Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages

Abstract

Most languages of the world are taken to result from a combination of a vertical transmission process from older to younger generations of speakers or signers and (mostly) gradual changes that accumulate over time. In contrast, creole languages emerge within a few generations out of highly multilingual societies in situations where no common first language is available for communication (as, for instance, in plantations related to the Atlantic slave trade). Strikingly, creoles share a number of linguistic features (the ‘creole profile’), which is at odds with the striking linguistic diversity displayed by non-creole languages1,2,3,4. These common features have been explained as reflecting a hardwired default state of the possible grammars that can be learned by humans1, as straightforward solutions to cope with the pressure for efficient and successful communication5 or as the byproduct of an impoverished transmission process6. Despite their differences, these proposals agree that creoles emerge from a very limited and basic communication system (a pidgin) that only later in time develops the characteristics of a natural language, potentially by innovating linguistic structure. Here we analyse 48 creole languages and 111 non-creole languages from all continents and conclude that the similarities (and differences) between creoles can be explained by genealogical and contact processes7,8, as with non-creole languages, with the difference that creoles have more than one language in their ancestry. While a creole profile can be detected statistically, this stems from an over-representation of Western European and West African languages in their context of emergence. Our findings call into question the existence of a pidgin stage in creole development and of creole-specific innovations. In general, given their extreme conditions of emergence, they lend support to the idea that language learning and transmission are remarkably resilient processes.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Classification under the rule-based creole profile for the full and reduced datasets, with rules chosen by best F 1 score.

References

  1. 1.

    Bickerton, D. Roots of Language (Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    McWhorter, J. H. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Ling. Typol. 5, 125–166 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Parkvall, M. in Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change (eds Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K. & Karlsson, F.) 265–285 (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2008).

  4. 4.

    Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 26, 5–42 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Daval-Markussen, A. & Bakker, P. in Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology 254–286 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2017).

  6. 6.

    Good, J. Paradigmatic complexity in pidgins and creoles. Word Struct. 8, 184–227 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mufwene, S. S. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13, 83–134 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Aboh, E. O. & Ansaldo, U. in Deconstructing Creole (eds Ansaldo, U., Matthews, S. & Lim, L.) 39–66 (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2007).

  9. 9.

    Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 429–448 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Greenberg, J. H. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Univ. Lang. 2, 73–113 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. & Christiansen, M. H. Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10818–10823 (2016).

  12. 12.

    Lupyan, G. & Dale, R. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5, e8559 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bentz, C. & Winter, B. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Lang. Dyn. Change 3, 1–27 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Everett, C., Blasi, D. E. & Roberts, S. G. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1322–1327 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Everett, C., Blasi, D. E. & Roberts, S. G. Language evolution and climate: the case of desiccation and tone. J. Lang. Evol. 1, 33–46 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Daval-Markussen, A. First steps towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafn. 46, 1–22 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Michaelis, S. M. World-wide comparative evidence for calquing of valency patterns in creoles. Preprint at https://zenodo.org/record/844616 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Lefebvre, C. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lefebvre, C. Functional Categories in Three Atlantic Creoles: Saramaccan, Haitian and Papiamentu (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Siegel, J. The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Chaudenson, R. Des Îles, des Hommes, des Langues (L’Harmattan, Paris, France, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mufwene, S. The Ecology of Language Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Good, J. Typologizing grammatical complexities or why creoles may be paradigmatically simple but syntagmatically average. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 27, 1–47 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    McWhorter, J. & Good, J. A Grammar of Saramaccan Creole Vol 56. (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Dillard, J. L. Principles in the history of American English: paradox, virginity, cafeteria. Florida FL Reporter 7, 32–33 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Murawaki, Y. Statistical Modeling of Creole Genesis in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2016).

  27. 27.

    Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (2013); http://wals.info

  28. 28.

    McWhorter, J. H. Defining Creole (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dryer, M. S. in The World Atlas of Language Structures (eds Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B.) 282–285 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2005).

  30. 30.

    Siegel, J., Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in creoles. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 29, 49–85 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Haspelmath, M. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Ling. 45, 31–80 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Haspelmath, M. & Michaelis, S. M. in Language Variation—European Perspectives VI: Selected Papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig 2015 (eds Buchstaller, I. & Siebenhaar, B) 3–22 (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2017).

  33. 33.

    Haspelmath, M. in Language Typology and Language Universals 1492–1510 (De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany, 2001).

  34. 34.

    Aboh, E. O. Creole distinctiveness. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 31, 400–418 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 2013a); http://apics-online.info/

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Güldemann, T. in Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation Vol. 2 (eds Lameli, A., Kehrein, R. & Rabanus, S.) 561–585 (De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany, 2010).

  38. 38.

    Salamanca, R. R. P. Del Español al Chamorro: Lenguas en Contacto en el Pacífico (ed. Gondo, E.) (Ediciones Gondo, Madrid, Spain, 2009).

  39. 39.

    Daval-Markussen, A. in Workshop on Non-Indo-European Lexifier, Non-West African Pidgin and Creole Languages 10–11 (Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Agrawal, R. & Srikant, R. Fast algorithms for mining association rules in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases 487–499 (1994).

  41. 41.

    Velupillai, V. Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages: An Introduction. (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Clements, J. C. The Genesis of a Language: the Formation and Development of Korlai Portuguese Vol 16 (Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1996).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kouwenberg, S. From OV to VO linguistic negotiation in the development of Berbice Dutch creole. Lingua 88, 263–299 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Zeijlstra, H. & Goddard, D. On Berbice Dutch VO status. Lang. Sci. 60, 120–132 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bickerton, D. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behav. Brain Sci. 7, 173–188 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hall, M. L., Mayberry, R. I. & Ferreira, V. S. Cognitive constraints on constituent order: evidence from elicited pantomime. Cognition 129, 1–17 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Langus, A. & Nespor, M. in Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax (eds van Oostendorp, M. & van Riemsdijk, H.) (De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany, 2015).

  48. 48.

    Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. Language as shaped by the brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 31, 489–509 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B. & Chomsky, N. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1207–1242 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Smith, K. & Kirby, S. Cultural evolution: implications for understanding the human language faculty and its evolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 3591–3603 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Si, Y. & Reiter, J. P. Nonparametric bayesian multiple imputation for incomplete categorical variables in large-scale assessment surveys. J. Edu. Behav. Stat. 38, 499–521 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Strimmer, K. A unified approach to false discovery rate estimation. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 303 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. & Zeileis, A. Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J. Comp. Graph. Stat. 15, 651–674 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A. L., Zeileis, A. & Hothorn, T. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 1 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Good, A. Daval-Markussen and P. Bakker for useful comments and discussions. The support of the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant 670985, Grammatical Universals) is acknowledged. No funders had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors designed the research. D.E.B. designed and conducted the statistical analyses. S.M.M. and M.H. curated the data used for the analyses. D.E.B. and S.M.M. drafted the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final version of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damián E. Blasi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–6, Supplementary Figures 1–3.

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blasi, D.E., Michaelis, S.M. & Haspelmath, M. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nat Hum Behav 1, 723–729 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0192-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing