The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology
Stereotypes commonly refer to fixed images that members of society share, especially the prejudic... more Stereotypes commonly refer to fixed images that members of society share, especially the prejudiced beliefs that community members hold about certain types of people, or in the case of linguistic stereotypes, the way they speak. A study of stereotypes in linguistic anthropology brings together the discipline's interest in society, culture, and language via ideologies, indexicality, enregisterment, and stance.
In the literature on Caribbean creoles two descriptive models have dominated to explain the struc... more In the literature on Caribbean creoles two descriptive models have dominated to explain the structures of linguistic codes, the relationships between them, and their distribution: diglossia and the creole continuum. Most Anglophone linguists have argued that it is most accurate to describe the linguistic contexts of Martinique and Guadeloupe as stable diglossic situations in which two recognizable linguistic varieties with specific functional assignments are spoken. They contrast the French Antilles with the Caribbean islands where an English-lexifer creole is spoken, described as examples of creole continua. This paper reconsiders the applicability of the diglossia model for describing the linguistic varieties in Guadeloupe and the patterns of their use. I explain why most Antillean scholars describe the French Antilles as examples of diglossia, yet also acknowledge a creole continuum with intermediate varieties of both French and Kréyòl. As a further point, I consider whether or not Guadeloupe’s linguistic situation is best described as a stable one. In doing so, I counter the argument of Meyjes (1995) that language shift is occurring in favor of French monolingualism. My goal in this paper is to foster dialogue between Francophone and Anglophone creolists and to clarify some of our basic assumptions about Caribbean creoles.
The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 2010
... and Peter Mühlhäusler's article explores similar territory in surveying the development ... more ... and Peter Mühlhäusler's article explores similar territory in surveying the development of creole linguistic theory in the Anglo-Germanic tradition. ... Aisha Khan explores how the academic preoccupations of post-World War II era modernization theorists like Robert Park were about ...
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2010
Book synopsis: As globalization has increased awareness of the extent of language contact and lin... more Book synopsis: As globalization has increased awareness of the extent of language contact and linguistic diversity, questions concerning bilingualism and multilingualism have taken on an increasing importance from both practical and scholarly points of view. While there is a vast amount ...
ABSTRACT Anthropological Quarterly 79.3 (2006) 565-569 In Defining Creole, John McWhorter examine... more ABSTRACT Anthropological Quarterly 79.3 (2006) 565-569 In Defining Creole, John McWhorter examines what a creole language is and what linguistic creolization entails. The term creole, which has become quite popular in anthropological literature and in literary and cultural studies, is notoriously polysemous. While many scholars and activists seem to be talking about creolization in some form or another, it is not clear that they are all talking about the same thing. In this book, McWhorter sets out to delimit the definition of the term creole as it relates to language. He argues that creole languages are indeed distinct from other languages, and he endeavors to show us just how they are different. This book is a compilation of various articles McWhorter has written, with some minor revision mainly to account for others' criticisms. He has combined these different pieces into sections that deal with three central themes; each section contains a brief introduction. The first chapter also serves as an introduction to the book, explaining not only the organization of the book but also the motivations behind its publication. The first section of the book explores the debate in creole studies about what a creole language is. McWhorter's argument is that creole languages are natural languages, but that they are unique. He specifically defines creole languages as natural languages "documented to have been born in the middle of the second millennium amid displaced multiethnic populations and their descendants, with limited opportunity or motivation to acquire a dominant language fully" (11). As this definition indicates, McWhorter strives to define creole languages from a purely linguistic perspective, but a consideration of sociohistorical factors is also key to his understanding of what makes creole languages distinctive. Readers familiar with creole studies will recognize some similarities between McWhorter's argument in this book and other efforts at determining the features that creole languages share that set them apart from other languages, such as Bickerton's Language Bioprogram hypothesis. Such efforts seemed successful at first, but as more began to examine other creole languages, such as those in the Pacific, it became apparent that typologies that held for some creole languages, especially Caribbean creoles, often could not account for differences found among other creoles. Thus, McWhorter notes that the most common view among creolists is that creole language have no common linguistic features and can instead only be defined based on the similar sociohistorical contexts in which they seem to have emerged. McWhorter insists that creole languages do have shared linguistic features that make them unique and that it is important to determine them if the study of creole language is to contribute to the broader field of linguistics. He argues that he has determined several features that all creole languages share–or more precisely, features that all creole languages lack: the marking of grammatical inflexion with affixes, the use of tone for lexical or grammatical distinctions and the non-compositionality of derivational morphemes. This shared lack of features, McWhorter argues, makes creole languages different from older natural languages, since these are all features that make creole languages "less complex" than older natural languages. By complexity he means the "ornamental elaboration" and "results from the operations of random accretion over time" (43) that other natural grammars have developed to a far greater extent than have the grammars of creole languages. He points out that this suggestion has been met with criticism, in large part from creole-speakers of African decent. As he explains, for some scholars, his hypothesis bears too much similarity to models of creole genesis that posit creoles as simple, degraded forms of their lexifier languages, often based on the racist assumption that the speakers of creole languages are somehow "simple" and thus unable to learn to speak European lexifier languages. But, McWhorter makes clear that this is not what he is proposing. He notes that creole languages are more complex than certain older languages in some respects and that they do not lack features which are common in all natural languages, and thus which appear to be necessary for effective and full communication. Rather, he is suggesting that...
