1. Pidgin and Creole

Pidgin and Creole are linguistic technical terms developed for describing two similar and yet fundamentally different concepts. Their definitions are however under continuous debate in the academia. Definitions vary in a way that they may have different basis: function (i.e. the role of the language in society), historical origins and development, formal grammatical characteristics, or a combination of these (DeCamp 1977, p.3). In order to avoid entering the lengthy discussion of the debates, this field trip report adopts their classical definitions which are based on the presence of native speaker, although in this section some other features are also discussed.

Holm (1988) stated that “a pidgin is a reduced language that results from extended contact between groups of people with no language in common” (p.5-6). In other words, a pidgin develops in situations where speakers of different languages need to communicate but do not share a common language (Da Pidgin Coup 1999, p.5). Such development occurs usually for particular purposes such as commerce and trade: “a pidgin language is not the first language of either group, but is born of necessity” (Tyron & Charpentier 2004, p.5).

Pidgin also evolves. According to Tyron and Charpentier (2004), one of the groups in such contact, usually the colonisers or the employers, is more powerful than the others (p.5); the predominant group's language becomes the superstate language which is then used by the less powerful group whose language has become the substrate language (Sakoda 2013). The interaction between the two different languages, as a result of the social power relations, leads to the emergence and the changes of pidgin. Grammatically, pidgin is usually, but not absolutely, characterised by the simplified grammar and sound system and a reduced vocabulary (Tyron & Charpentier 2004, p.5). It is usually agreed that pidgin has “restricted vocabulary, absence of (grammatical) gender, true tenses, inflectional morphology, or relative clauses, etc.” (DeCamp 1977, p.3-4). (Grammatical gender refers to the classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour of associated words (Corbett 1991, p.4).)

On the other hand, a creole is a more complicated concept that has been under debate as creolisation, (i.e. the process in which a pidgin becomes a creole, or in which a creole emerges) remains controversial that in the discussion on this issue(Adone 2012, p.2). Adopting the classical view, if a pidgin is learnt by children as their first language and becomes the mother tongue, it is called a creole (Adone 2012, p.3; Da Pidgin Coup 1999, p.5). Unlike a pidgin whose use is restricted, the use of creole is not restricted and resembles any other language in its full range of functions (Da Pidgin Coup 1999, p.5). Bickerton (1990) also pointed out that a creole has its own grammar when it has evolved from a pidgin.

This section aims at providing a general picture of the debates and discussion on the two linguistically technical terms. The ongoing debate, suggested by DeCamp (1977), is “intimately tied up with the most basic questions in linguistics” (p.4) such as what language is, how it is meaningfully described, how they originate and the roles they play in society. Thus, the section serves as an introduction to the various aspects of the studies of contact languages.

References

Adone, D (2012). The acquisition of creole languages: How children surpass their input. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species. University of Chicago Press.

Corbett, Greville G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.

Da Pidgin Coup (1999). Pidgin and education: A standpoint paper.

DeCamp, D. (1977). The Development of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Pidgin and creole linguistics. A. Valdman (Ed.). Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.

Holm, J. (1988). Pidgins and creoles (Vols. 1-2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sakoda, K. (June 21, 2013). Hawaii Creole English. Special Lecture conducted from Hawaii University at Manoa.

Tyron, D. T. & Charpentier, J. (2004). Pacific pidgins and creoles: Origins, growth and development. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

2. Language as Identity Marker

In sociolinguistic and anthropological linguistics, the relationships between identity and language have been a focus. Gibson (2004) suggests that "Language—both code and content—is a complicated dance between internal and external interpretations of our identity". The choice of language out of different languages and the choice of words, content, way of speaking are always important to the identity construction by the speaker and identity interpretation by the listeners. This confirms there is some kind of relationship, often intricate, between language and identity. 

Before entering to the discussion on the relationship, some basic ideas about identity have to be noted. Bucholtz and Hall (2004) suggest “the term identity literally refers to sameness” (p.1). This sameness is generated by sharing common features (in this case linguistic features) among the individuals. The identity can be related to race, education level, and authority and so on. By changing behaviours, the identity constructed and identified also changes. 

