Pidgins and Creoles are often considered to have a lower status than “real” languages. But they do have grammar, phonetics and also morphology and therefore should not be marked with a bad connotation. In contrast: they are full developed languages. The theory that “morphology [is] essentially alien to creole languages” is not verified anymore and has to be revised (Seuren, Wekker 1986). It is a fact that Pidgins and Creoles have less morphology and lexicon than their lexifiers, but nevertheless a sufficient lexicon does exist and even with interesting differences between the languages. We can see this on Holm’s statement that “Papiamentu’s historical movement toward Spanish has included its early relexification and lexical expansion as well as later structural borrowing.”, which shows clearly that word-formation processes on lexicon in Papiamentu exist. As well for Tok Pisin it is said that “the lexical influence of local languages on the pidgin was considerable.” (Holm 2000).
In this term paper, I will explore the interesting topic of word-formation processes in Tok Pisin and in Papiamentu: what do they have in common, are there any differences, and which reasons can be found for that? From all the existing wordformation processes I will examine borrowing and conversion in detail. All this will be mainly investigated on the works of Sebba, Holm, Mühlhäusler, Plag, Bartens and on the basis of Kouwenberg.
To understand the differences and similarities in the word-formation processes better, we have to consider briefly the historical background of the two languages: Tok Pisin is spoken in Papua New Guinea and was colonized and as a consequence thereof influenced in the 19th century by the English, the German and the Dutch. Above all the established Samoa plantations in 1860 by the Germans had an enormous influence on the development of this Pidgin, because it was used for communication with the inhabitants. Papiamentu instead is spoken in Netherlands Antilles including Curaçao, Aruba and Bonaire and was colonized by the Spaniards and the Dutch in the 16th and 17th century. Later on came the Sephardic Jews with their trinlingualism as well and influenced this Creole. This caused a lack of a homogenous superstrate in Papiamentu. This inhomogeneity is also underlined by the belonging islands: Papiamentu on Curaçao borrows more from Dutch, whereas Papiamentu on Aruba borrows more from Spanish and English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Word-formation
2.1 Borrowing
2.2 Conversion
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines and compares the linguistic mechanisms of word-formation, specifically borrowing and conversion, in the creole languages Tok Pisin and Papiamentu to determine similarities, differences, and their underlying socio-historical causes.
- The linguistic status and morphological development of Pidgins and Creoles.
- Mechanisms of lexical borrowing and structural adaptation in Tok Pisin and Papiamentu.
- Analysis of conversion as a process of multifunctionality.
- The impact of historical colonization and substrate influence on language development.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Borrowing
Borrowing is the act of adopting some aspect of one language into another. It may be lexical, but also syntactic, morphological or phonological. But in this section we will focus mainly on lexical borrowing. Because of the very small lexicon of Pidings and Creoles, they borrow words to fill this gap. In this case borrowing can be considered as a need. But there are also other cases in which borrowing only serves for prestige and therefore goes beyond the actual necessity. We will consider mainly borrowing at an early stage of development, although both languages still borrow actively. Borrowing at an early stage was made difficult by some linguistic and social factors, such like the preference for short words (cf. Mühlhäusler 1986:174). At this stage the languages had not yet stabilized completely and therefore needed to compensate their lack of lexicon by borrowing.
For Tok Pisin it is interesting to say that borrowing from the lexifier goes along with many differences. This is because of the fact, that borrowing is very difficult. The reason for that is the preference for bisyllabic and short words and also because a Pidgin does not want to adopt the consonant clusters of the lexifier and therefore has to split them up. The following examples show the differences and changes: 1) the lexical information of a borrowed word can be very different in pronunciation and orthography from the lexifier, because they have to split the consonant clusters. Another conspicuity is: 2) that the morpheme boundaries of the lexifier are ignored. It is also special that powerful words of the lexifier are attenuated in the Pidgin. This means that: 3) rude words from the lexifier are absolutely acceptable in the Pidgin.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction establishes the linguistic legitimacy of Pidgins and Creoles and outlines the scope of the comparative analysis of word-formation processes.
2. Word-formation: This chapter defines the core processes of language expansion and details how borrowing and conversion function within the specific grammatical contexts of the two languages.
2.1 Borrowing: This section investigates how both languages adopt external vocabulary, the constraints of phonology and morphology they impose on loanwords, and the role of prestige in lexical selection.
2.2 Conversion: This section analyzes how existing words change grammatical functions without morphological change, focusing on multifunctionality and specific linguistic markers like the suffix '-im' in Tok Pisin.
3. Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that Papiamentu displays more complex and developed word-formation processes due to a longer historical development compared to Tok Pisin.
Keywords
Pidgins, Creoles, Tok Pisin, Papiamentu, Word-formation, Borrowing, Conversion, Lexicon, Morphology, Multifunctionality, Substrate, Superstrate, Linguistics, Language development, Historical linguistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the comparative study of word-formation processes, specifically borrowing and conversion, in the creole languages Tok Pisin and Papiamentu.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the morphological expansion of creoles, the socio-historical impact of colonization on language, and how these languages handle lexical gaps through borrowing and multifunctionality.
What is the main research question?
The research explores what commonalities and differences exist in the word-formation processes of these two languages and what socio-historical reasons can be identified for these patterns.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a comparative linguistic analysis based on existing academic literature and theoretical frameworks provided by scholars like Sebba, Holm, and Mühlhäusler.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section details the mechanics of lexical borrowing, the adaptation of phonological structures, and the use of conversion to create new grammatical categories from existing words.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
Keywords include Pidgins, Creoles, Tok Pisin, Papiamentu, Word-formation, Borrowing, Conversion, and Linguistic morphology.
How does Tok Pisin handle consonant clusters from its lexifier languages?
Tok Pisin often prefers bisyllabic or short words and splits up complex consonant clusters found in the lexifier to match its own phonological preferences.
Why is Papiamentu considered to have more developed word-formation processes?
According to the author, Papiamentu had a longer period of development and less early isolation from its lexifier, which allowed for more complex and differentiated morphological processes compared to Tok Pisin.
- Quote paper
- Sarah Antonia Gallegos García (Author), 2014, Word-formation Processes in Pidgins and Creoles. A Comparison of Tok Pisin and Papiamentu, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/499080
