Language’s genesis and progression through cognitive expansion

and creolization

Jacob Y. de Groot1

Abstract This paper contains a scenario for the genesis, and part of the development and progression

of language. It consists of a concise interdisciplinary explanation on how modern speech began, a

trace back to language’s first appearance, and a short discourse on the linguistic record of archaic

language users Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis – a record can be outlined linguistically

as well as genetically. Further focus will be on language development and the process of language

variation through pidginization and creolization. The conclusion that will be drawn is that since

the union of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis 70-30 kya, creolization has been a common

process for language progression and a main reason for present language variation.

Keywords: Language morphosis, progression and variation; creolization contrasts; labeling; lexi-

fication; grammaticalization

1. Introduction

There are around 7000 languages in the

world today; Modern humans left Africa

around 70kya, and this leaves us in a genetic

logjam: Only a few dozen languages could

have migrated with the wandering Homo sapi-

ens. If all languages in existence descended

from those few dozen (and those which never

left Africa), the language diversity we have

now couldn’t have been attained within the de-

sign space offered by these few languages.

This raises questions on Homo sapiens’ bio-

logical and cultural evolution, in particular on

the period needed for the development of lan-

guage.

Human evolution is a symbiotic cogni-

tive and cultural progress, of which language

development is an important factor. In the evo-

lution of language both temporal and spatial

processes have contributed. Considering the

last, the linguistic development of Homo sapi-

1 Prince of Songkla University. 80, Moo 1, Vichitsongkram Rd. Kathu, Phuket 83120. Tel. 0-7627-6012, Fax 0-7627-6002. Email jacob.d@phu-

ket.psu.ac.th

ens is better explicated when Homo neander-

thalensis’ contributions are considered along-

side the input of Homo sapiens alone.

When Homo sapiens left Africa around

70 kya he came in contact with Homo neander-

thalensis. Exchange was intensive enough to

cause sapiens-neanderthalensis pidgin lan-

guages to come into existence, which contrib-

uted to greater language variety in Homo sapi-

ens. The pidgin would in a following genera-

tion become a creole language. After some

generations the language would have become

venerable, and after processes of cultural and

ethnic admixture it would be pidginized, and

form the basis of a new creole. After Homo ne-

anderthalensis’ expiry the pidginization/creo-

lization process went on in Homo sapiens,

causing several pidgin-creole continua.

2. An explanation of language genesis

If knowledge of language is not inborn,

it is so advantageous to have that methods of

achieving at that knowledge should be genet-

ically available. Still the supposition that na-

ture endowed man with linguistic capacity

doesn’t offer any clue about the mechanism

employed to enable him to learn and use lan-

guage. Natural selection might account for the

creation of a language faculty (innate

knowledge of universal grammar (UG), but

how could that be when practical application

of UG would not rise until with language?

Pinker and Bloom (1990) and Jackendoff

(1999) hold the view that UG was built fraction

by fraction, which suggests adaptive roles of

grammatical devices. Chomsky (1995) asserts

that explanation of this fragmented construc-

tion of knowledge on language universals is

unnecessary, as according to his analysis of

minimalist conception of syntax all rules of

syntax are the consequence of one fundamental

syntactic process which, once in place, would

lead the rest of UG to follow automatically. It

is however far more likely that our capacity to

use language is founded on existing proficien-

cies, none of which was originally intended for

language learning. The critical skills with

which linguistic aptitude is developed are

skills originally developed to regulate and im-

itate social behavior (Tomasello 1999). Learn-

ing by imitation allowed fast transfer of skills

from generation to generation. The ability to

form beliefs about mental states of others al-

lowed man to handle himself in a socially com-

plex environment. Language rode along with

and took profit of these cognitive capacities.

Natural selection is able to generate

chances in man both directly - via changes in

their genome coding, and indirectly - by plac-

ing their minds in a specific environment

(Clark 1997, Tomasello 1999). The indirect

way is named ‘niche construction’2: In addi-

tion to creating language learning mechanisms

in individuals, natural selection generated pro-

pensities to create special language learning

2 The term is by Odling-Smee, Laland and Feldman (1996).

environments in the parents of those individu-

als. ‘Cumulative downstream niche construc-

tion’ (Sterelny 2003) happens when a new gen-

eration ‘re-adapts’ an environment that was

adapted previously by earlier generations. Hu-

mans are major niche constructors, and many

of the modifications they make to their envi-

ronments accumulate over time (a language, a

culture, a country, science, engineering). Ac-

cumulative alterations cause a “ratchet effect”:

a cycle in which an improvement is made, be-

comes standard for the group, and then be-

comes a basis for further innovation (To-

masello 1999). Accumulative niche construc-

tion evidently applies to language. If man cre-

ates the linguistic environment of their off-

spring, and if all of us shape the linguistic en-

vironments of our conspecifics, the oppor-

tunity for the emergence of a ‘linguistic ratchet

effect’ is clearly open. So in a way that suited

our pre-existing cognitive processing capaci-

ties, language evolved.