In regard to language as one of the sources of identity production, Bucholtz and Hall (2004) regard language as the most pervasive for the cultural production of different kinds of identity. Edward (2009) expresses a similar idea that language can be seen as an identity marker as well as an indicator of ‘groupness’. When we try to answer the question of “who we are”, we would almost automatically direct our attention to groups that we belong to. For example, if we speak a common language with someone else, the shared feature allows us to identify each other as in the same group, and meanwhile we are identified in the group. Suggested by Dieckhoff (2004), a common language can be a tool for expressing the unique character of a social group and for establishing common social ties based on a common identity. This is to say, people's linguistic behaviour, such as diction, accents, intonations and so on, can be used as an identity marker that allows the speakers to identify themselves and at the same time allow the listeners to identify them. In fact, sociologist Goffman (1963) suggests that the building up  of personal identity mainly relies on how others identify us instead of how we identify ourselves. In such a way, language becomes a tool that is manipulated by the speakers to establish (or at least influence) how others perceive them, and a marker for the hearers to identify and construct the speaker’s identity. Nonetheless, a language unites but also divides: it creates the “groupness” for those who speak the same language but can also alienate members who cannot master the selected language (Thomas, 1996, p.4). 

In regard to the links between language and identity, ethnicity and language is often a focus of study and investigation. Fishman (1991) suggests that mother language is of particular importance to (ethnic) identity given that both are immutable and inherited since birth. However, this is unlikely to be a universal fact since in some cultures other identities may be deemed to be more important or more salient (Jaspal 2009). Moreover, there is no stable relationship between language and ethnic identity. May (2012) suggests that “language may be a salient marker of ethnic identity in one instance but not in another” and “there is no direct correspondence between language and ethnicity” (p.134). These made the link between ethnic identity and language then one of the focuses of the field work as the instability of the link and the necessity for explanation become contributive to the study of the linguistic environment in O'ahu.

References

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. A companion to linguistic anthropology, 1, 369-394.

Dieckhoff, A. (2004) Hebrew, the language of national daily life. In D. Judd & T. Lacorne (Eds.), Language, nation and state: Identity politics in a multilingual age (pp.187–200). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Edward, J. (2009). Language and identity: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press

Fishman, J.A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gibson, K. (2004). English only court cases involving the U.S. workplace: The myths of language use and the homogenization of bilingual workers' identities. Second Language Studies, 22(2), pp. 1-60.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jaspal, R. (2009). Language and social identity: A psychosocial approach. Psych-Talk, September 2009.

Le Page, R. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. New York: Routlege.

Thomas, L. (1996). Language as power: A linguistic critique of US English. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 129-140.

3. Language use under different social contexts

Language can be regarded as a code (Wardhaugh 1992, p.89). In different situations, people shift their register and/or code because of certain social norms; simply speaking, they need to speak appropriately. For example, when we are with our friends and family, we may speak with occasional slang or vernacular languages in order to maintain closeness and intimacy; while we are at university in lectures, we speak more formally in order to show our high profession. We choose a particular way to interact with others because those linguistics features function in a different way that matches the social norms under certain circumstances. In conclusion, the setting influences our choice of language (Edward 2009, p.4).

While monolinguals try to alter their content, register and tones of speaking, bilingual and multilingual can even shift codes according to the occasions (Gibson 2004, p.1-2). This phenomenon of code choice in bilingual and multilingual society reflects certain differences between the codes available. For one thing, a bilingual minority group is often said to have a “we” and a “they” code (Gumperz 1982; Lambert 1972; Zentella 1990). A “we” code is only used within the minority group for connection while the “they” code is spoken to relate to the rest of society. Valdés (2000) names the “we” code and “they” code as low and high languages respectively. While a low language means the language with a low prestige, high language is for the one spoken by a more powerful class and associated with wealth (Gibson 2004). In other words, a code is assigned a status in society that largely influence our practice of code-shifting. According to Spolsky (1999), we make assumption about the age, profession, education level, place of origin and so on about a person once he/she starts talking. We are aware of the people around us and how the others perceive us, and therefore we always want to induce an impression of our own by choosing the right code to speak.

References

Gibson, K. (2004). English only court cases involving the US workplace: The myths of language use and the homogenization of bilingual workers’ identities. Second language studies,22(2), 1-60.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lambert, W. (1972). Language, psychology, and culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Spolsky, B. (1999). Second-language learning. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 181-192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valdés, G. (2000). Bilingualism and language use among Mexican Americans. In S. L. McKay & S.C. Wong (Eds.), New immigrants in the United States (pp. 99-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell.

Zentella, A. C. (1990). Returned migration, language, and identity: Puerto Rican bilinguals in dos worlds/two mundos. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 84, 81-100.

