Language Attrition in Louisiana Creole French

LANGUAGE ATTRITION IN LOUISIANA CREOLE FRENCH 

Language Attrition in Louisiana Creole French 

Aimee Jeanne Carlisle 

University of California, Davis

LANGUAGE ATTRITION IN LOUISIANA CREOLE FRENCH 2 

This thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Jeannette McPherson Gates.


Acknowledgements 

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Eric Russell 

Webb, for all of his support throughout the entire process of my thesis. When 

this paper was nothing more than an idea in my head, he encouraged and 

inspired me. He guided me through the research stage, advised me to write 

often, and proofread every word. He was an invaluable resource to me. 

I am also indebted to Moradewun Adejunmobi for providing me with 

some crucial resources regarding Haitian and Saint Lucian Creole and 

Louisiana Creole French. I would also like to thank her for reading my thesis. 

Additionally, I would like to extend my gratitude to Kathleen M. Ward 

and Travis G. Bradley for reading my thesis in its entirety, posing interesting 

questions about different sections of the thesis, and giving me excellent advice. 

I would also like to thank Patrick Farrell and Raúl Aranovich for their 

assistance with the logistics of writing this thesis. I also must acknowledge and 

thank Thomas A. Klingler for corresponding with me and answering my 

questions. 

And of course, I must express my appreciation to my family for 

supporting me in this and every other academic endeavor.


LINGUISTICS HONORS THESIS 

Language Attrition in 

Louisiana Creole French 

Aimee Jeanne Carlisle 

Advisor: Eric Russell Webb 

Readers: Kathleen M. Ward, and Travis G. Bradley, 

and Moradewun Adejunmobi 

March 19, 2010


Abstract 

Languages, by their very nature, are in a constant state of change. This 

change frequently arises as a result of contact with other languages. When 

speakers of two different languages come into contact with each other, pidgins 

sometimes are created to facilitate communication. These pidgins often evolve 

into creoles. Louisiana Creole French (LCF) is a contact language that 

exemplifies many characteristics of creole languages. Despite having been 

widely spoken in Louisiana for two centuries, LCF is in a current state of 

attrition. This essay will analyze LCF‟s pidginization and creolization processes 

and the historical context of the language since its inception in the 18th 

century to explain the social issues contributing to the current attrition of the 

language. By comparing LCF to other thriving French-Lexifier Creoles in the 

Caribbean, such as Haitian Creole and St. Lucian Creole, this essay will 

attempt to answer the question: why is LCF currently a moribund language? 

Through an analysis of historical, socio-linguistic, institutional, and geographic 

factors, I will discuss the extent to which the intersection of these components 

has contributed to the attrition of LCF. 

Keywords: Pidgin, creole, language attrition, Louisiana Creole French, Haitian 

Creole, Saint Lucian Creole.


I. Introduction 

As people move throughout the world, whether as a result of trade or 

migration, they inevitably come in contact with members of others cultures. 

With this exchange of culture comes an exchange of language, and areas with 

high concentrations of movement are typically characterized by a mutual 

influence of the interacting languages. New languages, such as pidgins, can 

arise and, under the right circumstances, these pidgins develop into creoles. 

Because change is an inherent characteristic of languages, languages are in a 

constant state of flux. As languages change, they can evolve into new 

languages and sometimes then decline. Louisiana Creole French is one 

language that evolved from a pidgin during the time of slavery, thrived for 

decades, and is currently in a state of attrition. 

The United States was an area in which, during pre-colonial and colonial 

times, many European languages, such as English or French, influenced the 

languages of the African slaves and Native Americans (to a much lesser extent) 

to create pidgins that sometimes evolved into creoles. Louisiana Creole French 

exemplifies many characteristics of this type of contact language. While the 

language is still spoken today, the number of native speakers of LCF, unlike 

many other French-lexifier languages, is quickly decreasing. 

This thesis discusses language contact, the creolization process, and 

language loss. It also explains the historical origins of LCF to demonstrate and 

contextualize the formation of LCF, showing the influence of LCF‟s history on 

the language. By analyzing these topics and contrasting LCF to other French-


lexifier creoles in the Americas, this thesis will answer the question, “Why is 

LCF in a current state of attrition?” 

II. 

Language Contact 

According to Sebba (1997), there are six possible consequences that can 

arise when languages come into close contact: adoption, code-switching, 

convergence, mixing, pidginization, and creolization. The first three 

consequences require a large degree of bilingualism in either the community or 

individual speakers. The last three consequences, by contrast, are 

characterized by the speakers of one language having restricted access to 

acquiring the second language, whether it is through education or everyday 

social interactions. 

The first consequence, adoption, is a process in which certain lexical 

items or grammatical structures are borrowed from one language into another 

and changed to match the pronunciation patterns and grammatical rules of the 

recipient language. English has borrowed many words from French (e.g., 

attorney, beef, bracelet, and adventure) as a result of three centuries‟ worth of 

rule under the Norman French. Code-switching, the second possible 

consequence of close language contact, occurs only in communities where a 

high number of speakers have acquired competence in two or more languages. 

When speakers code-switch, they speak in different languages, often in the 

same sentence, because the speaker (consciously or unconsciously) feels that 

one language is more appropriate for the topic than the other. They switch 

back and forth as necessary. Language convergence, the third possible


consequence, differs from code-switching because convergence does not require 

bilingualism. When two languages are in close contact over an extended period 

of time, the languages‟ structures converge, or begin to approximate one 

another. 

The following three possible consequences of language contact—mixing, 

pidginization, and creolization—arise when speakers have limited access to 

acquiring one another‟s languages. Mixing occurs when the grammar of one 

language is applied to the lexicon of another. Mixing differs from pidginization 

in that the mixed language maintains both the structure and quantity of the 

original grammatical and lexical items. However, none of these four 

consequences occur in the LCF context. On the other hand, the last two 

consequences, pidginization and creolization, directly led to the formation of 

LCF. 

The fifth possible consequence of language contact is pidginization. 

Pidginization occurs when two groups of adult speakers, who have already 

achieved fluency in their native languages, come into contact with one another. 

Also known as „auxiliary‟ languages, pidgin languages are formed to facilitate 

communication between these different communities. Pidgins are characterized 

by the fact that they have no native speakers, have a regulated set of rules that 

determine the linguistic output, and are not mutually intelligible with the 

languages from which they originate. An additional characteristic that can be 

used to (but is not required to) define a pidgin is the fact that their grammars 

have fewer structures than the originating languages.


Creolization, the sixth possible consequence of language contact, occurs 

in conditions of extreme social change, such as slavery or mass migration. This 

situation leads to the creation of a creole language derived from the pidgin 

spoken by the previous generation. Over time, the community becomes more 

settled, and a new generation of native speakers of acquires the pidgin 

language; this is the moment of creolization. 

These six consequences all demonstrate the socio-linguistic effect of 

diglossia. When multiple languages are spoken in the same community, often 

they participate in a diglossic relationship. Speakers use one language for one 

purpose and the other languages for other purposes. The language used for the 

activity viewed as more prestigious, or whose frequent speakers comprise the 

social elite, also receives more status; this language is referred to as the „high‟ 

(H) language. On the other end of the continuum, the language whose speakers 

come from a lower social class or that is used for activities viewed as less 

prestigious is referred to as the „low‟ (L) language. Although the two languages 

may share many similar features, generally they differ in their “grammar, 

phonology, […] vocabulary, […] prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, 

standardization, and stability” (Romaine 1994, 47). 

