Syntax and Protolanguage

Bickerton (1998:351) believes that long before the hominid-pongid split, there was a mechanism in the brain which was preadapted for the processing of syntax but this mechanism was used for thematic analysis not for language. Bickerton (1998) has proposed that the birth of syntax was the selection mechanism for the vocal apparatus of Homo sapiens sapiens. However, Lieberman (1998) proposes that syntax resulted automatically from preexisting motor processes once an adequate vocal channel evolved. Bickerton (1998:342) critiques Lieberman's hypothesis by stating that it is supported by an implied analogy between the frequent concurrence of phonological and syntactic deficits among victims of Parkinson's disease and Broca's aphasia...[Lieberman] appears to share the belief, apparently all but universal among nonsyntacticians, that syntax consists merely in placing words in some regular serial order.

Bickerton (1998:343-344) proposes that syntax is exclusively a computational mechanism that must deal with units (words, phrases) which cannot be defined in phonological terms (phonemes, syllables). Thus, if syntax developed while phonology was still primitive, the capacity to produce long and complex sentences would have selected very strongly for improvements in clarity (Bickerton 1998:344). While Bickerton (Studdert-Kennedy 1998:207-208) acknowledges that syntax could not have come into existence until there was a sizable vocabulary which required that units be organized into complex structures, he does not believe that a large vocabulary required vocalizations which had been differentiated into phonetic units that could be organized into words. neither verbs nor any of their arguments make obligatory appearances.

According to Bickerton (1998:355), in language, verbs and their obligatory arguments must be fully represented. In protolanguage, neither verbs nor any of their arguments make obligatory appearances therefore, any words whatsoever can be put together (Bickerton 1998:349). However, isn't this the ability to create novel words and phrases, Bickerton, like Chomsky, appears to be sacrificing the context and the consensus information provided by language for grammatical form. As an evolutionary adaptive mechanism, syntax and grammar should be fluid and not confined to rigid rules. This is what we find in current world languages. To view languages which do not appear to conform to these linguistic rules as simple seems very Eurocentric. Instead of questioning which English grammatical elements are similar to those of a given pidgin/creole, perhaps the question should be how the grammatical elements of a given pidgin/creole function as a means of communication.

Substrate Influences

Substrate languages are defined as the local language(s) or the native language(s) of the nondominant population. While Bickerton acknowledges that substrate languages influenced the development of Hawaiian Pidgin English (HPE), he does not believe that they played any role in the creation of Hawaiian Creole English (HCE). This is in keeping with his assumption that the bioprogram does not require outside social influences in the acquisition of language. However, over the last twenty years, other researchers have questioned both his methodologies and the accuracy of his conclusions.

While Corne (1984:192) agrees that Bickerton's bioprogram may explain protocreole language genesis, he states that Bickerton undervalues contributions from sub and superstrate languages in his general approach. Another way of explaining the structural similarities among creoles is by diffusion. McWhorter (1997:29) has proposed that English creoles developed from a pre-existing pidgin in Africa, and then spread to the Caribbean along with imported slaves. With regards to the incorporation of substrate features into a creole or pidgin, studies of second language acquisition indicate that imperfect language transfer (or interference) is a common factor (Mufwene 1990; Wekker 1996; Siegel 1998).

Regarding the acquisition of HCE, Goodman (1984:193) and Siegel (2000:230) state that Bickerton based his conclusions upon interviews with old Japanese, Filipino and Korean immigrants. According to Goodman (1984) when the first Japanese immigrated in 1888, there was already a fairly fixed form of pidgin established in Hawaii. Secondly, Koreans and Filipinos did not arrive until the early 1900s (Siegel 2000:230). According to Goodman, the Hawaiian demographic data indicates that for decades, colonial born slaves formed less than 10% of the population (ibid.). Goodman (1984:194) believes that "[T]he creole languages of the New World arose almost entirely as lingua francas among African born slaves rather than among those who were locally born".

In the 1990, Alleyne (1996:112-118) examined the development of several French based creoles (Haitian, Reunionnais, Mauritian and Seychellois). He found that the treatment of states and processes were neither due to a cognitive nor linguistic blueprint... it may be a function of the world view of the populations among whom these language developments took place. States are derived from processes, not perceived neutrally or abstractly, independent of the processes which give rise to them.