2. Cognition and the processing of language

Through linguistics alone we cannot

determine for how long language has been spo-

ken. It is possible to study linguistics from lit-

erary sources up to around 5300 years ago3.

Spoken language emerged far earlier. The cog-

nitive foundation for language originates in

complex behavior. Modern language can only

be acquired after the development of semiotic

capacity - the brain’s capacity to handle com-

plicated systems of symbolic signals.

The capability to speak started with

what man already had in his brain: ganglion,

limbic system and neocortex. The neocortex is

an exclusive mammalian feature, and humans

use it for functions as sensory perception and

conscious thought. It forms the foundation of

analytical and logical thinking, and of man’s

capacity for language. Broca’s and Wernicke’s

areas are also regions with functions connected

3 The Narmer palette – the oldest still existing written text (proto-hi-eroglyphic) - dates from 3300 BCE.

to speech production. As speech conveys emo-

tion and thought, there are connections be-

tween linguistic and other brain functions. The

functions of cognition, perception, language

and conceptualization are therefore connected.

Restricting linguistic capacity to Homo

sapiens based on archaeologic evidence of cul-

tural activity is denying that many groups did

speak fully developed languages without

adapting material culture. Presence of a certain

cultural phenomenon may indicate a level of

cognitive and intellectual capacity, but doesn’t

mean that this same level cannot be achieved if

this phenomenon is absent. Neanderthal man

populated Europe, Western Asia and Southern

Siberia between 125 kya and 35 kya. Their cul-

ture was less progressive than that of Homo sa-

piens, and it was claimed that considering

Homo neanderthalensis’ anatomy they were

intellectually the lesser of Homo sapiens. A

controversy about the descent of the larynx and

the presence of the hyoid bone has long im-

peded the acceptance of Homo neander-

thalensis’ speech. This controversy has now

been lifted by recent excavations of a Homo

neanderthalensis skeleton with a hyoid bone.

This indicates a capacity for speech, which

suggests that Homo neanderthalensis already

had a modern larynx. Homo neanderthalensis

was biologically and intellectually equal to

Homo sapiens and his capacity for language

was similar to our own. (Dediu and Levinstone

2014)

Recently the birth of modern language

has been reassessed from 50,000-100,000

years ago to 500,000 years ago, the age of

Homo heidelbergensis, who was the common

ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo ne-

anderthalensis. It was long assumed that mod-

ern language did not emerge before 50-100 kya

(Bickerton 1990, 2002; Mithen 2005; Chom-

sky 2007). This was based on the supposition

that Homo heidelbergensis nor Homo neander-

thalensis possessed specialized organs for

speech, and had no recursive thought nor any

other form of cognitive flexibility that would

enable them to use language. It was also sup-

posed that Homo sapiens’ capacity for lan-

guage had shaped suddenly, with a ‘rewiring of

the brain’ (Chomsky 2007), instead of having

been formed through evolution. Data now sug-

gest that language gradually developed

through a steady accumulation of small im-

provements. In Homo heidelbergensis, a tool

user and hunter who used pigments for sym-

bolic purposes, this process had already culmi-

nated in a type of language similar to modern

speech. In Homo sapiens the accreted improve-

ments caused modern language to develop fur-

ther, and in Homo neanderthalensis something

similar happened. Homo neanderthalensis

knew how to handle syntax, pragmatics and

word-meaning mapping, just as Homo sapiens

did (Dediu and Levinson 2013).

The use of articulate speech indicates

that the parameters carrying speech infor-

mation are adjusted for production as well as

reception. Homo heidelbergensis’s external

and middle ear enabled clear sound discern-

ment, hereby supporting modern speech per-

ception. Homo neanderthalensis’ ear anatomy

was modern, showing that modern auditory or-

gans predate the Homo sapiens - Homo nean-

derthalensis split (Martínez et al. 2004). Also,

for modern speech production the regulation of

breathing is indispensable: Sharp inbreath and

slow release, and control over the volume of

voice. Automatic respiratory control (situated

in the brain stem) is taken over by cortical con-

trol when speaking. Evidence of breathing con-

trol can be concluded from fossils by the en-

larged vertebral canal. Both Homo heidelber-

gensis and Homo neanderthalensis show it

(McLarnon & Hewitt 1999).