For the majority of speakers, the L language is their native language, 

whereas the H language must be acquired through education. Thus, the 

acquisition of the H language historically was almost completely restricted to 

members of the elite, until universal education was introduced into that 

society. Even with mandatory education, speakers‟ competence in the H


language reflects the level of education they have received. Speakers‟ access to 

higher levels of education and employment is restricted or permitted based on 

their competence in the H language. The H language generally has also been 

studied more extensively. 

As one example in the contemporary period, diglossia exists in the Arab 

world. The H language, Modern Standard Arabic, is used as a lingua franca 

and must be acquired through schooling; there are no native speakers. Instead, 

people in the Arab world grow up speaking a colloquial, dialectal variant of 

Arabic that is strongly associated with the geographic region in which they live. 

They may even speak another Afro-Asiatic language at home. 

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) derives from Classical Arabic, the 

language of the Qur„an. Because of this association with the religious text, MSA 

receives significant social prestige. Speaking the L language in situations that 

require the H language may cause the speaker to not be understood and also to 

be “ridiculed” by others (Romaine 1994, 47). For both of these reasons, 

speakers of the H and L languages associate upward class movement and the 

maintenance of their respect and status with their competence in and correct 

usage of the H language. 

Just as in Arabic, diglossia has contributed to the formation of LCF. It 

was interactions between the L languages (the African languages of the slaves) 

and H languages (French and later English) that resulted in the creation of LCF 

to mediate communication between these different L and H language speakers.


This same competition between the L language LCF and the H languages 

French and English is also contributing to LCF‟s decline. 

III. Pidgins and Creoles 

A pidgin is a contact language that developed to facilitate communication 

between speakers of different languages. Pidgins are frequently used in the 

marketplace or in military settings, and no one is a native speaker of pidgin 

languages. Between these two languages, a pidgin‟s vocabulary typically comes 

from the superstrate, or lexifier, language, whose speakers typically are of 

higher social prestige; however, the grammar is thought to reflect 

characteristics of the substrate language, that spoken by the group with less 

social prestige. As a new generation is born into this pidgin-speaking 

environment, a population of native speakers is created, the structure and 

vocabulary of the pidgin grows to accommodate interactions beyond the 

marketplace, and the language may evolve from a pidgin to a creole. 

The word „creole‟ in the United States has many different meanings but 

one origin: the Portuguese word criar, which means „to raise, to bring up.‟ 

Although today‟s colloquial meaning of creole is associated with the mixing of 

African, French, and Spanish cultures in Louisiana, the word originally 

referred to people of European or African ancestry who were born in the New 

World. It is from this idea of language contact that the linguistic term creole 

arose to describe new languages that arise from pidgins after a period of 

intense contact among speakers of different languages. Creoles are thus 

characterized by the existence of native speakers whereas the pidgin from


which they evolve had none. In order for a pidgin to evolve into a creole, its 

speakers‟ access to both the original languages and the language of the elite 

must be completely restricted (Nichols 2004, 135). If speakers of the 

dispreferred language in the substrate community have access to the 

superstratum‟s prestige language (as happened in places such as New York 

City where Spanish-speakers were able to access English, the H language, 

through education), a creole will not develop because the speakers of the 

substratum will become bilingual within a generation (Nichols 2004 135). Thus 

a necessary element in creole generation is that the speakers of the language 

with less prestige be completely prevented from learning the prestige language. 

The theory of linguistic inferiority holds true for creoles in general but 

also for LCF specifically: because LCF is spoken by social groups who are 

socially dispreferred, the language itself is likewise viewed as inferior. When 

people use creole languages, they are typically viewed by the larger society as 

having less prestige. Because of this, LCF speakers who, through education, 

have become bilingual in their native creole and the prestige language, 

frequently switch from LCF to the prestige language in situations where they 

are perceived to be linguistically inferior. 

IV. Language attrition 

Language shift, or language attrition, has a number of potential causes. 

Languages can die out immediately when their speakers are killed, through 

massacre or disease. This kind of language loss caused many languages to 

disappear in a short period of time.


One example of immediate language attrition was in 1226, when Kublai 

Khan destroyed an entire city because its inhabitants had murdered his father. 

The language they spoke, Tangut or Xixia, disappeared with the speakers 

(Dalby 2002, 215). 

The case of Native American languages provide a better known example 

of immediate language attrition, especially the languages of California, such as 

Shasta, Lake Miwok, Quechan, and Mojave. The rapid genocide of many Native 

Americans by European explorers wiped out several tribes and their languages 

immediately; many other communities‟ people, lands, and cultures were 

destroyed more gradually. Of the 98 distinct languages formerly spoken in 

California, nearly half have no fluent speakers alive, seventeen have fewer than 

five speakers, and the remaining 36 Californian languages only have elderly 

speakers. Despite the fact that some of these languages still maintain some 

speakers, no California Indian language is used as a language of daily 

communication (Mithun 1999 in Dalby 2002, 239). 

Historically, language attrition was attributed to a Darwinian evolution in 

which the less „complex‟ and adaptable languages died and the more „advanced‟ 

languages, the fittest, survived (Dalby 2002, 219). However, modern linguistics 

challenges this viewpoint: no language is intrinsically better than another. 

Qualifications about the adaptability of languages arise from an inaccurate 

focus on how a language‟s structure contributes to its attrition, without 

addressing the socio-linguistic factors that contribute to language loss.


In instances where languages decline over a prolonged period of time 

(and not all at once through the rapid deaths of their speakers), social factors 

contribute to the decline in the numbers of speakers. Generally, speakers of a 

certain language realize that societal stigmas exist about the language they 

speak. They learn that in order to become more successful economically, they 

need to learn the superstrate language because it receives more prestige in the 

society. Because of this realization, parents who speak the substrate language 

generally try to teach their children both languages. This next generation 

achieves bilingualism in both the super- and substrate languages. If the social 

environment remains the same or increasingly stigmatizes the substrate 

language, substrate speakers will find fewer opportunities to use the language. 

As the language is used less frequently, elements of the lexicon and syntax are 

gradually lost, until the language either dies out completely. 

Dalby has defined language death in three ways (2002). It is important to 

note that all of these definitions are precipitated by the deaths of human 

speakers of the language. According to Dalby‟s first definition, a language 

disappears when everyone who “knows anything significant about the 

language” has died (2002, 219). However this characterization of language 

death is problematic because no set rule exists for quantifying how much of a 

language a speaker must know in order to have “significant” knowledge. 

Furthermore, although languages can be said to still survive in part through 

their words that are borrowed out, a language is much more than just a few


examples from its lexicon. A language includes its lexicon, morphology, syntax, 

and socio-linguistic usage norms, not just a few fixed phrases or words. 

The second definition ties the death of the language to the death of its 

last fluent speaker; when the latter dies, the former dies as well. This definition 

also poses problems. First, when only one fluent speaker of a language lives, 

that person can no longer communicate with anyone else, and the language 

has already effectively died. Additionally, a language with only one fluent 

speaker has been in a state of attrition for generations. This gradual loss has 

caused a gradual condensing of language, and this change from the earlier 

form to one with fewer structures could also be described as the death of the 

language. 

