidgin became Dutch Creole, French
Creole and English Creole, respectively. As stated above, not all
Pidgin/Creolists subscribe
3 Creole: The term creole (from the Portuguese crioulo, via
Spanish and French) originally meant a white man of European
descent born and raised in a tropical or semi-tropical colony.
Only later was the meaning extended to include indigenous natives
and others of non-European origin, e.g. African slaves...Most
creoles, like most pidgins, are European based, i.e., each has
derived most of its vocabulary from one or more European languages
(DeCamp, 1977:15) "In linguistic usage, refers to a language
which was a PIDGIN (q.v.) at an earlier historical stage, but
which became the only (or principal) language of a speech
community. The best known creoles are Haitian (French) Creole and
Sranan Tongo of Surinam. There are related creole languages in
West Africa and in the Pacific. (Dillard, 1972:300)
to the theory that each of the new world "pidgin", "creole"
dialects were the language specific creations of each colonial
European speech community wherein they emerged. Emphasizing the
tremendous similarities that exists among the Caribbean creoles
and the parallel features that exists in the creoles of the South
Pacific and the Far East, many Pidgin/Creolists reject the
"polygenetic" theory given above. They contend that European and
non-Indo-European linguistic convergence and hybridization did not
begin in the colonial era. The hisorical fact is there were Indo-
European contacts with non Indo-European people at a much earlier
period. In light of this historical fact these Pidgin/Creolists
contend that linguistic hybridization had to have occurred when the
earlier or first sustained contact was made between European and
non-European people. Therefore, instead of a "poly-genesis" they
posit a "monogenesis" or single language origin of all pidgin and
creole dialects.
Basically the proponents of the monogenetic view contend that all
pidgin/creoles have a common ancestor from which all pidgin and
creole dialects have been formed. But then, not all proponents of
the monogenetic view agree on the issue of which Indo-European
language the proto-pidgin dialect was based. According to David
DeCamp (1977:22)
"During the 1950's several scholars became increasingly
dissatisfied with the polygenetic theories. In 1951
Navarro Tomas argued that Papiamento was not an
indigenous Caribbean blend of Portuguese and/or Spanish
with African elements, but rather had its origin in the
Portuguese used as a trade jargon in West Africa during
the slave trade. He was by no means the first to point
to the key importance of Portuguese in the history of
pidgin-creole. Schuchardt had stressed the role of
Portuguese, and Hesselings had seen it as the origin of
Afrikaans and Negerhollands".
As shown here, some of the supporters of the monogenetic view
posit a Portuguese based pidgin as being the "proto" or first
colonial trade lingua franca. They argue that the historical
record verifies that, before the colonial era, the Portuguese were
the first to engage in international trade along the West and East
coasts of Africa and on into India and China. On this basis they
contend that, the European language upon which all pidgins are
based is Portuguese. Still others, Whinnom for example,
(1965:553-7) posited Sabir, a much earlier developed lingua franca
of the Mediterranean, as being the proto-pidgin upon which all new
world or colonial pidgin/creoles are based.
The Pidgin/Creolists who are proponents of the view that Sabir is
the proto-pidgin from which all new world European pidgin/creoles
are derived base their contention on the fact that, as a lingua
franca, Sabir can be traced as far back as the Crusades. They
contend that, contrary to the widely held belief that Sabir was a
dead language, or dying out, by the time of the later European
colonization of Africa, India and Asia, in fact, as recent as 1909
Hugo Schuchardt found Sabir to be still very much alive (See "Die
Lingua franca" Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie 33:441-61).
In the pidgin/creolist literature one of the first things that one
will discern is that, unlike the comparative linguists who study
Indo-European languages and use continuity in the deep structure
or rules of grammar (phonology, morphology and morpho-syntax) as
their criteria for positing genetic kinship, most Pidgin/Creolists
seem to be completely oblivious to or have an aversion to this
criteria when classifying the languages with which they deal. As
opposed to continuity in the rules of phonology, morphology and
morpho-syntax, (grammar) most Pidgin/Creolists use as their
criteria or basis for positing genetic kinship, the etymology of
the dominant lexicon.
Although not a majority there are however, some Pidgin/Creolists
who very strictly adhere to the criteria of continuity in the deep
structure or underlying rules of grammar as their basis for
positing genetic kinship. In the case of African American speech,
these "structuralists" Pidgin/Creolists contend that, there is no
provable African content in the underlying deep structure or
grammar of African American speech. The structuralists contend
that English is not only the parent of the dominant lexicon in
African American speech, the grammar rules that underlie the deep
phonology, morphology and syntax of Black American speech are
likewise English based. The structuralists Pidgin/Creolists
contend that the grammar of Black English is a survival of archaic
Indo-European linguistic forms, i.e., old English, Middle English
and Early Modern English grammar. They contend that if there are
any African elements in the speech of African Americans, they are
not linguistic retentions made by any Africans. They are
"borrowings" made by Europeans from the African tongues, and
introduced into the pidgin dialects the Europeans invented and
taught to the African slaves.
In contrast to the structuralists who deny the existence of a non
Indo-European phonology, morphology and syntax in the substratum
of pidgin/creole dialects throughout the world, there are those
Pidgin/Creolists who do not use grammar as their criteria (see
Romaine 1994). These Pidgin/Creolists are basically
"etymologist". Their focus being the origin and root meanings of
words, it is the etymologists who are honest enough to admit to
the existence of a non Indo-European phonology, morphology and
syntax in the substratum of the worlds pidgin and creole dialects.
The essential difference is that, in the case of African American
speech, the etymologists Pidgin/Creolists use as their criteria
for positng familial kinship, the base or etymology of the
dominant lexicon. The etymologist contend that the empirical
evidence is irrefutable. Etymologically, the dominant lexicon in
African American speech is English and based on this criteria, the
language family to which African American speech belongs and is a
dialect of - is English.
