Synthesis Essay – ENG 110 Portfolio

After receiving feedback from my instructor, I made many changes to my synthesis essay in terms of formatting and punctuation. I put all the major definitions in the first two paragraphs and connected them to my thesis/synthesis claim since they were initially scattered throughout my paper. I fixed my in-text citations because I used footnotes in the last draft without realizing they aren’t considered MLA format. Then, I replaced some pieces of evidence because the ones I had before weren’t that relevant and they needed too much elaboration, that I didn’t have enough space for, for readers to fully understand. To make my paper more cohesive, I also fixed a few punctuation errors and added more context about the research that was conducted in the sources.

Translation 2 – Archana Venkata

Synthesis Essay First Draft

The Decreolization of Caribbean Languages

Descendant languages that originate from extinct indigenous languages in the Caribbean (i.e; Creole, Patois, etc…) are constantly being adapted to sound more “Western”. This assimilation poses a great threat to these traditional Caribbean languages since the more these languages conform, the more endangered they become.

Linguists refer to this phenomenon as “decreolization”. It is a process by which traditional creole languages gradually shift toward their standard lexifier languages. The process of decreolization in Caribbean languages reflects the influence of social hierarchy and linguistic stigma, as speakers are pressured to conform to Western linguistic norms. This assimilation not only alters the phonology and lexicon of Creole languages, but it also endangers their cultural identity and the languages themselves.

David B. Frank, a renowned linguist with a Ph.D, in his research paper titled, “We Don’t Speak a Real Language: Creoles as Misunderstood and Endangered Languages”, published in March 2007, addresses how creole languages are often misconceived as “broken” English or as “inferior” even though they are well-established, structured languages. Frank supports this claim through qualitative historical evidence (i.e.; quotes, testimonies, etc…) and by showing how contributing factors like marginalism perpetuates this misconception, thereby encouraging Creole language conformity. As Frank puts it, “It is important to note, however, that the negative evaluations on creole languages must be seen as a matter of perspective, usually coming from people who are in a position of relative power in the national scene but who are outsiders to the creole culture. The creole speakers themselves might accept that their language could be a corruption of a more prestigious, standard language…” Ultimately, Frank argues that such perceptions are rooted in social hierarchy and it reveals how these power dynamics shape the way Creole languages are perceived and valued.

Charlene J. Sato, a well-known linguist and social activist, in her book titled, “Language change in a creole continuum: decreolization?” discusses decreolization and how lexifier languages (i.e; English, French, Portuguese, etc…) can influence creole languages to assimilate over time, Sato labels this as a “creole continuum”. She supports this claim by conducting a longitudinal case study on Hawaii Creole English and analyzing linguistic patterns to identify shifts in vocabulary and pronunciation toward the “standard” English lexifier. Sato clearly stated that, “In each case, an increase in the percentage of standard English (SE) surface forms from Time 1 to Time 2 is viewed as evidence of decreolization.” Ultimately, her study concluded that when individuals use more standard English features over time, it directly proves that Creole language is gradually merging with standard English and therefore decreolizing.

Both of these reports from Frank and Sato depict the social stigma imposed on Creole speakers and its impacts on language patterns. Sato’s argument concurs with Frank’s argument since she discusses how “broken”/”bad” English is associated with people of color and the working-class, and how many people feel ashamed for speaking “non-standard” English dialects. This directly supports Frank’s claim since he explained how Patois was historically seen as socially inferior and as “broken English”. These two sources also discuss how this sense of “inferiority” leads to Creole speakers viewing their own language(s) as something they must leave behind or modify in order to succeed or escape stigma. Both sources support my claim by demonstrating how society downplays Creoles as unsophisticated or uneducated. Frank touched on a very specific example in St. Lucia (how St. Lucians privately celebrate Patois but publicly condemn it to others) and demonstrate how our society pressures Creole speakers to alter/disregard their native language in order to conform to societal norms. Together, Frank and Sato show that social stigma pressures Creole speakers to alter or hide their language, which reinforces the false perception that Creoles are inferior and this determines the ways that speakers express and regard their languages within their society.