The split from Homo heidelbergensis

left Homo sapiens dominant in Africa, Homo

neanderthalensis in Eurasia. There was sparse

contact until the exodus of modern man from

Africa. Homo sapiens fossils of just over

100kya have been discovered in the Middle

East, and around 70kya further dispersal of

Homo sapiens in the old world started. Even-

tually Homo sapiens reached glacial Europe

40kya. In short, while lineages had split

500kya, there was recurring contact between

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis

from at least 100kya.

3. Culture and language

Although hardly encountered at all in

Upper Paleolithic and infrequently in any pre-

Neolithic culture, Homo neanderthalensis was

originally seen as undeveloped because of the

absence in his culture of art and projectile

weapons, and his lack of large-scale exchange

networks, camp sites and fishing. This impres-

sion has been invalidated by recent excava-

tions of Neanderthal sites, where adornments

have been found that were produced before

first contact with Homo sapiens. Homo nean-

derthalensis had a complex stone tool making

technology that could have only been attained

by teaching. He used fire, consumed cooked

game and cereals, wore foot gear and sew his

clothing. He hunted small animals and used

collective driving to catch buffalo and mam-

moth. Homo neanderthalensis attended to their

wounded and they buried their dead. They dec-

orated their body with pigments. They made

beads, and lived in small bands. Homo nean-

derthalensis probably built huts (Lalueza-Fox

et al.). The skills he had implicate consecutive

planning, as speech does. The sequence of ac-

tion and the motor control needed for tool mak-

ing need the same high level cognition and fine

motor skills associated with language use.

Contact with Homo sapiens caused cul-

tural borrowing by Homo neanderthalensis.

While invention shows cultural advance, bor-

rowing technology is already an indicator of

cognitive capacity. Neanderthal culture wasn’t

intellectually ‘simpler’ than ancient Homo sa-

piens’. Indeed several modern human cultures

are simpler than Neanderthal culture. The Tas-

manians and the Yaghans of Tierra del Fuego

4 And Denisovans, a Paleolithic-era species of the genus Homo and subspecies of Homo neanderthalensis. For the scope of the discussion

lived in almost complete absence of material

culture until recent times, the Andaman Is-

landers still do. The main cause for Homo ne-

anderthalensis’ relative underdevelopment

was formed by their very low population den-

sities. Small, dispersed populations don’t de-

velop quickly, as division of labor and special-

ization is hardly possible and transmission fi-

delity low.

Large societies have a tendency of re-

ducing complexity in language. This is caused

by analogous language characteristics needed

to interconnect with people further away, who

communicate through the same language, but

whom one doesn’t know personally. Small

communities with little material culture don’t

mind and even covet complexity, as it sets

identity. Even today highly complex languages

are spoken by small groups. We may expect

that Neanderthal languages were complex and

comprised many typical features of languages

spoken by traditional tribal societies. Typical

for these languages are a large number of pho-

nemes and large vocabularies, complex mor-

phology and syntax, and a high level of irregu-

larity. Neanderthal languages were most likely

of this type. There were also many of them, and

many unrelated because of the isolation in

which their speakers lived.

4. The dissemination and re-formation of

language

When Homo sapiens arrived out of Af-

rica, Homo neanderthalensis was the natural

keeper of the land wherever he came. Homo

sapiens needed Homo neanderthalensis’ ad-

vice and survival skills. In exchange, techno-

logical and material advancement went the

other way. There was contact, communication,

cultural exchange and trade. According to

Pääbo (2014) ancient DNA (aDNA) confirms

that Homo sapiens split with Homo neander-

thalensis4 from Homo heidelbergensis, but

in this paper Denisovans are considered in tandem with Homo nean-derthalensis and won’t be mentioned apart, again.

that, after the split, the human groups inter-

breeded - infrequently, but not rarely. Traces

of the Neanderthal genome have been found in

humans. This indicates that there is factually

no single species lineage to us. In fact, sugges-

tions have been made that we shouldn’t think

of the two as separate species. The genome of

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is

not only very similar, the lineages also share

the FOXP2 gene, a gene linked to the capabil-

ity to use language. Other evidence apart, this

suggests that Homo neanderthalensis was a

language user. Next proof is the actual result of

the cause: Only if modern man did interact and

interbreed with Homo neanderthalensis, and

appropriated Neanderthal phonology, mor-

phology and syntax, the design space that was

needed for the development of modern lan-

guage variety can be explained.

Dediu and Levinson (2014) suggest

that the opportunity by which modern lan-

guage has developed into such variety was by

contact and interbreeding between Homo sapi-

ens and Homo neanderthalensis. The technique

by which the present number of modern lan-

guages has been achieved becomes apparent

by putting the development from proto-lan-

guage to language on par with the development

from pidgin to creole.