This use of continuity in the rules of grammar when classifying
Indo-European languages (even those known to be hybrids) but the
etymology of the dominant lexicon, when classifying languages that
are European and African hybrids, is clearly not consistent. If
Indo-European languages are classified genetically according to
their rules of grammar, but when classifying Indo-European and
African language, pidgins and creoles the criteria for positing
genetic kinship changes to the family or etymology of the dominant
lexifier, this prompts the question, why is the same criteria not
used? For, it is one thing to deny that there is any provable
African content in the deep structure or grammar rules of African
American speech, it is another to use a totally different criteria
as a basis for positing genetic kinship and then making such an
allegation.
When we critically examine the pidgin/creolists literature the
answer to the question of why a different criteria is used for
positing genetic kinship in pidgin/creole languages, as opposed to
Indo-European languages, is made very clear. The short answer is,
to reify the myth of "white supremacy". That is, all
Pidgin/Creolists essentially believe that, globally, whenever and
wherever there has been contact between European and non-European
people, in the linguistic blending or assimilation of European and
non-European languages, the entire hybridization or pidginization
process was solely a function of the European's linguistic acumen.
This being the case, all of the worlds pidgin and creole dialects
are European language based. The inference is that, being
innately superior to the Africans and all people of color, the
Europeans and their languages were, in all respects, dominant.
In the pidgin/creolists literature we find that, because of their
essentially white supremacists bent, there are no Pidgin/Creolists
who posit African American speech as being the linguistic
continuity of Africa in Black America. Instead, what we find is a
uniform depiction of the antebellum contacts between Europeans and
African people as being contacts in which, Africans were primitive
and docile savages who, not having the capacity for fully human
thoughts, had not developed a fully human language or
communication system of their own. The impression is given that
Africans had only the rudiments of a language to start with.
Therefore, the "scant baggage" of feral grunts that the Africans
possessed most certainly could not have been the grammatical or
the lexical base upon which the pidgin dialects were developed.
When Pidgin/Creolists are asked to describe the process by which
the pidgin English dialect was invented and the method by which it
was taught to the African slaves, the most popular description put
forth is the "baby talk" theory. The essence of this theory is
that, initially, the African slaves had no competence in the
European languages to which they were exposed, what so ever. This
being the case, in order to communicate with their African vassals
it was incumbent upon the European slave-masters to devise a
communication system. The Pidgin/Creolists contend that this was
done by Europeans having "mutilated" or greatly "simplified" their
speech. This, mutilated speech is depicted as being a form of
speech comparable to that used by adults when they talk to
"babies". It is this, "baby talk", a simplified, corrupt or
mutilated form of English, that was taught to the African slaves,
who then adopted it and made it their native tongue. This is the
view that was held and explicitly put forth by Professor George
Phillip Krapp of Columbia University. Even though he conceded
that, there was no evidence to support his "baby talk" hypothesis
Krapp was one of the first to posit the condition of dominance and
subordination as being very significant in the creation of the
English based plantation pidgin/creole dialects. Inferring that
Africans were docile tabula rasa or "blank slates" upon which the
Europeans imprinted their infantile like linguistic creations, in
his work "The English of the Negro" (1924) Krapp describes the
assimilation process as follows:
The assimilation of the language of the Negroes to the
whites did not take place all at once. Though the
historical evidence is not as full as might be wished,
the stages can be followed with some certainty. When
the Negroes were first brought to America they could
have known no English. Their usefulness as servants
however, required that some kind of communication
between master and slave be developed. There is little
likelihood that any of the masters exerted themselves to
understand the native language of the Negroes in order
to communicate with them. On the contrary, from the
beginning the white overlords addressed themselves in
English to their Black vassals. It is not difficult to
imagine what kind of English this would be. It would be
a very much simplified English - the kind of English
some people employ when they talk to babies".
Although, the postulation that the pidginization process occurred
as a function of "master to slave 'baby-talk'" is a theory that
has widespread acceptance, the view that the European based
pidgin/creoles were the result of "baby-talk" is not accepted as
valid by all pidgin/creolists. For example, David DeCamp writes;
(1977:19)
"The baby-talk theory is easily refuted. First, all the
early accounts (dating from the eighteenth century in
Jamaica, for example) report that the white planters and
their families were learning the creole from the slaves,
not vice versa (Cassidy 1961:21-3). Furthermore, if
each European had indeed improvised his own variety of
baby-talk to communicate with his servants and slaves,
how could one explain the fact that all dialects of
creole French, including those in the Indian Ocean, are
mutually intelligible?"
As shown here the "baby-talk" thesis is refuted on two grounds.
First, by the fact that contrary to the claim that it was the
Europeans who invented and taught their pidgin dialects to the
slaves, the historical record reveals that it was actually the
slaves who taught their plantation hybrid dialects to the
Europeans. Second, and what is even more incongruent in the "baby
talk" thesis, is the unanswered to this day question. How is it
that, in the mutilation of their autochthonous or superstrate
European languages to invent a pidgin, all antebellum planters
improvised by making the very same mutilations or deviations?
While the description of the hybridization or pidginization
process via "baby talk", given above, is at least crudely
rational, the depiction provided by others are not nearly as
ambitious. In the minds of all white supremacists, Africa is a
land of wild beasts and untamed savages. Therefore, in the main,
the view held and put forth by most Pidgin/Creolists is that,
during the era of colonialism and antebellum slavery, Niger-Congo
Africans had not yet evolved linguistically beyond a primative
signaling system of primal grunts, to convey messages associated
with the environment, such as danger, feeding, nesting, and
flocking, etc. and a few more complex babblings to stake out
territory and attract mates".
This view is typified by the writings of Ambrose E. Gonzales.
While he did not explicitly characterize Africans as being savages
or feral beasts, clearly a Latino of the white supremacists ilk,
in his work "Black Border" Gonzales belittles Africans as being
biophysically unequipped to speak European languages. He states;
(1922:10)
"Slovenly and careless of speech, these Gullahs seized
upon the peasant English used by some of the early
settlers and by the white servants of the wealthier
colonists, wrapped their clumsy tongues about it as well
as they could, and, enriched with certain expressive
African words, it issued through their flat noses and
thick lips as so workable a form of speech that it was
gradually adopted by the other slaves and became in time
the accepted Negro speech of the lower districts of
South Carolina and Georgia. The words are of course not
African, for the African brought over or retained only a
few words of his jungle tongue, and even these few are
by no means authenticated as part of the original scant
baggage of the Negro slaves".
Actually Gonzales's view that the physiogamy or oropharyngeal
anatomy of African people is not suited for speaking European
languages merely apes a similar slur made earlier by another white
supremacists Latino, the French writer, Rene Payen-Bellisle. In
his work Sons et Formes du Creoles dans les Antilles Payen-
Bellisle writes; (1894:22)
"In order to understand the absence in French Creole
dialects of the front rounded vowels of French, one
merely had to look at the lips of the Negro".
Here, in the quote given just above, we have an example of the
profound scholarship that undergirds the pidgin/creole theory.
While the differences in Black and White American speech are,
overtly, attributed to innate biophysical differences in the
oropharyngeal anatomy of the two races, it should be understood
that the perception of Niger-Congo African people as savages who
did not have fully human languages is subtly contained in the work
of all Pidgin/Creolists. The only difference is that, whereas the
overt white supremacists contend that, Africans were biophysically
underdeveloped and had no languages in the first place (other than
a vast array of primal grunts and semi-savage babblings) the
covert white supremacists are a bit more rational and humane. The
covert white supremacists do not denigrate the oropharyngeal
anatomy of the African race. What they do is concede that African
people did have the cortical capacity for language (at least
enough capacity to conspire to rebel) but then, in their
description of the hybridization or pidginization process,
Africans are depicted as being a mentally docile people. As such,
under conditions on antebellum plantations in which they were
segregated linguistically from others who spoke their African
dialects, being primarily exposed to poor European language
models, Africans were systematically stripped of their African
tongues. Typical of those who posited this view the late John
Bennett, who states (1926:25)
"The Africans, plastic as they are by nature, quickly
lost their own language, and acquired imperfectly the
dialects of the british peasantry among whom they
worked, and by whom very generally they were directed.
The main reason was, perhaps, that, at the height of
the, trade owing to the danger of conspiracy, large
groups of Negroes upon great plantations and in any
considerable establishments, were generally made up, by
preference, of Negroes of different tribes, speaking
different languages and dialects unknown to one
another".
Thus, even the Pidgin/Creolists who acknowledge that, prior to
having come into contact with European languages Africans did have
fully developed languages of their own, very subtly infer that it
was only the Europeans who had the higher cortical functioning and
capacity for creating language and inventing new forms of speech.
The impression is given that the very genesis of "human" language
for African people was when European traders, planters and
overseer's mutilated or "simplified" their European languages and
created a language for the African ancestors of African American
people. In other words, in the pidginization process, the
Africans did not invent or purposefully contribute anything.
And so, whether they support the polygenetic or monogenetic view,
on the origin of pidgin and creole dialects and whether they
adhere to the criteria of continuity in the rules of phonology,
morphology and morpho-syntax (grammar) or the etymology of the
dominant lexicon, for positing genetic kinship, in the final
analysis all Pidgin/Creolists view African American speech as
being English language based.
Of course it can be argued that the writings cited as the position
of the Pidgin/Creolists are dated, i.e., all of the works which
have been cited as examples are at least sixty to seventy years
old. Hence, a criticism of the pidgin/creolist theory on the
basis of works as antiquated as those cited above is ridiculous.
While there may well be some contemporary Pidgin/Creolists who
view African people the way they were viewed at the turn of the
century, the fact is, it is the more recent research and writings
of Pidgin/Creolists that reflects their contemporary thinking.
With regards to the dates of the pidgin/creolists writings cited,
this observation is true. As to whether this negates the
criticism I have made I do not think so. Consider for example the
work of Mary R. Key, - "The History of Black English" (1973).
Here we have a Pidgin/Creolist's article of a more recent vintage.
In this work Key puts forth a description of the hybridization
process that seems to be very rational and plausible. In her view
the adoption and transmission of African features into English
occurred via what she submits was a "reinforcement value of
features" and the objective condition of "proportional population
ratios". In essence, Key's "reinforcement value of features"
thesis is that, when the African and European languages converged,
it was the prior existing features which both language systems
possessed that were the easiest to utilize. Key posits that, this
being the case, the features that both languages possessed, prior
to any contact, tended to be the features that were retained and
used in the restructuring and hybridization process.
In Key's view, naturally, the already existing features that were
different presented the most difficulty. Hence, she posits that,
in the hybridization process, the features that were different or
unalike, prior to any contact, were not utilized. In fact, Key
posits that, it was the features that were not already possessed
in common that were jettisoned or discarded by both.
This process of linguistic "hybridization" and assimilation, via
the utilization and reinforcement of prior existing features that
both languages had in common and the rejection of uncommon or
unalike features, is seen by Key as being a very systematic method
by which the speakers of Early Modern English (EModE) invented
what is currently called "Black English" (BE). Key argues that
two critical factors support her position: (1) The evidence that
much of what is considered to be uniquely different about Black
American speech can, in fact, be traced to EModE. (2) In the
colonial diaspora the proportional population ratios of Europeans
to Africans made the influence of English dominant.