Under the process of decreolization, many linguistic features such as phonology and lexicon tend to shift due to lexifier influence. Phonology refers to the patterns, rules, and structure of the sound of a language. Understanding the post-creole continuum is necessary in order to comprehend the depth of phonology. This continuum encompasses the full range of linguistic varieties that emerge within a community following the formation of a creole language. There are three notable points on this spectrum, known as “basilect”, “mesolect”, and “acrolect”. Harold Schiffman, a renowned scholar and professor in Dravidian linguistics, in his lecture handout, “Pidgin and Creole Languages”, briefly described language versatility on the post-creole continuum. Essentially, he wrote that basilect is the variety of language that is the furthest from the standard, acrolect is the closest variety to the standard and is the most prestigious form of speaking, and mesolect is an intermediate variety that exists between the two aforementioned extremities. Phonology is directly impacted by this continuum as the linguistic variety actively shapes various factors such as consonant and vowel pronunciation, syllable structure, and overall enunciation. For instance, instead of saying “three” with a “th” a Caribbean Creole basilect speaker might say “tree” with a “t”.

George L. Huttar, a prominent figure in the linguistic field, in his academic paper, “Lexical Borrowing, Creolization and Basic Vocabulary” asserts that specific lexical items in Creole languages are more “amenable” to replacement by lexifier vocabulary than others. Huttar supports his assertion by examining empirical data from Ndyuka, Suriname and conducting qualitative comparisons across lexical domains. For context, a lexicon is a collection of words used in a particular domain, so you could have a lexicon for different subjects (i.e.; engineering, biology, cooking, etc…) The first indication that a traditional language is beginning to assimilate with its lexifier language is usually the lexicon since it is typically influenced by standard languages. However, this does not mean that if a language substitutes or replaces creole-specific terms with standard terms, the language is decreolized. It just means that an easily noticeable aspect of the decreolization process can be seen in a language’s vocabulary since, as Huttar puts it, many Creole languages often “borrow” words and phrases from its lexifier language which in turn changes the languages themselves over time.

Although they focus on differing linguistic domains, Schiffman’s statements about Creole language variety coincides with Huttar’s paper on amenability and lexicon. Both describe how contact with lexifier languages gradually leads to shifts in Creole languages. Schiffman essentially implied that the closer a speaker’s variety is to the acrolect, the more similar it is to the standard language in terms of pronunciation and syllable structure. Despite the fact that Huttar focuses on the vocabulary domain, the underlying principle directly correlates with Schiffman’s phonological observation about how linguistic features shift along a continuum as a response to lexifier influence and societal pressures. Both sources tie back to my argument by expanding on linguistic features and exactly how they can alter traditional Creole languages. Huttar and Schiffman’s observations show that decreolization is not a sudden overhaul of the language, but rather a gradual adaptation. Schiffman supports this by explaining the continuum of pronunciation patterns, while Huttar shows it through lexical substitution and borrowing. Together, they support the synthesis claim that lexifier influence manifests itself across multiple levels of language, with phonology and lexicon serving as early and measurable indicators of cultural and linguistic assimilation.

While decreolization thrives through phonological and lexical shifts, it also extends far beyond language structure itself and into the heart of cultural identity. Maria Grazia Sindoni, a professor of English linguistics, in her article, “Creole in the Caribbean: how oral discourse creates cultural identities” explores how Creole languages function as powerful symbols of Caribbean identity through storytelling, music, and oral traditions. Sindoni explains that Creole serves as a cultural bridge, preserving shared history, resilience, and community pride. However, when decreolization pressures lead speakers to favor standardized lexifier languages, it not only hinders linguistic distinctiveness but also weakens cultural expression. Sindoni notes that in many communities, Creole is the primary “medium” of storytelling to pass down collective memories. Therefore, as younger generations adopt more standardized or Westernized forms of speaking, these oral traditions become at risk of detachment from their original linguistic and cultural context. This loss directly reflects what David B. Frank wrote in his paper about language conformity in St. Lucia, where patois is privately celebrated but publicly criticized and condemned. In this sense, decreolization not only represents a linguistic process, but also a form of cultural disconnection.

