Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:40:30.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Relevance of the Pidginization – Creolization Model for Second Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Albert Valdman
Albert Valdman
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Otto Jespersen was one of the first linguists to perceive a common basis underlying all types of language acquisition and learning. Comparing pidgins, broken or approximative version of a target language, and child language, he commented: “…. in all these seemingly different cases the same mental factor is at work, namely, imperfect mastery of a language, which in its initial stage, in the child with its first language and in a grownup with a second language learnt by imperfect method, leads to a superficial knowledge of the most indispensable words, with a total disregard for grammar”. (1921, 233–4)

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Spring 1979 , pp. 55 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blount, B. G. and Sanches, M. (eds.) 1977. Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Change, New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1977. “‘Simple Codes’ and the Second Language Learner's Initial Hypothesis”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.) 1977b.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) 1977a. The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and Their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy, Genève: Droz and Neuchâtel: Faculté des Lettres.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) 1977b. Theoretical Models in Applied Linguistics, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Dato, D. P. (ed.) 1975. Developmental Psycholinguistics: Theory and Application, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. et al. 1974. “Untersuchungen zum Pidgin-Deutsch spanischer and italienischer Arbeiter in der Bundesrepublik”, in Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 1. Heidelburg: Groos.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C. and Burt, M. K. 1975. “A New Approach to Discovering Universal Strategies of Child Second Language Acquisition” in Dato (ed.). 209–234.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. and DeBose, C. 1977. “Simplified Registers, Broken Language and Pidginization”, in Valdman (ed.).Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language, London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (ed.) 1972. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1964. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1974. “Elicitation, Lateralization and Error Analysis”, in York Papers in Linguistics 4. 166–189.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. et al. 1977. “Testing the Monitor Model”, paper presented at the 1977 TESOL Annual Convention, Miami, Fla.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. 1977. “Linguistic Simplification: A Study of Immigrant Workers' Speech and Foreigner Talk”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.) 1977a. 88–113.Google Scholar
Morsly, M.-T. V. 1976. “L'emploi des verbes français par des travailleurs immigrés arabophones et portugais”, in Langue française 29. 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. 1971. “Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies”, in Language Sciences 17. 12–22.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. M. 1977. “The Natural and the Normal in Language Teaching: Where's the Difference?”, in Schulz (ed.). 101–108.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 1977. “Creolization and Syntactic Change in New Guinea Tok Pisin”, in Blount and Sanches (eds.). 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, R. (ed.) 1977. Personalizing Foreign Language Instruction: Learning Styles and Teaching Options, Skokie, Ill.: NTC.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1976. “The Implication of Interlanguage, Pidginization and Creolization for the Study of Adult Second Language Acquisition”, in Schumann and Stenson (eds.). 137–152.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. and Stenson, N. (eds.) 1976. New Frontiers in Second Language Learning, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage”, in IRAL 10. 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. M. 1972. “Some Implications for the Social Status of Pidgin Languages”, in Smith and Shuy (eds.).Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. and Shuy, R. W. (eds.) 1972. Sociolinguistics in Cross-Cultural Analysis, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1977. “Creolization: Elaboration in the Development of Creole French”, in Valdman (ed.). 155–189.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (ed.) 1977. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. and Phillips, J. S. 1977. “Pidginization, Creolization and the Elaboration of Learner Systems”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.) 1977b.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1977. “The Significance of Simplification”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.) 1977b.Google Scholar