When considered in the light of some very basic science
principles, Key's thesis is prima facie valid. That is, Key's
basic contention is that, structural linguistic fusion or
hybridization is not a random or haphazard process. It is a very
systematic synthesis that adheres to rule governed principles. In
fact, when carefully considered, Key's view of linguistic
convergence and the hybridization or linguistic blending that
occurs, is very much analogous to a fusion or bonding principle
that occurs in the science of chemistry.
In chemistry, it is known that "all atoms seek to have a stable
eight, or two, ELECTRONS in their outside shell (the OCTET rule).
To achieve a stable OCTET when ATOMS of LOW IONIZATION ENERGY
encounter atoms of HIGH ELECTRONEGATIVITY, ATOMS that have LOW
IONIZATION ENERGIES lose their ELECTRONS. Or rather, it is
easiest to give them up. In losing their ELECTRONS these ATOMS
end up with more PROTONS than ELECTRONS and take a POSITIVE
CHARGE. On the other hand, ATOMS that have HIGH IONIZATION
ENERGIES that is, ATOMS that have MORE ELECTRONS than PROTONS have
a NEGATIVE CHARGE. Although these ATOMS have HIGH
ELECTRONEGATIVITY, in satisfying the OCTET rule, these atoms still
need or want more electrons. When ATOMS of LOW IONIZATION ENERGY
(those wanting to get rid of an electron) ENCOUNTER atoms of HIGH
ELECTRONEGATIVITY (those wanting more electrons) there is a
TRANSFER of ELECTRONS from ONE to the OTHER. This forms both a
POSITIVE ION and a NEGATIVE ION. The ATTRACTIVE FORCE of these
OPPOSITE CHARGES holds the atoms together in an IONIC BOND" (4).
When two ATOMS with the same electron AFFINITY encounter each
other there CAN'T BE a TRANSFER of ELECTRONS since BOTH atoms WANT
them with EQUAL force". (Study Guide Intro to Chemistry 110;
Chaffey College). When this occurs a bond is formed between ATOMS
by the SHARING of one or more electrons. (Websters Dictionary
1993:267) More precisely, two ATOMS with the same electron
AFFINITY are sharing the same outside or valance electrons.
Known, in chemistry as "covalent" bonding, as such each ATOM
"thinks" that it is surrounded by eight electrons. Unlike "ionic"
bonding" in which "likes repel and unalikes attract", in covalent
bonding "likes
4 Ionic Bond: a chemical bond formed between oppositely charged
species because of their mutual electrostatic attraction.
Websters Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1993:618)
appear to attract and unalikes appear to repel". But, what really
occurs is that two "alikes" are attracted to the same "un-alike".
Because neither can completely possess the electron they both
share it.
It is this principle of "covalent" bonding around an atom shared
in common to which the notion of language blending, by the sharing
of features already held in common, is analogous. The analogy is
that, in the blending process each language system bonds around
the features that it "thinks" belongs to it. That is, as in
chemical covalent bonding the blending or hybridization process
that occurs to form a hybrid dialect, is via a "likes attract and
unalikes repel" fusion or covalent bonding around "like" elements.
In terms of the extent to which the proportional population
ratios, of Whites to Blacks, influenced the hybridization process,
there is also a very rational behavioral science principle that
undergirds Key's view. Known in reinforcement learning theory as
the "law of exercise", there is a principle which holds that; the
more an act is repeated the more an act is reinforced and hence, -
the act gets learned. The "law of exercise" holds that,
conversely, the less an act is repeated the less it gets
reinforced and hence the less it is learned.
The "law of exercise" holds that, in fact, acts frequently
repeated tend to extinguish acts that are performed infrequently.
In essence the "law of exercise" operates on a principle of
reinforcement called "operant conditioning". "Operant" being;
that which operates to produce effects, i.e., a response or
behavior elicited by an environment rather than a specific
stimulus. Conditioning being; a process by which "the desired
behavior or increasingly closer approximations to it are followed
by a rewarding or reinforcing stimulus" (Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary Tenth edition 1993:814). As viewed by Key then, "Black
English" or "Black Vernacular English" (BEV) was invented by
English speaking Europeans and taught to Africans through a
stimulus response conditioning process.
Although what Key puts forth is a very coherent and cogent thesis,
Key's view does not square with certain countervailing historical
facts. For example, while the principle that "the more an act is
repeated the more it gets learned" is a valid learning theory, it
is well known, among reinforcement theorist, that the "law of
exercise" is only valid in conjunction with another "conditioning"
principle that explains why certain acts tend to get repeated and
certain acts do not. In learning theory this principle is known
as the "law of effect".
As a principle posited as an explanation for why certain acts tend
to get repeated while others do not, the "law of effect" holds
that, it is not repetition, in and of itself, that causes an act
to get repeated. It is "positive reinforcement". That is, as a
rule, the acts that tend to get repeated are acts that gratify a
basic want or need. Acts that are not gratifying, or that are not
gratified, tend not to get repeated and therefore do not get
learned.
Clearly, pivotal to the validity of Key's "reinforcement value of
features" and her "proportional population ratios" theory, is
whether or not there was "positive reinforcement". There is ample
evidence that OWNING, EXPLOITING and DEHUMANIZING African slaves
was a very lucrative and positive experience for the colonial
European slave-masters. However, the critics of Key's view take
strong exception to her inference that being enslaved, misused,
degraded and dehumanized was in any sense a positive experience
for the slaves.
Critics of Key's view contend that two critical factors contradict
her thesis. Firstly, they posit, Key's claim that Europeans
outnumbered African slaves on the plantations does not square with
the account given by historians who report that there were far
more African slaves on plantations than Europeans. (see; Elkins
(1971), Franklin (1980), Lynd (1967). Clearly, if there were more
African slaves than Europeans on the plantations then (as in the
case of modern penal institutions) the numerically dominant
language would not have been that of the Europeans.
