- Small nation (N1) speaks L1.
- Expanding, imperialistic nation (N2) speaks L2.
- N2 invades N1 and, after several decades of struggle, conquers it.
- N2 institutes mandatory L2-only laws.
- L2 is administrative language in N1 territory.
- 400 or so years of varying degrees of resistance to N2 hegemony.
- For the first 100 or so years, L2 is brutally imposed on N1 population.
- Speakers of L1 flout L2-only laws and continue to use L1 whenever they can.
- Hybrid L1/L2 language develops (L3).
- L3 develops own literature, cultural usages and dialects.
- L3 usage increases at expense of L1.
- Several decades of loosening cultural and linguistic restrictions by N2.
- N1 gains independence when N2 basically decides to just pull out because of internal issues.
- L1 is official language of N1 but only ~15% of population is fluent.
- L3 is "street level" and majority language of N1.
- Strained but not overtly hostile relations between N1 and N2, including trade.
So, my question is this: Which is more likely for L3 (the hybrid language), a creole or a mixed language?
I'm leaning towards a mixed language because it just doesn't seem to me to be a situation conducive to forming a creole. The original L3 speakers would have had a native command of L1 and formal instruction in L2. So it's not a case where lack of knowledge in either language led to pidginization and eventually creolization. And there wasn't a mix of several other languages that would make them develop a pidgin for common communication; basically everyone spoke L1 to begin with. I figure there'd a be a lot of code-switching going on all the time, which would lead to a hybrid tongue incorporating bits and pieces of both L1 and L2.
My thoughts are that a mixed language taking the majority of its grammar from L1 with 70-80% of its vocabulary from L2 is the way I want to go. This would be explained by continued L1 speech in the home and as a point of pride by a resistance movement preserving a large percentage of the grammar while the formal L2 instruction would have more of an influence on the lexicon. The two parent languages are themselves not related and in fact differ wildly in word order, morphology, phonology, the works.
Or would it be better to reverse that pattern so that L2 contributes the grammar and L1 the lexicon?
Any thoughts or suggestions?