Pidgins and Pidginization

1. Pidgins and Pidginization LG449 Pidgins & Creoles Peter L Patrick

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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?

15. 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

16. …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

17. 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]

18. 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.