5. Progression of proto-language into lan-

guage; analogous to pidgin into creole?

Language pidginization is a natural

process that often takes place when cultures

meet. It appears with sudden colonization by

settlers and fast expansion of trade networks;

superstrate and substrate language are disas-

sembled and through regrammaticalization and

relexification a new one is built up: This pro-

cess mainly takes place in frontier areas where

there is frequent contact. Just as happens with

material borrowings, the resulting trade lan-

guage is then used with growing constancy by

larger groups of people. When the trade lan-

guage has a sufficient impact on society, it may

change into a creole language; a language with

native speakers.

Bickerton (1984) proposes in his Lan-

guage Bio-program Hypothesis (LBH) that

pidgins are created by adults and have no na-

tive speakers. Their use is limited to certain as-

pects of communication only. They are not

proper languages but restricted codes. Pidgins

are formed by ‘stripping’: reducing a language

to its lexical categories. This causes the loss of

phonological structures, inflectional and deri-

vational morphology, grammatical distinction

of gender, number, tense, mood and aspect,

and subordination. Many lexical items are for-

feited, as are semantic and syntactic exactness,

causing multifunctional words to develop.

‘Stripping’ concerns superstrate and substrate

alike; it means loss of features in all languages

involved in building the pidgin.

Bickerton also proposes that Creoles

are made by children and that they do have na-

tive speakers. Creole languages are formed in

one or two generations, and are fit to be used

in all fields of communication. Consequently

they are fully developed languages that carry

all features of natural languages: a large lexi-

con, fixed syntax, semantic precision, gram-

matical and functional categories, and subordi-

nate clauses. Creoles are nativized pidgins,

caused into existence because children experi-

ence the pidgin of their parents as depleted;

they fill in the perceptive gap by nativizing the

creole by grammaticalization and expansion of

its lexicon. In Bickerton’s LBH pidgins and

creoles are distinct entities.

Lefebvre (Lefebvre 2013) argues evi-

dence shows that pidgins and creoles should

not be considered as separate entities forged by

different processes. Both are variations on a

single process: relabeling. Relabeling is not

only important in the first phase of pidgin/cre-

ole creation, but also in the further developing

process of relabeled lexicon. The more relabel-

ing is done, the more extended the pidgin or

creole will become. The process of relabeling

requires speakers who have cognitive aware-

ness of the lexicon. Though children might be

the initial creators of a language, the role of

adults should not be underestimated (Lefebvre

2013).

Suppositions have been made about

parallels between the transition from pidgin to

creole and that from protolanguage to lan-

guage. Bickerton (1990, 2000) suggests that

protolanguage is analogue to pidgins, while de-

veloped language is equivalent to creoles.

Heine and Kuteva (2007) also claim that pidg-

ins show attributes that may explain early

forms of human language. Protolanguage is be-

lieved to have no grammatical categories and

no recursion, and a small lexicon consisting of

words with multifunctional meaning, which

are arbitrarily connected. Circumstantial con-

text is supposed to aid semantic interpretation.

These properties are supposed to resemble

those of restricted pidgins. The changes from

protolanguage to language would correspond

to those occurring in the transformation from

pidgin to creole.

Lefebvre (2013) states however that

even restricted pidgins have syntax, grammat-

ical categories and recursion, and that no ex-

tralinguistic context is needed for interpreta-

tion. The correspondences left (small lexicon

and multifunctional words) don’t count as suf-

ficient similarity between protolanguage and

restricted pidgins. Apart from this, Lefebvre

argues, pidgins are formed by relabeling, in

which the relabeled lexicon takes over the orig-

inal lexicon’s semantic and syntactic require-

ments. However protolanguage arose, it was

obviously not by relabeling.

In the discussion about the morphosis

from protolanguage into language Bickerton

(1990) remarks that unlike in protolanguage,

syntax has meaning in language, arguments are

linked to verbs through subcategorization,

there are rules for recursion and grammatical

items feature plentiful. Unlike protolanguage,

language is fluent, and language speakers can

interpret information without extralinguistic

context. Lefebvre (2013) argues that between

pidgins and creoles there are no such differ-

ences. Both pidgins and creoles have fixed

word order, functional and grammatical cate-

gories and recursion. Outside context is not

needed for interpretation. Only in the criteria

for fluency and lexicon size pidgins corre-

spond with protolanguages.

Although it has been claimed that dur-

ing the change from protolanguage to language

grammatical categories appeared through

grammaticalization (e.g. Heine & Kuteva

2007; Smith 2008), even restricted pidgins

contain at least already a few functional/gram-

matical categories. Most grammaticalization is

accomplished in pidgins before creolization.