Language death can also be defined as the moment in which 

conversations in that language cease to take place. At this point, there no 

longer exists a linguistic marketplace in which to exchange ideas about the 

language. Any living speakers of the language have restricted access to 

communicating with one another. Through this definition, the cessation of a 

language‟s use becomes a more accurate way of describing what has been 

known as „language death.‟ 

LCF is currently a moribund language; it is fast approaching extinction. 

Unlike the Californian languages, LCF‟s decline has been gradual because the 

decline of its speakers has been extended over a long period of decades, not a 

few weeks.


V. Disambiguation of terms 

It is important to note at this point that, although the words Cajun and 

Creole are sometimes used synonymously in contemporary American English, 

these terms represent two very different cultures and languages. Plantation 

Society French (a term used instead of Colonial French by Klingler and Picone) 

was the variant closest to the standard French spoken in France (2003 and 

1998, respectively). It was spoken by colonists who had immigrated to 

Louisiana directly from that country. Cajun French, however, is a broad 

category of lects whose main linguistic source was the Acadian French spoken 

by immigrants who came to Louisiana from France‟s Canadian territories 

(although some speakers of Cajun French descend directly from France) 

(Klingler 2003, xxix). Speakers of Cajun French were overwhelmingly white. 

LCF‟s speakers were almost exclusively African slaves and their 

descendants (although there are and were a small number of white speakers of 

LCF). Thus, in this era, Plantation Society French (PSF) was situated at the top 

of the hierarchy and had the most prestige, followed by Cajun French (CF), and 

then Louisiana Creole, the most stigmatized of these languages. 

Although many of these free people of color could and did pass for white 

during the colonial period, in recent years, “many „Creoles‟ 1 have made a 

conscious decision to integrate themselves into [B]lack America”; however, they 

1 The ethnic term Creole also has many meanings. During the colonial period, people who self-identified as Creole 

were solely of European descent. This usage of Creole to describe those of European ancestry was replaced by the 

term being used to describe Louisiana’s free people of color and later the descendants of African slaves. For the 

purposes of this thesis, the ethnic term Creole denotes a group of people of African descent. For more information 

about the terms Creole and Louisiana Creole as ethnicities, please see Melancon 2000, Hirsch and Logsdon 1992, 

and Hall 1992.


still “retain a keen sense of their unique heritage, which they express by 

proudly calling themselves Creoles and vigorously rejecting the appellation 

„African American‟” (Klingler 2003, 16). 

LCF, the language spoken by this ethnically Creole population of African 

descent, is “not a variety of French but a separate language” (Valdman 1997, 

3). Most modern linguists (such as Valdman 1997) avoid describing Louisiana‟s 

francophone varieties in terms of how they differ from the French lexifier 

because doing so does not accurately describe the francophone situation in the 

state and “violates the fundamental principle of structural linguistics [which 

states that] any speech variety forms a self-contained system” (Valdman 1997, 

6). 

However, it is also important to note some differences between LCF and 

Standard French to demonstrate their disparate identities. In LCF, for example, 

the definite article la is postposed after the noun; in Standard French, however, 

the definite article comes before the noun. Also, la is not used the same way as 

the definite articles of English and French because “its meaning is intermediate 

between that of the definite article and the demonstrative adjective of these 

languages” (Valdman and Klingler 1997 in Valdman 1997, 117). Additionally, 

LCF, like French Guyana (Cayenne) Creole and other “conservative” Frenchlexifier 

creoles, “shows a three-way distinction between a subject set, a 

preposed possessive set (or possessive determiners), and a postposed set


functioning as a direct object and object of prepositions” (Valdman and Klingler 

1997 in Valdman 1997, 121). 2 

VI. Historical Factors of LCF Attrition 

The historical origins of LCF led to the formation of the language, 

assisted with the maintenance of the language over three centuries, and have 

also greatly influenced its attrition today. In order to understand the impact of 

the language‟s history on its present state, one must appreciate LCF‟s 

historical origins. 

Part of Louisiana‟s historical importance stems from its location. 

Situated at the southern end of the Mississippi River, Louisiana benefitted from 

the many uses of this waterway, including its being a conduit for commerce 

and information. Although Europeans first entered the Lower Mississippi Valley 

in 1539 as a result of Spanish exploration in the region, the French did not 

arrive until René-Robert Cavelier landed in 1682; other expeditions led to the 

establishment of Natchitoches, Natchez, and New Orleans, in 1714, 1716, and 

1718, respectively. A map of Louisiana, with the areas of LCF speakers grayed 

out, is included on the following page as Figure 1. 

2 For additional information about the structure of LCF, please consult Valdman and Klingler 2007.


Figure 1 Map of Louisiana indicating LCF-speaking areas (Neumann 1985a 

in Klingler 2003). 

The first written record of Africans‟ presence in Louisiana dates to 1706, 

when two French brothers stole 3,178 slaves in a raid on the British, and three 

of these were taken to Fort Mobile (Parkvall 1995, 55 in Klingler 2003, 6). The 

African slave population remained small (in 1712 there were only ten in the 

entire colony), until the first shipment of slaves arrived from Africa in 1719. 

Although lasting until just 1731, the slave trade in Louisiana has been 

characterized as “brief but intensive”: 1,297 slaves arrived from Juda (now 

known as Ouidah in modern-day Benin), 3,719 from Senegal, and 294 from 

Cabinda, which is located in modern-day Angola (an additional shipment of


451 slaves bound for Louisiana from Juda was redirected to Pensacola) (Hall 

1992, 60 in Klingler 2003, 6). The last French shipment in 1743 brought 190 

more Africans, and the importation of slaves ceased until the onset of Spanish 

control in the colony in 1769 (Klingler 2003, 7). 

In the early colonial years, living conditions were harsh, and this 

difficulty meant that the enslaved Africans and European colonists relied 

heavily on each other for survival. The symbiotic nature of their relationship 

led to significant contact between the two groups, and a mutual social 

influence arose. 

At this time, the habitations, or plantations, of Louisiana were typically 

not the giant compounds that existed during the 19 th century; instead, they 

consisted of modest farms that housed a small population of slaves. This 

intimate environment further encouraged contact between the African slaves 

and the European population. This physical contact among people led to 

linguistic contact among the many languages that they spoke. 

1721 marked the year that the slave populations in Louisiana began to 

increase. In New Orleans, Trudeau, with 32 slaves (31 Africans and one Native 

American) and Bienville, with 34 slaves (27 Africans and seven Native 

Americans) had the largest populations, but the numbers were growing 

throughout the city (Klingler 2003, 10). 

Chapitoulas, a small town near New Orleans, maintained an even greater 

slave population. In 1721, 53 Africans and eight Native Americans were 

enslaved at the La Freniere plantation, 46 Africans and two Native Americans


at Kolly, 43 Africans and two Native Americans at Dubreuil, 33 Africans and 

four Native Americans at De Lery, and 30 Africans and two Native Americans at 

Beaulieu (Klingler 2003, 10). The proportion of slaves to whites 3 increased over 

the next few years: in 1726, Chapitoulas had 396 slaves (385 of whom were 

African and 11 of whom were Native American), compared to the entire white 

population of 42 (Klingler 2003, 10). Although Chapitoulas boasted a large 

ratio of slaves to whites, 9.43, the ratio remained small in other parts of the 

colony (0.69 in greater New Orleans and 0.14 in Louisiana as a whole); the 

slave populations increased gradually over the next several decades. By 1731, 

just ten years later, Trudeau‟s slave population increased by 21 to 53 total 

slaves. There were 68 slaves at De Lery‟s plantation, 69 at Bienville‟s, 81 at 

Kolly‟s, 106 at Dubreuil‟s, and 116 at La Freniere‟s (Klingler 2003, 11). These 

different populations are summarized on the following page in Figure 2. 

