Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:20:00 +0000
Subject: creolization


dear poco-members
i am very sorry but i have sent an uncorrected
version of my letter.
now the syntactically corrected version
happy new year to all poco members in the world.
i have been following the discussions on this
list for some months now, and even though i find
most of the
aspects mentioned very interesting, i can't help
but wonder why
some important terms and authors are still yet to
be mentioned.
 i would like to start with one term
 that i am especially interested in: creolization.

i would like to open a debate that will compare
two metaphors of cultural diversity: hybridization

(more in the sense of nestor canclini than in the
construction of third space of homi bhabha) and
creolization.
the main question I would like to address
is whether the linguistic term
of creolization is more appropriate than
the notion of hybridization to describe the
different
processes of cultural complexity (Ulf Hannerz) and

the various manifestations of culture which
they give way to.

1. the term hybridization (and in a similar way
the term of
mestizaje) carries a long tradition of
biologically,
genetically and racially motivated distinctions of
the
pure and the unpure form. these distinctions force
us
to use them repeatedly as a counter-discourse to
these
traditions. creolization, scientifically
used to describe the formation and variations of
languages in cultures with colonial histories,
began to increase in importance only at the end of

the fifties and at the beginning of the sixties.
notions of
purity are of no importance in the analysis of the

outcome of language-clash and its creative
potential.

2. the term creolization derives from "the
process of intermixing and cultural change that
produces a creole society", especially in the
caribbean (ashcroft, griffith, tiffin 1997).
thus, i'm certain that its application as a
general hypothesis of cultural intercourse is
hardly acceptable. hybridization is much more
general in this sense, although the topological
and the historical aspect is becoming more and
more
obsolete as ever new creole languages are found.
some linguists have even started to
claim that every language of the world is or has
been creolized somewhere during its history. In
this way
it's becoming as global and as general as
hybridization.

3. The notion of unpredictability is better
expressed in creolization. in genetics, you can in

fact foresee the creation of a hybrid and you can
explain the arrangement of chromosomes. here we
can observe the
diligent efforts made by french creolists in
creating language
maps of each creole speaking island and the
various debates about where the lexicological,
syntactic or morphological basis of each
phenomenon comes from. even though these works
can give us an insight into how creole languages
and
even languages in general are constructed, the
paths that these ongoing processes follow remain
unpredictable, uncertain and chaotic.

On the basis of the 3 statements i have made i
hope
I have been able to awaken your interest in these
topics,
which perhaps some
of you are also working on. if so i would like to
continue
with the analysis of some creolization theorists.
if the range of the debate is too narrow to take
place on the list, please contact me at my
personal e-mail where I would be happy to continue
the discussion.


--
andrea schwieger hiepko
freie universität berlin
germany

e-mail andrea.schwieger-AT-snafu.de




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---