This is owed to the fact that pidgin/creole cre-

ators use the syntax of their own native lan-

guage as an instrument for the building of a

pidgin. The syntax of a pidgin is thus quite

similar to that of its creator’s native language.

In the matter of a protolanguage-language suc-

cession there is no earlier language to construct

from, and necessarily syntax appears from thin

air. In pidgins other grammatical categories

also have a tendency to follow the form of that

of the substrate-, and contrast it with the super-

strate language (Lefebvre & Loranger 2006).

This cannot be case in the relationship between

proto-language and language.

Lefebvre finally proposes that Bicker-

ton’s (1995) statement about the transfor-

mation from protolanguage to language being

abrupt is probably right, but for another reason

than he suggests. In his interpretation, there are

two varieties of language: modern language

and modern forms of protolanguage (baby talk,

foreigner talk), and nothing in between. This is

Bickerton’s argument in favor of a two-stage

evolution scenario – protolanguage then lan-

guage – with syntax as the distinguishing fea-

ture. The argument Bickerton makes cannot be

right, though, as his comparison material

doesn’t prove much: Pidgins and creoles are

not separate entities, and grammaticalization

occurs pre-creolization. In fact pidgins and cre-

oles may be created in a short time because

they reproduce the properties of their creator’s

native language by relabeling. Relabeling

could never be an issue in the morphosis be-

tween protolanguage to language, so the shift

from pidgin to creole doesn’t help us under-

stand the protolanguage-language sequence

(Lefebvre 2013).

6. Something out of nothing: cognition, so-

cial skills and labeling

“Language involves attaching meaning

to symbols" (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel,

2011). Cognition is apparent in young humans

and even primates. The number of generations

between the beginning of sound as meaning

being attached to a symbol until the develop-

ment of a protolanguage can impossibly be ae-

ons for a cognitive creature with developed

speech organs. Once the tools for language

were there, it became so advantageous for man

to possess it, that with his cognitive abilities

and social skills he would have no difficulty la-

beling new lexemes within this hugely useful

device by using the means he had to his dispo-

sition. Speakers of creole languages relabel

and become comfortable with new coinages

within a generation. Also, first generations cre-

ole speakers routinely re-grammaticalize using

the same principle. There is but a technical dif-

ference between the relabeling and the labeling

of a lexical item: relabeling implies pre-exist-

ing, already labeled sources and labeling does

not. But spontaneous lexeme coinages are of

all times: In protolanguage lexemes, and in its

progress tools as syntax, verb-linked argu-

ments and subcategorization would from its

very genesis on have been outfits which – if not

readily identified, named and put in working

order – would be desired by a cognitive being,

very much in the same way as a tool would be

coveted and designed. Thus language features

would be searched for and found out through

the same cognitive skills that would allow man

to discover that soft stone can be worked with

hard stone. Even if not in all of all places: Just

one troupe of Homo heidelbergensis using

5 Writing, another achievement that characterizes humans as inven-

tors of linguistic systems, has also only been invented once (Coulmas 2002)

their cognitive capacities to refine proto-lan-

guage into language would be enough to teach

the rest of the human race how to do such a

thing.5 In this scenario only during the very

start the morphosis from pidgin to creole

would not mirror exactly the sequence from

protolanguage to language. For owners of

finely-tuned sound producing and reception

systems as the native speakers of proto-lan-

guage labeling and grammaticalization - the

main endeavors needed for man to effect mor-

phosis from proto-language into language -

would have gone almost as smoothly as the

morphosis from pidgin into creole.

7. Creolization as one of languages’ prime

ways of progression

Apart from the cultural necessity for

proto-language to develop into language, the

need for any language to develop periodically

- as an adaption to a changed historical or so-

cial situation - is furnished with by the same

technique of lexical and grammatical labeling

that the road towards language progression

employs. Cultural amendment or historical re-

form can split up and modify a language into

several new ones. Well-known cases are Low

Frankonian, which split into Dutch, Flemish

and Afrikaans, and Malay, which split into

among others Minangkabau, Kelantan Malay,

Musi, Negeri Sembilan and Bajau. The other

road employs the process of pidginization and

creolization, which happened in hundreds, or

even thousands of instances during historic

times.

There is agreement on the following

criteria in defining creole languages: 1. Creoles

emerge as pidgins first; 2. Creoles have native

speakers; and 3. Creoles are grammatically

more complex than pidgins. Creoles differ

through the different ways in which creoliza-

tion is realized. But we must acknowledge that

creoles do not develop exclusively from pidg-

ins. Manner of creolization depends on size of

and language variation within the community,

intensity and customs of contact with other

communities speaking the same pidgin/creole,

on proximity and availability of the lexifier

language. In many cases there are incognizable

factors defining creoles’ development. Alt-

hough it is still assumed that all creole lan-

guages are simpler than other languages, most

are not. Haitian Creole has extensive deriva-

tional morphology; Tok Pisin has markers for

singular/dual/multiple, as well as for inclusive

and exclusive in pronouns. The only area

where creoles tend to simpler than their lexifi-

ers is in verbal inflection.

