pidgins and pidginization l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pidgins and Pidginization PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pidgins and Pidginization

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Pidgins and Pidginization - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 408 Views
  • Uploaded on

Pidgins and Pidginization. LG449 Pidgins & Creoles Peter L Patrick. Key Questions about Pidgins. Are pidgins special? Are they natural languages? How structurally similar are pidgins to Creoles? Are contrasts between pidgins and Creoles largely attributable to nativization (of Creoles)?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Pidgins and Pidginization' - Mercy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
pidgins and pidginization

Pidgins and Pidginization

LG449 Pidgins & Creoles

Peter L Patrick

key questions about pidgins
Key Questions about Pidgins
  • Are pidgins special? Are they natural languages?
  • How structurally similar are pidgins to Creoles?
  • Are contrasts between pidgins and Creoles largely attributable to nativization (of Creoles)?
  • Do most Creoles have a pidgin in their ancestry? i.e., does a version of the “life-cycle” model still hold?
  • Should “pidgin” only refer to a stabilized variety?
  • How do earlier varieties differ from stabilized pidgins?
  • What are the primary processes in pidginization? What are the major constraints on them?
  • Are pidgins best defined socially or structurally?
typology of pidgin development
Typology of Pidgin Development
  • Bakker contrasts 3 categories with the Creole stage
  • Jargonsexhibit variety-w/o-structure, mother-tongue interference, mixed lexical sources, short/simple phrases, severe simplification, lack of normativity
  • Pidginsevolve from jargons; display more structured variation & norms; less experimentation; draw lexicon from 1-2 sources; optionality in major categories; not main or default language of one ethnic/social group
  • Pidgincreoles- structurally-expanded pidgins which are widely used but have become native for only some members of the speech community: social extension leads to structural expansion but falls short of full nativization. An intermediate stage between Ps and Cs.
life cycle model of ps and cs
Life-Cycle Model of Ps and Cs
  • Jargon Pidgin  Pidgincreole  Creole
          • ⇩⇩⇩
          • ⇩Post-creole continuum⇩
      • Post-pidgin continuum⇘ ⇙
          • Nativized version
          • of lexifier
  • Clear examples:
        • Russenorsk Solomon Islands P, Haitian
        • Chinese PE Tok Pisin Jamaican
  • Wherever language changes fuzzy boundaries occur; generalizations can still be drawn from clear cases
the problem of nativization in pcs
The problem of nativization in PCs
  • Nativization is widely said to be criterial of Cs vs Ps
  • But creole specialists find this problematic. Bakker’s solution is to posit intermediate category, keeping typical Ps and typical Cs relatively clear – though
    • Moving difficulty onto gradient nature of ‘pidgincreoles’
  • Also accepts common distinction b/w Pidgin & Jargon
  • Jargon: Individuals lacking a common language use basic, spontaneous linguistic creativity to have limited communication in highly restricted domains.
    • E.g. speech of labour migrants to early 20th C. Hawai’i (called “HPE” by Bickerton, used as evidence for LBH)
social context for jargon pidgin use
Social context for Jargon/Pidgin use
  • Maritime Pidgins: multilingual crews, shore contacts
    • Lingua Franca (Mediterranean), Russenorsk
  • Trade Pidgins: bartering/selling b/w distinct groups
    • Chinese Pidgin English
  • Workforce Pidgins: eg plantation pidgins or mining community Ps
    • Hawaii PE; Fanagalo, S Africa; Broome Pearling Lugger P
  • Military Pidgins b/w officers & local soldiers/workers
    • Juba Arabic, Hiri Motu
  • More general interethnic contacts:
    • Chinook Jargon, Bazaar Malay, Mobilian Jargon
explanations for pidgin genesis
Explanations for Pidgin Genesis
  • 1) Simplification of superstrategrammatical structure
    • Historical in that P retains superstrate elements; universal if there are universals of simplification
  • 2) Retention of substrate grammatical structures
    • Historical; fits w/ relexification (older & newer versions)
  • 3) Selection of universally preferred structures in a simple(st) grammar – a functionalist argument
    • But where Ps show fewer universals than Creoles, or marked features not derived from lexical base, this fails
  • T&K: (1-2) assume directionality, attempt to acquire a TL (Target Language). Isn’t new language creation as likely?
new language creation ph baker
New Language Creation?(< Ph Baker)
  • Linguistic negotiation of new common language via
  • Mutual simplification by each of their own language (you can only simplify languages you know very well)
  • As well as shift-induced (=substrate) interference + imperfect learning of input (?not target?) language
  • Speakers may only take lexical items, not grammar; lexifier may be unavailable, or undesirable; speakers only want enough of TL for communicative needs
  • Aim: Medium for Interethnic Communication (MIC)
  • (Focus on TL goes along w/belief in decreolization: speakers will continue to change P/C towards TL)
characteristics of pidgins i
Characteristics of Pidgins, I
  • Pidgins distinct from Jargons by:
    • Ps have structural norms & must be learned
  • Pidgins distinct from Creoles by:
    • Pidgins are not learned as first languages
    • Social elaboration, ethnic identification of Creoles
    • Pidgins do not have unlimited linguistic resources
  • Pidgins distinct from Input languages by:
    • Structural reduction of Ps, typically in morphology
    • Lack many semantic and grammatical distinctions
    • Few stylistic resources (=conventional variation]
    • Lexical reduction, derivation from dominant groups
examples of reduction simplification in pidgins i
Examples of reduction/ simplification in Pidgins, I
  • Ngarlumais a Pama-Nyungan language of W Australia, with
  • Free word-order, semantic cases (6-8) & grammatical cases (3)
  • thatharruka-kuwatharri“We’ll look for turtle”

