[…] decreolization cuts across the whole social spectrum.
- Romaine (1988), Pag. 173

[…] decreolization does not necessarily entail the creation of mesolectal varieties but rather involves an increase in the adoption of already existing ones.
- Romaine (1988), Pag. 182

Rickford [Rickford, J. 1979. “Variation in a creole continuum: Quantitative and implicational approaches”, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.] […] suggests a polygenetic view of decreolization in which the restructuring which produced the continuum in the past continues actively in the present. Speakers of the present generation are seen not merely as the passive recipients of intermediate varieties created by their predecessors but as the active reshapers and restructurers themselves. Evidence from research on second language acquisition indicates that Rickford’s view is plausible.
- Romaine (1988), Pag. 183

[…] decreolization, ie movement away from creole norms and towards of their lexically related standards […].
- Romaine (1988), Pag. 183-184

For Bickerton [Bickerton, D. 1984. “The language bioprogram hypothesis”, The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 7: pp. 173-221.], however, it is the degree of influence from the superstrate language restricting access to the bioprogram at the time of creolization rather than subsequent decreolization that separates true creoles from others. This suggests an implausible scenario on which there is a creolization phase without contact followed by decreolization with contact.
- Romaine (1988), Pag. 309