The Creole Debate centers on the structural and typological nature of creole languages. One perspective argues that creoles constitute a distinct typological class, characterized by simplicity and minimal inflection (McWhorter, 1998, 2001). This view suggests that creoles, having emerged recently, haven't had sufficient time to develop the grammatical complexities seen in older languages. Conversely, other scholars reject this notion, viewing creoles as products of their socio-cultural contexts, primarily linked to slavery and plantation societies (DeGraff, 2003; Mufwene, 1997). They argue against the idea of inherent creole simplicity, suggesting it reflects a biased perspective rooted in colonial attitudes. Aboh (2015) proposes that creoles are mixed grammars, resulting from the combination of features from various contact languages. Blasi et al. (2017), using R simulations, claim that grammars are robustly transmitted even during creole emergence, contradicting notions of pidgin stages and creole-specific innovations. This paper challenges both sides of this debate, arguing that grammatical transmission is not robust during creole formation and that creoles are not inherently simple. It introduces a theoretical framework based on three distinct SLA processes to explain the observed patterns of grammatical features in creoles.

The paper reviews existing literature on the Creole Debate, highlighting contrasting perspectives on the nature and origin of creole languages. It examines claims of creole simplicity (McWhorter), contrasting them with perspectives that emphasize the socio-historical context and reject exceptionalism (DeGraff, Mufwene). The paper also discusses Aboh's mixed grammar model and the statistical analysis of Blasi et al. that suggests robust grammatical transmission during creole formation. This review sets the stage for the paper's central argument by presenting the existing scholarly debate and highlighting the gaps in existing models of creole formation. The review focuses particularly on the role of second language acquisition, drawing upon existing research in creolistics and SLA.

The paper's methodology is primarily theoretical and analytical. It doesn't involve the collection of new empirical data but instead critically examines existing data and models within the framework of second language acquisition (SLA). The core methodology involves developing a theoretical framework that incorporates three distinct SLA processes: borrowing (primarily affecting lexical items under recipient language agentivity), imposition (concerning structure and driven by source language agentivity), and grammatical reduction (affecting bound morphology and tones). The author uses this framework to analyze existing data on creole languages, particularly the findings of Blasi et al. (2017), to explain why certain grammatical features are transferred to creoles while others are not. The paper contrasts creole formation with the formation of mixed languages like Media Lengua, highlighting the differing roles of bilingualism in each process. The analysis draws upon examples from several creole languages and their substrate and lexifier languages to illustrate the proposed framework and its implications for understanding the complexity and development of creoles. Specific examples, such as Sranan Tongo, are used to showcase how processes of imposition can lead to creoles possessing greater complexity in certain grammatical areas than their lexifier languages. The comparison of Palenquero and Media Lengua serves as a key example of this methodological approach. The author leverages existing linguistic data and typological studies to support the claims about differential transmission of grammatical features.

The central finding is that grammatical features are not robustly transmitted during creole formation. The author argues that this is due to the influence of three distinct SLA processes: borrowing, imposition, and grammatical reduction. Borrowing, predominantly affecting the lexicon, is driven by the recipient language. Imposition, affecting structure (syntax, phonology, semantics), is driven by the source language. Grammatical reduction, significantly impacting bound morphology and tones, leads to simplification. The author critiques Blasi et al.'s (2017) study, arguing that its methodology (using R simulations and a skewed feature selection) produced misleading results. Blasi et al. focused disproportionately on syntax and semantics, neglecting morphology and tones, features highly susceptible to grammatical reduction. This bias led their model to incorrectly classify languages rich in morphology and tones as having a creole profile. The author demonstrates that creoles, while often exhibiting reduced morphology and tones, can display considerable complexity in other grammatical domains (syntax, semantics, phonology) due to imposition processes from substrate languages. This contradicts the notion of creoles as the world's simplest grammars. The author illustrates this point using Sranan Tongo, highlighting its complex copula system and serial verb constructions, features derived from substrate languages and not present in the lexifier (English). The analysis of Sranan Tongo's phonology further supports the claim that creole complexity arises from the interplay of borrowing and imposition.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating that a simplistic view of creole formation, ignoring the nuanced interplay of SLA processes, is inadequate. The critique of Blasi et al.’s study highlights the importance of considering the specific cognitive processes involved in language contact. The author's framework of borrowing, imposition, and grammatical reduction offers a more comprehensive explanation for the observed grammatical features in creoles. The discussion emphasizes that the presence or absence of certain features in creoles is not a reliable indicator of their evolutionary trajectory. Some creoles may have originated from pidgins, while others may have developed more gradually. The paper stresses the need for diachronic data and a deeper understanding of sociocultural ecology to fully explain creole evolution. The significance of the results lies in providing a refined understanding of language contact and creole genesis, challenging established assumptions and offering a more nuanced model.

This paper offers a new perspective on the Creole Debate, arguing against both extreme positions. It advocates for a focus on the cognitive processes—borrowing, imposition, and grammatical reduction—that shape creole languages. Simply counting features without understanding the underlying cognitive mechanisms provides an incomplete explanation. The paper emphasizes the need for more comprehensive analyses that integrate diachronic data, sociocultural information, and a deeper understanding of SLA processes to illuminate the diverse evolutionary paths of creole languages. Future research should focus on more detailed investigation of individual creole languages, using a combination of synchronic and diachronic data to test and refine the proposed model.

The study's limitations stem from its reliance on existing data and theoretical analyses. It does not present original empirical research but rather offers a critical reinterpretation of existing findings. This means the conclusions are heavily dependent on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data and models used. The focus on a limited set of creole languages and ancestor languages could also affect the generalizability of the findings. A more comprehensive study would ideally involve a broader range of languages and a more detailed investigation of the historical and sociocultural context of creole formation.