Secondly, contend Key's critics, the view that Key has of what the
social and linguistic conditions were, on the antebellum
plantations, likewise does not square with the accounts given by
many historians and literary scholars of what the social and
linguistic conditions were. The critic's argument here is that,
in order for the slaves to have been taught a European language
based pidgin dialect, the "conditioning" interactions or contacts
between the Europeans and the African's would have to have been
contacts in which there was "positive reinforcement".
According to Key's critics human slavery is not normal and
plantation systems were not normal societies. The empirical
evidence is that, for the slaves, conditions were very harsh,
cruel and inhuman. In particular, in their attempts to reduce the
slaves to the level of mute brutes, the Europeans used a host of
measures to prevent any and all language use, development and
learning among the slaves. As proof of this, the critics of Key's
thesis cite the well documented fact that, very often, as a
measure to prevent conspiracies and insurrections, the slaves were
segregated linguistically. They point out that even
Pidgin/Creolists themselves cite this practice as being, among
others, the very means by which the slaves were "driven" to the
use of the European invented pidgin vernaculars.
The critics of Key's thesis contend that if, as the
Pidgin/Creolist themselves argue, in order to prevent
conspiracies, African slaves were segregated linguistically and it
was via this linguistic segregation that the slaves were "driven"
to the use of a common "pidgin" dialect, then the bitter irony is
that, the linguistic segregation of the slaves did not prevent
conspiracies or revolts. For, by their own admission the
linguistic segregation of slaves, in fact, facilitated more
effective communications between the slaves. Now, if a common
pidgin dialect facilitated more effective communications between
the slaves, then this common pidgin dialect, in fact, facilitated
the slave's conspiracies and if this common pidgin dialect
facilitated the slave's conspiracies it, in fact, aided and
abetted the slave's revolts.
The fact of the matter is, the historians report that it was
mainly on the slave ships that, as a means of circumventing
communication and organized revolts, the slaves were separated
ethnically and linguistically. According to the historians, the
records of activities at the slave auction and on the plantations
reveal that, as a rule, the planters did not follow this practice.
In fact, in his book Black English Joseph Dillard (1973:74) states
that among the planters, just as people prefer certain breeds of
cows, horses and dogs, the more common practice was that the
planters preferred and selected Africans from the same tribes or
ethnic backgrounds.
Another fact that Key's critics cite, in their refutation of Key's
theory, is that under conditions which were more designed to
impede normal language from emerging among the African slaves and
preventing any normal communication from developing between them,
rather than being conducive to normal language acquisition and
second language learning, there were far more measures employed by
the colonial planters to prevent the learning of the European
languages, than there were to teach them.
First, and most notably, there was a denial of formal European
language and literacy instruction to slaves via anti-literacy
laws. Second, there was the use of a harness or mouthpiece called
a "bit" (see picture in appendix). In fact, in a PBS televised
interview, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Toni Morrison, describes
how, as a means of punishing slaves who verbally "back sassed" or
acted "uppity" towards ole massa, many slaves were compelled to
wear a "bit" in their mouths. Although many white supremacists
posit, as a ludicrous explanation for this heinous practice, that
it was to prevent the slaves from eating up the crop, the record
reveals that the "bit" was used primarily to prevent two way oral
communication and hence conspiracies among the rebellious slaves.
(Morrison (1990).
Key's critics also point out that, just as the "bit" prevented
conversations and conspiracies between the slaves it also
prevented two-way oral communication between the slave-master
and the slaves compelled to wear them. Therefore, the ole
English speaking slave master did not purposefully teach an
African slave a damn thing linguistically. Thirdly, there is the
fact that, besides the "bit" as a another means of circumventing
slave rebellions, rather than physically mutilate and permanently
maim their recalcitrant slaves many planters found it much more
profitable to just sell them off to other plantations.
But then, not all slaves who behaved belligerently were compelled
to wear a "bit" or sold off. The historians report that to
terrorize and instill fear in the slave masses, many unruly slaves
were publicly whipped and beaten to death.
Thus, Key's thesis that the "reinforcement of common linguistic
features" and the "proportional population ratios" governed the
hybridization process is countered by the empirical evidence that,
rather than encouraging two way communications and reinforcing
language development among the slaves, the actual social practice
was more that of prohibiting slaves from talking period. This
being the case, Key's view of African American speech being, in
essence, an English vernacular formed in a base of an archaic
EModE just does not square with the documented historical facts.
For, as measures employed to prevent language use and
communication among the slaves, i.e.,(1) the linguistic
segregation of slaves, (2) the use of anti-literacy laws, (3) the
fitting of "uppity" slaves with "bits", (4) the practice of
selling "belligerent" slaves off or (5) whipping them to death,
these and a host of other measures, all raise doubt as to whether
any extensive oral interaction between the slaves and their
English speaking slave-masters, even occurred. That is,
conditions necessary for any European based pidgin vernacular to
have emerged among the slaves simply did not exist.
When Pidgin/Creolists are confronted with the empirical evidence
that African slaves actually outnumbered Europeans on the
antebellum plantations, unable to sustain their claim of
numerical dominance, the Pidgin/Creolists then attempt to negate
the influence of numerical dominance by contending that, it was
not so much the dominant numerical ratios but the dominant
social role of the Europeans over the Africans that determined
the base upon which the hybrid pidgin dialects were formed.
When they are confronted with the fact that their social
dominance thesis is refuted by the empirical evidence of a lack
of any sustained master and slave contacts that would have been
positive reinforcement, for language acquisition, the
Pidgin/Creolists resort to their ultimate white supremacist
stance, i.e., the profoundly diffuse linguistic state of Africans
in the colonial era. What the Pidgin/Creolists contend here is
that, the language diversity of Africa was so vast that, in any
given African system, only a handful of Africans could even be
found that could communicate with each other. They contend that,
this profound linguistic diversity combined with the practice by
plantation owners of segregating slaves who spoke the same
languages, "drove" the African slaves to the use of the European
invented plantation pidgin vernaculars.
