pidgins and creoles.docx

7/27/2019 Pidgins and Creoles.docx

1/7

Ashfaq Aslam

Distinguishes features of Pidgins and Creoles

Over the past century there has been a dramatic increase in the study of language contact and its

consequences. Pidgins and Creoles are one of the consequences of language contact. Researchers have

expended particular effort in recent years in its study. Traditionally, pidgins and creoles were viewed

with contempt, as it was considered a marginal language by most linguists. Hymes points out that

pidgins and creoles are marginal, in the circumstances of their origin, and in the attitudes towards

them on the part of those who spoke on of the languages from which they derive. They are also

marginal in terms of knowledge about them. (Wardhaugh, p.55, 1992). The change in attitude in

recent times, however, led to serious study of Pidgins and Creoles, and thus unearthing many

linguistic features which pertain, particularly, to them, as well distinguishing features between them. I

will be examining some of the syntactical, morphological and phonology features which pertain to

them and distinguishes them from fully fledged languages, as well as those features which

differentiate a Pidgin from a Creole.

Pidgins and Creoles emerge from a linguistic need that arises between three or more different

language groups, when there arises between them a linguistic need to fulfil some purpose. Such a

common language is often termed as Lingua franca, "In 1953, UNESCO defined a lingua franca as

'a language which is used habitually by people whose mother tongues are different in order to

facilitate communication between them.' (Wardhaugh, p56, 1992). However, linguists have adopted

other terms such as, a trade language, a contact language, a international language and auxiliary

language to describe the same phenomenon (Samarin, 1968). Lingua francas are not a rare

phenomenon, rather lingua francas are wide spread throughout the world. The most popular lingua

franca in recent age is English; however, there are some other lingua francas which are particular to

certain regions of the world, such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, French and Spanish (Pei, 1997).

Lingua franca can be spoken in a variety of ways. English, from example, is used a as a lingua franca

in many parts of the world for trade, commerce, tourism; However, the usage of the language by


2/7

Ashfaq Aslam

different speakers are by no means homogenous. And the ability of individual speakers vary from

person to person, for some it is their native language and for many others it either a foreign or second

language. The variance in ability lies in the last two categories of speakers, from being native-like to

only possessing the rudiments of the language. (Wardhaugh, 1992)

A Pidgin language arises when there is interaction between three or more language groups, and one of

the three languages are dominant. Linguists argue that when only two languages are present there

arises a struggle between the two languages for dominance, as was the struggle between English and

French in 1606. After more than two centuries of struggle, in this case, the socially inferior language

assumed dominance. When there is a social situation, where there are three or more language groups

who have a linguistic need for fulfil some purpose, and one of the three languages assumes a position

of dominance, conditions are ripe for the emergence of a pidgin language. The social condition

dictates that not only the two inferior languages groups must speak to the dominant language group;

the two inferior language group have a need to communicate with each other. This leads to the

simplification of the dominant language. However, this simplification may or may not have certain

universal characteristics. This hypothesis produces a plausible explanation to the origins of pidgins.

This claim is further substantiated by examining pidgins present in slave societies, as slaves were

drawn from different linguistic background and this led the emergence of pidgins among slave

societies. Pidgins found in the sea coast, also, support this hypothesis as peoples from various

language backgrounds are likely to meet in the coast for trading. Another striking evidence in support

of this hypothesis is that pidginised variety of languages are used by people who cannot communicate

in the standard form of the language. Pidgin Chinese English, for example, was mainly used by

speakers of different Chinese languages and Tok Pisin is used in Papua New Guinea as a unifying

language among many speakers of different languages. In both cases few speakers of Standard

English never really mastered the pidgins. There is a tendency to view Pidgins as a poor version of

the standard language. As a consequent, the users of pidgins are view as socially and culturally

inferior. This misconception was ripe until it was discovered that pidgins, just like standard languages,


3/7

Ashfaq Aslam

have rules which are particular them. This topic will be discussed in greater detail. (Wardhaugh,

