PIDGINS AND CREOLS

PIDGINS AND CREOLES:

In some areas of the world, a standard language is chosen which is actually a variety or a version of language which is not a known language to the natives of the area. For example in Papua New Guinea, a lot of official business is conducted in Tok Pisin which is not a native language but it is used by a million of people.  

PIDGINS: 

A pidgin is a variety of a language that developed for some practical purpose, such as trading, among groups of people who had a lot of contact, but who did not know each other’s languages. Thus making it having no native speakers. The word ‘pidgin’ comes from the Chinese version of English word ‘business’.

If a pidgin has the lexifier language (main source of words in a pidgin) English than it is described as “English Pidgin”. But the words taken will not necessary have the same pronunciation or meaning of the lexifier language. Example: the word gras of Tok Pisin is taken from the English word grass, but the meaning is different and is connoted for hair. It has derivations like mousgras (moustache) and gras bilong fes (beard).

Many pidgins are used till today too. They are characterized by the limited vocabulary and absence of complex grammatical morphology. The inflectional suffixes like –s and –‘s on nouns in the Standard English are rare in pidgins. But structures like tu buk (two books) and di gyal place( the girl’s place) is present.

 Functional morphemes take place of the inflectional morpheme like you to your, but the form like bilong is used to change the word order and make a phrase like buk bilong yu.

The syntax of the pidgin language is not like the ones from which the pidgin has been modified from.  Bainbai hed bilongyu i-arrait gain it means your head will soon get well again.

CREOLE:

When a pidgin develops with time and it used for more than trade and contact purposes is called a Creole. The basic factor for a pidgin to transform into Creole is that the pidgin has to become the first language of the population or a social community using the Pidgin. Examples of pidgins evolving into creole is Tok Pisin itself, other is Hawai’i Creole English.

A pidgin evolves into creoles when the children or upcoming generation of the pidgin community take the pidgin language as their first language, forming more and complex forms of the language. There is a lot of coinage involved in creolization too. A plus point for Creole is that it cannot be only spoken by native speakers and it can be spread out to other communities too. A creole of English is spoken in Jamaica and Sierra Leone and French Creole in Haiti.

The vocabulary items which were used in pidgins are modified to grammatical elements. Example: Baimbai yu go in pidgin form was shortened to bai yu go and finally into yu bigo, which is an English equivalent to ‘you will go’. 

Post-Creole Continuum:

Where the use of creole is involved, there must be some development in its use constantly. It is explained like the development from pidgin to creole is called creolization. In counter to this development there is a retreat from the use of creole by those who have a greater contact with the standard variety of the lexifier language.  This is called decreolization.

The reason behind this process is the number of speakers having social prestige or reach to better education will tend to speak the standard form of the language from which the pidgin was at the first place taken. This process paves way for two extremes. One towards a variety closer to external standard model and the other towards a more localized variety of creole. But in between these two extremities, there lie a range of slightly different varieties of evolving after the creole has come into existence is called post-creole continuum. It is very common for the creole natives to use all the different varieties in different situations. Example:

Basic Creole: fi mi buk dat (basilect)

Continuum: iz mi buk (mesolect)

Standard: it’s my book (acrolect).

                    BASILECT-----⃗ MESOLECT----⃗ACROLECT

                   -----------------------------------------------------------

                                            ⃗ Decreolization.

It is quite evident that these differences and its use are completely social in nature where the person has to keep in place social values and social identity. 

