#1873: Do Creoles represent a linguistically-definable class? (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Michel DeGraff <degraff@MIT.EDU>


Dear all,

I've posted revised versions of my Chicago (January 2000) handouts on the
web --- that is, handouts for SPCL and for the Language in Society Workshop
at the University of Chicago.  Both handouts address the question: "Do
Creoles represent a linguistically-definable class?"

The SPCL handout (24 pages) is mainly histori(ographi)cal and sociological
with a couple of empirical case studies that illustrate the problematic
bases of the `simple Creole morphology' orthodoxy --- i.e. the idea that
the structure of Creole languages is `simple' to a degree unheard of in
non-Creole languages.

The University of Chicago handout (38 pages) is more theoretically oriented
as it compares and contrasts the epistemological, empirical and conceptual
bases of two sorts of approaches to Creole languages: one that assumes that
Creole languages are on a par with non-Creole languages (that's my own
approach), and one that assumes that Creoles form a class of languages of
their own with characteristics that are not found in other languages
(that's the `Creole prototype' approach).

The handouts --- in .ps (postscript) and .pdf (Acrobat reader) formats ---
are at the following addresses:

SPCL: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/degraff/spcl00.ps
      http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/degraff/spcl00.pdf

UChicago: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/degraff/uchicago.ps
          http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/degraff/uchicago.pdf

Enjoy!

                                 -michel.
___________________________________________________________________________
MIT Linguistics & Philosophy, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge MA 02139-4307
degraff@MIT.EDU        http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/degraff.home.html
___________________________________________________________________________