1. Sociolinguistic Timeline of Hawaiian Pidgin

According to Sakoda (2013), Hawaiian Creole English (abbreviated as HCE) has a very rich linguistic history that aligns with the social, economic and political history of Hawaii. It could be dated back to 1800s when commercial trade between Hawaii and the outsiders started.

Starting from early 1780s, there were contacts between China, North American and Hawaiian due to trading in Hawaii ports, the scale of trading was gradually expanded by sandlewood trade and the whaling industry. For this reason, sailors bought an unstable pidgidized variety of English for communication (Siegel 2000).

Later in 1835, the very first sugarcane plantation was established, and the expanding industry brought a large number of workers from across the world, mainly from China, Portugal Japan, and later the Philippines. Some features of the stable pidgins were then brought about by the laborers, and Hawaiian Pidgin was the more widespread pidgin that had developed and mainly in use (Siegel 2000). However, it should be noted that the language was not spoken among the locals that its currency was limited to plantation people. The formation and modification of the language, such as including loan words from different languages, was basically the result of the influx of immigrants from more other countries, such as Korea, Spain and the Philippines. In other words, the language reflected the changing population and social structure in Hawaii with regards to the development of plantation sites.

At the turn of the 20th century, English schools, at which white children and some plantation children studied, were established by some missionaries and merchants that worked in Hawaii. The students with different backgrounds interacted with each other that brought the Hawaiian Pidgin into the Hawaiian Pidgin English (HPE), the precursor of HCE. Later, the newer generation learnt the language as their first language. By the traditional definition, the status as a generation’s first language 

turns HPE into HCE which is still called Pidgin among the people.

References

Sakoda, K. (June 21, 2013). Hawaii Creole English. Special Lecture conducted from Hawaii University at Manoa.

Siegel, J. (2000). Substrate influence in Hawai’i Creole English. Language in society, 29(2), 197-236.

2. Features of HCE

This article serves to introduce some of the very basic and fundamental features of Hawaiian Creole English, with compared to the general American English. The content of the article is mainly based on the data we have collected from the field trip together with supplementary readings mainly from two books, one of which is written by Burridge & Kortmann (2008) and another one by Sakoda & Siegel (2003).

To start with, a pidgin or creole usually derives from a superstrate language, which is the socially superior language (Jourdan 1991), and substrate languages, which are the languages spoken by the immigrants (Siegel 2000). In the case of HCE, the superstrate is English and the substrates are mainly Portuguese and Chinese (Siegel 2000). Obviously, Hawaiian language did play a part in the molding of HCE as it is the local language. According to Jourdan (1991), the vocabularies mainly come from the superstrate while the grammatical structure is influenced by the substrates. Reinecke and Tokimasa (1934, p.50, 57) agreed that Portuguese plays a part in the formation of syntax of HCE.

A.    Sound system

A1. Consonant

The set of consonants in HCE is mostly the same as the one of the general American English (Burridge & Kortmann 2008), with the most apparent difference occurring in fricatives: the inter-dental fricatives tend to become stops in HCE (Romaine 1994). HCE lacks the “th” sounds /θ/ and /ð/ as in general American English, they sound as /t/ and /d/ respectively in HCE in most case, such as [tɪŋk] for think and [dæt] for that. We found evidence of this from one of the interviews and some local greeting cards:

card 1- i no can believe you dat old, HCE uses "dat" instead of "that"

A2. Vowel

In general American English, there are 11 monophthongs (i.e. a single vowel sound): /iː/,/ɪ/, /uː/, /ʊ/,/ɛ/, /ɜː/, /ə/, /ɔː/, /æ/, /ʌ/ and /ɑː/; there are mainly 7 in HCE, which are /ɪ/,/e/,/æ/,/ɑ/,/ɔ/,/o/ and /u/ (Burridge & Kortmann 2008). Nevertheless, there are 5 diphthongs (i.e. a complex vowel with one vowel sound gradually changing into another vowel sound) in both languages and they are /eɪ/, /aʊ/, /aɪ/, /oɪ/ and /oʊ/.

Since there are fewer vowels in HCE than general American English, some words that sound differently in American English may sound the same in HCE. For example, /i:/ and /i/ are two phonemes (i.e. the basic sound unit that creates difference in meaning) with the former a longer vowel than the latter such that fit /fit/ and feet /fi:t/ sound differently; yet in HCE they share the same vowel /i/and are pronounced in the same way (Burridge & Kortmann 2008). The same case apply to /u:/ and /ʊ/. In American English, Luke /lu:k/ and look /lʊk/ are with different transcriptions, but both appear as /luk/ in HCE (Burridge & Kortmann 2008 ).