3 From this point on, the term white is used to refer to the population of European descent living in Louisiana. 

Although white does not correctly or accurately illuminate the ethnic and racial origins of these communities, 

white is the term used in the sources, and because of this usage, the ethnic distinctions of this population are not 

always clear.


1726 1731-1732 

Slave Free 

Ratio 

Slave/Free Slave Free 

Ratio 

Slave/Free 

Bas du Fleve 857 194 4.4 

New Orleans 118 793 0.2 267 626 0.4 

East bank between N.O. and 

Chapitoulas 15 41 0.36 283 37 7.7 

Chapitoulas (east bank) 396 42 9.4 452 54 8.4 

West bank opposite Chapitoulas 214 106 2 1227 237 5.2 

Cannes Brulées (east bank) 56 29 1.9 196 46 4.3 

West bank opposite Cannes Brulées 66 35 1.9 

Point Coupee (west bank only) 0 21 0 56 75 0.8 

Total population along the Mississippi 

from its mouth through Point Coupee 1147 1468 0.8 3395 1095 3.1 

Figure 2 Slave and Free Populations Along the Mississippi in 1726 and 

1731-1732 (Klingler 2003, 12). 

The size of the plantation and the duties of the slaves contributed 

directly to slaves‟ contact with the French language. On large, agricultural 

habitations, slaves formed the majority of the population, and most of those 

slaves worked as farmhands and had limited contact with the French-speaking 

masters and overseers. Slaves with more specialized skills (such as in sugar 

boiling, wagon construction, and blacksmithing), however, received greater 

social status for these abilities. They maintained more extensive contact with 

the white owners than the slaves in the field. Nevertheless, the slaves with the 

greatest contact with the dominant white culture worked inside the house as 

domestic servants. They interacted constantly with the white population and 

thus, out of the entire enslaved community, had the greatest access to the 

French language.


Slaves who lived on smaller habitations had more regular contact with 

the French. On these smaller plantations, African slaves constituted the 

minority of the population. They typically worked with white indentured 

servants and workers, providing the displaced Africans with even greater 

access to French. Additionally, on these smaller plantations, slaves travelled 

more often outside of the plantation to acquire equipment and perform work for 

the owners. This travel allowed slaves from different plantations and different 

originating countries greater contact with one another—until the mid-1700s, 

when new government policies were enforced specifically to restrict slaves‟ 

movement out of fears of uprisings and increased contact with whites (Klingler 

2003, 15). This contact with the greater world through physical movement 

enabled slaves to be exposed to the French language (whether spoken by 

upper-class overseers or the poor whites with whom they interacted outside of 

the plantations) and also to the different languages and norms of 

communication of other African slaves. 

Another important factor in the formation of LCF was the prevalent 

ethnic mixing among the white population and the African or Native American 

population. White men, whether overseer or colonist, frequently engaged in 

sexual relations with enslaved African and Native American women. These 

relationships “were sometimes fleeting, but […] often very enduring, as is 

attested by evidence of interracial marriage in New Orleans as early as 1723” 

(Klingler 2003, 16, referencing Hall 1992a, 128). The mixed-race children of 

these unions generally were of higher status than the African population, even


when they themselves were slaves. However, the white slave owners frequently 

freed these women and their children, who then became “a major source for the 

population of gens de couleur libres, or free people of color” (Klingler 2003, 16). 

Documentation of this population first appeared in Mobile in 1715 and in New 

Orleans in 1722 (Gould 1996; Hall 1992a, 129 in Klingler 2003, 16). Whether 

freed because of the master‟s affection or the accumulation of resources, the 

population of free people of color “came to form a distinct and important class 

in Louisiana society that jealously guarded its separate identity” (Klingler 2003, 

16). 

The complexity of the social hierarchy in Louisiana can be seen on the 

following page in Figure 3. The plantation owners and large landowners formed 

the smallest and wealthiest group in the population. Beneath them, plantation 

overseers and supervisors received the most social status, which correlated 

directly to their economic prosperity. Military officers, small landowners, and 

soldiers came next. All of these aforementioned groups were generally white 

and spoke PSF or CF)—or both. The following groups in the hierarchy all had at 

least some African ancestry. The free people of color were frequently bilingual 

in PSF and LCF. At the very bottom were the African slaves, who typically 

spoke only LCF fluently.


Languages spoken 

Race/ethnicity 

PSF 

Plantation 

owners 

White 

PSF 

CF 

Plantation 

overseers 

White 

PSF 

CF 

Military officers, small 

landowners, and soldiers 

White 

PSF 

LCF 

Free people of color 

Creole 

African 

LCF 

Mixed-race slaves 


White 

African 

Native American 

LCF 

African slaves 

African 

Figure 3 Social hierarchy of Point Coupee Parish in colonial Louisiana 4 . 

The slave population experienced great upheaval during 1731-1743. 

During this period, no slaves were imported from Africa, and the high birth rate 

was minimized by an equally high rate of mortality. The 3,640 displaced 

Africans in the colony in 1762 grew to only 4,000 in 1741, two-thirds of whom 

were ethnically Creole (Klingler 2003, 17). In 1743, 190 documented slaves and 

possibly a few undocumented slaves were brought in; this small number of new 

slaves, the 2,460 Creoles, 1,360 Africans and their descendants comprised 

4 This data is based on generalizations. Although there were some members of the upper classes who were people 

of color or African, the overwhelming majority of plantation owners and overseers, military officers, landowners, 

and soldiers in Louisiana at this time were white. Also, although the majority of these white people spoke PSF or 

CF, some of these white people spoke LCF as well, and some whites in Louisiana today still speak LCF. This figure 

represents the general trends of the populations.


Louisiana‟s slave population until the Spanish resumed the slave trade 

(Klingler 2003, 17). 

The Spanish acquired Louisiana in 1762 through the Treaty of 

Fountainebleau. France transferred the Louisiana territory to Spain to offset 

Spain‟s loss of Florida to the English and rid itself of the burdensome French 

colony simultaneously (Klingler 2003, 17). In 1766, the lower colony‟s slave 

population had grown to 5,799 (the total population was 11,410 (Klingler 2003, 

17). The Spanish proved much more successful at managing the colony than 

the French; by 1803, the colony‟s population had burgeoned to 50,000, and the 

development of an agricultural economy based on the cultivation of sugar cane 

had commenced (Klingler 2003, 18). 

Despite Spain‟s effective control of the colony, the Spanish language had 

little influence. French still predominated. This lack of influence is due in part 

the fact that few Spanish colonizers immigrated to Louisiana, and those who 

did either quickly assimilated to French culture or completely isolated 

themselves from it (Klingler 2003, 18). 

