Becoming a columnist for JPCL has put me in the privileged position to ponder about the past, present and future directions of our field. As a result, my first column (Baptista 2016a) was about the main queries that drive our field and writing it led me to realize that many of the key questions today were already present in the early days of creolistics, when Hugo Schuchardt founded our discipline in the 1880s. Many of these queries concern theories of creole genesis: how do creole languages emerge? How do we weigh inputs from their source languages? Do superstrates play the key role in their genesis or is it instead their substrates or language universals? What processes are involved in their genesis? Are creoles the product of first or second language acquisition? In my second column (Baptista 2016b), I focused on the latter question and examined the enduring belief in our field that processes of second language acquisition (of the superstrate specifically) are generally involved in the formation of pidgin and creole languages. Without denying that such processes may be implicated in the emergence of some creoles due to the sociohistorical circumstances in which they arose (Chaudenson 2001), one of the objectives of my second column was to challenge generalizations that creoles are conventionalized interlanguages. The column addressed this particular issue by drawing a finer line between processes of second language acquisition, second language use, interlanguage features and language creation while showcasing the indisputably diverse range of features observable in creoles, attested in the recently published Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures (henceforth APiCS). Questioning the notion that creoles are conventionalized interlanguages, I analyzed Plag’s (2008) proposal that creole morphosyntactic properties flag them

中文翻译：

---

克里奥尔语发生中的竞争与选择

成为JPCL的专栏作家使我处于特权位置，可以思考我们领域的过去，现在和将来的方向。结果，我的第一篇专栏文章（Baptista 2016a）是关于推动我们领域发展的主要问题的，写这篇文章使我认识到，今天的许多关键问题已经出现在早期的民俗学研究中（Hugo Schuchardt建立我们的学科）在1880年代。这些查询中很多都与克里奥尔语的起源理论有关：克里奥尔语是如何出现的？我们如何权衡其源语言的输入？上层板在其起源中起着关键作用，还是它们的上层板或语言通用性？发生过程涉及哪些过程？克里奥尔语是第一语言还是第二语言习得的产物？在第二栏（Baptista 2016b）中，我专注于后一个问题，并检验了我们领域中的持久信念，即第二语言习得（特别是上层）的过程通常涉及外来语和克里奥尔语的形成。不否认这些过程可能是由于某些克里奥尔人的出现所引起的社会历史情况而引起的（Chaudenson 2001），我第二专栏的目的之一是挑战克里奥尔人是常规语言的普遍性。专栏文章通过在第二语言习得，第二语言使用，中介语言功能和语言创建过程之间画出了一条更好的线，同时展示了克里奥尔语中可观察到的各种特征，从而解决了这个特定问题，在最近出版的《皮丁和克里奥尔语语言结构图集》（以下简称APiCS）中得到了证明。质疑克里奥尔语是常规中介语的概念，我分析了Plag（2008）的建议，即克里奥尔语的句法句法特征对其进行标记