The decreolization of Caribbean languages is much more than a linguistic phenomenon, it is a reflection of cultural, social, and historical factors that continue to shape identity in postcolonial societies. As Creole and Patois varieties shift toward Western lexifiers, the unique linguistic and cultural systems that define Caribbean identity ultimately face a gradual decline. Although some may argue that decreolization instead represents the natural form of language evolution or as progress towards global communication, this perspective completely overlooks the hefty cultural costs of linguistic assimilation. As this synthesis has shown, scholars such as Sato, Frank, Schiffman, Huttar, and Sindoni all reveal how societal stigma, power hierarchies, and cultural pressures drive this transformation of Caribbean languages. Recognizing decreolization as both a social and cultural issue reminds readers that protecting these languages from endangerment also means safeguarding speakers’ heritage and identity. Subsequent research studies might focus on how academic institutions can perpetuate decreolization in the Caribbean, language revitalization, and inclusive language policies to ensure that these crucial expressions of Caribbean culture continue to thrive for generations to come.

Bibliography:

Frank, David. “We Don’t Speak a Real Language: Creoles as Misunderstood and Endangered Languages.” SIL International, 2007.
Sato, Charlene J. “LANGUAGE CHANGE in a CREOLE CONTINUUM: DECREOLIZATION?” University of Hawai’i, 1994. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/518ece80-5fd2-4c6c-a95e-e6047fb2e28d/content
Schiffman, Harold. “Pidgin and Creole Languages.” Upenn.edu, 25 Mar. 1997. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/messeas/handouts/pjcreol/node1.html.
Huttar, George L. “Lexical Borrowing, Creolization and Basic Vocabulary.” MavMatrix, 1 Jan. 1994. mavmatrix.uta.edu/linguistics_tesol_workingpapers/3/.
Sindoni, Maria Grazia. “Creole in the Caribbean: How Oral Discourse Creates Cultural Identities.” Journal Des Africanistes, vol. 80, no. 1-2, pp. 217–236, 1 June 2010. journals.openedition.org/africanistes/pdf/2563, https://doi.org/10.4000/africanistes.2563.
Lipski, John M. “Decreolization as Emergent Grammar(S): Some Afro-Bolivian Data.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, vol. 26, no. 2, 2011, pp. 276–340.
Greene, Jim. “Phonology.” EBSCO, 2022. www.ebsco.com/research-starters/language-and-linguistics/phonology.

Synthesis Essay Final Draft

The Decreolization of Caribbean Languages

Creole and Patois are descendant languages that originate from extinct indigenous languages in the Caribbean. These languages typically draw much of their vocabulary (lexicon) and sound patterns (phonology) from “lexifier languages,” which are dominant colonial languages such as English, French, or Spanish that contributed most of the words used in descendant languages. Lexifier influence manifests itself across multiple levels of language, with phonology and lexicon serving as early and measurable indicators of cultural and linguistic assimilation. The term “lexicon” refers to a collection of words used in a particular domain, such as engineering, biology, or cooking, while “phonology” refers to the patterns, rules, and structure of a language’s sounds. As Creole and Patois languages continue to absorb Western linguistic influence, they face an increasing risk of decline and potential extinction.

Linguists refer to the gradual shift of Creole languages towards their lexifier language as “decreolization”. The process of decreolization reflects the influence of social hierarchy and linguistic stigma, as Creole-speakers are pressured to conform to Western linguistic norms. Such assimilation not only alters the phonology and lexicon of Creole languages, but it also endangers their cultural identity and the languages themselves.

David B. Frank, a renowned linguist with a Ph.D, in his research paper titled, “We Don’t Speak a Real Language: Creoles as Misunderstood and Endangered Languages,” addresses how Creole languages are often misconceived as “broken” English or as “inferior” even though they are well-established, structured languages. Frank supports this claim through qualitative historical evidence, including quotes and testimonies, and by showing how contributing factors like marginalism perpetuates this misconception, thereby encouraging Creole language conformity. As Frank puts it, “The creole speakers themselves might accept that their language could be a corruption of a more prestigious, standard language…” (2). Ultimately, Frank argues that such perceptions are rooted in social hierarchy and that it reveals how power dynamics shape the way Creole languages are perceived and valued.

Charlene J. Sato, a well-known linguist and social activist, in her book titled, “Language change in a creole continuum: decreolization?” discusses decreolization and how lexifier languages can influence Creole languages to assimilate over time. Sato refers to this as the “Creole continuum.” She supports this claim by conducting a longitudinal case study on Hawaiian Creole English, analyzing how linguistic patterns shift in vocabulary and pronunciation toward the “standard” English (SE) lexifier. Sato clearly stated that, “In other words, decreolization as a group phenomenon involves the gradual loss of varieties, beginning at the basilectal end of the continuum and continuing with mesolectal varieties, due to a historical decline in the number of speakers using these varieties.” (128). Ultimately, her study concluded that because Creole speakers increasingly adopt elements of SE over time, Creole varieties gradually decline and merge with SE.