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

Introduction:

language both expresses and creates categories of thought that  are  shared  by members  of  a  social  group  and  that  language  is,  in part, responsible for the attitudes and beliefs that constitute what we call “culture,”.  Language is so important to culture. It is what separates humans from animals. Language is used to express meanings, thoughts, ideas, and emotions.  Language only can offer substantial communication within the culture it defines if it is meaningful, interpreted and understood by a given community. Language can be symbols, signs, spoken, or unspoken words known body language.  Language is the aid humans use to express language.
There are two ways of looking at the language with respect to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. They are the mould and cloak theory.  The Mould and Cloak theories are used to explain the relationship between language and the thought process in human beings.  These two theories help define how language and thoughts are intertwined.  The two different views are language forms thoughts or thoughts form language.“Within linguistic theory, there are two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as “mould theories and cloak theories”. Mould theories represent language as a “mould in terms of which thought categories are cast” (Bruner et.al. 1956, p. 11). Cloak theories represent the view that “language is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers” (ibid.). The doctrine that languages is the “dress of thought was fundamental. Language and thought are identical. According to this stance thinking is entirely linguistic: there is no “non-verbal”, no “translation” at all from thought to language.

SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHESIS:

The Sapir-Whorf HypothesisThe Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the American linguists EdwardSapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is a mould theory of language.

Ø  Sapir (1929)Human beings do not live in the soceity alone. Language of the societypredispose certain choices of interpretation about how we view theworld.

Ø  Whorf (1930s)We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. Wecategorise objects in the scheme laid by the language and if we do notsubscribe to these classification we cannot talk or communicate.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis I

Ø  Linguistic relativity: – Structural differences between languages are paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences (the structure of the language itself effects cognition). Language may determine our thinkingpatterns, the way we view and think about the world.it considers as weak version.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis II

Ø  Linguistic Determinism  the less similar the languages more diverse their conceptualization of the world; different languages view the world differently. The structure of a language can strongly influence or determine someone’s World View – A World View describes a (hopefully) consistent and integral sense of existence and provides a theoretical framework for generating, sustaining and applying knowledge. It consider as strong version.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis III

Ø  Arbitrariness  The semantic systems of different languages vary without constraint. This hypothesis must be tacitly assumed, because otherwise the claim that Linguistic Relativity makes is rather undramatic.

Ø  Both Sapir and Whorf agreed that it is our culture that determines our language, which in turn determines the way that we categorize our thoughts about the world and our experiences in it.

For more than fifty years researchers have tried to design studies that will support or refute this hypothesis. Support for the strong version has been weak because it is virtually impossible to test one’s world view without using language. Support for the weaker version has been minimal.

problems with the hypothesis:

Ø  Problems with the hypothesis begin when one tries to discern exactly what the hypothesis is stating. Penn notes that the hypothesis is stated “more and less strongly in different places in Sapir’s and Whorf’s writings” (1972:13). At some points, Sapir and Whorf appear to support the strong version of the hypothesis and at others they only support the weak version. Alford (1980) also notes that neither Sapir nor Whorf actually named any of their ideas about language and cognition the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This name only appeared after their deaths. This has lead to a wide interpretation of what researchers consider to be the one and only hypothesis.

Ø  Another problem with the hypothesis is that it requires a measurement of human thought. Measuring thought and one’s world view is nearly impossible without the confounding influence of language, another of the variables being studied. Researchers settle for the study of behaviour as a direct link to thought.If one is to believe the strong version of linguistic determinism, one also has to agree that thought is not possible without language. What about the pre-linguistic thought of babies? How can babies acquire language without thought? Also, where did language come from? In the linguistic determinist’s view, language would have to be derived from a source outside the human realm because thought is impossible without language and before language there would have been no thought.

Ø  Yet another problem with the hypothesis is that languages and linguistic concepts are highly translatable. Under linguistic determinism, a concept in one language would not be understood in a different language because the speakers and their world views are bound by different sets of rules. Languages are in fact translatable and only in select cases of poetry, humour and other creative communications are ideas “lost in the translation.”

