Manual for Students
.pdflong before linguists attempted to attach any label to them. To take one of the best-known examples, the Mediterranean Lingua Franca is believed to have been in existence since the Middle Ages, and texts of this contact variety survive from the XVI century [5, p. 512]. There is also evidence of the existence of numerous pidgins in pre-colonial Africa, Asia, and North America. No doubt many others emerged even earlier, whenever the need arose. Such languages arose to facilitate communication between groups of different linguistic backgrounds in restricted contexts such as trade, forced labour, and other kinds of marginal contact. Because of such restrictions in the scope of their use, these contact varieties were highly reduced and simplified, fashioned solelyfor the limited purposes theyserved. Bydefinition,then,pidginsareadult creations,involvingprocesses oflearning and selective adaptation of linguistic resources that are reminiscent of those found in adult Second LanguageAquisition (SLA).
It is now generally accepted that the term pidgin derives from the English word business, reflecting the most commonplace function of these languages as vehicles for trading transactions. The label seems to have been first applied to Chinese Pidgin English, which served as a lingua franca between speakers of Chinese and English (as well as others) on the southern China coast from roughly 1715 on. The first texts in this pidgin appeared in 1743. The label was popularized in a Chinese Pidgin English phrase book used in the early 1900s. Eventually the term became a generic label for all contact varieties of this type. Before that, terms like jargon and lingua franca were used to refer to pidgins. This is why we find, for instance, names like Chinook Jargon and Mobilian Jargon being applied to two well-known pidgins that emerged in early colonial or perhaps even pre-colonial America [16, p. 267].
All of the labels mentioned so far were first used by lay people or nonspecialists before they were adapted as technical labels by linguists. Non-specialists, of course, tend to use such terms in rather loose and derogatory senses, to refer to forms of speech that they perceive as defective or corrupt in some way. One thing that all specialists agree on, however, is that pidgins and other contact vernaculars are not corruptions or ungrammatical versions of their source language(s), but rather legitimate languages with a grammar of their own, which can be learnt like other languages.
191
Notwithstanding this, there still remains a great deal of indeterminacy and confusion in the use of the term pidgin, even among linguists. It is necessary to sort things out before proceeding any further. In the first place, there is the problem of distinguishing pidgins from jargons, cases of “imperfect” L2 learning, and foreigner talk – the simplified version of a language that its own native speakers sometimes use in communicating with outsiders [16, p. 268]. The differences among these kinds of simplified language are by no means absolute, since similar processes of change apply to all.
Terms like jargon and its French counterpart baragouin (also spell barogoin) date back to the colonial period, when they were used by Europeans to refer in derogatory terms to second language varieties of their languages used by indigenous peoples trying to communicate with them. Since we can refer to such varieties more appropriately as unconventionalized or idiosyncratic forms of interlanguage, the term jargon serves no useful purpose here. By the same token, its use in reference to pidgins is redundant as well as inappropriate, given its associations of “corrupt” or “debased” language in its original lay usage. For that reason we will henceforth break with established practice and, following Donald Winford, refer to so-called Chinook Jargon, Mobilian Jargon, etc. as Chinook Pidgin, Mobilian Pidgin, and so on.
We can further distinguish pidgins from early interlanguage varieties (“imperfect learning”) and foreigner talk by noting that pidgins, unlike the other two, are conventionalized systems of communication that serve as targets of learning in their own right. Foreigner talk is further distinguished from early interlanguage and pidgins by not being subject to substratal influence or admixture [16, p. 268].
The second problem that faces us is how to delimit the scope of reference of the term pidgin in a realistic way. The reason is that the label now encompasses a wide variety of contact vernaculars with varying degrees of complexity in structure and use. It can refer to rudimentary languages like Russenorsk or Delaware Pidgin, as well as to fullfledged languages like Hiri Motu, which serves as a lingua franca in Papua, the southern half of Papua New Guinea. The problem, as usual, revolves around the criteria of definition one applies. If one emphasizes criteria such as lack of native speakers, or restricted use as a lingua
192
franca, then any language that fits this profile could be regarded as a pidgin. If, on the other hand, we try to use structural criteria in our definition, we are faced with the problem that the relevant outcomes of contact lie on a continuum, with considerable overlap among them. Precisely where do we draw the boundaries between true pidgins and other contact varieties, particularly extended pidgins and creoles?
