Expert Urges Extended Use

Of Pidgin English

Written for “Pacific Islands Monthly” by Robert A. Hail, Jr., Professor of Linguistics at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.

IT is time to take a new look at Pidgin English. The debate be tween its opponents and its supporters has reached a dead centre—partly for lack of new argu ments, and partly because, frankly, many of the old arguments did not have a sound foundation.

We need a fresh viewpoint, and more information on the facts of the case, such as only modern linguistics—the scientific analysis of language—can givs. us.

Twelve years of work (including two books*) on the linguistic analysis of Melanesian and other brands of Pidgin have convinced me of the following points:

Language In Its Own Right

PIDGIN is indeed a true language in its own right, different in structure and vocabulary from English, and fully deserving our re spect and consideration.

Opposition to Pidgin on linguistic grounds come from three main sources: purism, bowdlerism, and a narrow conception of “grammar.”

True, many Pidgin words have a different meaning from their Eng lish sources: nogud means “with undesirable results; bad”; nating means “with something missing from the normal context”; gras is “anything growing blade-like out of a surface”; and so on. This is normal as languages change and develop; English assist means “help”, whereas French assister is “be present”: but neither English nor French is “corrupt” as com pared with the other. Likewise for some words which in English are taboo, but in Pidgin are quite innocent and have extended their meaning greatly, such as ars ■“bottom (of anything); reason, cause origin”, or bagarimapim, “ruin, spoil, wreck.”

“But Pidgin has no grammar,” I hear. Oh yes, it has! If we analyse Pidgin scientifically, we find it has a meaningful, coherent grammar of its own. I know; I’ve done it.

Pidgin has no tenses, cases or genders; but it has an objective verb conjugation (suffix -im, e.g., in lukim (see) or kaikaiim (bite), as opposed to lukluk (look) or kaikai (feed on); a pronoun plural suffix —fela (as in mifela “we, us”); an adjective suffix — fela (as in big fela, “large”) and a “predicate-marker”

i —that occurs after every third person subject, as in evn i-gudfela “he is good” or haus i-bigfela “the house is large.”

Pidgin has a clearly defined syntax, with many types of con structions carried over from Mel anesian languages, like haus kuk “room (for) cooking—kitchen,” or yu trifela (the three of you).

Why don’t we usually recognise these facts? Because we insist on thinking Pidgin is a “corrupted” form of English; because we often mask its true structure by spelling it English fashion; and because we won’t take off the blinders of our outworn doctrines about grammar and “correctness.”

Pidgin is a going concern in New Guinea at present; to “abolish” or “eradicate” it is an impossibility.

It has been said, and rightly, that “if its use were suddenly forbidden, there would be a complete disloca tion of administration, trade, in dustry, and missionary teaching ”

(Continued on Page 49)

• “Melanesian Pidgin English—Grammar, Texts, Vocabulary” (Baltimore, Linguistic Society of America, 1943; pp. 159); “Melanesian Pidgin Phrase-Book and Vocabulary” (Baltimore, L.S.A., second edition, 1944; pp. 56).

The Language Of

Melanesia

PIDGIN originated as a “caste language,” but it is no longer primarily such, and is becom ing less and less so.

One hears of old-type colonialists insisting on their “boys” speaking only Pidgin, and even knocking them down for daring to use Eng lish; but that attitude is disappear ing.

By now, Pidgin is the properly, not of the Europeans, but of the Melanesians themselves, and it is used for communication among the natives of different “talks” even more than it is between Europeans and natives.

The use of Pidgin is eminently beneficial to Melanesia, since it provides a lingua franca for natives of many different linguistic back grounds.

Everyone knows that there are scores, if not hundreds, of different languages from Guadalcanal to the Sepik; without Pidgin, the Mel anesians would have no language in common. No one native language (e.g. Yabim or Kate) has an equiv alent spread, and knowledge of Eng lish is relatively limited.

The structure of Pidgin is both simpler than that of English and closer to that of Melanesian languages, as it has many carry overs from those latter, in both grammar and meaning of words.

Hence, for a Melanesian, it requires

less time and effort to learn Pidgin well than it would to acquire an effective control of English.

Medium For Instruction

PIDGIN is well suited for pur poses of instruction. Proof of the pudding is in the eating: it has already been used successfully in schools, and for technical manuals in subjects like medicine, carpentry and store management.

Pidgin is usually written in a reasonably sound phonetically based alphabet: for this reason, it is much easier to attain literacy in Pidgin than in English. For many, perhaps most, Melanesians, the choice is not between literacy in Pidgin or literacy in English; it is between literacy in Pidgin, or none at all.

Pidgin is not merely utilitarian, however, but perfectly suited for expressing any ideas one wishes.

Passages from Shakespeare and Sophocles can be expressed in Pidgin without losing poetic effect, and Melanesians are beginning to write their own literature in Pidgin.

All that is needed for a Pidgin Literature to arise is for someone to come along with something to say in Pidgin.

Not In Conflict

THERE need be no opposition be tween Pidgin and English in the Territory. Each can serve Melanesia’s interests well in its own

sphere: Pidgin, as a means for communication between Melanesi ans, first attainment of literacy, and elementary and intermediate instruction; English, to serve as a broader “window on the world.”

Communication between Euro peans and Melanesians? In either Pidgin or English, as desired, but on condition that whichever language is used be learned well.

Some think that Pidgin is a hindrance to the learning of Eng lish. This need be so only if the English is poorly taught. With proper materials and techniques of teaching, the similarities of Pidgin to English can be used as a “step ping-stone,” and the pitfalls caused by the differences can be warned against.

Basic English instead of Pidgin, as a bridge? No! For use in Mel anesia, Basic English is inferior to Pidgin, both in the choice of its 850 words and in its grammatical structure and spelling (which are those of English). Pidgin is the outgrowth of real life; Basic Eng lish, the construction of philosophers sitting in their study.

I can therefore recommend the following policy: Condemnation of Pidgin and attacks on its use should stop. The UN Trusteeship Council should reverse its stand on Pidgin, rescinding its ill-advised and un founded anti-Pidgin pronuncia mento of July, 1953. Pidgin should be used in disseminating informa

tion through school, radio, and newspaper. The writing, not only of practical manuals, but of creative literature, should be encouraged.

The teaching of English should be extended, but only with the use of linguistically sound materials and techniques, recognising the existence of Pidgin and utilising its similarities to ■ English.

Finally, we need a new name, to

avoid the misunderstandings at tached to both parts of the name Pidgin English. Various names have been suggested; the most neutral, and simplest, seems to me to be Neo-Melanesian (in Pidgin, Tox Melanijin.) Under this name, let us allow this once-despised but now fully recognised language to make its contribution to the progress of Melanesia.