  If Newport et al. are right, the case of Simon does not seem to give  much support to the nativist hypothesis. Moreover, the argument from  creolization suffers a number of additional flaws. First, the  Bickerton-Pinker view, which assigns a dominant role to child  language learners in the creation of creoles, is but one of three  competing hypotheses currently being explored in the creolization  literature. According to the ‘superstratist’ hypothesis,  creolization occurs not when children acquire language from pidgins,  but when successive waves of adult speakers try to learn the language of the dominant culture as a second language. (Chaudenson 1992, for  instance, defends this view about the origins of French creoles.) On  this view, the additional devices seen in creoles are corruptions of  devices seen in the dominant language. According to the  ‘substratist’ hypothesis, creoles are again created by  second language learners, rather than children, only the source of  added structure is the first language of the learner. (Lumsden 1999  argues that numerous traces of a variety of African languages in  Haitian creole support this hypothesis.) One need not take a stand on which of these views is correct in order to see that these competing  explanations of creolization undermine Bickerton and Pinker's  ‘bioprogram’ hypothesis. If creoles arise out of the  attempts of adult learners to learn (and subsequently pass on to  their children) another, non-native language, then what one might  call ‘contamination of the stimulus,’ rather than the  influence of an inborn UG in the learner, is what accounts for the  UG-respecting ways in which creoles are elaborated.