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
Jargons exhibit variety-w/o-structure, mother-tongue interference, mixed lexical sources, short/simple phrases, severe simplification, lack of normativity
Pidgins evolve 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 superstrate grammatical 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
Ngarluma is a Pama-Nyungan language of W Australia, with
Free word-order, semantic cases (6-8) & grammatical cases (3)
thatharruka-ku watharri “We’ll look for turtle”
turtle -ACC look.for.FUT
Pidgin Ngarluma is an indigenous pidgin attested from 1875
thatharruka watharri
Note absence of obligatory ACC case-marking on object noun
Hawaiian, an indigenous Polynesian language, v Pidgin Haw.
I hea kāu kāla “Where is your money?”
Loc 2-poss money
Mahea dala oe “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
isiZulu is a SouthEsatern Bantu language (Nguni group)
Zulu: a- kuji- kati “This isn’t a cat”
CL-NEG- cat
Fanagalo is 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 ta piga yeye “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
Add data from HbkPCS, Jourdan p371, showing how Solomons Pijin kinship terminology uses linguistically simple forms, incl. borrowed Eng ones, but reanalyzes them to retain semantic structure of substrates in reduced form

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 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 Pidgins versus Creoles and pidgincreoles. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp [PM 7802.H2]
Holm, John A Pidgins and creoles. Vol. I: Theory and structure. Vol. II: Reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [PM 7802]
Kouwenberg, Silvia, & John Victor Singler, eds The handbook of Pidgin and Creole studies. Oxford: Blackwell. [PM 7802.H2]
Li, Charles N & Sandra A Thompson An explanation of word-order change SVO -> SOV. Foundations of Language 12:
Meyerhoff, Miriam Forging Pacific Pidgin and Creole syntax: Substrate, discourse and inherent variability. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, pp [PM 7802.H2]
Patrick, Peter L Pidgins, Creoles and linguistic variation. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp [PM 7802.H2]
Sankoff, Gillian & Suzanne Laberge On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. In G Sankoff, ed. 1980, The social life of language, pp [P 126.S2]

18. References
Siegel, Jeff Pidgins/Creoles and second language acquisition. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp [PM 7802.H2]
Simpson, Jane Ngarluma as a W* language. Mss.
Singler, John V “Yes, but not in the Caribbean.” Column. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 21(2):
Sun, Chaofen Grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Thomason, Sarah G Pidgins/Creoles and historical linguistics. In S Kouwenberg & JV Singler, eds., pp [PM 7802.H2]
Van der Voort, Hein Eskimo Pidgin. In J Arends, P Muysken & N Smith, eds., Pidgins and Creoles: An introduction. J Benjamins:
Versteegh, Kees Non-Indo-European Pidgins and Creoles. In Kouwenberg & Singler, eds.,