The influx of 2,600 to 3,000 Acadian immigrants from Canada, which 

began in 1755, impacted Louisiana much more extensively than did the arrival 

of the Spaniards. The Acadians began in arrive in 1755, after they were forced 

from the Canadian territory by the new British colonizers. The entry of Acadian 

settlers caused a huge increase in the French-speaking population, which was 

further underlined by the fact that the Acadians “formed an unusually cohesive 

group that tended to assimilate other ethnicities” (Klingler 2003, 19). The


Acadians were able to successfully distance themselves and maintain their own 

culture more so than other colonist groups; today they constitute Louisiana‟s 

greatest francophone population (Klingler 2003, 19). The Anglicization of 

Louisiana also began during this period, with the increased immigration of 

English-speaking, white colonists. 

Despite rising European immigration, enslaved Africans formed the 

largest ethnic group entering Louisiana under Spanish rule. Exact numbers of 

slaves coming in during this era are unknown because the Spanish maintained 

records less rigidly than the French (Klingler 2003, 20). However, records state 

that in 1763, the slave population was 4,598, and that in 1800 it had reached 

24,264. Of the 14,406 documented slaves under Spanish rule, 7,091 were 

Africans, 5,366 were Creole, and English-speaking slaves (whose ethnicities are 

not stated) numbered 604 (Hall 2000b in Klingler 2003, 21). 

Spanish documents count 374 Caribbean slaves during that period, 

although the actual population most likely was higher. However, the 

importation of Caribbean slaves was severely restricted because they “were 

reputed to be insubordinate […and] would foment rebellion” if allowed to 

associate with Louisiana‟s slaves (Klingler 2003, 21). Governmental orders 

preventing the importation of Caribbean slaves succeeded in always keeping 

these Caribbean slaves a very small minority. 

In the 1790s, free refugees from St. Domingue (France‟s colony on 

Hispaniola which is now the country of Haiti) also immigrated to Louisiana, 

bringing with them their own slaves. 1,000 to 2,000 arrived in Louisiana


between 1791 and 1808; between 1809 and 1810 “3,226 slaves, 3,102 persons 

of color (presumably free), and 2,731 whites” came to New Orleans; most of 

these stayed within New Orleans (Klingler 2003, 22). The enslaved Africans 

who came from St. Domingue spoke that island‟s creole language and also 

frequently French. Thus, the immigration from that island to Louisiana 

reinforced the francophone nature of the colony, but did not change the racial 

demographics. It also did not cause the formation of LCF, as some have 

mistakenly claimed (Klingler 2003, 22). The ratio of slaves to free people is 

summarized in Klingler 2003, and a chart is included on the following page as 

Figure 4.


1731 1763 1766 1777 1788 

New Orleans 0.43 0.88 0.83 0.68 0.67 

Bas du Fleve 4.42 4.56 3.04 4.67 3.73 

Chapitoulas 8.37 5.33 5.37 2.58 4.08 

German Coast 0* 0.54 0.48 1.04 1.64 

Pointe 

Coupee 0.75 1.4 1.27 1.6 2.91 

Attakapas 0* 0* 0.17 0.58 0.69 

Opelousas 0* 0* 0.43 0.36 0.65 

*These zeroes indicate that there was no record for that year. 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

8.37 

5.33 

5.37 

4.42 

4.56 

4.67 

4.08 

3.04 

3.73 

2.58 2.91 

1.4 1.27 

1.6 

1.64 

0.75 

0.88 0.83 

1.04 

0.67 

0.68 

0.43 

0.54 0.48 

0 0 0.43 0.36 0.65 

1731 1763 1766 1777 1788 

New Orleans 

Bas du Fleve 

Chapitoulas 

German Coast 

Pointe Coupee 

Attakapas 

Opelousas 

Figure 4 Ratio of Slaves to Free Persons, 1731-1788 (Rodríguez 1979 in 

Klingler 2003, 24). 

Even when the United States incorporated the Territory of Orleans and 

admitted that territory as the state of Louisiana in 1812, French still remained 

the dominant language of many of the state‟s speakers. However, at the point 

that Louisiana became a state and governmental work began being performed 

in English, the H language in the linguistic strata changed from French to 

English. Today, the H language is still American English.


An understanding of Louisiana‟s early history is crucial to understanding 

not only the formation of LCF but also how the state‟s past is plausibly the 

greatest contributing factor to LCF‟s current attrition. The pidgin parent of LCF 

formed in this plantation environment: slaves from all over Africa needed a 

common tongue to communicate not only among themselves but also with their 

masters. As described earlier, for a pidgin to evolve into a creole, the speakers‟ 

access to the languages of both their homeland and their new environment 

must be completely restricted. As slaves who were brought from Africa to the 

American colonies, this diasporic population had no access to its native 

languages. Furthermore, their access to acquiring competence in the H 

languages, French and English, was even more severely restricted. The majority 

of slaves worked in the fields and had little contact with the white Frenchspeaking 

population. And even those slaves who had greater contact with the 

francophones were prevented—at first informally and then legally—from 

achieving fluency in the language. Attempts to educate themselves were 

punishable by death, effectively curtailing slaves‟ access to French. 

Additionally, because LCF speakers were overwhelmingly slaves or the 

descendants of slaves, their ability to move up the social and economic ladders 

was restricted by a society that discouraged such mobility. Considering there 

was no way for this marginalized population to acquire French—and thus 

obtain higher social status—until very recently, there was little linguistic 

competition to LCF for centuries. Thus, the historical context of LCF directly 

led to the formation of the language and also contributed to its flourishing.


This same history is contributing to LCF‟s current attrition. As will be 

discussed in further detail later, mainstream society has stigmatized the 

language, associating it with slavery, low social class, and criminality. This 

same bias is applied to LCF speakers, who therefore are forced to avoid using 

the language in most circumstances in order to achieve upward social mobility. 

VII. Comparison and contrast to other Caribbean 

French-lexifier Creoles 

In examining the current state of attrition of LCF, it is helpful to make 

comparisons to two other French-lexifier creoles of similar origins. Haitian 

Creole (or Kreyol) and St. Lucian Creole both arose during the French colonial 

period in the Caribbean to facilitate communication between African slaves and 

white landowners. LCF, Haitian Creole (HC), and St. Lucian Creole (SLC) all 

developed in close proximity to one another, as seen on the following page in 

Figure 5. Despite their similar origins, Haitian Creole and St. Lucian Creole— 

unlike LCF—are both thriving languages.


Figure 5 Map of the Caribbean indicating the originating locations of Louisiana Creole French, 

Haitian Creole, and Saint Lucian Creole. From Google Maps.

LANGUAGE ATTRITION IN LOUISIANA CREOLE FRENCH 

33 

Although some scholars have incorrectly asserted that Haitian 

immigrants imported Haitian Creole to Louisiana and LCF emerged as a result 

of that migration, Klingler states that LCF in fact existed before the influx of 

Haitian immigrants during the Haitian Revolution (2003, 91). 

Like Louisiana, Haiti was a French colony. Although the French first 

arrived on Hispaniola (the island Haiti shares with the Spanish-speaking 

Dominican Republic, as seen above in Figure 5) in 1629, they did not establish 

the Haitian colony, then known as “Saint-Domingue,” until 1697. Upon their 

arrival, most of the Haitian slaves spoke any of several hundred Niger-Congo 

languages, and they interacted with French colonists who spoke “non-standard 

and non-homogenous French varieties” (Squint 2005, 2). 

