Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:01:07.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language acquisition, pidgins and creoles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Henning Wode
Henning Wode
Affiliation:
University of Kiel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why are pidgin utterances structured linguistically the way they are? Why, as has often been noted, do the linguistic structures of different pidgins tend to be more similar to each other than to the structure of the original languages involved in the specific pidgin? This has been noted as all the more surprising since these similarities also occur in cases where totally unrelated languages are involved, so that borrowing must be excluded; or where historical explanations cannot apply because there was no contact in the past at all. It will be suggested here that these similarities result from universal linguo-cognitive processing strategies which man employs in learning languages. Some of these strategies are universal in the sense that they apply in all acquisitional types so that pidgins have some properties which recur in all types of acquisition. Other strategies are more restricted in their applicability, for example, to the various types of second language (L2) acquisition.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1981 , pp. 193 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, R. W. 1979. Expanding Schumann's pidginization hypothesis. Language Learning 29. 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of B. F. Skinner: verbal behavior. Language 35.26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. N.Y.: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. 1968. Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 35.130–39.Google Scholar
Felix, S. 1978. Linguistische Untersuchungen zum natürlichen Zweitsprachenerwerb. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt Pidgin-Deutsch. 1975. Sprach und Kommunikation ausländischer Arbeiter. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27.383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1978. Variability in interlanguage syntax. Working Papers. Phonetics Laboratory Dept. of General Linguistics. Lund University.Google Scholar
Klein, W., and Dittmar, N.. 1979. Developing grammars. Springer Series in Language and Communication. Vol. 1. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. 1979. Strategies of second language acquisition, more than one kind of simplification. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Relationship Between Pidginization and Creolization in Language Acquisition, LSA Annual Meeting,Los Angeles,Dec. 27–29.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. 1980. Linguistic simplification. Second language development, ed. by Felix, S., 13–40. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1975a. Second language acquisition: the pidginization hypothesis. Harvard University Dissertation.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1975b. Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning 25.209–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1976. Second language acquisition: the Pidginization Hypothesis. Language Learning 26.391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1978. The relationship of pidginization, creolization and decreolization to second language acquisition. Language Learning 28.367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. 1979. The more it changes: on understanding language by watching it move through time. Paper read at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Stauble, A. 1978. The process of decreolization: a model for second language development. Language Learning 28.29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, L. 1974. Pidgins and Creoles. London, Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. 1976. Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Working papers on Bilingualism 11.1–31.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1977a. Four early stages in the development of L1 negation. Journal of Child Language 4.87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. 1977b. Developmental principles in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Akten der 3. Salzburger Jahrestagung für Linguistik, ed. by Drachman, G., 207–20. Salzburg: Neugebauer Salzburg.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1979. Operating principles and ‘universals’ in L1, L2 and FLT. IRAL 17. 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. 1980. Phonology in L2 acquisition. Second language development, ed. by Felix, S., 123–36. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (In press). Learning a second language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wode, H., Bahns, J., Bedey, H., and Frank, W.. 1978. Developmental sequence: an alternative approach to morpheme order. Language Learning 28.175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar