Pidgins
are auxiliary contact vernaculars which are no one's first language.
They arise as medium of communication between speakers of different
languages as a make-shift adaptation reduced in their grammatical structure and
restricted in their language use (Hall 1966, Hymes 1971).
A creole is a pidgin turned mother tongue of atleast one speech
community. In its linguistic
organization it begins to show the tendency of expansion and complication
(rather than reduction and simplification) and in its scope of use, it becomes
relatively extensive (as compared to the restricted use of the corresponding
pidgin). However, both pidgins and
Creoles are considered `corrupt' and `degenerations' and are assigned a very
marginal and low status by members who speak one of the languages from which
they have arisen in a contact situation.
I
am not concerned in this paper with the attitudes of members who speak and use
pidgins and creoles. Instead, I am
going to examine the kind of attributes assigned to these `corrupt' forms of a
language by scholars who are motivated to analyse structures (code) of a
language prior to the analysis of its use and function.1
After going through the literature on pidgins available at present one
finds the following delimiting characteristics assigned to them.
i)
Deficient in structure :
It has been shown that the
structure of a pidgin is `minimal in grammar', `simplistic in form',
`mechanically mixed (hybridized) in nature with a `plethora of variant forms'
and unsystematized linguistic relations'. Hence,
it is far less than `full-sized' languages.
Because pidgins show linguistic traits for reduced in quantity than found
generally in primary languages, they are characterized as deficient in
structure.
ii)
Defective in code :
No primary language is
limited in its use to a single variety of code, `to an unchanging monotony which
would preclude the possibility of indicating respect, insolence,
mock-seriousness, humor, role-distance, by switching from one code-variety to
another' (Hymes 1967:9). This
implies that for a code to be natural it has to be polystratic, pluriclaval and
multitonic. Because pidgins have
by nature `monostratic, monoclaval or monotonic code' (Samarian
1971:122), it is said that they have a defective code exhibiting little
flexibility and adaptability.
1.
I will direct my observations more to the study made on pidgins than Creoles. iii)
Parasitic in form and function :
A primary language is
chiefly `a means of thought and self-expression' (Chomsky 1966:21), whereas the
primary function of pidgins is neither related to concept formation nor
associated with self-expression. Pidgins
are parasitic in form and function because they do not display man's peculiarly
linguistic qualities; instead they function as verbal appendages to his already
acquired linguistic knowledge. iv)
Unnatural in linguistic status:
Unlike a primary language,
pidgins do not have any community of native speakers.
In fact, it is a language type based on the absence of all the four
attributes (-standardization, autonomy, historicity and vitality), proposed by
Stewart (1968) to evaluate different types of a language varieties.
A pidgin is said to be unnatural form of language, because it shows
neither normal historicity nor the resources to be employed natively. v)
Less evolved: Following
Hymes (1972), sociolinguists have tried to strengthen the evolutionary
perspective on languages. They wish
to claim that sociolinguistic types of languages, in the sense of language
evolution, exist and `that they can be labeled as tribal, early modern
(developing), modern (developed) contemporary, etc. (Neustupiny 1974:35).
Pidgins accordingly are labeled as the least evolved form of a language
and they show maximum of non-functional variation.
I wish to claim that these
formal characterizations are inadequate in bringing out the true nature and
functional (communicative) relevance of pidgins.
The inadequacy of such formal descriptions is two fold.
First, they refer only to the structural form in terms of linguistic
traits that languages have (or dont have) without taking into account their
functional relevance. Second, they
assume that people acquire all forms of a language only one way at all times and
in all situational contexts. Further
more, the universals of languages are established in the context of linguistic
structures and functional characteristics of full sized primary languages.
Because pidgins show linguistic traits far less than found generally in
primary languages, they are labeled as defective and deficient languages i.e.,
emptier of language than their more `evolved' counterparts.
2.
Variations are said to be functional if the variable feature is
determined by some social function, they are non-functional if they are not
connected with any such function. Modern
types of languages show typically the functional variation (though not
exclusively). (Neustupny 1974:40).
In trying to characterize
what kind of language a pidgin is, one can adopt any of the two
approaches-formal or functional. A
functional approach towards the study of languages would accept different kinds
of language basically as forms of language realized differently in different
contexts of usage and function. In
this approach, form and structure do not exhaust its total range of
investigation; along with them one has to find out the purposes that languages
serve for us, `seeing whether language itself has been shaped by use, and if so,
in what ways-how the form of a language has been determined by the functions it
has evolved to serve' (Halliday 1973:7). I
am of the opinion that on both theoretical and pragmatic grounds, we have to
evolve a more inclusive, a more functional approach to the study of language
than what we have at present, and unless we do that, our criteria for defining
making it dysfunctional and leading it to its natural death and (c) establish
itself as the first language (manifesting as creole).