HC is the most widely used creole in the world, more than 8.5 million 

speakers (Squint 2005, 1). HC is no longer spoken only in its region of origin. 

Instead, there are communities of HC speakers all over the world, including in 

“the United States, Canada, Venezuela, French Guyana, the Dominican 

Republic, Martinique, Guadeloupe, the Bahamas, France, and in some African 

countries” (Squint 2005, 1). 

HC‟s successful evolution and continued linguistic success is due in 

large part to it geographic location. Although Haiti shares the island of 

Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic, because the language of the 

Dominican Republic is Spanish, language still provides a natural barrier 

between the two countries. Except for the Dominican Republic, Haiti‟s only 

border is with the sea. This geographic isolation ensured that HC could evolve


with minimal influence from bordering languages. Language restrictions 

imposed on Haitian slaves prohibited the speaking of African languages, and 

because no other languages could interact with the geographically-isolated HC, 

French provided the only competition to the language‟s evolution. As in 

Louisiana, government policies prevented slaves from learning French. 

However, Haiti‟s geographic isolation is the direct opposite of Louisiana‟s 

situation. Louisiana was a territory carved out of a larger continent that shares 

borders not just with an ocean, but with other states of the same country, as 

seen in Figure 5. 

Additionally, the Haitian Revolution which began in 1791 and ended in 

1803, served both to reduce the physical presence of the French government 

and increase Haiti- and HC-oriented nationalistic sentiments. After the 

expulsion of the French colonial powers, the French language continued to be 

spoken by a minority elite of mixed-race mulattoes. The majority of the 

population spoke HC, and after the success of the slaves‟ revolution, speaking 

HC became strongly tied with the ideals of Haitian independence and colonial 

overthrow. French still was the language of the social elite, the superstrate 

language; however, many Haitians associated feelings of pride with speaking 

and using HC. This positive transformation of the substrate language helped 

facilitate its longevity even after HC became the official language of Haiti in 

1961. In Louisiana, however, nationalist sentiments did not encourage the 

fostering of LCF but rather French and English. These national feelings were 

directed towards maintaining and promoting Louisiana‟s European heritage


and the state‟s membership in the larger union, which were aspects of 

mainstream society that did not necessarily include other marginalized groups, 

such as the Louisiana Creoles, Native Americans, etc. 

Access to resources is also a major factor contributing to HC‟s 

sustainability in Haiti. Unlike the situation in previous centuries, the social 

elite are not monolingual speakers of French or English; instead, they are 

multi- or bilingual speakers of French, English, and HC. Furthermore, this 

multilingual population represents an extreme minority. Most Haitians achieve 

what little upward social mobility they can while still speaking HC. In fact, the 

political and economic situation of the country (Haiti was the poorest country 

in the Western Hemisphere even before the devastating January 12, 2010 

earthquake), is such that upward social mobility is severely limited. In order to 

improve their social and economic situation, many Haitians have been forced to 

emigrate. By contrast, Louisiana is one state of the wealthiest country in the 

world; its inhabitants generally have regular and extensive access to resources, 

education, and other opportunities to acquire economic wealth. 

For many years, a diglossia existed in Haiti between HC and French or 

English. Bilingual speakers used the superstrates French or English in more 

formal situations and HC in their everyday interactions. However, HC now “has 

penetrated all dimensions of Haitian expression”; native Haitians rarely use 

French or English (Squint 2005, 4). Although the standardization efforts have 

served mostly to regulate the language‟s orthography, standardization through 

education has contributed both to the spread and strengthened existence of


HC. In New York City, where many Haitian immigrants live, HC is the “fourth 

most common non-English language spoken and taught in [the] school 

system,” and “at least four American universities teach classes in [HC]” (Squint 

2005, 2). Once Haitians emigrate to communities where HC becomes the 

substrate language again and the speakers are interacting in communities 

where the majority of inhabitants speak the superstrate language, HC generally 

undergoes the same loss as any other language in first- and second-generation 

immigrant families. A similar diglossia existed in Louisiana between LCF and 

French. However, this diglossia was ruptured by the introduction of English, 

which not only compounded the social subjugation of LCF but also increased 

the pull away from the language, toward not one but two H languages. 

Despite many challenges to HC‟s longevity, the language is still thriving 

and is the most widely-spoken creole. This flourishing of HC is directly 

attributable to the fact that there is little contact between the French lexifier 

and the creole (especially after the colonial government was expelled and HC 

became the de facto official language of Haiti), that the geographic isolation of 

the language allows no competing languages to influence it, and its speakers in 

Haiti have very limited social mobility. All of these factors that have enabled HC 

to thrive do not exist in the LCF context; LCF speakers interacted regularly and 

still engage with the rest of the francophone population, Louisiana is not 

geographically isolated, and LCF speakers now have access to achieving 

upward social mobility.


The geographic context of SLC is similar to that of Haiti. St. Lucia is an 

island located in the Antilles. For several centuries, it was one stop among 

many on the African slave trade routes, and its plantations produced goods, 

such as sugar and bananas, for the benefit of the colonial power. Like HC, SLC 

also developed on a European island colony in the Caribbean. Europeans first 

came to St. Lucia sometime between 1498 and 1503; however, it was not until 

1605 that they established a colony on St. Lucia. Ownership of the island was 

exchanged frequently between the French and British, and St. Lucia was a 

colony of both empires at different times. The colonists were mostly French, 

and that francophone population‟s influence was such that several 

proclamations were issued by the British crown between 1838 and 1842 to 

make English the official language and deter French‟s rising authority. 

SLC, like LCF, was highly negatively characterized by Europeans. H.H. 

Breen described SLC as “a jargon formed from the French and composed of 

words or rather sounds adapted to the organs of speech in the black 

population,” erroneously and prejudicially implying that the African slaves did 

not have the same human physiology as the Europeans (in Carrington 1984, 

3). He further states that SLC is “the French language, stripped of its manly 

and dignified ornaments and travestied for the accommodation of children and 

toothless old women” (3). 

These pejorative descriptions of SLC plausibly contributed to the 

language‟s decline. As the substrate language, many St. Lucians strongly 

associate SLC with slavery and prejudiced views such as Breen‟s. SLC, like


LCF, is viewed as an “inadequate and inferior form of speech, a marker of low 

social and educational evolution,” fit only for informal, everyday situations 

(Carrington 1984, 5). Parents therefore generally insist upon their children 

speaking English, the superstrate language, so that this next generation can 

use English to achieve upward social mobility. SLC‟s viability was further 

harmed by the educational system, whose teachers “actively discouraged the 

use of [SLC] on school premises” through physical punishment and verbal 

reprimands up to the middle of the twentieth century (Carrington 1984, 5-6). 

Despite these attempts to quell the spread of SLC, the language has 

survived, thanks in part to efforts to reverse the methods used to restrict the 

language. A policy enforced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organizations stated that “no educational policy should tend to 

eradicate local languages” (although a Barbadian Educational Officer on St. 

