xue yang,camelia, Ilka Groenewold

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.