Are creoles a special type of language?
Methodological issues in new approaches to an old question
This paper takes as its starting point Muysken’s (1988a: 300) view of a ‘creole’ language as “just a language.” With this statement, Muysken rejects the idea of a creole prototype. Over the past 20 years, that idea has seen several new proponents. We provide a brief overview, before turning our attention to the work of Bakker et al. (2011; et seq.). That work relies on statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures which are not well understood by many linguists in the field of pidgin and creole studies. As a result, Bakker et al.’s methodologies have gone virtually unchallenged, although several critiques of their data – and by implication, of their conclusions – have been published. In this paper, we focus on the methodologies, providing detailed explanations of the statistical and phylogenetic computational procedures. We show that the data set used in the statistical procedure, a multiple regression analysis, fails to come anywhere near the minimum number of datapoints required for such an analysis to be meaningful. We show further that the apparent sophistication of the phylogenetic approach, which relies on a combination of computational packages to produce output in the form of reticulate networks, cannot remedy the flaws arising from questionable assumptions about linguistic features, pervasive errors in the data which are fed into the computation (including errors which appear to be systematic), the problematic treatment of gaps in the data, and the overinterpretation of output patterns. Contrary to Bakker et al.’s claims, Muysken’s (1988a) statement has not been disproven by these technologies.
Article outline
-
1.Introduction
- 2.The resurgence of creole exceptionalism
- 3.Languages, features, and ‘creoleness’ in Comparative Creole Syntax
- 3.1The creoleness of features in Comparative Creole Syntax
- 3.2A multiple regression analysis
- 3.3Extending the CCS feature set to 12 non-creoles
- 3.3.1Inapplicable features
- 3.3.2Missing data
- 3.3.3Errors in coding
- 3.4Summary
- 4.Phylogenetic computations and their applications in linguistics
- 4.1Phylogenetic programmes: Their purpose and nature and issues in their application
- 4.1.1Introduction
- 4.1.2The treatment of gaps in the data
- 4.1.3Interpreting trees
- 4.1.4Summary
- 4.2Computational techniques for linguists
- 4.2.1The nature of change
- 4.2.2The nature of characters
- 4.3Modelling the evolution of language families: The relevance of prior knowledge and benchmarking
- 4.4Computational approaches on the basis of linguistic features
- 4.5Summary
- 5.Computational methods and creole language typology
- 5.1Computational methods and creole language grouping
- 5.2Computational methods and creole typology
- 5.2.1The failure of benchmarking
- 5.2.2Feature selection and the data matrix
- 5.3Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (77)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. 2001. Introduction. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. Dixon (eds), 1–26. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ansaldo, U. & Matthews, S. J. 2001. Typical creoles and simple languages: The case of Sinitic (Commentary on McWhorter, 2001). Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 311–325.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ansaldo, U., Matthews, S. J. & Lim, L. (eds) 2007. Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bakker, P., Daval-Markussen, A., Parkvall, M. & Plag, I. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26.1: 5–42. Reprinted 2013, in Creole Languages and Linguistic Typology, P. Bhatt & T. Veenstra (eds), 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baptista, M., Mello, H. & Suzuki, M. 2007. Kabuverdianu, or Cape Verdean, and Kriyol, or Guinea-Bissau (Creole Portuguese). In Holm & Patrick (eds), 53–82.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Binger, L.-G. 1886. Essai sur la langue Bambara, parlée dans le Kaarta et dans le Bélédougou, suivi d’un vocabulaire. Paris: Maisonneuve frères et Leclerc.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bird, C. S. & Kanté, M. 1976. An ka bamanankan kalan: Intermediate Bambara. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blasi, D. E., Michaelis, S. M. & Haspelmath, M. 2017. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1: 723–729. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H. 2016. Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. PNAS 113(39): 10818–10823. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowern, C. 2018. Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 281–296. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowern, C. & Atkinson, Q. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88: 817–845. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chatelain, H. 1888/1889. Kimbundu grammar: Grammatica elementar do kimbundu ou lingua de Angola. Geneva: Typ. de C. Schuchardt. Reprinted 1964, Ridgewood NJ: Gregg Press. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
Chatelain, H. 1894. Folk-tales of Angola. Fifty Tales, with Ki-mbundu text, literal English translation, introduction, and notes. New York NY: Houghton Mifflin, for the American Folk-Lore Society. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Christaller, J. G. 1875. A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language called Tshi [Chwee, Twi], Based on the Akuapem Dialect with Reference to the Other (Akan and Fante) Dialects. Basel: Basel Evangelical Missionary Society. Republished 1964. Ridgewood NJ: Gregg Press. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
Danielsen, S., Dunn, M. J. & Muysken, P. C. 2011. The spread of the Arawakan languages: A view from structural phylogenetics. In Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory, A. Hornborg & J. D. Hill (eds), 173–195. Boulder CO: University Press of Colorado.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Daval-Markussen, A. 2013. First step towards a typological profile of creoles. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 274–295. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeGraff, M., Bass, T. & Berwick, R. 2013. Computational phylogenetics, creole languages, and family values. Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists, Geneva.
Dunn, M. J. 2015. Language phylogenies. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 190–211. New York NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dunn, M. J., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. G. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature. Research Letters 473: 79–82. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (26 April 2020)
Ellis, P. D. 2010. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fon Sing, G. & Leoue, J. 2012. Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles. Paper presented at the 9th Creolistics Workshop: Contact languages in a global context: Past and present, Aarhus University.
Good, J. 2004. Split prosody and creole simplicity. The case of Saramaccan. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3: 11–30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hancock, I. F. 1987. A preliminary classification of the anglophone Atlantic creoles with syntactic data from thirty-three representative dialects. In Pidgin and Creole Languages. Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke, G. Gilbert (ed.), 264–333. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holm, J. A. 2007. Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), v–xi.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holm, J. A. & Patrick, P. L. (eds) 2007. Comparative Creole Syntax. Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars. London: Battlebridge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kearney, M. 2002. Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: Mistaken assumptions and conclusions. Systematic Biology 51(3): 369–381. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kearney, M. & Clark, J. M. 2003. Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils. A critical review. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 263–274. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kouwenberg, S. 2004. The grammatical function of Papiamentu tone. In Creole Languages and Portuguese, N. S. H. Smith (ed.). Special issue of Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3(2): 55–69. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kouwenberg, S. & Singler, J. V. 2011. Pidgins and creoles. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 283–300. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kouwenberg, S., Singler, J. V. & Mitchell, S. 2015. The quality of the output is determined by the quality of the input: Methodological issues in new computational approaches to creole typology. Paper presented at the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Summer Meeting, Graz.
Kusters, W. & Muysken, P. C. 2001. The complexities of arguing about complexity. Commentary on McWhorter, 2001. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 182–185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maia, A. da S. 1964. Lições de gramática de quimbundo: Portugués e banto, dialecto omumbuim. Cucujães: Escola Tipográfica.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McWhorter, J. H. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McWhorter, J. H. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3): 125–166.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M. (eds) 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Oxford: OUP. <[URL]> (26 April 2020).
Murphy, K. 2002. Using power analysis to evaluate and improve research. In Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, S. G. Rogelberg (ed.), 119–137. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muysken, P. C. 1988a. Are creoles a special type of language? In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol II: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications, F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), 285–301. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muysken, P. C. 1988b. Lexical restructuring in creole genesis. In Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprach-kontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10.-10.10.1987 an der Universität Essen, N. Boretzky, W. Enninger & T. Stolz (eds), 193–210. Bochum: Brockmeyer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muysken, P. C. 2008. Creole studies and multilingualism. In Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 287–308. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. & Warnow, T. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81(2): 382–420. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nichols, J. & Warnow, T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 760–820.. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ogden, T. H. & Rosenberg, M. 2007. How should gaps be treated in parsimony? A comparison of approaches using simulation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 817–826. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Page, R. D. M. & Holmes, E. C. 1998. Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Patrick, P. L. 2007. Introduction. In Holm & Patrick (eds), xi–xii.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Patterson, C. 1988. The impact of evolutionary theories on systematics. In Prospects in Systematics, D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), 59–91. Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Penny, D. 2013. Rewriting evolution – “Been there, done that”. Genome Biology and Evolution 5(5): 819–821. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ross, M. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event. In Archaeology and Language R. M. Blench & M. Spriggs (eds), 209–261. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ross, M. 2007. Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 11–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vandamme, A.-M. 2009. Basic concepts of molecular evolution. In The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, 2nd edn, P. Lemey, M. Salemi & A.-M. Vandamme (eds), 3–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wheeler, W. C. & Giribet, G. 2016. Molecular data in systematics: a promise fulfilled, a future beckoning. In The future of phylogenetic systematics: The legacy of Willi Hennig, D. Williams, M. Schmitt & Q. Wheeler (eds), 329–343. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wiens, J. J. 2003. Incomplete taxa, incomplete characters, and phylogenetic accuracy: Is there a missing data problem? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(2): 297–310. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wiens, J. J. & Moen, D. S. 2008. Missing data and the accuracy of Bayesian phylogenetics. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46(3): 307–314.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wiley, E. O. & Lieberman, B. S. 2011. Phylogenetics. Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd edn. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilkinson, M. 1995. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Systematic Biology 44: 501–514. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Williams, D. & Ebach, M. C. 2014. Patterson’s curse, molecular homology, and the data matrix. In The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics, A. Hamilton (ed.), 151–188. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Winford, D. 2008. Atlantic creole syntax. In Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (eds), 19–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)