1. Hawaiian Pidgin in Media

During the stay in O'ahu, it was difficult to find printed advertisements with HCE. What we could find were only some greeting cards in HCE, and one local graffiti that looked like HCE words; yet they are not at all in a large scale. In searching for radio programs with HCE as the medium, the difficulty remained. Usually the disc jockeys or hosts spoke Standard English with no traces of using Pidgin, but one of the interviewees did tell us that there is a radio program in which two people with fishing poles deliver local news in Pidgin. Unfortunately, we were not able to find the program.  

Clip 1: HCE in Radio Program



Cards 1 & 2: HCE in Greeting Cards

Photo1: Local Graffiti with Creole

Romaine (1994) pointed out that HCE was mainly used in popular songs and the comic entertainment in the 1940s, and is still prevalence in comic domain nowadays. Although we were not able to find any comic strips or books during the field trip, some of the greeting cards we found do show very simple comic which demonstrates some of the common local expressions in HCE, such as Howzit which is translated as "how is it?" and wassup which means "what is up?"

Cards 3-9: Simple Comic Strips with HCE on Greeting Cards

                     

          

HCE has been used in drama since Kumu Kahua (“Original Stage”) was found in 1971 (Romaine 1994). Though, the use of HCE in drama is limited as the group is the only one in Hawaii which producing local plays.

From the little data we were able to collect, there seems to be a lack of evidence of media using Pidgin. Two reasons can be proposed to explain the phenomenon. First, it may reflect the unpopularity of the language in the media, which maybe related to the general social perception on HCE that the language reflects “being uneducated”. Nonetheless, it may also arise from a more neutral reason that there is a wide diversity of people having different cultural backgrounds in Hawaii and not every one can understand Pidgin that the media prefers to use a more common language for fear of the exclusion of some groups.

Regarding the questions about the feeling of inclusion/exclusion when HCE is used in advertisement, we have considered the results of three statements rated by the creole speaking participants, and the statements are “I am more attracted and persuaded to advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Pidgin”, “I feel I am targeted by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Pidgin” and “I feel more attached to political slogans in Hawaiian Pidgin”.

Both local and non-local speakers show a similar neutral response, with the local speakers give an average point of 2.57 considering all three statements and non-local speakers give a mean point of 2.23. The result is consistent with the one seen in creole as a marking for local identity. This is logical: while the interviewees do not feel their identity being marked by the creole, the use of creole in advertisement cannot draw their attention of inclusiveness. Therefore, the two result findings can be explained by similar reasons that are explained earlier.

Regarding this question, we have also considered the results of three statements rated by the non- creole speaking participants, and the statements are “I feel less attracted and persuaded by advertisements that use or incorporate Pidgin”, “I feel I am not targeted by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Pidgin” and “I feel less attached to political slogans in Hawaiian Pidgin”. By looking at the mean points, which is 2.94, generated by the 3 statements, we can conclude that they do not feel particularly alienated from the advertisements. This may be attributed to the limited advertisements in creole, as shown by the little data we could collect. While they cannot see a large scale of these kinds of advertisement, the sense of alienation should not be strong. 

References

Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literary language. Language in society, 23, 527-527.

2. HCE and local identity

According to the results of the questionnaire, the link between the language and the identity itself shows a relatively weak relationship. It may not be surprising to find that non-local speakers show neutral attitude, with a mean of 3.0 out of 5, towards the creole as a marking of their local identity because they may learn HCE only out of their need to communicate with their local friends, as suggested by one interviewee who is a shopkeeper. “You just have to learn it (HCE) if you are living here (Hawaii)”, she responded. However, it is out of our expectation that local speakers show similar response, with a mean of 2.93 (although the mean is slightly smaller than that of the non-local speaker, they have no significant differences). We expected that local speakers feel identified as a Hawaiian when they speak HCE because Lum (1986) suggested that a local language, of which HCE is certainly one, validates a local identity and Spolsky (1991) also expressed the idea that a language is a powerful symbol of national and ethnic identity.

There are three possible reasons to explain the result. First, the word marks in this particular statement (“Hawaiian Creole marks my identity as a local Hawaiian.”) might have sounded too strong to them that they tend to show no agreement towards or even deny the statement. What we really wanted to know is actually whether they think HCE constitutes part of their identity.

Another reason is explained by the root of HCE. Referring to what we have mentioned regarding the evolution of HCE, we know it sprang from the need to communicate with each other among workers who spoke different languages in the plantation village. So it did create the culture, identity and solidarity of the working class at that time (Romaine 1994). However, the majority of our interview subjects have not ever worked in the plantation village and acquired the language in real need, instead, they may be raised up around family members who speak the language and therefore happened to pick it up. It is then reasonable that it does not constitute a significant part of their identity as a Hawaiian. We may then predict those who possibly feel identified by the language are the former plantation workers or those who have a close relationship with the plantation village. The prediction is actually supported when we take a closer look at the interview with a tour guide in the plantation village. From his questionnaire and interview, we found that he strongly agrees with the statement “Hawaiian English marks my local identity as a local Hawaiian”.

