| |
|
Abstracts
of Plenaries
| ABSTRACTS |
| Refuting
the bioprogram is easy...
Derek Bickerton
Professor Emeritus, University of Hawai‘i
Many attempts
have been made to refute the bioprogram hypothesis. For instance,
claims that creoles developed gradually over several generations
(Carden and Stewart 1989, Arends 1988) were shown to be groundless
based on the authors' own data (Bickerton 1991). Claims by
Lefebvre and Lumsden (1989 ) and others that there were insufficient
children in creole colonies to start a creole were shown to
be false in Bickerton (1990a) on the basis of contemporary
census records. Claims that the serial verb constructions
in Seselwa described in Bickerton (1988) were not real serials,
made by Seuren (1990) and Corne et al. (1996), were in turn
refuted in Bickerton (1990b, 1996). What would count as a
refutation? If it could be shown, for instance, that there
was no pidgin stage in creole development, as claimed recently
by Mufwene (2001). That in at least some cases, early settlers
produced contact languages structurally close to their main
lexifiers is not disputed: the issue is whether such languages
could survive the phase of rapid population expansion that
capitalist economies made almost inevitable. Evidence from
Hawaii (Roberts 1995, 1998, 1999), from the structural characteristics
of creoles (McWhorter 2001) and from statistical modeling
of interaction under different demographic conditions all
converge to indicate that pidginization was almost unavoidable
in the expansion phase.
|
Creole
dimensions of development in Caribbean literary discourse
Barbara Lalla
University of the West Indies (St Augustine, Trinidad)
Work on Creole in Caribbean
literary discourse has mainly comprised analysis of language
in individual texts (Mair, 1989, “Naipaul’s Miguel
Street,” Journal of Commonwealth Literature;
Lalla, 2002, “Conceptual Perspectives” in Brown
2002, All are Involved), and of issues of representation
(Devonish, 1996, in Christie, Caribbean Language Issues;
Lalla, 1998, “Creole Representation,” SCL and
forthcoming) rather than its role in the growth of indigenous
literature.
This paper argues that
phases of Creole inclusion have been pivotal to development
in Caribbean literary discourse. The discourse passes through
an initial Ventriloquist Phase in which the
colonizer textualizes (distorted) Creole in inscribing the
“invented" voice of the Other. Structures of (or
interference with) the official code are imposed on representation
of the Creole. Then follows a Censorship Phase,
under which local verbal artists operate, torn between strong
oral traditions on the one hand and alien scribal conventions
on the other, in maneuvering between restricted functions
of Creole in written discourse. The Creole is marked
discourse wherever it occurs in the written text. Increasing
interaction between official and vernacular codes in writing,
together with diminishing censorship, leads to an Alternation
Phase. Code-shifting contributes to a hybrid discourse
comprising plural and often dissonant voices. Privileging
of the Creole in turn contributes to perspectival shift that
relocates the speaker to the centre (rather than margin) of
a valorized discourse, which becomes an instrument of identity
construction.
In the (current) Expansion
Phase, the discourse is open to a wider range of
influences. The indigenous voice occupies more if not all
of the literary text, and is drawn on to assert Caribbean
perspective in rewriting imperial texts. More systematicity
in representation increases accessibility to the literature.
Thus, the sheer quantum of indigenous literature is enlarged.
The Creole voice being privileged, boundaries between official
and vernacular discourses become permeable, and (permitted)
characteristics of their codes diffuse across the boundaries.
Creole inclusion is
thus a major defining characteristic of the indigenous literature,
and pivotal to several other crucial characteristics (for
example, plurality and identity construction).
The hypothesis, that
development of the indigenous literature hinged on an evolving
relationship between scribal discourse and its contextual
Creole language situation, was tested by comparison of perspective
in nineteenth and twentieth century Jamaican texts; analyses
of perpectival shift in modern Caribbean literary discourse,
of language of specific Caribbean authors, of issues identified
by creative artists themselves (as in Jean D’Costa,
1985, “Expression and Communication,” Journal
of Commonwealth Literature), of issues of representation
encountered in textual reconstruction (Lalla and D’Costa,
1990, Language in Exile). This data demonstrates
development in perspective, code choice, and representation.
The work concretizes
discussion of literary language in the Caribbean and extends
understanding of discursive mechanisms by which identity is
encoded. The findings demonstrate significant expansion in
the functions of Creole and adjustment in language attitudes,
as Creole is pivotal to development in an indigenous literature
undergoing canonization.
|
Current
status of Tok Pisin: Its influence on Papua New Guinea languages
Kenneth Sumbuk
University of Papua New Guinea
Of all the eight hundred
or so local languages, plus English, Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu,
Tok Pisin remains the most widely spoken language in Papua
New Guinea. Since its humble origins on the plantations of
Samoa and Queensland, it has steadily gained its number of
speakers –estimated to be about 4.5 million. This is
more than 89% of the total population. Of these about half
of the Tok Pisin speakers now speak it has a mother tongue,
thus indicating its Creole status. Tok Pisin’s popularity
has gone from strength to strength, and its influence in the
country especially among the younger people is clearly evident
in their daily speech.
A number of observers
and researchers of language death have expressed concern over
the rapid and widespread acceptability and use of Tok Pisin.
Tok Pisin has been generally seen as a potential threat to
the survival of many of the small indigenous languages. The
most telling of these observations has been by Mülhäusler
(1996) and Nettle and Romaine (2000). Mülhäusler’s
linguistic prognosis is the gloomiest of all, where he predicts
a complete replacement of indigenous languages by Tok Pisin.
Nettle and Romaine reported Tok Pisin to be a threat to countless
local vernaculars. Crowley’s (1995) observation, on
the other hand, is not as gloomy as those of Mülhäusler
and Nettle and Romaine. Other observers of the influence of
Tok Pisin on specific languages include Kulick (1990, 1992),
Nekitel (1990), Sumbuk (1992) and Thomas (2000). They have
all observed an increase in the use of Tok Pisin in an increasing
number of social domains.
I will point out that
there is regional variation in the influence Tok Pisin has
on minority languages. Tok Pisin tends to have a greater impact
in regions where diverse concentration of minority languages
is at its highest. In these regions of the country, it will
be shown that speakers of minority languages are readily abandoning
their languages for Tok Pisin. However, in other regions,
like the Highlands, despite the rapid spread of Tok Pisin,
local languages are still very much used in traditional social
domains.
But the most interesting
observation is the deliberate discouragement of the spread
and use of Tok Pisin in what is supposed to be the original
home of the language in Papua New Guinea. This is the case
of the Rabaul region, where about ten percent of the lexicon
of the language is derived from – specifically from
Kuanua, the local regional language. In this region, it is
observed that children are encouraged to acquire and use Kuanua
first and not Tok Pisin.
What I have observed
in my research is that it is the local attitude that very
much influences and determines the acceptance and spread of
Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. In some regions, the language
is accepted and used as a means of communication. In others
it is used as a means of showing prestige and influence, and
in others it is used as a means of gaining access to the outside
world and what presumed benefits it may bring.
Despite the varying
reasons and attitudes for the acceptance and use of Tok Pisin,
it is very much the expanding language in the country. It
is the only language that has a wide ranging impact on modern
Papua New Guineans.
|
|
|