Lucia allegedly said that directive was inapplicable to SLC because it was not a 

language) (Carrington 1984, 6). Regardless of the effectiveness of that specific 

policy, sentiments towards SLC were reversing in the 1960s; in fact, many 

educators found the language extremely useful for teaching children. In 

Louisiana, the exact opposite is happening: educational policies and laws 

encourage the revival of other francophone variants over LCF, as will be 

discussed in a later section 

In addition, just as in Haiti, St. Lucians began to associate SLC not with 

a negative memory of slavery, but with increasing nationalist sentiments. This 

population began to view SLC as “[representing] the soul of the St. Lucian


people” (Carrington 1984, 6). The preservation of the language was inextricably 

linked to a continuation of independent St. Lucian identity—at a time when the 

language had not reached irreversible levels of attrition. In LCF, however, 

recent efforts to revive the language come at a time when it has already 

experienced extensive attrition. 

Although negative associations still exist with SLC, this avoidance of 

speaking the language is coupled with a desire in those who do not know it to 

acquire it. The diglossia on St. Lucia reflects the ambiguity of the status of the 

language; bilingual speakers of SLC and English tend to code-switch between 

the two languages, generally using English for more formal situations and 

topics and SLC for more intimate and informal conversations. The language 

used also reflects the perceived status of the interlocutors. Currently, the 

percentage of SLC-only speakers is decreasing, the percentage of bilingual 

speakers is increasing, and the numbers of English-only speakers is 

experiencing no change (Carrington 1984, 6). Unlike LCF, St. Lucian Creole will 

plausibly be widely spoken several generations into the future. 

VIII. Language Loss in LCF 

Why is LCF currently in a state of attrition? An understanding of the 

many factors contributing to LCF‟s origin, allows one to see how the language 

developed. These same historical, socio-linguistic, and geographic factors that 

enabled the creation of LCF are now also contributing to its current attrition. 

The historical environment of LCF is probably the single greatest factor 

influencing the decline of the language. LCF was used by slaves to facilitate


communication between them and their masters, as well as among slaves who 

were native speakers of several African languages. The overwhelming majority 

of speakers of LCF now and in the past were either African slaves or their 

descendants—both of whom constitute groups of marginalized people in the US 

and Louisiana in particular. Thus, LCF is highly associated with slavery and all 

of the negativity that linkage entails. When speakers used the L language, LCF, 

they were often ridiculed by non-speakers; when they spoke the high languages 

(French or English), their accent revealed that they were speakers of a „slave 

language,‟ which was believed by many to be not a source of pride, but a trait 

to be hidden. As Romaine describes, society‟s perception of L language 

speakers as people, their intellect, and the respect to be afforded to them 

derives from their competence in and usage of the H languages (1994, 47). 

Usage of the L language restricts the speakers‟ economic and educational 

opportunities, whereas skilled usage and exclusive usage of the H language 

facilitates upward class movement. 

The economic situation of LCF speakers also is contributing to the 

language‟s current attrition. As slaves, the LCF-speaking community had no 

opportunities for advancement. Even if they were taught the H language, 

learning it would provide no direct benefit to them—in fact, it could even get 

them killed because educated slaves were often murdered so that they would 

not foment rebellion. However, with the criminalization of slavery and the 

freeing of slaves, former slaves were beginning to have greater access to 

economic and educational opportunity. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s


and 1960s further enabled LCF speakers to improve their socio-economic 

status. In order to move upward as much as the laws of the time periods 

permitted, LCF speakers needed to acquire the H language, which at first was 

French and then became English. The universal desire to improve one‟s own 

life and that of one‟s descendants and later on the ability to actually do so 

caused many LCF speakers not to pass this L language on to future 

generations. Thus, LCF‟s decline has not been immediate (such as in certain 

Native American populations), but rather gradual. 

Another factor contributing to LCF‟s current attrition is geography. As 

seen on the islands of Hispaniola (where Haiti is located) and St. Lucia, 

geographic isolation tremendously impacts the manner in which a contact 

language originates, and so “[LCF] has always had an additional challenge that 

HC [and SLC] did not have because of [their] relative isolation: a more diverse 

linguistic (specifically francophone) context” (Squint 2005, 4). Once the 

language is created, this same geographic isolation enables the language to 

thrive because of minimal competition from outside languages. Situated in 

Louisiana‟s bayous, or marshy wetlands, the LCF speaking community was 

isolated from outsiders to an extent, but not as greatly as HC or SLC speakers. 

The LCF community was never completely isolated from the outside world, and 

LCF speakers were able to travel amongst themselves and their plantations for 

years until laws restricted their movement. The influx of Acadian French 

speakers beginning in 1755 came as a result of geography that did not greatly


deter movement; this huge immigration drastically changed the linguistic 

demographics of the region and increased the number of non-LCF speakers. 

Furthermore, technological innovations and the construction of roads 

and levees enabled LCF speakers to communicate with those who entered their 

area. However, Louisiana‟s greatest geographic tie to the outside world came 

when that territory was incorporated into the United States. After this 

acquisition, US government officials and citizens frequently came to Louisiana 

for short or extended periods of time, bringing English with them as the H 

language. 

These historical, economic, and geographic factors intertwine. The 

history of Louisiana influenced the economic situation of speakers and was 

affected by the geography of the region. All three of these factors contributed to 

the creation of LCF and also its current decline. 

Another factor contributing to LCF‟s attrition is the inaccuracy of data 

collection regarding the language. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, there 

were 6,310 speakers of “Creole French,” but that number “is surely too low” 

(Klingler 2003, xxvii). This inaccuracy can be attributed to the structure of the 

questions. When asked, “Does this person speak a language other than English 

at home?” many LCF speakers may have answered no (and thus not responded 

to questions specifying which language) because they did not perceive 

themselves as speaking LCF regularly. If they answered, “Yes,” they may have 

identified themselves as speaking “French or French Creole,” which counts 

261,678 speakers in Louisiana in the same 1990 Census. Additionally, because


of the social stigma associated with LCF due to its historical origins, many 

speakers of LCF may have chosen not to divulge that they spoke that language. 

Furthermore, the terms used by scholars to describe these languages, such as 

Creole and Cajun, are not always used by the speakers of these languages, who 

may refer to themselves as using French. 

There are also important ethnic and racial influences determining which 

languages speakers view themselves as speaking. Many white Louisianans 

speak LCF, however they may have selected Cajun because Cajun is the ethnic 

label with which they self-identify 5 ; many African-Americans, Creoles, and 

mixed race people speak a language that is structurally CF, but refer to it as 

Creole because that term describes their ethnic identity; and many “white 

francophones of Acadian origin” use the term Creole to describe their ethnicity 

and their language (although that usage was more common in the 1800s 

(Klingler 2003, xxvii-xxviii). And although recent efforts for the 2010 U.S. 

Census promote respondents writing in Louisiana Creole for ethnic and 

linguistic categories, these moves will only be successful if the information is 

widely disseminated among the population—and if respondents allay negative 

associations with LCF and elect to write in Louisiana Creole 

or Louisiana 

Creole French. 

Klingler establishes that a continuum of Louisiana languages exists, as 

shown on the following page in Figure 6. Standard French, positioned at the 

top of the social hierarchy for centuries, was replaced by English, which has 

5 For more information about the Cajun ethnic group and CF language shift, please see Sexton 2000.


“displaced” all other language varieties (Klingler 2003, xxx). Beneath those two 

languages, PSF received the most prestige, followed by CF and then LCF. PSF 

is almost completely extinct and CF is also experiencing a decline (Klingler 

2003, xxx). 

