From a lexical point of view, this formula may appear attractive, since the basic vocabulary is often in the main from the superstrate language. But it largely ignores the importance of the grammatical relations and promotes (although it does not necessitate) the idea that pidgins develop primarily in the mouths of European speakers simplifying their speech for foreigners.
- Traugott (1977), a pag.74

Bickerton [Bickerton, D. 1975. “Creolization, linguistic universals, natural semantax and the brain”, International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles, University of Hawaii, January 1975] has suggested that pidgins are “impossible languages to learn” as native languages since they are so deficient in the possible distinctions that can be made in a language (e.g., between assertion and presupposition, or between action and state), and that it is why children must make recourse to their innate knowledge of what a language is and how it is to be expressed. Nobody develops a language in a vacuum, so to this knowledge we must add children’s reference to perceptual strategies that analyze the input provided both by the pidgin, however inadequate, and the native languages heard, though not necessarily well understood, by the child.
- Traugott (1977), a pag.87