Emergence of a pidgin as a
distinct form of language and its different outcomes (subsequent realizations)
demonstrate interdependence of form and function and also of language and
society and may be accepted as central to our understanding of language and its
functional realizations. It is with
this functional approach towards pidgins that I propose to examine their basic
characteristics.
Looked at from the
functional view-point, a pidgin is a purposely brought and contextually shaped
for of language. It is a viable form
of a language because it has definable and coherent structure of its own.
In view of the fact that the structures of pidgins are drastically
different from those of primary language, it is suggested that the different
functions which shape them differently be studied.
It is argued that the structural similarities observed across pidgins and
Creoles scattered in the 3.
On this measure, L(ow) variety form of language (in diglossic situation)
and restricted code (in the context of social class differences) were
characterized as `knowing less language' (than H(igh)-variety and elaborated
code. Similar is the case when,
based on the assumption of hapex legoniena, Joos claimed that neither Basic
English nor Esperanto is a language. 4.
For example, Stewart (1968) defined pidgins as a social form of language
marked by the total absence of attributed proposed to classify sociolinguistic
types.
The functional perspective
to the study of language should regard pidgin as a mode of behaviour `which
results from speakers of A (the learner of B) meet speakers of B (the language
being learned) under certain social conditions
.! (Le Page 1967:86).
It is to be noted that no ordinary social condition and no simple contact
situation ever give rise to a pidgin. There
are atleast the following three conditions necessary for its coming to being
(1) lack of common language for out-group communication, (2) lack of any kind of
Bilingualism among any speech community under contact situation, and (3)
presence of motivated communicative intent in a section of speakers.
Pidgins are therefore to be viewed neither as artificially simplified
languages, (like Esperanto) nor a degenerated variants of natural languages.
They are in fact a kind of language structured with efficiency for a
limited type of between group communication in a social situation where none of
the involved speech groups is bilingual with respect to the `language to be
learned'. They emerge therefore
under certain pressure of communicative need when two or more languages get
involved socio-culturally in a melting-pot situation.
Pidgins remain pidgins so long as the particular situation prevails.
Alternatively, they have any of the following three outcomes (a)
loose their `communicative intent' (usefulness) and get absorbed by a
contributing traditions, (b) atleast one speech group becomes bilingual involve
questions of functional relevance and unless these universals are viewed as
formal manifestations of common social processes, our study cannot go beyond
linguistic or sociolinguistic descriptions of pidgins.
The universal traits that
characterize pidgins across time and place call for explanation as to what
functional idgins aim at achieving through these linguistic features.
For example, to call occurrences of monomorphemic forms, elimination of
inflectional and conjugational variations, avoidance of syntactic complexities,
promotion of overt order, use of duplicatives for intensification, admixture of
lexical items etc. as an index of linguistic impoverishment will be a wrong
approach unless we are also able to demonstrate that because of these linguistic
features pidgins are unable to serve the purpose for which as a form of language
they have been shaped. What I would
like to assert here is that pidgins and pidginization are cases par excellence
of functional adaptability. Pidgins
are exemplary instances of selective change brought about by the specificity of
their restricted contexts of use and they, thus meet the requirements of
communicative efficiency. Otherwise
we could not have so many other forms of a language employing traits typical of
pidginization process. One has to
simply look at the similarities in linguistic devices adopted in a pidgin and
other forms of a language subsumed under the category of lingua-franca-contact
language, vehicular language, international language, auxiliary language,
artificial language, marginal language etc. (Smith 1969:480), in order to get
convinced that pidgins in fact typify a `basic' form of a
language and pidginization is typical of linguistic processes shared by
languages used for out-group communications.
A
primary full-sized language employed for in-group communication has to discharge
for its native speakers three basic functions (i) communicative referential
(CR), (ii) expressive connotational (EC) and (iii) social symbolic (SS).
These functions call for different meaning potential (i) CR function
demands conceptual meaning which is basically denotative and logical in kind,
(ii) EC function requires contiguities of personal experience and attempts at
expression attitudes through various dimensions of stylistic variation, and
(iii) SS function makes the language serve as a marker of speakers' membership
of a given speech community and as vehicle of culture and tradition.
Language also represents speakers' different acts of identities which,
when correlated with different functions, reveal different identity realization
(i) CR function seeks inter-personal identity (ii) EC function demands a
speakers' self-identity and (iii) SS function calls for a soeajers' group
identity. Similarly, the kind of
linguistic means employed to subserve these functions orient the code-aspect of
a language differently CR function being basic to any communicative act
demands from the code its basic (i.e. non-optional rules) and hence, there
remains a close match between deep and surface levels of structures while EC and
SS functions get realized through a kind of code which requires
optional (variable) rules. It
has been shown elsewhere (Srivastava 1977) that the kind of linguistic coding
system we require to express effective or social meaning is based on sets of
options which a language makes available to its users
on its different levels of organization phonological, grammatical,
lexical etc.