There is however, another incongruence in Keys' thesis. Like all
Pidgin/Creolists, Key posits the underlying substratum of African
American speech to be English. Yet, she traces many Black English
features to a non-English base. By this is meant, Key cites the
fact that the Scottish colonials owned many slaves and that, on
many plantations owned by English speaking planters, the Scots
were the principle drivers or foremen. Key infers that (as they
are so prevalent as policemen and military servicemen today) the
Scottish and Irish overseers, had more contact with slaves than
the English speaking owners of the plantations. Thus, Key posits,
those features in the grammar of Black English that can cannot be
traced to Old, Middle or EModE, are very likely traceable to the
Old Irish and Old Ulster Scots dialects. She writes (ibid
1973:3,4)
"There are some indications the Scots dialect might have
had a greater influence on the development of BE than
has been previously recognized. The immigration of the
Ulster Scots as well as the other Scottish pioneers
parallel the entrance of the Black people to the United
States. History books tell of their close contact.
Such as Scots foremen to slave workers...The possible
close relationship of the Scots dialect and the
development of BE is further hinted at by the frequent
use of Scots or Gaelic names by Black people who had to
adopt a surname for identification among English
speakers"
The incongruence in citing the plantation labor relationships and
influence of the Scottish and Irish dialects is that, Scottish,
Irish, and Welsh are Celtic languages. As such, the extent to
which African slaves had more contact with the Scottish and Irish
people, than with the English, would mean that many elements in
the underlying morphology and morpho-syntax of Black American
speech would more likely be traced to the Celtic language
continuum than to the English. In which case, based on morpho-
syntactcal criteria, what Key calls "Black English" would more
accurately be called "Black Irish", "Black Scots" or "Black
Welsh".
The critics of the Pidgin/Creolists theory contend that, this
attempt to posit the non-English grammatical features in Afro-
American speech as being borrowings from another non-English
Indo-European grammar, as opposed to being retentions traceable to
the African linguistic continuum, is yet another example of how
the Pidgin/Creolists refuse to acknowledge the humanity of African
people. That is, other than acknowledging the African origins of
African-American people, the fact of the matter is, the
Pidgin/Creolists act as if the body literature on African language
structures does not even exist. There is an inference that, where
African American speech is concerned, the literature on African
language structures is totally irrelevant.
The critics of the Pidgin/Creolists theory contend that, in using
common origin and morpho-syntactical continuity as their criteria
for genetic classification of Indo-European languages but, the
etymology of the dominant lexicon, when classifying the language
of African Americans, the Pigin/Creolists make languages traced to
totally different morpho-syntactical continua genetically the
same. When this is very critically considered, what is revealed
is that in positing African American speech to be a dialect of
English actually the Pidgin/Creolists theory is not a theory on
the historical development of African American language at all.
For, as Mervyn Alleyne states; (1971:125,126)
"The "pidgin" notion seems to beg the question of
genesis. Or if it deals with the question, it implies
there was linguistic discontinuity as far as the
transmission of African linguistic forms is concerned.
[p.126]..the way in which the genesis of Creole
languages has been presented in much of the current work
implies a break in any linguistic continuity with
Africa. The implication is that Africans and African
slaves gave up the African languages, that is, broke
with the African linguistic tradition and accepted a
pidgin i.e. primarily a European invention, a simplified
version of the European language. To relate non-
Standard dialects of Black American urban communities to
a pidgin would lead to the inference that there has been
discontinuity, as far as the transmission of an African
cultural item is concerned, and would in fact support
the deficiency hypothesis".
It is then, not whether contemporary African American speech is
derived from a colonial or antebellum "hybrid" lingua franca that
is contested, by critics of the Pidgin/Creole theory. Nor, is
there a question as to whether, in the creation of the hybrid
dialects spoken by the Europeans and the African slaves,
borrowings were made. What is questioned is, whether the deep
structure, i.e., the morpho-syntactical base upon which the
"hybrid" dialect of the African slaves and their descendants was
formed is, English (Germanic), Scots/Irish (Celtic) or Wolof,
Yoruba, Hausa etc. (African).
The critics of the pidgin/Creolist's theory contend that, it is
virtually certain that when the African and European languages
converged, as native speakers of European languages if, the
Europeans invented any hybrid dialects, as a lingua franca, the
colonial Europeans had to utilize their own grammatical systems as
the base for the hybrid dialects they spoke. It follows logically
that, compelled to use their own European grammars, as the base
for the hybrid dialects they invented, any African words or
Africanisms that exist in the Euro-American's hybrid English today
had to have been "adopted" or "borrowed" into English. On the
other hand, African words already existed in the Niger-Congo
African languages before there was any contact with English
speaking people. Therefore, African words and Africanisms have
not been "borrowed" into the descendants of African slave's
speech. In an African's speech, African words and Africanisms
have been retained.
The critics of the pidgin/creole theory contend that, the
essential and fundamental incongruence that makes the
pidgin/creole theory completely untenable is the fact that, in its
underlying deep structure African American speech does not follow
the grammar rules of English or any other European language. That
is, if African American speech is in fact a dialect of English,
then the major difference one would expect to find in the speech
of Afro-American and Euro-American people, would be in their
vocabularies or semanto lexemic features. But, contend the
critics, this is not the case.
When an empirical analysis is made of the grammars of the so-
called pidgin and creole dialects in the African diaspora, not one
of the vernaculars that are supposedly formed on a Portuguese,
Spanish, French, Dutch and English language base, contains a
European grammar with African vocabularies superimposed. In fact,
contend the critics, when compared with the autochthonous or
superstrate European languages upon which they are supposed to be
based and genetically akin, the empirical evidence is that, while
these so-called pidgin and creole languages have extensively
borrowed or adopted European words, the underlying phonology and
morpho-syntax of these dialects follow the rules of African
grammar.