Louisiana 


French 

Cajun 


Plantation 

Society 


(extinct) 

Standard 


Standard 

American 

English 

(after 1812) 

Low 

High 

Figure 6 Linguistic continuum in Louisiana. 

This continuum is important because recent efforts to revitalize „French‟ 

in Louisiana focus only on certain language segments of the continuum. As one 

segment is encouraged, other segments lower on the continuum are further 

oppressed. 

In the past three decades, francophone revitalization efforts by the Cajun 

community were officially recognized through the State Legislature‟s creation of 

the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana (CODOFIL). At first, 

CODOFIL encouraged the retention and acquisition of Standard French; 

however, these efforts angered the Cajun population, whose work to preserve 

CF led to the creation of CODOFIL in the first place (Klingler 2003, xxx). This 

negative reaction caused CODOFIL to promote all francophone languages in


Louisiana, including “to a lesser extent” LCF (Klingler 2003, xxx). A 1990 

survey conducted by CODOFIL and the University of Southwestern Louisiana 

found that 25% of respondents under 19 years of age self-identified as French 

speakers, 8.9% as CF speakers in the home, and 14.3% as speaking Standard 

French acquired in school (Henry 1990 in Klingler 2003, xxxi). Although the 

study was conducted in part by CODOFIL, “it is unclear whether or not 

speakers of Louisiana Creole [French] were included in the survey” (Squint 

2005, 5). This omission underlines the fact that although the mission of 

CODOFIL is to promote all francophone languages and cultures, certain 

segments of the continuum are still promoted over others. And LCF has been 

almost completely ignored. 

More recently, Standard French revitalization and education is being 

encouraged to provide “a vital link between Louisiana‟s francophone 

community and the rest of the francophone world” (Klingler 2003, xxx). Due to 

the increasing importance of Standard French, Standard French speakers will 

mostly increase in numbers over the coming years due to “its greater prestige 

and usefulness as an [international] tool of communication,” especially because 

many of these speakers of Standard French are acquiring it as a second 

language and do not speak CF or LCF (Klingler 2003, xxxi). This increase in the 

attention and prestige afforded to Standard French will further push down 

languages lower than it on the linguistic continuum of Louisiana, such as LCF.


Thus, these many factors—the historical origins of the language, its 

geographic location, and the inaccurate data, and „French revitalization 

efforts‟—that combined are causing LCF‟s current moribundity. 

IX. Conclusion 

LCF is a contact language that evolved from a pidgin created from French 

and various African languages in the 18 th century. This pidgin arose to 

facilitate communication between African slaves and francophone land owners. 

Once a generation of native speakers of this pidgin was born, the language 

evolved into a creole that was spoken throughout the Louisiana territory and a 

diglossia between LCF and PSF was formed. English replaced PSF as the H 

language once Louisiana became one of the United States of America. 

Although LCF thrived for centuries, it is currently in a state of attrition. 

LCF‟s negative associations with slavery have stigmatized the language to the 

point where many speakers are ridiculed for its usage, especially in situations 

where the H languages, Standard French and American English, are viewed as 

more appropriate. Additionally, in order for the formerly subjugated and 

currently marginalized LCF speakers to achieve upward social mobility, they 

would have to acquire the H language and be able to completely remove the L 

language, LCF, from their speech in most social situations. This desire to be 

upwardly mobile prompted many LCF speakers not to pass the language on to 

future generations, contributing to its gradual decline. Additionally, geography, 

which can and has greatly isolated creole speakers, is now a non-factor in 

Louisiana. With Louisiana‟s becoming a state and numerous technological


advancements, the entire region is accessible to people from other areas, who 

typically enter Louisiana speaking English. Recent efforts to revitalize 

francophone languages have placed more emphasis on the prestigious and 

international Standard French and on CF, a language situated higher than LCF 

of the linguistic continuum. Although these efforts have assisted in the 

maintenance of Standard French and CF, they are at the same time further 

minimizing LCF and contributing to its decline. 

Today, “it is the [B]lack Creole community that „is the repository of Creole 

culture, and, where it is still extant, the Creole language‟” (Melancon 2000 in 

Squint 2005, 6). Recent efforts to revitalize LCF specifically have come from 

this African Diasporic community, and in the 1980s and 1990s, several literary 

works were published in LCF. Although change and death are natural parts of 

every language, many Creole people today feel that losing LCF as a language 

will also contribute greatly to losing Creole as a culture. In order for the 

language to survive, this Creole community must take significant steps to 

ensure that younger generations are acquiring the language before the only 

speakers pass away.


Works Cited 

Carrington, L. D. (1984). St. Lucian Creole: A descriptive analysis of its 

phonology and morpho-syntax. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 

Dalby, A. (2002). Language in danger. New York: The Penguin Press. 

Hall, G. M. (1992). Africans in colonial Louisiana the development of Afro-Creole 

culture in the eighteenth century. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana 

State University Press. 

Henry, J. (1990). Le français nouveau arrivé? Espoir et tradition. La gazette de 

Louisiane, October. 

Hirsch, A. R. & Logsdon, J. (Eds.). (1992). Creole New Orleans race and 

Americanization. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University 

Press. 

Klingler, T. A. (2003). If I could turn my tongue like that the Creole language of 

Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana 

State University Press. 

LeadDog Consulting, Google, INEGI. (2010). [Map illustration of the Caribbean 

in Google Maps March 14, 2010]. Retrieved from 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=17.978733,- 

68.642578&spn=40.428194,79.013672&z=4. 

Melancon, M. E. (2000). The sociolinguistic situation of Creoles in South 

Louisiana: identity, characteristics, attitudes (Doctoral dissertation), 

Louisiana State University.


Mithun, M. (1999). The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Neumann, I. (1985). Le créole de Breaux Bridge, Louisiana. Études 

morphosyntaxique, texts, vocabulaire. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 

Nichols, P. (2004). Creole languages: Forging new identities. In E. Finegan and 

J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA themes for the twenty-first 

century. (133-136, 145-152). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Parkvall, M. (1995). The role of St. Kitts in a new scenario of French Creole 

genesis. In P. Baker (Ed.), From contact to creole and beyond. London: 

University of Westminster Press. 

Picone, M. D. (1997). Enclave dialect contraction: an external overview of 

Louisiana French. American Speech. 

Rodríguez, A. A. (1979). La población de Louisiana española (1763-1803). 

Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Dirección General de 

Relaciones Culturales. 

Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society an introduction to sociolinguistics. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Sebba, M. (1997). Contact languages pidgins and creoles. New York: Palgrave. 

Sexton, R. L. (2000). Cajun-French language maintenance and shift: a 

southwest Louisiana case study to 1970. Champaign, Illinois: University 

of Illinois Press. 

Squint, K. (2005). A linguistic and cultural comparison of Haitian Creole and 

Louisiana Creole. A postcolonial text, 1 (2).


. 

Valdman, A. (Ed.). (1997). French and Creole in Louisiana. New York: Plenum 

Publishing Corporation. 

Valdman, A. & Klingler, Thomas A. (1997). Structure of Louisiana Creole. In 

Valdman, A. (Ed.), French and Creole in Louisiana. New York: Plenum 

Publishing Corporation.

Language Attrition in Louisiana Creole French

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?