The three different
functions along with their concomitant implications for meaning potential,
identity act and code realization are shown in Fig.1.
Fig.
1
5.
The difference between in-group and out-group language is based on roles in
communication - `the in-group language is the used in any society for the basic
face-to-face relationships with other speakers with whom the individual in
question fully identifies; the out-group language is the one used for contacting
people of groups outside their own community. (Nida and Wonderly 1971).
Full-sized primary
languages are to be viewed as synergetic units which display all the three
functions. The inclusive synergism
in them illustrates the interaction of different types of meaning-denotative,
connotative and social, and different kinds of identity act interpersonal,
self and social identities. Consequently,
the codes realized in such languages are multi-model polystratic and
plurifunctional.
Quite opposite is the case
with pidgins. Pidgins primarily
serve the CR function and that too in a restricted context of material needs.
They neither serve the heuristic function of exploring reality nor do
they serve the imaginative function whereby now reality is created.
Their use is so exclusively restricted to the communication of content
that they do not carry with them any kind of social meaning either.
As pidgins are made to serve exclusively the purpose of out-group
communication, speakers who use them neither fully identify themselves with
those they speak to, nor do they have any sentimental involvement or personal
motivations to associate with them. Once
they need for inter-lingual contact is over, the use of a pidgin is also over.
A pidgin's life-cycle is short because any persistent need for a longer
inter-lingual contact will motivate our group of its users either to learn the
primary language of the other or to transform the pidgin in the direction of a
creole. Because with pidgin, people
do not establish their self-identity or group-identity, `there are no
sentimental attachments or nationalistic motivations for preserving a dead
pidgin' (Decamp 1971:16).
Another important fact of
pidgins is that their verbal code is also accompanied with parallel non-verbal
signs. Users of pidgins not only
utilize kinesic code (mimicry and gesture),
proximic code (sense of distance) and code of prosody (variations in
pitch, quantity and intensity) but integrate these so called auxiliaries of
language with their verbal behaviours in such a significant way that pidgins
become a communicative code. Those
paralinguistic and non-vocal elements remain on the periphery when we talk in
the monther-tongue for the in-group communication, but in the case of pidgins
they become vital constituent elements of verbal behaviours i.e., they get
centrally integrated affecting the
very nature of inner competence. They
make infact the verbal code of pidgins contextually adequate.
If a model of language is designed with a face towards communicative
conduct, a pidgin may be characterized as being a contextually adequate
communicative code to the optional benefit of their adult users.
A pidgin is a result of
socio-linguistic change that has achieved autonomy as a norm (Hymes 1971:84).
This change as a linguistic process (pidginization) primarily involves
the following: (i) simplification of outer-form (ii) reduction of inner form,
(iii) broadening of lexical reference, (iv) admixture of lexical items and (v)
increase in non-functional variation. It
is worth attempting to demonstrate how these processes show a direct relation to
the functional load a pidgin carriers with itself.
Simplification
has been defined as basically a decrease in the number of linguistic elements.
According to Hall, `the essential characteristic of a pidgin language is
that it is sharply reduced in its pronunciation and grammar and its vocabulary'
(Hall 1966:25). Le Page also holds a
similar view and adds that `since inflectional structures of two
languages in a contact situation rarely coincide, inflection is the commonest
casuality in a contact situation' (Le Page 1967:86).
Hall and Le Page both are of the opinion that simplification as a
linguistic process is well motivated from the side of the user of pidgin and is
meant or mutual case in use and comprehensibility.6
Simplification process
makes the code realized through the invariant forms of its units
invariance in morphemic form (content words tend to be mono-morphemic rather
than inflected or derived), invariance in grammatical units (realized units show
less of declensional and conjugational variations), invariance in mapping deep
structure into surface structure (heavier reliance on basic sentence
constructions rather than realizations through various optional transformation,
for example, avoidance of passivized, nominalized or embedded relativized
sentence constructions).
It can be argued that all
the above mentioned linguistic means are directed towards meeting certain
psychological needs of their users and are meant to increase the facility in
communication. This invariance
tendency in outer form is meant to avoid the need for selection which requires
additional knowledge on the part of its users.
(Simplification process simplified grammatical machinery and meeting
the invariance condition, attested through pidgin is aimed at minimizing the
linguistic knowledge of its users).
What I would like to
emphasize is that the simplification process has a definite functional
directionality a directionality which is two fold; first, decrease in the
structural elements in pidgins is directed towards attaining structural
attenuation on the basis of universal model of `simplicity metric' i.e. `basics'
of language7 and second, achieving the invariance condition is
directed to restrict its function to communicative referential.