One solution is to distinguish prototypical pidgins from other contact varieties that depart in varying degrees from the prototype [14, p. 76]. The concept of prototypical pidgin is in fact quite close to the traditional wisdom on what constitutes a pidgin. It is a concept based on both structural and sociocultural criteria, captured well by Hymes [7, p. 84]: “Pidginization is that complex process of sociolinguistic change comprising reduction in inner form, with convergence, in the context of restriction in use. A pidgin is the result of such a process that has achieved autonomy as a norm”. Other definitions have appealed variously either to structural characteristics or to second language status or to restriction in use as criteria for pidgin status. But it is a combination of all these properties that best characterizes true pidgins.
Henceforth, then, our use of the term pidgin as a classificatory label will refer only to those contact vernaculars characterized by highly reduced vocabulary and structure, which are native to no one, and serve as lingua francas for certain restricted communicative functions such as trade. Other contact varieties that hare been referred to as “pidgins” but fail to meet the criteria just outlined will be classified in different ways. As we shall see, they include extended pidgins (e.g., varieties of Melanesian Pidgin) which bear striking similarities to creoles, as well as simplified languages (e.g., Hiri Motu and Kituba) which closely resemble cases of group SLA. The reasons for these classifications will be discussed later.
8.2 Social Contexts of Pidgin Formation
Pidgins have arisen in a variety of social situations involving limited contact between groups, where neither group has the opportunity or the real need to learn the other’s language. Some have emerged in domestic settings for use in employer – servant interactions, for instance
193
Indian Butler English [16, p. 270 – 271]. Others have been formed in situations involving military invasion or occupation, for instance American, French, and British military activity in various parts of Asia and the Pacific in the twentieth century. Varieties such as Japanese Pidgin English and Vietnamese Pidgin French or Tily Boi arose in this way. It is claimed that some pidgins have emerged as vehicles for interaction with tourists, for example the Turkishderived pidgin described by Hinnenkamp. However, it is not clear how stable or conventionalized such varieties are.
The two most common as well as most important types of pidgin are those that have arisen either in contexts of mass migrant labor, or in trading situations. Well-known examples of the former include Pidgin Hawaiian and (earlier) Hawaii Pidgin English, both employed on the plantations of Hawaii in the XIX century. Varieties of early Pacific Pidgin English which arose for purposes of trade were later adopted for use on plantations in Queensland (Australia) and Samoa. Plantation and other labor pidgins may not always conform strictly to the criteria associated with prototypical pidgins. They tend to be somewhat more elaborate than the latter because labor settings permit of more continuous contact between groups. In such cases, extension of the functions of these pidgins beyond the restricted context of labor led to the emergence of more complex contact vernaculars. Examples include the extended pidgins of the Pacific and (later) Hawai’i Pidgin English, which eventually became Hawai’i Creole English, (though its speakers still call it pidgin). For this reason, plantation pidgins pose more problems both in terms of the degree to which they diverge from the prototype, and with regard to determining the boundaries between their stages of development and expansion [16, p. 271].
The most commonly found pidgins are those that have arisen in contexts of trade. Such contact varieties have been documented in a great many areas throughout the world and throughout recorded history. Most of them no longer survive, and the only record we have of many is brief mention in historical documents – for instance, Pidgin Macassarese in northern Australia, Arabic-Chinese pidgin of Canton, Pidgin Siassi of New Guinea, etc. There were, no doubt, many others in prehistory about whose existence we will never know.
194
Fortunately, records in the form of texts and commentaries survive for many others that are no longer in use, and for some that are. Among these are indigenous American pidgins such as Chinook Pidgin (also known as Cinuk Wawa, or simply Wawa speech), Mobilian Pidgin, Delaware Pidgin, and varieties of Eskimo Pidgin. The first three of these may well have arisen in pre-colonial times as lingua francas for use among different Native American groups, but were eventually also adopted for use between Indians and Europeans. Varieties of Eskimo Pidgin, on the other hand, seem to have emerged from about the XVII century specifically for trade between the Inuit (used here to refer to Eskimo-speaking people in general) and Europeans, whom the Inuit referred to as Qallunaat [ibid., p. 271].
The circumstances in which these pidgins arose and were used are representative of those typical of trade pidgins in general. The best-known of them, Chinook Pidgin, probably originated in pre-European times for use in slave trading and shell-money commerce in the Northwest Pacific area. The earliest records of this pidgin date back to 1778, the year when Captain James Cook first explored Nootka sound. Use of the pidgin extended from Southern Alaska to Northern California and from the Pacific coast to Western Montana. It was used by speakers of perhaps a hundred or more mutually unintelligible Native American languages belonging to different language families (Athapascan, Penutian, Salishan, Wakashan) as well as between American Indians and nonAmerican Indians (English, French, Russian, Hawaiian, and others). This pidgin was highly mixed in lexicon, but seems to have drawn materials primarily from Lower Chinook or some other closely related language. Chinook Pidgin was unique among indigenousAmerican pidgins in being adopted as a primary language by children of intertribal and interethnic families in the late XIX to early XX centuries. It has been suggested that the pidgin was in fact “creolized” by such children at the Grande Ronde reservation in Northwestern Oregon [16].