Both of these reports from Frank and Sato highlight the influence of social factors on the decline of descendant Caribbean languages. Sato’s findings support Frank’s claim that Creole speakers’ perception of Creole varieties as “inferior” accelerates its decline. (Frank 1). These two sources also discuss how this sense of inferiority leads to Creole speakers viewing their own language(s) as something they must leave behind or modify in order to succeed or escape stigma. Both sources support my claim by demonstrating how society downplays Creoles as unsophisticated or uneducated, which encourages linguistic conformity. Frank used a very specific example in St. Lucia, he noted that St. Lucians privately celebrate Patois but publicly condemn it to others. Frank’s findings on St. Lucia demonstrates how societal norms influence Patois speakers’ perceptions of their own language, encouraging them to adopt elements of SE. Together, Frank and Sato show that social and linguistic stigma pressures descendant Caribbean language speakers to alter the way they naturally speak, which reinforces the false belief that Creole speakers are inferior. Such perspectives determine the ways that speakers express and regard their languages within their society.

Under the process of decreolization, many linguistic features such as phonology and lexicon tend to shift due to lexifier influence. Understanding the “post-creole continuum” is necessary in order to comprehend the depth of phonology: the continuum is a tool used to measure the range of linguistic varieties in a Creole-speaking community that exist between the “basilect,” “mesolect,” and “acrolect.” (Sato 128). Harold Schiffman, a renowned scholar and professor in linguistics, in his lecture handout, “Pidgin and Creole Languages,” described language versatility on the post-creole continuum. Basilect is the variety of language that is the furthest from the standard, acrolect is the closest variety to the standard and is considered the most prestigious form of speaking, and mesolect is an intermediate variety that exists between the two aforementioned extremities. (Schiffman 2005). Phonology is directly impacted by this continuum since the wide linguistic variety actively shapes various factors such as consonant and vowel pronunciation, syllable structure, and overall enunciation. For instance, a Caribbean Creole acrolect speaker might say “three” with a “th”, while a Caribbean Creole basilect speaker might say “tree” with a “t.”

George L. Huttar, a linguistics professor, in his academic paper, “Lexical Borrowing, Creolization and Basic Vocabulary,” asserts that specific elements of the lexicon in Creole languages are more “amenable” or easier to replace by lexifier vocabulary than others. Huttar supports his assertion by analyzing empirical data from Garifuna and Ndyuka speakers in Suriname and by making qualitative comparisons between the two languages across lexical domains. (5). The first indication that a descendant language is beginning to assimilate with its lexifier language is usually the lexicon since their vocabulary is influenced by Western languages. However, this does not simply mean that if a language substitutes or replaces Creole-specific terms with SE terms, the descendant language is decreolized or completely assimilated. It just means that an easily noticeable aspect of the decreolization process can be seen in a language’s vocabulary since, as Huttar puts it, many Creole languages often “borrow” words and phrases from its lexifier language which in turn changes the languages themselves over time. (3).

Although they focus on differing linguistic domains, Schiffman’s statements about Creole language variety coincides with Huttar’s paper on amenability and lexicon. Both experts describe how contact with lexifier languages gradually leads to shifts in Creole languages. Schiffman essentially implied that the closer a speaker’s variety is to the acrolect, the more similar it is to the standard language in terms of pronunciation and syllable structure. Despite the fact that Huttar focuses on the vocabulary domain, the underlying principle of his study directly correlates with Schiffman’s phonological observation that linguistic features shift along a continuum as a response to lexifier influence and societal pressures.

Both sources tie back to my argument by expanding on how linguistic elements, such as lexicon, phonology, and the post-creole continuum, can alter traditional Creole languages. Huttar and Schiffman’s observations show that decreolization is not a sudden overhaul of the language, but rather a gradual adaptation. Schiffman highlights this adaption by explaining the Creole continuum of pronunciation patterns, Huttar supports Schiffman by elaborating on lexical substitution and borrowing. Together, they support my synthesis claim that lexifier influence manifests itself across multiple layers of language, with phonology and lexicon serving as early, measurable signs of cultural and linguistic assimilation.

