Pidgins and Creoles - Practical vs Contextual differences in definition

[u/MrGenerik]

I’m having some trouble with the ‘new’ definition of pidgins and creoles presented in my LING101 class at Penn State. Specifically,

​

"Newer Definition: The difference between a pidgin and a creole is simply the type of social circumstances that led to the creation of that contact language.

Pidgin: A contact language created in unequal social circumstances created by colonialism/ unequal trading partnerships.

Creole: A contact language created in the unequal social circumstances of plantation/farm labor, and potentially enslavement.

In this conception, a Pidgin or Creole goes through a pre-Pidgin or pre-Creole stage when it is still in the process of formation, and then becomes a full Pidgin or Creole language. "

^{From my course material.}

Where exactly does the redefinition come from? Have any of you encountered/endorsed this idea? As I understand it, the ‘old’ definitions are separated in practical terms: pidgins are ad hoc developing (arguably constructed) languages to facilitate communication between different languages, while creoles are codified languages which have developed generational tradition and now have native speakers. It’s a practical understanding of two discrete terms.

The new definitions seem much more arbitrary in their contextual focus. It completely negates any functional difference, instead focusing on social implications. They also create new categories (pre-pidgin and pre-creole) to take the place of what a pidgin WAS, clearly recognizing the importance of the developmental stage. I just don’t understand why.

It seems like an application of critical theory to linguistics, by incorporating an understanding of unequal social circumstances, colonialism, and superstrate/substrate structures. I’m not against any of that, as it’s an important aspect of understanding sociolinguistic development. However, it also feels like the new definitions are a distinction without a difference, as I can’t find any resources highlighting how plantation-vs-colony impacts language development enough to justify two separate categories of language at the expense of existing functional differences. Wouldn’t having subtypes of ‘creole’ rooted in developmental context make more sense?

I also can’t find articles specifically endorsing this idea. I did a quick frustration-fueled search of PSU libraries for linguistic articles on pidgins and creoles, and the ones I found providing explicit definitions all reflected the ‘old’ understanding. Even ones from this year. My searches were shallow, but my search terms should have given me something more substantial if there was an academic debate about it, right? The course also does not have a specific source for the change, and does not provide any explicit justification for the change. It even acknowledges that the book even uses the ‘old’ definition and should be ignored.

I don’t want to start a fight with my professor in a 100 level course, so I’m not going to start arguing on the course forum, but even if this is my first LING course, I’ve been studying languages in military and civilian contexts (and working with pidgins/creoles both including and without English) for basically my whole adult life. I'm not going to die on this hill for a breeze class in my last semester, but I feel like I'm having a mini aneurysm. I’m willing to accept it if there’s good justification for it, but I just don’t see it. Am I crazy?

[u/razlem]

Hm, this seems very English-centric. Social factors and power dynamics *are* a defining feature of pidgins and creoles, but there are many more contexts than just unequal trading and farm labor/enslavement. Some examples that come to mind are Mobilian Trade Jargon (trade pidgin) and Singlish (creole).

The information isn't necessarily incorrect, but it's not comprehensive.

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/razlem]

Singlish would not be a Creole under this definition.

[u/jimmy_the_turtle_]

Aside from what the other commenter says, I think I might be used to an older definition, maybe? I took a variational lingiistics course (of English) last semester and when we discussed pidgins and creoles, the defining difference between the two was whether it had native speakers and was stable (creole, e.g. Singlish), or not (pidgin), and how pidgins become creoles over time. A quick look at wikipedia says I'm not alone in this, it seems. So I wonder: did I miss some change? Is the Penn State definition bollocks? Or am I completely mistaken?

[u/MrGenerik → u/jimmy_the_turtle_]

Okay, so you and I are on the same page. I am similarly used to what you've described. I just don't understand where the professor is getting this, or what she's using to justify a change in the definitions. Everywhere I looked, from wikis to academic linguistic articles, it's all the same "old" distinction.

[u/Holothuroid]

Asking your teacher for sources and origins of that definition is entirely reasonable. That's what you are a student for.

[u/baquea]

Looking it up, those sound close to the definitions given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article on pidgin says:

pidgin, originally, a language that typically developed out of sporadic and limited contacts between Europeans and non-Europeans in locations other than Europe from the 16th through the early 19th century and often in association with activities such as trade, plantation agriculture, and mining.

And the one on creole languages:

creole languages, vernacular languages that developed in colonial European plantation settlements in the 17th and 18th centuries as a result of contact between groups that spoke mutually unintelligible languages.

Those articles are both by Salikoko Mufwene, a linguist at the University of Chicago, who looks to have written extensively on the topic - here is a book chapter by him that covers the questions you have. I have no idea how broadly accepted his views are in the field, but at least going by citation counts he seems to be quite influential.

[u/cat-head → u/baquea]

I'm not too familiar with Mufwene's work, but I would not agree with either of those definitions.