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.