Further details of the origins and use of Chinook Pidgin and other indigenous pidgins of the US can be found in Drechsel (1981; 1996) according to whom they all shared a number of sociolinguistic characteristics.All (except perhaps Eskimo Pidgin) were used in a variety of communicative functions, both among American Indians of diverse
195
linguistic backgrounds, and later between American Indians and nonAmerican Indians. Their primary contexts of use included trading, hunting, and similar activities, as well as political associations and alliances. They were also used in gatherings between kin, and across communities linked by intermarriage. All existed in situations of great linguistic diversity involving much biand multilingualism. In post-Columbian times, they functioned as lingua francas not only in trade with Europeans, but also in European exploration and missionary work among theAmerican Indians, and in European employment (or enslavement) of Native Americans. At least two of them, Chinook Pidgin and Mobilian Pidgin were also used in narration, song, and other kinds of entertainment. These pidgins were also characterized by heavy use of gesture and other kinds of body language, to a much greater extent than in their source languages. Many of these sociolinguistic characteristics can also be found in other indigenous pidgins, such as those of Papua New Guinea [ibid., p. 272 – 273].
Other trade pidgins, such as Russenorsk, Chinese Pidgin, and Eskimo Pidgin, arose primarily in contact between indigenous and foreign groups, and were more restricted to trading activity, though some, for example, Chinese Pidgin English, later developed more general uses and hence more elaborate structure.
Thus, a pidgin is a simplified language that develops as a means of communication between two or more groups that do not have a language in common, in situations such as trade. Pidgins are not the native language of any speech community, but are instead learned as second languages. Pidgins usually have low prestige with respect to other languages [8, p. 614].
8.3 Structural Characteristics of Pidgins
Some scholars argue that pidgins have a grammar drawn from one source, and a vocabulary from another [1 – 3; 6]; others claim that pidgins are compromises between grammars in contact [10; 12; 13]. Still others insist that excessive lexical variation rules out pidgin status. None of these stipulations offers a definitive basis on which to identify pidgins. The simple way to resolve this would be to recognize that there is in fact a great deal of diversity among pidgins in the way they put their source
196
materials together, and that they do not all fit into a single mold. What unites them as a distinct typological class of contact vernaculars is a set of shared structural and non-structural characteristics.
Pidgin Morphology and Syntax
Perhaps the most definitive structural characteristics of pidgins are to be found in morphology and syntax. Among these are the following, as suggested in Bickerton (1981) and Drechsel (1996) [16, p. 276]:
Morphology:
–Absence of morphological apparatus such as affixation and inflection; hence no morphological expression of categories like number, person, agreement, etc.
–Absence of other functional categories such as tense and aspect, with limited expression of deontic modality (e.g., desire).
–Minimal inventory of function morphemes such as articles, quantifiers, prepositions, conjunctions, complementizers, etc.
–Restricted number of question words and pronouns. Most pidgins have only three pronouns: first, second and third person, undifferentiated for gender or number.
–Use of one universal negative marker.
Syntax:
–Analytic structures, with word order as the primary means of determining grammatical functions such as Subject, Object, etc.
–A reduced number of sentence patterns, due to lack of rules for changing word order to create derived structures, for example, movement rules for topicalization, passivization, inversion in questions, etc.
–A lack of derrivational depth, due to absence of any mechanisms for subordination or embedding (e.g., of relative or complement clauses).
Pidgins also share certain core characteristics in their lexicon and phonology, though both of these components allow for some variation both across and within pidgins.
197
Pidgin Lexicon
All pidgins have very restricted lexical inventories. Estimates range from 150 – 200 words in the case of Russenorsk [ibid., p. 276] to about 500 in the case of Chinook Pidgin. These numbers refer to words most commonly used. The count may be higher if we include words whose use was restricted, or confined to specific places. The general character of pidgin lexicons is well summed up by Drechsel’s (1996) remarks about the three best-documented Native American Pidgins (Chinook, Delaware, Mobilian pidgins). He notes that all three had “parsimonious vocabularies consisting of generic lexical entries that were often semantically and grammatically ambiguous, as well as polysemous. The lexicon could be expanded via compounding, metaphorical extension or simple borrowing of words from the speaker’s L1 or a foreign language” [16, p. 276]. These properties are shared across all pidgins, despite differences in the degree of diversity in the sources of their vocabulary.