Roberts (1998:34) supports the idea that HCE emerged among the native population but contradicts several aspects of Bickerton's hypothesis. These were as follows (Roberts 1998:34-35): 1) the complex features of HCE took several generations to develop; 2) the first locally born generation of children did acquire the language of their parents, which was widely in use until the 1920s. These children were more than likely bilingual, since they would have learned English in school; and 3) it was the second generation of children who were the first monolingual speakers of HCE, and it was they who were credited with the later grammatical innovations of HCE.

Bickerton presents the following arguments against the influence of substrates (1977, 1981, 1984, 1996): 1) it does not seem possible that language could be made up of a mixture of features from other languages; 2) creole rules do not correspond to substrate rules, nor do they have a similar distribution; 3) there is no clear evidence as to how substrate features are actually incorporated into pidgins or creoles; and 4) no principles have been suggested to explain why some substrate features are chosen over others.

Lefebvre (1996:155) believes that creolization is due to relexification. The relexification hypothesis states that the substratum languages contributed to almost all of the syntactic and semantic properties of creole (ibid.). In contrast to Bickerton (1981), who claims that in situations where creole languages are created, children are deprived of an adult model for language, Lefebvre (1996:156) believes that it is the relexified language which is presented to children who learn creole as their native language. According to Posner (1984:205), it is uncertain whether creolization differs from other linguistic changes in nature, or merely in degree. Additionally, she states that sociohistorical conditions are more involved in these processes than Bickerton acknowledges (ibid.).

Wekker (1996:140) believes that creolization is a more gradual process of language formation that involves a period of bilingualism in which substrate features will be transmitted. Contrary to Bickerton (1981), Wekker (1996:141) states that there is no reason why creoles should develop more rapidly than other human languages, apart from the fact that in their formative states creoles are created under pressure, by people who know the grammar of at least one other natural language.

Bickerton (1996:40-41) believes that all of the critiques of his bioprogram fail to appreciate the logic of his arguments. He refutes any claim that the presence of other natural languages could have any effect upon the genesis of pidgin or creole languages, since the input sources would be too impoverished (ibid.). However, there is no evidence to prove Bickerton's claims that something either language or species specific might be at work in language creation or expansion.

General Cognitive Development

A number of researchers have proposed that there is no need for a specific language acquisition device, since language abilities may simply be a function of general cognitive mechanisms. This type of approach would follow the typical modern synthesis model of Darwinian evolution, which takes into account both genetic preadaptations and environmental influences. The bioprogram does not consider the environmental and social influences of language acquisition. Instead, he states that its function is solely language oriented, and flexible enough to create a new language within the space of one generation, in the absence of an adequate model of natural language.

Bickerton employs the development of pidgins and creoles as an analogy for both the acquisition of language in modern children and the origin of language abilities in general. However, according to Alleyne (1996:111) proponents of the bioprogram hypothesis base their conclusions according to the following hierarchy: 1) a feature is found in one or several creoles, and one or several children; 2) speakers of creoles were originally children; therefore 3) feature was acquired by creole languages from speakers of child language. However, it does not seem reasonable to assume that a child is born with a preadapted grammar for any human language nor that this linguistic capacity would be able to develop without some outside influence (Aitchison 1998:24). Additionally, while the bioprogram is used as a model of first (child) language acquisition, it is not clear how it would be employed in later (adult) language acquisition (Bloom 1984:190; Marantz 1984:200).Both Cromer (1984:193) and Wang (1984:211) believe that language is processed by a general problem solving device which does not require that a species specific language processor.

Lightfoot (1984:198) states that Bickerton's bioprogram is an attempt at solving the poverty of stimulus problem. Poverty of stimulus implies that children are exposed to an insufficient amount of linguistic information and yet can learn a language with the speed within a couple years after birth (ibid.). However, he questions how much one can actually know about the input the first speakers of Hawaiian Creole English. Lightfoot (1984:199) and Knight (1998:97) question why, if the bioprogram is encoded genetically, would any language ever develop away from the bioprogram grammar, and how a child could ever develop rules that are not part of the bioprogram grammar.

There is no evidence to conclude that there is a specific module in the brain for language acquisition. Instead, linguistic abilities may simply be another function of a general cognitive problem solving mechanism which evolved for an entirely different purpose. However, there seems to be some innate preadaptation for human beings to decode the vocalizations of others. This is accomplished in such a manner that it appears as though these vocalizations and productions follow strict grammatical rules. Although, in real world situations, there seems to be more flexibility in grammatical structure than is implied in the literature. Hence, it may appear that children of immigrants/slaves create a functioning creole from an ill formed pidgin.