The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology
Stereotypes commonly refer to fixed images that members of society share, especially the prejudic... more Stereotypes commonly refer to fixed images that members of society share, especially the prejudiced beliefs that community members hold about certain types of people, or in the case of linguistic stereotypes, the way they speak. A study of stereotypes in linguistic anthropology brings together the discipline's interest in society, culture, and language via ideologies, indexicality, enregisterment, and stance.
In the literature on Caribbean creoles two descriptive models have dominated to explain the struc... more In the literature on Caribbean creoles two descriptive models have dominated to explain the structures of linguistic codes, the relationships between them, and their distribution: diglossia and the creole continuum. Most Anglophone linguists have argued that it is most accurate to describe the linguistic contexts of Martinique and Guadeloupe as stable diglossic situations in which two recognizable linguistic varieties with specific functional assignments are spoken. They contrast the French Antilles with the Caribbean islands where an English-lexifer creole is spoken, described as examples of creole continua. This paper reconsiders the applicability of the diglossia model for describing the linguistic varieties in Guadeloupe and the patterns of their use. I explain why most Antillean scholars describe the French Antilles as examples of diglossia, yet also acknowledge a creole continuum with intermediate varieties of both French and Kréyòl. As a further point, I consider whether or not Guadeloupe’s linguistic situation is best described as a stable one. In doing so, I counter the argument of Meyjes (1995) that language shift is occurring in favor of French monolingualism. My goal in this paper is to foster dialogue between Francophone and Anglophone creolists and to clarify some of our basic assumptions about Caribbean creoles.
The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 2010
... and Peter Mühlhäusler's article explores similar territory in surveying the development ... more ... and Peter Mühlhäusler's article explores similar territory in surveying the development of creole linguistic theory in the Anglo-Germanic tradition. ... Aisha Khan explores how the academic preoccupations of post-World War II era modernization theorists like Robert Park were about ...
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2010
Book synopsis: As globalization has increased awareness of the extent of language contact and lin... more Book synopsis: As globalization has increased awareness of the extent of language contact and linguistic diversity, questions concerning bilingualism and multilingualism have taken on an increasing importance from both practical and scholarly points of view. While there is a vast amount ...
ABSTRACT Anthropological Quarterly 79.3 (2006) 565-569 In Defining Creole, John McWhorter examine... more ABSTRACT Anthropological Quarterly 79.3 (2006) 565-569 In Defining Creole, John McWhorter examines what a creole language is and what linguistic creolization entails. The term creole, which has become quite popular in anthropological literature and in literary and cultural studies, is notoriously polysemous. While many scholars and activists seem to be talking about creolization in some form or another, it is not clear that they are all talking about the same thing. In this book, McWhorter sets out to delimit the definition of the term creole as it relates to language. He argues that creole languages are indeed distinct from other languages, and he endeavors to show us just how they are different. This book is a compilation of various articles McWhorter has written, with some minor revision mainly to account for others' criticisms. He has combined these different pieces into sections that deal with three central themes; each section contains a brief introduction. The first chapter also serves as an introduction to the book, explaining not only the organization of the book but also the motivations behind its publication. The first section of the book explores the debate in creole studies about what a creole language is. McWhorter's argument is that creole languages are natural languages, but that they are unique. He specifically defines creole languages as natural languages "documented to have been born in the middle of the second millennium amid displaced multiethnic populations and their descendants, with limited opportunity or motivation to acquire a dominant language fully" (11). As this definition indicates, McWhorter strives to define creole languages from a purely linguistic perspective, but a consideration of sociohistorical factors is also key to his understanding of what makes creole languages distinctive. Readers familiar with creole studies will recognize some similarities between McWhorter's argument in this book and other efforts at determining the features that creole languages share that set them apart from other languages, such as Bickerton's Language Bioprogram hypothesis. Such efforts seemed successful at first, but as more began to examine other creole languages, such as those in the Pacific, it became apparent that typologies that held for some creole languages, especially Caribbean creoles, often could not account for differences found among other creoles. Thus, McWhorter notes that the most common view among creolists is that creole language have no common linguistic features and can instead only be defined based on the similar sociohistorical contexts in which they seem to have emerged. McWhorter insists that creole languages do have shared linguistic features that make them unique and that it is important to determine them if the study of creole language is to contribute to the broader field of linguistics. He argues that he has determined several features that all creole languages share–or more precisely, features that all creole languages lack: the marking of grammatical inflexion with affixes, the use of tone for lexical or grammatical distinctions and the non-compositionality of derivational morphemes. This shared lack of features, McWhorter argues, makes creole languages different from older natural languages, since these are all features that make creole languages "less complex" than older natural languages. By complexity he means the "ornamental elaboration" and "results from the operations of random accretion over time" (43) that other natural grammars have developed to a far greater extent than have the grammars of creole languages. He points out that this suggestion has been met with criticism, in large part from creole-speakers of African decent. As he explains, for some scholars, his hypothesis bears too much similarity to models of creole genesis that posit creoles as simple, degraded forms of their lexifier languages, often based on the racist assumption that the speakers of creole languages are somehow "simple" and thus unable to learn to speak European lexifier languages. But, McWhorter makes clear that this is not what he is proposing. He notes that creole languages are more complex than certain older languages in some respects and that they do not lack features which are common in all natural languages, and thus which appear to be necessary for effective and full communication. Rather, he is suggesting that...
Uploads