Relexification and regrammaticaliza-

tion – if not already living processes of the lan-

guage in her pidgin-state – causes a creole to

lose its simplicity. Creoles with a close prox-

imity to their superstrate restructure by rap-

prochement. Chaudenson (1992), studying cre-

oles with French lexifiers, assumes that creoles

progressively developed from their lexifiers

without an intermediate pidgin phase. This is a

valid possibility. The lexifier language was

simply rearranged and restructured to convert

into a creole. Creolization is then the final re-

sult of the rapprochement toward the lexifier

through the constant transmission of data. The

point that there is no indication of pidgins ac-

tually predating many creoles is an argument

for this view. Morphological features from the

lexifier are in some cases also taken over by

the creole.

Regular language change causes other creole

characteristics. Before a creole emerges, the

source of variants used for communication

consists of a blend of features, morphologi-

cally extending from the basic to the compli-

cated. Apart from early morphological devel-

opment in the pidgin stage, independent gram-

maticalization by the native speakers of the

creolized pidgin causes morphological expan-

sion in creole languages.

That creolization is accomplished in

contrastive and volatile ways may be illus-

trated by the following cases:

Non-creolization: Some types of pidgin

rarely result in a creole. Speakers who wish to

keep their own language a secret for outsiders

communicate to strangers in a reduced register,

so that those will never hear real language. The

Motu of New Guinea adapted their register to

the language of their trade partners. They used

a mild variety of Motu with other Austronesian

language speaking peoples, and a pidginized

form called Hiri Motu, with trade partners

speaking Papuan. (Versteegh 2008).

Multiple super- and substrates: The

substrate and even the superstrate of a creole

does not always consist of derivations from a

single or just two languages. Tok Pisin consists

of English, Malay, German and Portuguese su-

perstrate acquisitions, as well as substrate in-

ference from Austronesian and Papuan lan-

guages. Haitian Creole is a creole based mainly

on 18th-century French as a superstrate, but

with superstrate influences from Portuguese,

Spanish, and substrate corollary from Tayno

and African languages. Papiamento is in fact

an originally Upper Guinea Portuguese creole,

which has been partly relexified with Spanish

and Dutch words.

Reversed substrate and superstrate:

Since 1826 a creole language with an Aleut su-

perstrate and Russian inference has developed

on Mednyy Island near Kamchatka, which in

that year was inhabited with natives from the

Aleut Archipelago. The vocabulary is, unlike

in other pidgins and creoles, largely indige-

nous. There are two strata in the language, one

Aleut, the other Russian. The Aleut stratum in-

cludes the major part of the vocabulary and all

nominal and verbal morphology, most of syn-

tax, nominal inflexion and some other struc-

tural features. The Russian stratum consist of

the verbal tense and person marking, negation,

infinitive forms, and part of syntax. Phoneti-

cally, the language has compromised between

Aleut and Russian (Wurm 1992).

8. The creole - pidgin - creole continuum The fact that pidginization and creo-

lization are continuously used in language de-

velopment may be exemplified by the fact that

the superstrates of many present-day pidgins

and creoles were once creole languages, them-

selves. Manglish, Singlish, Taglish, Jamaican

Patois, Mískito Coast Creole, Sranan Tongo,

Krio, Kreyol, Bislama, Tok Pisin, Torres

Straits Creole, Hawaiian Creole and Pitkern

are all creole languages with (Modern) English

as their superstrate. Modern English itself orig-

inated from the creole language Middle Eng-

lish (Bailey & Maroldt 1977)6. French, Italian,

Spanish, Portuguese and other Romance lan-

guages developed through pidginization and

creolization from Vulgar Latin, but are the su-

perstrates of modern creoles: Haitian Creole,

Louisiana Creole, Antillean Creole, French

Guiana Creole, Karipúna, Lanc-Patuá, Tây

Bồi, Réunion Creole, Seychellois Creole and

Tayo are creoles with French as superstrate.

Caló, Chavacano and Palanquero are creoles

with a Spanish superstrate. Portuguese-based

creoles include Guinea-Bissau Creole, Cape

Verdean Creole, Angolar, Forro, and Papia-

mento. In Italy, Roma (gypsies) speak an Ital-

ian-based para-Romani creole (Goyette 2000).

