Pidginization Lourdes G. Osollo. ForL 8250 Topics in Pedagogy Dr. Peter Swanson February 3, 2009. Rapid structural modification of a language in certain contact situations in which it serves both as the target of broken language and the source of foreigner talk.
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.
ForL 8250 Topics in Pedagogy
Dr. Peter Swanson
February 3, 2009
Pidgin languages represent speech forms which do not have native speakers. They are used by people who do not share the same languagePidginization
(Some speakers of the extended pidgin called West African Pidgin English also speak English).
Trade: Eskimo of the Artic Ocean used in and around the whaling ships in the 19th and early 20th century/Used between the Innuit Eskimos and the ships’ crews
Interethnic: Spread religion, did political negotiations or in ceremonies involving no common language.
Work force: Exist because of the contacts between colonial people and local workers in a household: Buttler and Bamboo English in IndiaTypes of Pidgins/Classified according to the social situation in which they are used
Further Functions: Songs, radio communication (to hide messages from the enemy)Types of Pidgins/Classified according to the social situation in which they are used
Development of trade jargon (limited)
Jargons and pidgins do not establish vocabularies nor grammatical systems
A jargon is characterized by the attrition/friction of morphological markers like verb inflections case endings
In a jargon, a limited number of subjects is discussed, but both: jargon and pidgin can be expandedHow does a Pidgin come into being?
1 language and their lexicon – contact, the lexicon will come from the two: Russenorsk
will skaffom is Kak ju ja drikke te,
what you want to eat and drink tea
Haitian (6 million)
Saramaccan(Surinam, South America-Mataai Tribe)
Shaba Swahili (Zaire)
Fa d’Ambu(West African Portuguese creole/Equatorial Guinea)
Papiamento (Netherlands Antilles/Curaçao and Bonaire)
Sranan (English based creole language/Surinam/ South America)
Berbice Dutch (Dutch-Lexicon in Guyana)Individual Languages
Schleicher 1871 “The Stammbaum Theory” Influenced by Darwinian ideas
This organic view of languages has been rejected
The span of languages existence of 7000 years does not allow for such biological view
Languages are not organisms and do not reproduce
Fino-Ugric: Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, Lappish
Niger-Congo: Kwa Languages, Twi, Efik, Ewe
Parent and Daughter Languages: French is the daughter of vulgar Latin; degrees of relationship: German and English are more closely related tan French
Proto Languages: Developed due to migrationFamilies of Languages
Used in the 50’s and 60’s by linguists Greenberg (1966) and Levanob (1965) Acquisition is only a precondition for change
The dynamic theory opposes Saussure’s idea of synchrony/diachrony. It demands that “time” is the fundamental dimension of all analysis (Bailey 1973)
Time (0) Time (i) a 0 Time ii b a 0 Time iii c b a 0…….
Such wave shows and implicational stage; C implies b and b a….Dynamic “wave” Theories
Schuman states that:
1) Early SLA proceeds by reduction; to the terminus quo of all languages acquisitions and are dictated by a biological language acquisition device. This is what he calls ‘Pidginization’
2) SLA involves the progressive acquisition of specific features and structures of the target language
This acquisition is invariant in order, but it depends on the social contact the speakers have with the target language
Language acquisition is not rigidly programmed
1) Nativism/Universalism: Schuman’s AM is a radically relativist postulate
2)Nonnativism/Universalism: Principles underlying behavioral forms do not lie on the genes of learners More open to variability
Goes beyond Chomsky’s structural innateness and Piaget’s constructivismDetractors of Schuman/Gilbert 1981, Meisel 1978