Ø  One final problem researchers have found with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is Whorf’s lack of empirical support for his linguistic insights. Whorf uses language nuances to prove vast differences between languages and then expects his reader to infer those differences in thought and behaviour. Schlesinger attacks Whorf’s flimsy thesis support: “…the mere existence of such linguistic diversities is insufficient evidence for the parallelist claims of a correspondence between language on the one hand and cognition and culture, on the other, and for the determinist claim of the latter being determined by the former” (1991:18). Schlesinger also fails to see the connection between Whorf’s linguistic evidence and any cultural or cognitive data. “Whorf occasionally supplies the translations from a foreign language into English, and leaves it to the good faith of the reader to accept the conclusion that here must have been a corresponding cognitive or cultural phenomenon” (1991:27).

Implications of the Strong Version of the S-W Hypothesis:

*note that these implications are controversial, which is why many do not accept the strong version of the S-W Hypothesis

Ø  A change in world view is impossible for speakers of one language. For this reason, some speak of the “prison-house of language,” or call language a “straightjacket”

Ø  True cross-cultural communication and translation are impossible

case of Pablo Neruda – refuses to allow his poetry to be translated from Spanish

case of Ngugi Wa Thiongo – refused, for a long time, to write in any language but Swahili

Ø  Language is powerful–it can stimulate strong, emotional responses and shape how people think about morally and socially important issue-This is why we use euphemisms.

This is why groups like the “language police” try to intervene and control what words people use.

Examples of Sapir Whorf Hypothesis:

Whorf hypothesis A good example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would be the example given by Whorf about Eskimos and their word for snow and color blind reading.

Ø  Eskimos are people who live in the Arctic. The Eskimo language is a dialect spoken by coastal native people from the east of Siberia to Greenland.  These people are knows as Eskimos. Because of their habitat in the Eskimo language, there are many words for snow.  For example just to name a few, they have, “snow (in general) aput, snow (like salt) pukak, soft deep snow mauja, snowdrift tipvigut, soft snow massak, water snow mangokpok, snow filled with water massalerauvok.” And the list goes on. (Macropaedia “Eskimo-Aleut Languages” 962-964). In the English language where people do not experience the same weather as the Eskimos, there is only one word for snow and that is, snow.  Due to the difference in these two cultures (Western and Eskimo) the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would argue that these very specific words for snow allows the Eskimo people to “see” or experience snow differently than people of other languages who do not have as many detailed words for snow.  As a result, Eskimo people see subtle differences in snow that many people do not see or recognize. Languages vary quite drastically in how the base units of meaning (morphemes) are combined into words.

Ø  Another example of the relationship between language and thought would be from our reading The Colorblind Painter.  Color perception supports the Sapir-Whorf  hypothesis. In the Colorblind Painter, Jonathan the mail character was in a car accident that left his vision impaired.  Once his vision was repaired could experience his world in black and white. “Jonathan could see dismal grays…..causing him not to be able to share his world with others. (Colorblind Painter  521).  Another how language evokes thoughts would be in our assigned reading Ceremony. Ceremony was a story of healing. Tayo the main character was a Veteran from Vietnam.  When Tayo returned home from Vietnam he felt very disoriented. The cause of his disorientation was in a sense he had two cultures dictating his reality. Tayo had difficulty eating and sleeping. Also Tayo experienced a nervous breakdown due to the mixing of the two cultures he was experiencing. When Tayo went to Vietnam he experienced the Western Culture. Before Vietnam Tayo belonged to a culture called Hopi. The main difference between these two cultures is their perception of time. In the Hopi culture the do not experience what the western cultures call “past” and “present”. They experience time with the notion of “senous” and “non-senous”, meaning they group past and future all in the same category.  Because of this major differences Tayo would often feel disoriented.  So when Tayo returned home to his people he could not express how he was feeling since no one there could relate.  This communication breakdown left Tayo feeling with drawn and unattached to his family, friends and neighbors.  Recall, that Language only can offer substantial communication within the culture it defines if it is meaningful, interpreted and understood by a given community.