Malay, the language on which both

Malaysian and Indonesian have been designed,

is a language that has also often been pidg-

inized and creolized. In the 15th century Malac-

can and Johor Malay became important trade

and court languages in maritime Southeast

Asia. Classical Malay was pidginized into the

commonly used vernacular Melayu Pasar (Ba-

zar Malay). This Malay pidgin creolized into a

dozen Malay-based creoles; e.g Malaccan Cre-

ole Malay, Ambonese Malay, Manado Malay,

Balinese Malay, Papuan Malay and Betawi. A

recently (since around 1960) formed creole

that has Malay as a superstrate is Colloquial Ja-

kartanese Indonesian (CJI) or Bahasa Gaul

6 The argument of considering Middle English a creole comes from

the great reduction in inflected forms in Middle English. The declen-sion of nouns was drastically simplified, the verb structure lost the old

(Sneddon 2006). CJI partly originated from

Betawi, a Malay creole with Portuguese,

Dutch, Chinese, Javanese and Sundanese sub-

strates. CJI has since a few decennia become a

popular high-status sociolect, and has caused

diglossia in Indonesian, especially in its spo-

ken form; the other valid sociolect being stand-

ard official Indonesian. CJI is now rapidly

relexifying and to a certain extend even re-

grammaticalizing Indonesian.

Tok Pisin is a creole language spoken

as a mother tongue and as a lingua franca in –

especially the northern half of – Papua New

Guinea. In regions where familiarity with Tok

Pisin is widespread and has been for more than

a generation, Tok Pisin has wielded substantial

influence on the lexicon and grammar of other

languages. In the most extreme cases it either

replaces the local language totally, or extensive

borrowing from Tok Pisin takes place, even re-

placing basis vocabulary. Tok Pisin numerals

and other basic vocabulary items have replaced

the native ones in a number of Papuan lan-

guages. Many Papuan languages borrow Tok

Pisin verbs, but use them in combination with

native affixes. Grammatical constructions

from Tok Pisin are borrowed by many Papuan

languages, as well (Foley 1986).

Assammese, Bengali and other eastern

Indo-Arian languages developed from Ma-

ghadi Prakrit by language simplification remi-

niscent of creolization. Diphthongs were mon-

ophtongized, consonant clusters were reduced

to single consonants, the dual was lost, vowel

inflection was merged, the dative was elimi-

nated, case endings were synchronized, new

instrumentals and a genitive started to be used,

the middle voice disappeared, and vocabulary

of uncertain origin was inserted. Now,

Asammese has been creolized, itself. Na-

gamese, the creolized Assammese spoken in

Nagaland had standardized since the 1930ies,

patterns of conjugation, with many strong verbs analogized as weak,

and syntax was simplified with word order becoming more rigid.

and is the common vernacular for all citizens

of Nagaland (Reinecke et al 1975).

Afrikaans is an offshoot of several

Dutch dialects spoken mainly by the Dutch set-

tlers of South Africa, where it gradually began

to develop independently in the course of the

18th century. Although it has several charac-

teristics of creolization, such as a simplified

verb system and reduced case system7, it may

be considered a daughter language of Dutch,.

Eventually, a pidginized variety of Afrikaans

(Fly Taal) has emerged among speakers of

Bantu languages (Holm 2004).

Seen the facts that the range of varia-

tion found across languages is quite narrow8,

and that in many cases complexity is high

where native speaker numbers are low, and

complexity is low when speaker numbers are

high, it may be concluded that a natural chain

of cause, here called the creole-pidgin-creole

continuum, has in the course of time been re-

sponsible for the rise of many creole lan-

guages, which then became creolized, them-

selves.

8. Conclusion

Pidginization and creolization are

basic, primeval, but still ongoing processes of

language change that have existed almost as

long as language, itself. Within historic times

there is evidence of hundreds of pidginizations

and creolizations taking place. We can attest

that the same process took place on a grand

scale in prehistory. The fact that we now know

how and when pidginization and creolization

first began gives us a further insight into one of

the important ways in which new languages

have been constructed almost since language

genesis. It also contributes to a greater under-

standing of in which manner language pro-

gressed and expanded. The human gift for lan-

guage adaptation can be clearly seen in instru-

ments as the creolization-pidginization-creo-

7 The case system has in the meantime also been reduced in Dutch

(through language planning).

lization continuum. For a cognitive being lexi-

fying is eventually not so much more arcane or

difficult than relexifying. Language only had

to be invented once to progress in all its vari-

ety. Pidginization/creolization doesn’t stop.

Languages that were formed through the pro-

cess may become superstrates of new pidgins

themselves, Next to historical language change

within language, pidginization/creolization

must be considered as a major factor in the de-

velopment of language variety.