The critics of the pidgin/creole theory contend that, it is a
confusion of the European language based pidgin/creole dialects
(if any were invented) and the co-existing African language based
hybrid vernaculars as being one and the same, that has led to a
great deal of confusion in the literature regarding the familial
affinity of African American speech. For, despite the fact that
they have not produced a single pidgin or creole vernacular in the
African diaspora that has been formed on a European phonology and
morphosyntax (grammar) with a non-European lexicon (vocabulary)
all Pidgin/Creolists, put forth the view that Black American
speech is a European and not an African based linguistic system.
The fact is, when we critically examine the phonetic, phonology,
morphology and syntax of the speech of the descendants of Niger-
Congo African slaves in the colonial diaspora, the empirical
evidence refutes the the pidgin creole thesis.
In order to clarify the distinction that has been made here
between a European based pidgin as opposed to a hybrid dialect
that is African language based, a formula using the symbol E (to
represent the European languages) and the symbol A (to represent
the African languages), provides a method by which the white
supremacists view of the pidginization process can be stated via
an equation:
E + A = Ea
In essence, what this equation states is that, in their initial
contacts and transactions with autochthonous Africans, as native
speakers of European languages, the colonial Europeans, (E) did
indeed, learn and adopt some of the African (A) language's
elements or features (words). However, although greatly
simplified, the basic structure of the European languages remained
unchanged. That is, the hybrid language which was invented and
used by the Europeans to communicate with the Africans was
basically the European's language (E) with only a few adopted
African (A) features.
In order to symbolize this hybrid as being a European based pidgin
dialect, an uppercase "E" and a lowercase "a" is used. This
symbolization using "Ea" attempts to make concrete the fact that,
in consonance with the comparative linguistics principle that
genetic kinship in languages is based on a criterion of continuity
in the rules of grammar, the symbols uppercase "E" and lowercase
"a" implies that the hybrid vernacular does not contain an equal
amount of both languages. The use of an upper case "E" and a
lowercase "a" symbolizes the fact that in terms of its underlying
phonology and morpho-syntax, it is the European language
(uppercase "E") and not the African language (lowercase "a") that
is dominant and hence genetically continued.
In figure 1. below this same hypothesis is presented using a model
in which two language systems in contact are placed in a diglossic
or hierarchical relationship. Analogous to the numerator and the
denominator in mathematics, divided by a line, one language is
placed above the line (the numerator). The other language is
placed below the line (the denominator). The language placed
above the line is the surface structure of the pidgin. The
language placed below the line is the deep strucure, i.e., the
retained underlying morpho-syntactical structure.
Fig 1
??????African
?????
???European; Portuguese, English, French etc.
The first stage of the hybridization process is course the
"pidgin" stage. This is the stage in which, with many borrowed
African words, the English based hybrid dialect served as a lingua
franca. According to the Pidgin-Creole theorists, the borrowing
of African words and adopting them into English was actually done
by the Europeans. They contend that, had it not been for the
Europeans having borrowed from the unlettered African savage's
gibberish the few arguably authentic African features they did,
these would not have been preserved in African American speech
today.
As it expressly applies to African American speech and the English
language, a formula for the model above would be written as
follows;
African = A
? ???English?? E
The second stage is the "creole" stage. This is the stage in
which African slaves, in the colonial diaspora, acquired the
pidgin European dialect as their mother tongue. It is in the
"creole" stage that more and more European elements, i.e.,
vocabulary and grammar are introduced into the surface structure
of African American speech. Fig. 2 below is a model of the
"creole" stage.
Fig 2.
? ?????African + European
?????
???European; Portuguese, English, French etc.
As expressly applied to African American speech and the English
language, the formula for the second stage would be written as
follows;
African + English = E + a
? ????English? ?? E
Pidgin/Creolists contend that, contemporary "Black English" has
undergone a third stage and become a full fledged social dialect
of English. This third stage is described in the pidgin/creolist
literature as a process called de-creolization. In theory the de-
creolized stage is when a complete assimilation occurs. It is in
the third stage that African American speech is depicted as having
become so completely Anglicized and assimilated that, it is now
"de-creolized" and a mere non-standard social dialect of English.
As stated earlier the critics of the pidgin/creole theory contend
that, although there is no question that African American speech
evolves from an antebellum African and European mixed or hybrid
speech, and there is no question that borrowings were made, the
critics, of the Pidgin/Creolist theory contend that, the view that
as native speakers of African languages the African slaves
communicated with Europeans in an underlying grammatical system
that Africans had no knowledge of, is absurd. The critics of the
pidgin/creole theory contend that, based on a criteria of
morphological and syntactical continuity, the view that the base
of pidgin/creole dialects is European is not correct.
The critics contend that in the hybridization process, it was the
Niger-Congo African languages that were grammatically dominant.
Therefore, a more accurate model to describe what did in fact
occur would be one which places European words or features above
the line (as the numerator) with an African thought process or
grammar below the line (as the denominator). Figure 3 below is a
model that illustrates this view.
Fig 3
???European; Portuguese, English, French etc.
?????
??????African
What this model implies is that, the bulk of the lexicon, i.e.,
the surface structure, of the hybrid or pidgin dialect can be
traced to the European language continuum. But, in the deep
structure (the phonetic, phonological and morpho-syntactical
system) the preponderance of the features found makes the hybrid
more akin to the African language system.
Thus, contend the critics of the pidgin/creole theory, the
contemporary Pidgin/Creolists are just as white supremacist as
their predecessors. The only difference is, whereas earlier
Pidgin/Creolists were very overt in their denigration of people of
African descent, contemporary Pidgin/Creolists are much more
subtle or covert. It is for this reason that the critics of the
pidgin/creole theory contend that, the pidgin/creole theory is no
more than a pseudo-liberal version of the white supremacists
"deficit hypothesis" masked with an egalitarian facade. For,
whether it is presented in the pseudo-scientific invective of mean
spirited eugenicists or packaged in the more palatable reasoning's
of phony egalitarians, the pollution is the same.