turtle -ACC look.for.FUT

  • Pidgin Ngarlumais an indigenous pidgin attested from 1875
  • thatharrukawatharri
  • Note absence of obligatory ACC case-marking on object noun
  • Hawaiian, an indigenous Polynesian language, v Pidgin Haw.
  • I heakāukāla“Where is your money?”
  • Loc 2-poss money
  • Maheadalaoe “Where is your money?”
  • Where money 2pn
  • Note Haw. borrowing kāla < dollar, analytic possessive
characteristics of pidgins ii
Characteristics of Pidgins, II

Word-Order generalizations:

  • Creoles are nearly all (originally) SVO
    • Exceptions: Nagamese (like Assamese it’s SOV); Philippine Creole Spanishes (becoming VSO)
      • But these are questionably Creoles in any case
    • Korlai SOV now (like Marathi), but shifted from SVO
  • Pidgins may have SVO, or else an input’s word-order
    • Hiri Motu is SOV; so is Motu, also Papuan inputs
    • Mobilian was OSV; Muskogean inputs are SOV/OSV
    • Pidgin Ojibwe was free word-order; so is Ojibwe
    • Chinese P Russian is SOV; Russian, Chinese =SVO?
    • Chinese SVO > SOV, via eg high-frequency ba-construction
examples of reduction simplification in pidgins ii
Examples of reduction/ simplification in Pidgins, II
  • isiZuluis a SouthEsatern Bantu language (Nguni group)
  • Zulu: a- kuji- kati“This isn’t a cat”

CL-NEG- cat

  • Fanagalois a pidginized (isi)Zulu spoken in southern Africa
  • Fanagalo: ayikona lo kati lo “This isn’t a cat”

NEG DET cat COP

  • Z: negation in verbal complex; F: analytic pre-VP negation
  • KiSwahili, Bantu (contact w/Arabic), vs Kenya Pidgin Swahili
  • Ni- ta- m- piga“I will hit him”

3s.Sub FUT 3s.Obj hit

  • Mimi tapigayeye“I will hit him”

1sg FUT hit 3sg

  • Case-neutral pronouns, not agglutinative, no noun classes, SVO
characteristics of pidgins iii
Characteristics of Pidgins, III

Tense/Mood/Aspect Marking:

  • Creoles largely use invariant pre-V particles… but not as regularly as often claimed (Holm & Patrick 2007 CCS)
    • Exceptions: invariant suffixes occur (Berbice Dutch, Cape Verdean, Nagamese), some from superstrate (Palenquero, Papiamentu); rich inflection (Korlai); vowel harmony (Nubi)
  • Pidgins rarely have such pre-verbal particles, but express TMA with free adverbials
    • Exceptions: inflectional suffixes (Fanagalo, Trio-Ndjuka)
  • Many aspectual categories not expressed in Ps at all
    • Durativity, habituality, perfectivity all rare (Bakker 2008)
characteristics of pidgins iv
Characteristics of Pidgins, IV

