Abstract
This paper will analyze the emergence of the Hawaiian Creole English over
the course of two generations. This study has shown that the HCE is not derived
100% from the Hawaiian Pidgin English as this was a strong belief held until
2003. After conducting a medium-sized research, our final results have shown
that the creole was indeed created by children, and was in no sense a mere
predictable evolutionary step from the pidgin. According to this analysis, a
second generation of children added some features to the creole, the numbers in
our study confirming this hypothesis. The first generation created something
quite strikingly unlike the pidgin: they created a full language where there
had first been none. Thus, in order to observe the differences in HCE between
the two generations, the focus of our research was mainly kept on 50 families
that spoke HCE as their first language.
In
this article, the writer has analysed varies cases and defended his own Creole
Prototype theory. It has been pointed out, for example, that creoles only
exhibit their prototype because their creators spoke morphologically isolating
languages. The idea that creoles have isolating morphology only because their
source languages do is proved to be wrong through the case of the inflection in
Guinea- Bissau Creole. Backgrounds and features of varies creoles have been
brought up, such as Nubi Creole Arabic, Chamic languages and Baba Malay.
In
the last paragraphs the author arguments that other articles in the volume
propose that valid theories about creole genesis must take sociological
circumstances into account more diligently.
The
reason that there are in Cuba and Puerto Rico so few Spanishbasedcreoles was
because the small-farm stage lasted so long on these islands that once slaves
were brought in longer numbers, relations between blacks andwhites were, while
fraught, less implacably distant than on plantations in Surinam or Haiti, and
that amidst this social context a very lightly Africanized Spanish itself was
too well-established to be transformed by newcomers.
The
systems of communication that creolophones use to express their identities and
the layered renditions of consciousness that this requires do
so
in a code which is less heavily accreted with needless grammatical complexity than
people do when expressing their identities in the Caucasus Mountains, and that
this is simply because the creolophone’s code is newer. Furthermore
it should be observed that a statement that, for example, Saramaccan is less grammatically
complex than Russian can, in the logical sense, be founded not in prejudice of
any stamp, but a simple engagement with the data. In any case, the volume under
review teaches us, despite the intentions of its editors and authors, that
creoles are indeed the product of the “deconstructing” of grammar followed by
its reconstitution over what has so far been a brief period of time.