Because of their deep seated Euro-centrism and essentially white
supremacists beliefs, all Pidgin/Creolists view the worlds pidgin
and creole dialects as being European language based and African
American speech as being a dialect of English. But then, not all
linguists who view Black American speech as being a dialect of
English support the Pidgin/Creolist's theory. My reference here
is to the Generative Transformational Grammarians.
The Generative Grammarians are linguists who believe that all
human languages emanate from a common or universal base and are
therefore related in their deep structures. In their view it is
only in their "particular grammars" that human languages differ.
The Generative Grammarians contend that based on their analysis of
its underlying rules of grammar, Black American speech, is merely
a Non-Standard dialect of English. Unlike Pidgin/Creolists the
Transformationalists reject the contention that African-American
speech has emerged through a three "staged evolution" from an
earlier form of "mixed" or "hybrid" pidgin, into a creole and then
into a de-creolized Non-Standard English. The Generative
grammarians contend that, West and Niger-Congo African slaves
abruptly divested themselves of their "particular" West and Niger-
Congo African grammars and adopted the "particular" grammar of
English as their primary language.
The Generative Grammarians are neither descriptive or comparative
linguist. Like Pidgin/Creolists their focus is primarily on the
analysis of Indo-European languages. Like the Pidgin/Creolists,
even though the Generative Grammarians assert that their
linguistic studies trace the genesis of Afro-American and Euro-
American speech to two divergent linguistic continua (one to
Africa the other to Europe) as if the existing structural
differences in Afro-American and Euro-American speech do not
emanate from a separate linguistic base, the Generative
Grammarians also posit Afro-American and Euro-American dialects as
being "genetically" from the same linguistic continuum, i.e., just
different dialects of English.
In other words, like the Pidgin/Creolists, Generative Grammarians,
have never deemed African languages as being worthy of any serious
scholastic or academic study. Hence, the only difference in
Pidgin/Creole theory and the Transformationalist's view is the
degree or level they are willing to place Africans on the
evolutionary scale. Whereas the Generative Grammarians at least
regard the captive African ancestors of African American people as
having had a language, i.e., an original African "particular
grammar" of their own and a cortical capacity to have internalized
the "particular grammars" of the European languages to which they
were exposed (with mimicry slightly above the level of the lower
primates, - the chimpanzees and gorillas etc.) the
Pidgin/Creolists view is that since all Africans had as a language
in Africa was an array of signals comparable to the calls and
songs of birds, at best the African's ability to grasp and emulate
real human speech has been no more than that of a mynah bird or
parrot.
References
Alleyne, Mervyn. (1969) Linguistic Continuity of Africa in the
Caribbean. In Henry J. Richards (Ed.) Topics in Afro-American
Studies (pp. 118-28) New York, Black Academy Press.
Asante, Molefi K. and Kariamu Welsh. African Culture: The Rhythms
of Unity (233-53) Trenton, Africa World Press.
Bailey, Beryl L. (1977) Jamaican Creole. In Dell Hymes (Ed.),
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 341-48) New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Curtin, Phillip D. (1976) Measuring the Atlantic Slave Trade Once
Again In Journal of African History. vol XVII
DeCamp, David (1977) Introduction: The study of Pidgin and Creole
Languages. In Dell Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of
Languages (pp. 13-39) New York, Cambridge University Press.
Dillard, Joseph L. (1972) Black English Its History and Usage in
the United States. New York: Random House.
Elkins, Stanley. (1971) Slavery 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Franklin, John Hope. (1980) From Slavery to Freedom: A History of
Negro Americans New York: Alfred Knopf.
Fromkin, Victoria and Rodman, Robert. (1978) An Introduction to
Language Second edition. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston
(1993) Fifth Edition
Gonzales, Ambrose E. (1922) The Black Border; Gullah, Stories of
the Carolina Coast. Columbia, S.C.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1967) Essays in Linguistics Chicago,
University of Chicago press.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. (1962) The life cycle of Languages. In Lingua
11:152-6
Johnson, Guy B. (1930) Folk Culture on St. Helena Island, South
Carolina Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
Key, Mary R. (1973) The History of Black English Paper Read at
Cognitive and Language Development in the Black Child Conference
St Louis.
Lynd, Staughton. (1967) Class Conflict, Slavery, and The United
States Constitution Ten Essays. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Payen-Bellisle, Rene. (1894) Sons et Formes du Creole dans les
Antilles. Baltimore, Murphy (p.22)
Romaine, Susanne. (1994)Language and Society. An Introduction to
Socilinguistics. New York; Oxford University Press Inc.
Schuchardt, Hugo (1909) Die Lingua franca In Zeitschrift fur
romanische Philologie. 33:441-61.
Stewart, William A. (1962) Creole languages in the Caribbean Study
of the role of second languages in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. (Ed.), Frank A. Rice (pp.34-53) Washington D.C., Center
for Applied Linguistics.
(1973) Toward A History Of American Negro Dialect
American Negro Dialect. in Language And Poverty. Ed. by Frederick
Williams. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Company.
Turner, Lorenzo D. (1965) Krio Texts With Grammatical Notes and
Translations in English. (pp.9-33) Chicago: Roosevelt University
Vass, Winifred K. (1979) The Bantu Speaking Heritage Of The United
States Los Angeles, University of California.
Frederick, Williams (Ed.) Language and Poverty (pp. 372-379).
Chicago: Rand Mcnally College Publishing Company.
Whinnom, Keith (1956) The origin of the European based creoles and
pidgins. Orbis 509-
About ASCAC | Conferences & Events | African World View | African Market Place | Links