A3. Intonation

In many varieties of English, yes-no questions start with a lower pitch and rise to a higher pitch at the end. In contrast, a rise-fall pattern is observed in HCE with a lower pitch approaching the end of questions (Burridge & Kortmann 2008), and this is thought to be influenced by Portuguese (Reinecke & Tokimasa 1934).

B.    Syntax

B1. Tense markers

Tense shows when the action of the verb takes place, whether it is at the moment of speaking, in the past or in the future. In general American English, tenses are shown mainly by the following ways, addressed by Sakoda and Siegel (2003):

1.     An independent word before the verb: will is added before the verb to show future action.

2.     The change of verb form: run is changed to ran to indicate past tense

3.     Addition of a suffix such as –ed/-t to the verb: played is the past tense form of play and learnt is the past tense form of learn.

On the other hand, HCE basically uses only a separate word before the verb to indicate the tense. According to Sakoda and Siegel (2003), there are three tense markers:

1.     Future tense marker: gon/goin/going

2.     Past tense marker: wen or bin/been, which is used by older speakers.We have found evidence of this in a local greeting card.

3.     Past habitual marker: yustu, as equivalent to “used to” in English

In addition, Reinecke & Tokimasa (1934) identify another tense marker, which is “stay” as progressive or habitual marker.

card 2- you wen miss one, this is translated as "you missed one (candle)"

card 3- i wen slowly wake up dis morning/ i wen forget yo' birt'day

B2. Articles

In contrast to the general American English with 3 articles a/an/the, there are only two in HCE, remarked Bickerton (1981).

1.     Definite article da- before noun phrases that are known to the listener. This is seen in some local greeting cards. 

2.     Indefinite article wan- before noun phrases that are unknown to the listener.

card 4- blow out all da candles 

card 5- it's da hands dat tell da story

B3. Others

1.     HCE replaces “cannot” with “no can”.

card 6- I no can believe you dat old

2.     The verb “get” represents meanings of existentials, as equivalent to “there is/are” and possessives,

         as “has/have” (Bickerton 1981).

3.     the verb stei (stay) 'to live, stay, be (at a place)' is used for locatives (Bickerton 1981).

card 7- dis card no stay late, translated as "this card is not late"

4. They may use the pronoun "them" instead of "it", as told by one of our interviewees.

clip 2- get 'em 

 C.    Vocabularies

The vocabularies are mostly derived from the superstrate language, English, and the substrate language,

Hawaiian. Some common examples are extracted from the book by Burridge & Kortmann (2008),

among some of which we have encountered during our field trip.

C1. Vocabularies derived from English

1.     Brah (bla,blala): brother 

Professor Matthews, the leading professor of the field trip, has told us a staff in a restaurant addressed

him brah as showing friendliness. Besides, two interviewees have given us this word as example

of HCE.

clip 3- brah 

clip 4- brah_2

2.     Laters: see you later

3.     Nuff: enough

C2. Compounds made up of English- derived words but not found in English

1.     Howzit: how are you

card 8- Howzit

2.     Catch air: breathe

3.     Stink eye: dirty look

4.     Broke the mouth: delicious

C3. Vocabularies derived from Hawaiian language

1.     Haole: Caucasians (One interviewee gave this as an example for HCE)

clip 5- haole

2.     Kokua: help (Hawaiian: Kōkua) (The word was heard through the broadcasting of the bus in the sentence Please talk to the driver when you need help.)

C4. Other short phrases collected from the interviewees 

1. Like beef: this is in question form, as "Do you want a fight?"

clip 6- like beef

References

Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.

Bickerton, D. (1984). The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7:173-221.

Burridge, K., & Kortmann, B. (Eds.). (2008). The Pacific and Australasia (Vol. 3). Walter de Gruyter.

Jourdan, C. (1991). Pidgins and creoles: The blurring of categories. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 187-209.

Reinecke, J. E., & Tokimasa, A. (1934). The English dialect of Hawaii. American speech, 9(1), 48-58.

Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literary language. LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY, 23 (4), 527-527.

Sakoda, K., & Siegel, J. (2003). Pidgin grammar: An introduction to the Creole language of Hawai'i. Bess Press.