Inflectional Morphology not rare at all in Ps:

  • Inherited suffixes occur for inflection (also derivation)
    • E.g. Fanakalo tense/aspect, causatives; number – also Turku, both w/animacy constraint (Bislama eks- ‘former’)
  • Borrowed inflectional morphemes (BroomeP < Japanese)
  • Language-internal, grammaticalized inflections
    • E.g. Tok Pisin ‘Adv’ by and by > baimbai > bai > bə ‘Fut, Irr’
    • Independent of nativization; preceded creolization
    • Content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix
  • ?Due to Ps arising from affix-heavy language inputs (eg Bantu, Amerindian) – ie, historical accident?
characteristics of pidgins v
Characteristics of Pidgins, V
  • Reduplication:widespread in Cs, nearly absent in Ps
  • Q-words: common in Cs, usually bimorphemic; less common in Ps, typically monomorphemic retentions
  • Primacy of discourse/pragmatics where grammar is limited & speaker creativity/agency is maximised.
    • Explains why some substrate features occur but not others
      • Eg inclusive/exclusive pronouns in Tok Pisin, Bislama, Solomons
    • Fits w/interpersonal negotiation/accommodation process
    • Info-status constraints crucial to modelling some variation
    • Variability and speaker choices foregrounded (Meyerhoff 2008)
    • Inherent variation provides resources for language change
    • Thus unifies Ps (& Cs) with explanation of other languages
what about pidgincreoles
…what about pidgincreoles?
  • Pidgincreoles: tend to follow Creoles rather than Ps
    • SVO word order
    • Invariant preverbal TMA markers
    • More non-superstrate morphology
  • Thus nativization of pidgincreoles has little structural impact; it’s social expansion that leads to changes
    • Evidence from Nigerian PE, Solomon Islands PE, TokP: impact of adults is expansive, of kids is regularizing
    • Creolization (=structural change) can occur at any point of ‘life-cycle’ due to increased P use in multilingual (often urban) setting
    • Hawai’i : 1st-gen. urban adults (bilingual in HPE, diff. substrates) showed the first creolized features – not kids on plantations
references
References
  • Bakker, Peter. 1995. Pidgins. In J Arends, P Muysken & N Smith eds., Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction, pp25-39 (Chap. 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [PM 7802]
  • Bakker, Peter. 2008. Pidgins versus Creoles and pidgincreoles. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp130-157. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Holm, John A. 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Vol. I: Theory and structure. Vol. II: Reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [PM 7802]
  • Kouwenberg, Silvia, & John Victor Singler, eds. 2008. The handbook of Pidgin and Creole studies. Oxford: Blackwell. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Li, Charles N & Sandra A Thompson. 1974. An explanation of word-order change SVO -> SOV. Foundations of Language 12: 201-214.
  • Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2008. Forging Pacific Pidgin and Creole syntax: Substrate, discourse and inherent variability. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, pp48-73. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Patrick, Peter L. 2008. Pidgins, Creoles and linguistic variation. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp461-487. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Sankoff, Gillian & Suzanne Laberge. 1974. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. In G Sankoff, ed. 1980, The social life of language, pp195-209. [P 126.S2]
references18
References
  • Siegel, Jeff. 2008. Pidgins/Creoles and second language acquisition. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp189-219. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Simpson, Jane. 1980. Ngarluma as a W* language. Mss. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/4025/3/Ngarluma-as-a-Wstar-language.pdf
  • Singler, John V. 2006. “Yes, but not in the Caribbean.” Column. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 21(2): 337-358.
  • Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Thomason, Sarah G. 2008. Pidgins/Creoles and historical linguistics. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp242-262. [PM 7802.H2]
  • Van der Voort, Hein. 1995. Eskimo Pidgin. In J Arends, P Muysken & N Smith, eds., Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction. J Benjamins: 137-151.
  • Versteegh, Kees. 2008. Non-Indo-European Pidgins and Creoles. In Kouwenberg & Singler, eds., 158-186.