The following paper deals with the central question whether Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole are inflected to indicate number or not. To begin with, the paper will first give a brief historical, linguistic and social background of both creoles. Then the paper focuses on the comparison between the two creole languages in terms of inflectional plural marking, analytic plural marking and bare nouns.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Historical, Social and Linguistic Background
- 2.1 Tok Pisin
- 2.2 Jamaican Creole
- 3. Analysis
- 3.1 Inflectional Plural Marking in Creoles
- 3.1.1 Plural Marker -s in Tok Pisin
- 3.1 Inflectional Plural Marking in Creoles
- 4. Conclusion
- 5. References
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper aims to investigate the complexities of plural marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, specifically examining whether the generalization that creole nouns are not inflected for number holds true. It will compare and contrast the plural marking strategies employed in these two English-based creoles.
- Plural marking strategies in English-based creoles
- A comparative analysis of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole
- The role of inflectional morphology in creole languages
- The influence of historical, social, and linguistic factors on plural marking
- The validity of existing generalizations about creole grammar
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter establishes the central research question concerning plural marking in English-based creoles. It highlights the diversity of plural marking in languages, contrasting regular and irregular plural forms in English. The chapter introduces Holm's assertion that creole nouns lack inflection for number, a claim that the paper aims to investigate through a comparative analysis of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole. The structure of the paper, outlining the historical background and analytical sections, is also presented.
2. Historical, Social and Linguistic Background: This chapter provides essential historical, social, and linguistic context for both Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole. For Tok Pisin, it details its emergence as a Pacific Pidgin English, its relatively shorter history compared to other English-based pidgins, and the various socio-economic stages of its development, influencing its structural and functional elaboration. The chapter discusses the impact of mass media and education on the emergence of more 'anglicized' varieties, highlighting the variability in Tok Pisin grammar. Regarding Jamaican Creole, the chapter discusses its origins in the language contact between British colonizers and African slaves and its coexistence with English, the lexifier language. The chapter also clarifies the different varieties of Jamaican Creole (basilect, mesolect, acrolect), emphasizing that the analysis will focus on the mesolect as the most prevalent variety.
3. Analysis: This chapter delves into the core analysis, focusing on inflectional plural marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole. It challenges the long-held assumption that creole languages lack superstrate-like grammatical features, such as inflectional morphology. The chapter explores the use of the plural suffix "-s" in Tok Pisin, providing examples to refute Holm's statement. The analysis, therefore, directly addresses the central research question of the paper by providing empirical evidence from the chosen creoles. The inclusion of examples from Mühlhäusler's work further strengthens the analytical framework.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Tok Pisin, Jamaican Creole, plural marking, inflectional morphology, creole languages, pidgins, language contact, sociolinguistics, grammatical features, comparative analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview of Plural Marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole
What is the main topic of this paper?
This paper investigates the complexities of plural marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, specifically examining whether the generalization that creole nouns are not inflected for number holds true. It compares and contrasts plural marking strategies in these two English-based creoles.
What are the key themes explored in this paper?
The paper explores plural marking strategies in English-based creoles, conducts a comparative analysis of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, examines the role of inflectional morphology in creole languages, considers the influence of historical, social, and linguistic factors on plural marking, and assesses the validity of existing generalizations about creole grammar.
What is the structure of the paper?
The paper includes an introduction, a chapter on the historical, social, and linguistic background of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, a chapter dedicated to the analysis of plural marking, a conclusion, and a list of references. The introduction sets the research question and outlines the paper's structure. The background chapter provides context for both creoles. The analysis chapter presents empirical evidence to challenge existing assumptions about creole grammar. The conclusion summarizes the findings.
What is the historical and linguistic background of Tok Pisin discussed in the paper?
The paper details Tok Pisin's emergence as a Pacific Pidgin English, its relatively short history, and the socio-economic stages of its development. It discusses the impact of mass media and education on the emergence of more 'anglicized' varieties and highlights the variability in Tok Pisin grammar.
What is the historical and linguistic background of Jamaican Creole discussed in the paper?
The paper discusses Jamaican Creole's origins in language contact between British colonizers and African slaves and its coexistence with English. It clarifies the different varieties of Jamaican Creole (basilect, mesolect, acrolect) and emphasizes that the analysis focuses on the mesolect as the most prevalent variety.
What is the core analysis of the paper and what are its findings?
The core analysis focuses on inflectional plural marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole. It challenges the assumption that creole languages lack superstrate-like grammatical features like inflectional morphology. The analysis explores the use of the plural suffix "-s" in Tok Pisin, providing examples to refute the claim that creole nouns lack inflection for number.
What are the keywords associated with this paper?
Tok Pisin, Jamaican Creole, plural marking, inflectional morphology, creole languages, pidgins, language contact, sociolinguistics, grammatical features, comparative analysis.
What is Holm's assertion regarding creole nouns, and how does this paper address it?
Holm asserts that creole nouns lack inflection for number. This paper directly challenges this assertion by providing empirical evidence from Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, demonstrating the use of plural marking in these languages.
What specific examples are used in the analysis chapter?
The analysis chapter provides examples of the use of the plural suffix "-s" in Tok Pisin to support its findings and refute Holm's claim. Examples from Mühlhäusler's work are also incorporated.
What is the conclusion of the paper?
The conclusion summarizes the findings of the comparative analysis of plural marking in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, directly addressing the central research question posed in the introduction. (Specific details of the conclusion are not provided in the preview).
- Arbeit zitieren
- Kim Frintrop (Autor:in), 2014, Plural Marking Strategies in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/273205