1992)

In contrast to a pidgin, a Creole, often defined as a pidgin that has become the first language of a new

generation of speakers, is a normal language almost every sense. A Creole has native speakers. Just

as a pidgin has a complex relationship with its associated language, so does a Creole. For example,

Haitian Creole has a complex relationship with its associated language (which is French) just as

Jamaican Creole does with its associated language (English). Most of the speakers of creoles and

pidgins feel as though they do not speak the proper form of the language and thus it is inferior to the

standard language. Even scholars use to deem pidgins and creoles as such, until recent years when its

study gained much popularity.

An interesting point of observation is the process of pidginisation and creolisation. It is noted that the

processes are almost diametrically opposed to each other in many ways. Pidginisation generally

involves some kind of simplification of a language e.g., reduction in morphology and syntax,

tolerance of considerable phonological variation, reduction in the number of functions for which the

pidgin is used (e.g. you usually do not attempt to write novels in a pidgin), and extensive borrowing of

words from local mother tongues. Conversely, creolisation involves expansion of morphology and

syntax, regularization of the phonology, increase in the function for which it is used, and development

of a ration and stable system for increasing vocabulary (Wardhaugh, 1992). Despite the many

fundamental differences in its processes of development, determining a pidgin from a creole is not

always easy. Both Hawaiian Pidgin English, for example, and Hawaiian Creole English are used

interchangeably to describe the same variety of English. Same confusion is present when describing

Tok Pisin (Bickerton, 1983).

DeCamp (1977, p. 4-5) recognised the obvious difficulty in distinguishing between pidgins and

creoles and offered, what was to him, a clear cut example of each. Everyone would agree that the


4/7

Ashfaq Aslam

Juba Arabic spoken in the southern Sudan is a pidgin. In most communities it is not the native

language of any of its speakers but functions as an auxiliary interlingua for communication between

speakers of the many mutually unintelligible languages spoken in that region. It is a new language,

only about an hundred years old. It has a small vocabulary, limited to the needs of trade and other

interlingual communication, but this restricted vocabulary is supplemented, whenever the need arises,

by using words from the various native languages or from normal Arabic. It has a very simple

phonology with few morphemic processes. The complicated morphological system of Arabic has

almost entirely eliminated. Such grammatical information is indicated by word order, by separate

uninflected pronouns or auxiliaries, or else simply missing. Similarly, everyone agrees that the

vernacular language of Haiti is a Creole. It is the native language of nearly all the Haitians, though

standard French is spoken is spoken by some people and it is the official language. Historically it

probably evolved from pidginised variety of French at the time when these began to be acquired as a

native language. Because it is a native language and must perform a wide range of communicative and

expressive functions, it has an extensive vocabulary and complex grammatical system comparable to

that of a so-called normal language. In fact, scholars disagree on whether we could indentify Haitian

as a creole if we did not know its history.

As mentioned previously, a Pidgin language emerges when there is a simplification of a normal

language. However, an arbitrary simplification of the mother language will not produce meaningful

pidgin words; rather it is well organised linguistic system which must be learnt by those who wish to

communicate with it. For example, Haitian Creole is derived from French, a French speaker will not

be able to communicate in Haitian by simplifying his use of the language to his own accord nor will

he be able to comprehend a Haitian, even if he is highly proficient in French. He must learn Haitian as

he would learn any other language. Nevertheless, learning Haitian would be easier for a French native

speaker than it would be to an English native speaker. However, even to an English speaker learning

Haitian may be easier to learn than a fully fledged language as the linguistic properties of pidgins

and creoles are far less complicated than a standard language.