While decreolization thrives through phonological and lexical shifts, it also extends far beyond language structure itself and into the heart of cultural identity. Maria Grazia Sindoni, a professor of English linguistics, in her article, “Creole in the Caribbean: how oral discourse creates cultural identities,” explores how Creole languages function as powerful symbols of Caribbean identity through storytelling, music, and oral traditions. Sindoni explains that Creole serves as a cultural bridge, preserving shared history, resilience, and community pride. (221). However, when decreolization pressures speakers to favor standardized lexifier languages, it not only hinders linguistic distinctiveness but also weakens cultural expression. Sindoni notes that in many communities, Creole is the primary “medium” of storytelling to pass down collective memories. Therefore, as younger generations adopt more standardized or Westernized forms of speaking, these oral traditions become at risk of detachment from their original linguistic and cultural context. The decline of descendant Caribbean languages directly reflects what David B. Frank discussed in his paper on language conformity in St. Lucia, where he found that societal norms encourage Creole speakers to disregard their native tongue and instead adopt elements from their lexifier language. In this sense, decreolization not only refers to a linguistic process, but also a form of cultural disconnection.

Shondel Nero, a language education professor, in her online lecture, discusses how Caribbean schooling practices uphold SE as the norm, reinforcing systemic attitudes that drive decreolization. Nero argues that educational policies and classroom expectations privileges acrolectal varieties, signaling that basilectal and mesolectal varieties are viewed as less valuable (2021). The institutional pressure that Nero discusses correlates with Charlene J. Sato’s observation that Creole speakers gradually adopt features of the lexifier language due to linguistic contact, social norms, and educational pressures. Together, Nero and Sato demonstrate that decreolization is a process shaped by systemic forces that influence both linguistic structure and speakers’ opinions on their own language. By highlighting the role of schools and policies in reinforcing social hierarchies, Nero extends Sato’s work, showing that the decline of Creole varieties is a reflection of societal norms and institutional influence.

The decreolization of Caribbean languages is much more than a linguistic phenomenon. It is a reflection of cultural, social, and historical factors that continue to shape identity in postcolonial societies. As Creole and Patois varieties shift toward Western lexifiers, the unique linguistic and cultural systems that define Caribbean identity ultimately face a gradual decline. Although some may argue that decreolization instead represents the natural form of language evolution or progress towards global communication, this perspective overlooks the hefty cultural costs of linguistic assimilation. Scholars such as Sato, Frank, Schiffman, Huttar, Sindoni, and Nero have revealed how societal stigma, institutional practices, and systemic pressures drive this transformation of descendant Caribbean languages.

Decreolization is both a social and cultural issue; protecting these languages from endangerment also means safeguarding speakers’ heritage and identity. Subsequent research studies might focus on the lack of linguistic inclusivity in school curriculums and how it can perpetuate decreolization in the Caribbean. Future studies could also look into language revitalization strategies and inclusive language policies to ensure that these crucial expressions of Caribbean culture continue to thrive for generations to come.

Bibliography:

Frank, David. “We Don’t Speak a Real Language: Creoles as Misunderstood and Endangered Languages.” SIL International, 2007. https://www.saintluciancreole.org/workpapers/creoles_as_misunderstood.pdf
Sato, Charlene J. “LANGUAGE CHANGE in a CREOLE CONTINUUM: DECREOLIZATION?” University of Hawai’i, 1994. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/518ece80-5fd2-4c6c-a95e-e6047fb2e28d/content
Schiffman, Harold. “Pidgin and Creole Languages.” Upenn.edu, 24 Oct. 2005. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/handouts/pijcreol/pijcreol.html.
Huttar, George L. “Lexical Borrowing, Creolization and Basic Vocabulary.” MavMatrix, 1 Jan. 1994. mavmatrix.uta.edu/linguistics_tesol_workingpapers/3/.
Sindoni, Maria Grazia. “Creole in the Caribbean: How Oral Discourse Creates Cultural Identities.” Journal Des Africanistes, vol. 80, no. 1-2, 1 June 2010, pp. 217–236, journals.openedition.org/africanistes/pdf/2563, https://doi.org/10.4000/africanistes.2563.
Nero, Shondel. “7th Cassidy-Le Page Distinguished Lecture W/ Keynote Speaker Prof. Shondel Nero.” YouTube, Braadkyaas Jamiekan, 30 Oct. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XjtF4e1P_Y.