[…] speakers of different languages at first evolved some form of auxiliary contact-language, native to none of them (known as a pidgin), and that this language, suitably expanded, eventually become the native (or creole) language of the community which exists today.
- Bickerton (1981), a pag.2

Creoles are the nearest thing one can find to ab ovo creations of language, but they are not and cannot be purely ab ovo creations. The very least, pidgins provide some input to them, and this, even if deficient, even if sometimes rejected […] is still input. Since pidgins show clear substratum differences, and since the composition of substrata differs from place to place, that input must also be a variable, which must somehow be factored out if we are to determine the extent to which creoles are genuinely creative.
- Bickerton (1981), a pag.45

[…] pidgins express temporal relations by means of sentence adverbs, in clause-external position, which indicate the temporal sequence of events […] If creoles, were, as they are popularly supposed to be, no more that “expansion” of pidgins, one would expect them to take markers of this kind, transmute them into obligatory markers of tense, modality, or aspect […] and incorporate them into an Aux category. But this development is the creole exception rather the creole rule.
- Bickerton (1981), a pag.78-79

Alleyne [Alleyne, M. C. 1979. “On the Genesis of Languages”, in Hill, K. C. (a cura di ) The Genesis of Language Ann Arbor, Karoma, pp. 89-107 ], in arguing against the existence of a pidgin-creole cycle, claims that no vestiges of pidgin can be found in creoles. This, if true, would be unsurprising – as unsurprising as the fact that we find no trace of the caterpillar in the butterfly, and for similar reasons. In fact the data now to be surveyed show some exceptions to the general irrecoverability of pre-creole pidgins.
- Bickerton (1981), a pag.78