Academic literature on the topic 'Pidgin And Creole Languages'

Creole and Pidgin languages are spoken by not less than 50 million people around the globe, but literacy is usually acquired in other languages, especially those languages introduced by the former colonial powers. This paper suggests that Pidgin and Creole languages should be elaborated for use as the media of instruction in formal education, particularly in contexts where up to 85 per cent of the population speak them. Pidgins and creoles researchers have labelled pidgin and creole languages as “developing” and they highlight their capacity to perform the same functions as their developed European lexifiers, English and French. The central argument is that pidgin and creole languages have the potential to express complex realities and function officially in formal education despite the negative attitudes towards them by their speakers. The attitudes towards pidgin and creole languages in education, the part of political and linguistic entities in adopting Nigerian Pidgin and Mauritian Kreol as the medium of teaching literacy in their respective countries are the central issues of focus.

A pidgin is language with no native speakers, it is not first language but it is a contact language creoles is a normal language in just about every sense. Creole has native speaker, each pidgin and Creole are well organizes of linguistic system, the sound of pidgin or creoles are likely to be a fewer and less complicated than those of related languages for example Tok pisin has only five basic vowels, Papia Kristang has seven basic vowel. The pidgin or Creole language have two theories polygenesis and relexification. The distributions of pidgin and Creole are in equatorial belt around the world, usually in place with easy success such as in the oceans and harbor.

This book brings together some of the foremost scholars in pidgin and creole linguistics to address key issues confronting the field—most especially, the inability to provide generally agreed upon structural classifications of pidgin and creole languages, and in particular, less prototypical varieties like semi-creoles, post-pidgins, and post-creoles.

That creole languages resemble each other beyond the diversity of their lexifiers and formative environments is a fact. Similarity should not be overstated, however, as creole languages also differ from each other in important ways. Hence the fundamental issues of creole studies: why are Creoles similar and what makes them different? What kind of a language group do they constitute? A genetic family they certainly are not, nor are they a typological group: creole languages do not constitute a type of their own. Assuming universal grammar viewed as a language bioprogram (LB) to be the principle of creole similarity strongly overstates this similarity. Moreover there are reasons to doubt the reality of the LB. Actually the kind of partial similarities exhibited by creole languages looks rather like what languages in a sprachbund or linguistic area have in common. How can languages scattered all over the world constitute an area, though? An answer is proposed in this study, which rests on two assumptions. First, creole languages constitute a virtual (non-spatial) area by virtue of their very similar origins, namely strong punctuations (catastrophes in a technical sense) involving Basic Variety (pidgin) episodes. Secondly, the (by no means necessary) aftermath of the catastrophe was an exceptional and limited repairing recourse to default grammar, whereby is meant a non-innate (at least not genetically coded), usage-based organization of the sound-meaning interface ensuring semantic transparency, that is the most direct mapping possible given (a) the organization of language sound; (b) the nature of meaning; (c) human preferred ways of associating forms and notions, also relevant for drawing, tool making, and so forth. Beyond that, creole languages are free to differ according to their lexifiers, substrates, adstrates, and so forth.

Recent descriptions of literacy in the English-lexified pidgins and Creoles of Melanesia and Australia have described it as being imposed by outsiders, irrelevant to speakers of these languages and unsuitable for use in formal education. This article presents an opposing point of view. First it outlines recent developments in the region, showing that while literacy may have been introduced from the outside, it has been embraced by many pidgin and creole speakers and used for their own purposes, including education. Second, it describes research findings refuting claims that using a pidgin or creole as a language of education will cause confusion among students and interfere with their acquisition of English.

In a certain social environment, the need for communication is increasing. This communication is based on natural or artificial languages. The main goal of both natural and artificial languages is to satisfy the interests of the speaker, to establish feedback, that is, the implementation of language communication. The article discusses the basics of the emergence of artificial languages - pidgin and creole, for what purpose they are used, the process of converting pidgin into Creole languages. The number of Creole languages is considered, how many people speak them, in what area they are distributed. The common features and distinctive features of the pidgin and Creole languages are determined, as well as the languages that served as the basis for the creation of Creole languages, the influence of their vocabulary and grammar in the process of formation of artificial languages. The purposes of using pidgin as a language invented for temporary communication are described, as well as some linguistic uses used for communication between Russian and Chinese languages, the reasons for the emergence of these languages, the conditions for further development are explained. Examples are given regarding to the characteristics of the royal languages in some regions.

Summary The earliest stages of pidgin formation show a preference for analytic and morphologically reduced grammatical constructions relative to their lexifier or substrate languages, where the apparent morphological marking, if found, seems to be fossilized. Structural relations, therefore, are mostly expressed externally. Tense/aspect categories are marked through temporal adverbials or inferred from the context. Creole languages, however, are said to develop such categories through grammaticalization. This study examines tense/aspect marking in five Arabic-based pidgins: Juba Arabic, Turku Pidgin, Pidgin Madame, Romanian Pidgin Arabic, and Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Using Siegel’s (2008) scale of morphological simplicity, from lexicality to grammaticality, this study concludes that tense/aspect marking is expressed lexically through temporal adverbials or inferred from the context in the earliest stages of Arabic-based pidgins, which only later—in stabilized pidgins—develops into grammaticalized markers when certain criteria are met.