The last possible aspect to look for when explaining the result findings is the social perception of HCE. “When you acknowledge a language, you acknowledge a people,” said Lum (1986) when interviewed by Honolulu Weekly (Choo 1993). This is to say, if you are to feel identified by a language, the language itself has to be acknowledge in the first place. Sadly, Pidgin has long been regarded as improper English (Da Pidgin Coup, 1999) which does not receive public acknowledgement. It is hard for the speakers to feel validated as well according to the logic of Lum (1986).

Nevertheless, responses towards the subsequent statement (“I think people speaking Hawaiian Creole English is part of the local community.”) revealed that being able to speak HCE deem an individual to be part the local community. Both local and non-local groups showed strong tendency to agree with this particular statement, with a mean of 3.57 for local speakers and a mean of 3.92 for non-local speakers. In other words, the creole language is an important element of the Hawaiian community. It is interesting to see that while local speakers show a neutral attitude to creole as a marking of their own identity, they show relatively stronger agreement on speaking creole as marking the others’ identify as a part of the local community. This may reveal that local speakers do believe the function of creole as an identity marker, but when it comes to themselves, they tend not to acknowledge it because HCE generally receives a low prestige in society.

From the above results, it can be concluded that language does not necessarily serve the purpose of an identity marker, which supports what May (2012) has suggested: “there is no direct correspondence between language and ethnicity" (p.134). However, it is still safe to say that language, or in this case, HCE, contributes to the inclusivity of a certain society or community. It helps to form and maintain the boundary of a social group.

References

Choo, David K. (1993). A sense of place. Honolulu Weekly, October 20, 1993.

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

Lum, Darrell H. Y. (1986). Local literature and lunch. In Chock & Lum (eds.), 3-5.

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

Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literary language. Language in society, 23, 527-527.

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

3. Social Status of Hawaiian Pidgin

Generally speaking, Hawaiian Pidgin has a low prestige that interviewees often regarded it as bad language, slangs, broken English and so on, as the recordings of the interviews show. Some questionnaire participants also thought the language sounds "unintelligent". These adjectives and descriptions reflect that the language is still looked down upon. This shows not only how the language itself is being despised but also how the speakers are regarded as uneducated.

Regarding our questionnaires, two of the statements (“I think Hawaiian children should learn Hawaiian Creole English.”, and “I think people should promote the use of Hawaiian Creole English in Hawaii.”) in the part of the questionnaire where participants have to show their responses are about education and promotion of HCE. When asked whether they think their children should learn the creole, both of the groups, locals and non-locals, expressed negative attitudes (Also Listen to clip 1).

Statements	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
6) I think Hawaiian children should learn Hawaiian Creole English.	2.64	.93	2.54	.97
11) I think people should promote the use of Hawaiian Creole English in Hawaii.	2.93	1.00	2.62	.87

Clip 1: Pidgin Not A Good Thing

Participants were later asked about the reasons according to their responses. Those that disagreed with the education for future generations stated that not only the creole itself is impractical, but also brings about detrimental effect to the ordinary language learning process. In other words, the questionnaire-takers feared that allowing their offspring to learn HCE could affect their English or any other languages they learn that are of dominant use in society. For the same reason, the local and non-local participants tend not to approve of the state-wide promotion of the creole. This is in line with the studies we have mentioned that most educators believe speaking the non-standard language, as what most Hawaiian perceive HCE to be, would adversely affect the proficiency of the Standard English (Feldman, Stone, Wertsch & Strizich 1977). Despite the fact that this is misleading as we have also explained earlier, and the the efforts of the Da Pidgin Group in promoting the inclusion of HCE, it is predictable that the deeply rooted resistance to the language will remain under the predominant, stereotypical impression of the language. 

For the non-speakers, they generally think there is no immediate necessity for them to learn and speak the language (“I want to learn Creole for communicating with my local Hawaiian friends.”: M = 3.00, SD = 1.07). They do not seem to have the urge to pick up the creole when a lingua franca, English, is available and widespread within the community. To the participants who do not speak HCE, learning to speak a local creole language just to communicate with their local Hawaiian friends seem redundant and unnecessary. This confirms what Holm (1988) claimed about creole, where it is only considered to be “a reduced language that results from extended contact between groups of people with no language in common”. This reflects, once again, how the language is not regarded as a predominant language in Hawaii. 

After collecting responses from the interviewees concerning Pidgin, we have also found that some ideas fit into the model of language subordination process proposed by Lippi-Green (1997). Corresponding to the model:

1.    Authority is claimed: Interviewees expressed that speaking Pidgin may reflect one’s unintelligence and that Standard English is better.

2.    Misinformation is generated: Pidgin is often regarded not a language but slang or broken English that is without proper grammar by the interviewees.

3.    Non-mainstream language is trivialised: Some interviewees said Pidgin is fine for joking and hanging out with close friends, but not suitable for formal situations such as schools.

4.    Explicit promises are made/Threats are made: An interviewee explicitly regarded that speaking Pidgin in interviews for job is not appropriate as this adversely affect the chance to get the job.

References

Feldman, C. F., Stone, A., Wertsch, J. V., & Strizich, M. (1977). Standard and nonstandard dialect competencies of Hawaiian Creole English speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 41-50.

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

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent. London: Routledge.