5/7

Ashfaq Aslam

Phonologically, Pidgins and creoles are less complicated in their arrangements than those of the

corresponding standard language. For example, Tok Pisin makes use of only five basic vowels and

has fewer constants than English. For example, there is no distinction between itand eat, orpin and

fin, orsip andship as these distinguishing vowels and constants which are present in English is not

found in Tok Pisi. Therefore, to distinguish between a ship andsheep, the former is pronounced sip

and the latter assipsip. Similar issues are also present with regards to writing, for Tok Pisin speakers

there is no distinction between /p/ and /f/, therefore one could write wanfela or wanpela; the

difference is so slight that it would be judged to have been said the same way. Another important

distinction is that morphemic variation is not found in pidgins; however, the development of

morphemic variation is an important indicator of creolisation (Wardhaugh, 1992).

The absence of inflection in nouns, pronouns, verbs, and adjectives are, also, a feature of pidgins and

creoles. Nouns, for example, lack number and gender markers and verbal tense markers. Transitive

verbs however can be distinguished from intransitive verbs by a special marker in Tok Pisin. It is the

suffixation ofim which distinguishes them. Pronouns are not distinguished by case; therefore,Iand

me, he and him are the same. In Tok Pisin me signifies eitherIorme. But, pluralisation of pronouns is

marked by the suffix pela ( yu (you singular) yupela (you plural). Syntactically, Pidgins are

uncomplicated in their clause structures. Embedded clauses such as relative clauses are not found in

pidgins and the development of embedded clauses signifies creolisation of the pidgin. Negation, for

example, maybe achieved through use of simple particle such as no only. In Krio (an English based

Pidgin) i no tu hadinstead ofits not too hard. Another interesting feature, in terms of particles, that is

found is the use of it to indicate continuous aspect. For example, a de go wok(I am going to work) de

is used to indicate continuous aspect. Similarly, Lousiana French ape is used for the same function mo

ape travaj (I am working). (Warddhaugh, 1992)

The vocabulary of a pidgin and a creole has great many similarities to that of the standard language

to with which it is associated. However, phonological and morphological simplification often leads to


6/7

Ashfaq Aslam

words assuming somewhat different shapes (Wardhaugh, p.67, 1992). Duplication is used as an

important tool in producing concepts such as intensification and sometimes to avoid confusion

between similar sounding words. As mentioned earliersip andsipsip is used to distinguish between

ship and sheep. Lookand looklook is used for look and stare (an intensified looking) and pis (

peace) andpispis (urinate). For some other concepts, convoluted phrases are used; for example, gras

bilong het is used to mean hair, gras bilong fes used for beard and ka belong me for my car.

(Wardhaugh, 1992)

In summary, the recent boom in studies of pidgins and creoles have led many important finding about

these previously frowned upon languages. In history, pidgins and creoles were largely ignored as it

was view a sub language and its speakers were associated with the poorer and darker parts of the

society. As Interest grew so did the understanding of linguists about pidgins and creoles. Pidgin and

creoles, just as their associated standard language, have their own history, structure and functionality.

They emerge from a linguistic need that different language communities have in order to carry out

certain activities such as trade. The functionality of pidgins is vastly reduced compared to a standard

language. This in turn affects its linguistic features such as phonology, morphology, syntax and

vocabulary. In the process of creolisation the distinction between pidgins and creoles may seem hazy

and creolists use the term pidgin sometimes and creoles sometimes with reference to the same variety.

However, as creolisation takes place the linguistic features of a pidgin gets refined as its range of uses

and users increase, the distinction between a standard language and the creole decreases as the space

between creole and a pidgin increases. The acquisition of morphemic variation and embedded clause

are indication of creolisation of a language. The interest of linguists in pidgins and creoles does not

seem to be fading, and with time our understanding of, not only pidgins and creoles, but languages is

likely to refined with the continuing research in this field.


7/7

Ashfaq Aslam

Bibliography

Brickerton, D. (1983). Creole languages. Scientific American, 249;b116-22

Decamp, d. (1977). The development of pidgin and creole studies. New York: academic press.

Meyerhoff, M. (2006).Introducing Sociolinguistic. London: Routledge.

Samarin, W.J. (1973). Tongues of men and angles. New York: Macmillan

Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell

pidgins and creoles.docx

Documents