RICHARD J. FILE-MURIEL


(speakers opted for one language over another), (2) the group strived
to acquire fluency in the language, and (3) they failed to reach their
target (i.e. imperfect learning). Baker suggests a different approach in
which he questions the assumption that the European language was
the target language in pidgin and creole genesis. He suggests that the
CFP, coming from a wide variety of ethnolinguistic backgrounds, created
a medium for interethnic communication (MFIC). Basically, pidgins and
creoles are solutions to problems of human intercommunication, not
imperfect language learning or failed language maintenance:

 The real if unconscious aim of people brought from a wide variety of
 ethnolinguistic backgrounds who were obliged to live and work
 together slaves, slave-owners, and others belonging to neither of
 these categories may instead have been to create a medium for
 interethnic communication (MFIC). In other words, pidgins and creoles
 are successful solutions to problems of human intercommunication
 rather than the unhappy consequences of botched language learning
 or failed language maintenance (1994:65-6)

 Baker illustrates several clear cases in which the notion of TL fails.
Chinese Pidgin English (CPE) originated in Canton around 1715 due to
the interaction between the Cantonese and English speaking traders.
The vast majority of the lexicon was drawn from English, largely
because Chinese citizens were prohibited from teaching their language
to foreigners. As a result, the Chinese had no choice but to employ
English words when conducting business with the Anglophones. Thus,
it cannot be said that there was a choice in which the Cantonese opted
to learn English. Furthermore, during this time period there was a well
documented hostility of the Chinese towards the Anglophones, casting
doubt on whether the Chinese would have seriously aimed to acquire
native fluency in English. "If English as such was not their TL, then
they clearly cannot be said to have failed to reach it"(1990: 104).
 Baker's second example comes from Mauritian Creole (MC). Although
the overwhelming number of lexemes are attributable to some variety
of French, he points out that recent data collections may be rather
deceiving. One hundred and fifty (150) years ago, there may have been
far more words of African or Malagasy origin in MC. The historical
evidence that has often been used to counter this possibility, comes
from a handful of texts recorded by whites, whose presence alone could
explain the lack of non-French words. Furthermore, Baker argues that
too much emphasis has been placed on the large number of French