Most pidgins in fact draw their vocabulary primarily from one source language. For example, Delaware Pidgin has its lexical (and grammatical) base mostly in Unami, a dialect of Delaware [ibid., p. 277]. But as with pidgins generally, other languages in the contact situation contributed to the lexicon as well. In some cases this resulted in a high degree of mixture and variation, as we saw in the case of Russenorsk. Ndjuka-Trio pidgin also draws its vocabulary from both of its source languages, Ndjuka and Trio, though Trio contributed the smaller share, consisting mostly of nouns.
There is even greater mixture in the lexicon of Chinook and Mobilian Pidgins, reflecting the greater linguistic diversity of the groups who used them. Thus, while words from Lower / Upper Chinook constitute the majority of the core lexicon of Chinook Pidgin, there were also significant contributions from otherAmerican Indian languages as well as from French and English. For instance, Nootka provided about two dozen words and several others came from Salishan, Sahaptuan, and other language families [ibid., p. 277]. English and French provided a substantial portion of words, expressing various objects or concepts associated with European trade, religion, etc. Even the basic lexicon of Chinook Pidgin is quite mixed, with several words from French and English, though Chinook words are most frequent. The diversity in the
198
vocabulary is directly related to the gradual spread of the pidgin from its original locale in the coastal areas, where Chinook was spoken, to various parts of the Pacific Northwest [ibid., p. 277].
Pidgin phonology
The shared characteristics of pidgin phonology include a reduced inventory of phonemes as well as phonological contrasts and processes, by comparison to those of the major lexifier language. This reduction is primarily due to the elimination of sounds that are not shared across the languages in contact, particularly those of the major lexifier language that are marked in relation to those of the learners’ L Is. For example, Ndjuka-Trio Pidgin preserves only the five vowels Ndjuka shares with Trio, which has seven.Also, it lacks contrasts of nasalization, vowel length, tone, and voicing of stops, which are characteristic of Ndjuka but not of Trio [16, p. 277]. Note that a pidgin may retain marked sounds in cases where they are shared across the languages in contact. For instance, Native American speakers kept such features as glottalization and a distinction between velar and uvular obstruents. European speakers of Chinook Pidgin could not reproduce such features, but tended to replace the difficult sounds with the closest equivalents from their own languages. But some loss of marked features occurred even in the speech ofAmerican Indians. In general, “highly marked sounds converged with less marked counterparts across language boundaries, forming systems of phonological common denominators” [ibid., p. 278].
Apart from this common core, however, some pidgins display substantial variation in phonology, due to influence from speakers’ L1s. This is especially true of pidgins like Chinook and Mobilian pidgins which were used by a wide variety of linguistic groups. This diversity and variation in pidgin lexicon and phonology contrast sharply with the uniformity of their reduced morphological and syntactic components.
8.4 Processes of Pidgin Formation
Traditionally, the processes involved in pidgin formation have been referred to collectively as pidginization, a term which is not unproblematic,
199
but which we will use for convenience. Dell Hymes [7, p. 70] suggests that pidginization is “a complex process, comprising the concurrence of several component processes”. For Hymes, these include three linguistic processes: simplification, reduction of inner form and admixture. Also involved are social processes such as restriction in scope of use, and use between groups with different languages. We focus here on the linguistic processes.
Peter Trudgill [15, p. 5] echoes Hymes, providing explanations of each process. Reduction involves impoverishment, as reflected in a small vocabulary, limited syntactic structures, a narrower range of styles, etc. Simplification is defined as involving “regularization of irregularities, loss of redundancy, and .... an increase in analytic structures and transparent forms” [ibid., p. 6].Admixture is equated with “interference – the transfer of [structural] features from the native language to the new language, an obvious feature of adult SLA” [ibid., p. 5].
Both of these accounts leave out a crucial component of pidgin formation, that is, the internally motivated processes of restructuring that lead to innovations not found in the source languages. Taking this into account, we find that pidgin formation shares the following linguistic processes with early SLA [16, p. 280]:
–simplification – used to include both reduction and regularization of structures;
–L1 influence – retentions from the native languages of those creating, and later learning, the pidgin;
–internal developments – innovations due to creative restructuring using internal resources.
As in the case of early IL creation, these processes are manifestations of communication strategies (avoidance, compensation) that all learners employ in their first attempts to communicate in a foreign language.
Thus, the creation of pidgin usually requires:
–prolonged, regular contact between the different language communities;
–a need to communicate between them;
–an absence of (or absence of widespread proficiency in) a widespread, accessible interlanguage.
200