The classification of Shelta seems to be somewhat unclear. There does not seem to be any disagreement about Shelta being an ethnic language; however, it has been labelled both as a mixed language ( Grant, 1994) and as a register of English ( O'Baoill, 1994). Hancock (1974) in "A problem of classification" addresses the difficulty in classifying Shelta and suggests that the present definition of a Creole might need to be expanded to include such languages as Shelta, Angloromani, and Pachuco which share the same cryptolectal purpose. Linguistically Shelta has undergone similar stages to those that occur in creolization; however, Hancock (April,1996, e-mail) does not believe that Shelta can be classified under the present definition of a Creole; although, he has referred to Irish Traveller Cant as a vestigal creole due to the continuing replacement of the Shelta lexicon with English (1974).
There are two main arguments against Shelta being classified as a creole. The first is that the social criteria do not apply because Shelta was created by "a single group operating two languages," (Hancock,1974, p. 131) and that the purpose of Shelta was for secrecy and not to facilitate communication between two peoples. However, Binchy (1994) points out that Travellers and creole speakers both have been oppressed/suppressed populations.
The second argument against Shelta being a creole language is that it did not develop its own grammar. Binchy (1994) believes that this is because of the Travellers' nomadic way of living. She claims that in order for a grammar to form there must be a sense of community (shared location). Being a nomadic people, the amount of interactions among themselves and the settled community was not enough to develop a grammar of their own. Similarly, O'Baoill (1994) claims that when Shelta was formed it did not develop as a communication system, and thus could not develop its own grammar. Because of Travellers being an oppressed group and having limited contact with the settled community, Binchy says that grammar which functions as a social marker was not necessary and is reflected in its reduced form. Thus, Binchy (1994, p.146) believes that "the restrictions in Travellers' social position may have prevented creolization". Deegan (March, 1996, e-mail) and Binchy both acknowledge, though, the possibility that the social oppression of Travellers may well have been one of the reasons for its survival. Binchy argues that Shelta should be considered a distinct language because it is incomprehensible to both Irish and English speakers and according to Hancock (1984) the Travellers themselves consider it thus.
Page maintained
by