References

Bailey, C. J. N., & Maroldt, K. (1977). The French line-

age of English. In J. M. Meisel (Ed.), Pidgins – creoles

– languages in contact (pp. 21–53). Tübingen: Narr.

Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypoth-

esis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7. pp. 173-221

Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bickerton, D. (1995). Language and human behavior.

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Bickerton, D. (2000). How protolanguage language be-

came language. In C. Knight, M. Studdert- Kennedy, &

J. R. Hurford (Eds.). The evolutionary emergence of lan-

guage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

pp. 264–284

Bickerton, D. (2002). Foraging versus social intelli-

gence in the evolution of protolanguage. In A. Wray

(Ed.), The transition to language. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press. pp. 207–225.

Bickerton, D. (2009). Adam’s tongue. New York, NY:

Hill and Wang.

Chaudenson, R. (1992). Des îles, des hommes, des

langues. Paris : l’Harmattan

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program, Cam-

bridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2007). Of minds and language. Biolin-

guistics 1, 9–27.

Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and

World Together Again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

8 In comparison with the possibility of infinite variation languages are

extremely restrained. Many logically available possibilities for syntax, phonology or morphology exist in no single language

Coulmas, F. (2002). Writing systems: An introduction to

their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press

Dediu D., and Levinson S.C., (2013). On the antiquity

of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic

capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychol-

ogy. 4:397.

De Groot, J.Y. (2012). Urak Lawoi’ grammar and social

history. Phuket: Prince of Songkla University Press.

Foley, W.A. (1986). The Papuan languages of New

Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Goyette, S. (2000). The emergence of the Romance lan-

guages from Latin: a case for creolization effects. Ot-

tawa: University of Ottawa

Holm J. (2004). An introduction to Pidgins and creoles.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2007). The genesis of gram-

mar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Jackendoff, R. (1999). “Possible stages in the evolution

of the language capacity,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

3:272-279.

Kerswill, P. (2000). Koineization and accommodation.

In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill &N. Schilling-Estes

(eds.) The handbook of language variation and change.

Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 669-702.

Lalueza-Fox, C., Rosas, A., Estalrrich, A. et al. (2010).

Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among

Neandertal groups. Proceedings of the National Acad-

emy of Sciences of the United States of America 108,

250–253.

Lefebvre, C. (2004). Issues in the study of pidgin and

creole languages. Studies in language companion series

70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-

ing Company.

Lefebvre, C., & Loranger, V. (2006). On the properties

of Saramaccan fu: Synchronic and diachronic perspec-

tives. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 21, pp

275–337.

Lefebvre, C. (2013). 'On the relevance of pidgins and

creoles in the debate on the origins of language'. In:

Lefebvre, C., Comrie, B., Cohen, H. (eds), New Per-

spectives on the Origins of Language. Amsterdam/Phil-

adelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.

Pp.141-186.

Lim, L. (2011). Tone in Singlish: Substrate features

from Sinitic and Malay. In: in Lefebvre, C. (ed). Cre-

oles, their Substrates, and Language Typology. Amster-

dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Com-

pany

Martínez, I., Rosa, M., Arsuaga, J.-L. et al. (2004). Au-

ditory capacities in Middle Pleistocene humans from the

Sierra de Atapuerca in Spain. Proceedings of the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer-

ica 101, pp. 9976–9981.

Mithen, S. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search

for the Origins of Art, Science and Religion. London:

Thames and Hudson.

Odling-Smee, F. J. Laland, K. N. & Feldman M. W.

(2003). Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in

Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural Language and

Natural Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13,

pp 707-84.

Pääbo, S. (2014). Neanderthal man: in search of lost

genomes. Philadelphia, Perseus

Reinecke, J. E. et al. (1975). Languages of India: Pidg-

inization/Creolization. Oceanic Linguistics Special

Publications, No. 14, A Bibliography of Pidgin and

Creole Languages. pp. 632-635. Honolulu: University

of Hawai'i Press

Samovar, L.A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel E. R.

(2011). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. New

York: Wadsworth Publishing.

Smith, A.D.M. (2008). Protolanguage reconstructed. In-

teraction Studies, 9, pp 100–116.

Sneddon, J. (2006). Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian.

Canberra: Pacific Linguistics

Sterelny, K. (2003), Thought in a Hostile World: The

Evolution of Human Cognition, London, Blackwell.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human

Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Versteegh, K. (2008). Non-Indo-European Pidgins and

Creoles. Kouwenberg, S. & Singler, J. V. (eds.). The

Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Chichester:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Wurm, S. A. (1993). Some Contact Languages and

Pidgin and Creole Languages in the Siberian Region.

Language Sciences, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 249-285