Studies Support Hypothesis:

Despite all these problems facing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there have been several studies performed that support at least the weaker linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Ø  In 1954, Brown and Lenneberg tested for colour codability, or how speakers of one language categorize the colour spectrum and how it affects their recognition of those colours. Penn writes, “Lenneberg reports on a study showing how terms of colours influence the actual discrimination. English-speaking subjects were better able to re-recognize those hues which are easily named in English. This finding is clearly in support of the limiting influence of linguistic categories on cognition” (1972:16).Schlesinger explains the path taken in this study from positive correlation to support for linguistic relativity: “…if codability of colour affected recognisability, and if languages differed in codability, then recognisability is a function of the individual’s language” (1991:27)

Ø  Lucy and Shweder’s colour memory test (1979) also supports the linguistic relativity hypothesis. If a language has terms for discriminating between colour then actual discrimination/perception of those colours will be affected. Lucy and Shweder found that influences on colour recognition memory is mediated exclusively by basic colour terms–a language factor.

Ø  Kay and Kempton’s language study (1984) found support for linguistic relativity. They found that language is a part of cognition. In their study, English speakers’ perceptions were distorted in the blue-green area while speakers from Tarahumara–who lack a blue-green distinction–showed no distortion. However, under certain conditions they found that universalism of colour distinction can be recovered.

Ø  Peterson and Siegal’s “Sally doll” test (1995) was not intended to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis specifically, but their findings support linguistic relativity in a population who at the time had not yet been considered for testing–deaf children. Peterson and Siegal’s experiment with deaf children showed a difference in the constructed reality of deaf children with deaf parents and deaf children with hearing parents, especially in the realm of non-concrete items such as feelings and thoughts.

Ø  Most recently, Wassman and Dasen’s Balinese language test (1998) found differences in how the Balinese people orient themselves spatially to that of Westerners. They found that the use of an absolute reference system based on geographic points on the island in the Balinese language correlates to the significant cultural importance of these points to the people. They questioned how language affects the thinking of the Balinese people and found moderate linguistic relativity results.

STUDIES THAT DISPUTES THE SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHESIS:

There are, on the other hand, several studies that dispute the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Most of these studies favour universalism over relativism in the realm of linguistic structure and function.

Ø  For example, Osgood‘s common meaning system study found that “human beings the world over, no matter what their language or culture, do share a common meaning system, do organize experience along similar symbolic dimensions” (1963:33)

Ø  In his universalism studies, Greenberg came to the conclusion that “agreement in the fundamentals of human behaviour among speakers of radically diverse languages far outweighs the idiosyncratic differences to be expected from a radical theory of linguistic relativity” (1963:125).

Ø  Alford‘s interpretation of Whorf shows that Whorf never intended for perception of the colour spectrum to be used to defend his principle of linguistic relativity. Alford states, “In fact, he is quite clear in stating that perception is clearly distinct from conception and cognition, or language-related thinking” (1980).

Ø  Even Dr. Roger Brown, who was one of the first researchers to find empirical support for the hypothesis, now argues that there is much more evidence pointing toward cognitive universalism rather than linguistic relativity (Schlesinger 1991:26).

Ø  Berlin and Kay’s colour study (1969) found universal focus colours and differences only in the boundaries of colours in the spectrum. They found that regardless of language or culture, eleven universal colour foci emerge. Underlying apparent diversity in colour vocabularies, these universal foci remain recognizable. Even in languages which do not discriminate to eleven basic colours, speakers are nonetheless able to sort colour chips based on the eleven focus colours.

Ø  Davies‘ cross-cultural colour sorting test (1998) found an obvious pattern in the similarity of colour sorting behaviour between speakers of English which has eleven basic colours, Russian which has twelve (they distinguish two blues), and Setswana which has only five (grue=green-blue). Davies concluded that the data showed strong universalism.

 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, many people still wonder if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true. Surprisingly the theory has been hard to prove or disprove. The reason for this is because a research experiment would need very unusual circumstances. The ideal circumstances would include two culturally identical groups using language that differs in one way which affects a testable cognition. Because researchers have failed to find such circumstances, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has remained controversial.