(It should be noted that the users of pidgins are in no need of
expressive or social meaning which require alternative or stylistic
expressions).
6.
Contrary to this, Samarian is of the opinion that such a view is
unfortunate because simplification on the part of speakers of B learning A,
involves the inability (a) to inter linguistic structure from random utterances,
and (b) to remember both the elements and the rules.
He, therefore suggests that `there is something in pidgin languages,
imperfect learning of a second language, loss of one's own language, and
restricted codes, that is common to them all' (Samarian 1971:126).
Reduction of inner form can be viewed in the case of pidgin as an increase in facility in communicating messages by evolving out a common code for the inter-personal interaction in contact situation.8 A pidgin as a code is realized on the basis of a minimum of a `shared knowledge'. It is through this that two interlocutors having two mutually unintelligible codes get motivated to interact with each other to achieve certain pragmatic goals. The emergence of a pidgin as a third code is based on a verbal strategy of mutual adaptability. This increases the efficiency of message transmission keeping in view the burden of language learning common for the members of both speech groups. A pidgin as a lingua-franca should be seen as belonging to two speech communities, rather than one speech group. My contention is that adult members of two involved speech communities is that adult members of two involved speech communities will find the learning of pidgin code (in the ideal condition) easier than the learning of the code of each other's language. This will happen because the reduction of inner form is directed partly towards the `basic' of a code and partly towards common sharing of linguistic knowledge between two speech communities.
>
Similarly,
`lexical admixture' and broadening of reference' (infinite polyemy)
can be viewed as directed towards case in locating content words and
interpreting them without involving the additional knowledge of `branching
paths' or subcategorization rules'. For
example in Chinese pidgin English Spit covers both acts spitting and
vomiting and in Malanesian Pidgin English the semantics of grass includes
all the three objects hair, moustache and beard.
Thus, the meaning of spit is `to eject matter from the mouth'
whether the matter is salive of the mouth or content of the stomach, and the
meaning of grass is anything that grows, blade-like, out of surface'
(Hall 1972:143).
7.
Such a directionality has been noticed in informal (as opposed to formal)
style (Labov 1966), restricted (as opposed to elaborated) code (Bernstein 1967)
and L-variety (as opposed to H-variety of language in diglossic situation (
8.
This can also be interpreted as a linguistic process (convergence) which brings
structural similarities between two or more languages in contact situation
through diffusion of linguistic traits (Gumperz and Wilson 1971).
9.
In the case of Tay Boi (The pidgin French of Vietnam), as observed by
Reinecke (1971), lexicon is almost wholly from French (dominant language) and
syntax shows a good deal of carry over from Vietnamese (indigenous language)
except for word order which perhaps is modeled on French.
What is interesting to observe is that phonetics is essentially that of a
speakers own (French of Vietnamese), in grammar there is a good deal that is due
to neither French nor Vietnames.
10.
The extensional use indicates the stimulus object which the concept
denotes in a direct manner. The
intentional use is liable to vary considerably from persons to person.
It derives from the private experience of each person who uses the
concept in so far as the experience has
been affected by the stimulus object (Thomson 1959:66).
Lexical items of a pidgin
stand for the extensional 10 (rather than intensional) use of concepts.
It is generally free of any synonymous complexity.
It is true that the lexicon of a true pidgin is referentially inadequate
and pidginization as a process tends to broaden the semantic field of its items;
however, it is equally true that a user of a pidgin overcomes the referential
inadequacy by supplementing the information by gestures, intonation,
onomatopoeic limitations etc. Infact,
by exploiting paralinguistic and nonlinguistic contextual features he attempts
at attaining contextual adequacy (inspite of referentially inadequate lexicon).
Dictionary of a pidgin gets simplified also because its users prefer to
reply more on the periphrastic forms. This
is further attested by the fact that in pidgins analytic constructions (and not
synthetic ones) are predominant in form and use.
This simply shows that users of a pidgin tend to express complex idea
with the help of a `minimal' of a grammar and `minimal' of a vocabulary
employing an ingenious method of paraphrase.11
All languages exhibit
individual and societal variation. In
this variation on which social processes operate to produce social, regional and
individual styles. However, it has
been argued that variation in pidgin is diagnostic of its linguistic abnormality
pidgins exhibit plethora of non-functional variant forms which is far
greater in quantum than any primary language attests.
In order to appreciate the true nature of variation found in pidgins, it
is suggested that we differentiate it form the cases of cocoliche12
where language learning concentrates on acquiring linguistic items with scant
regard for pronounciation or grammar (Whinnom 1971).
Unlike cocoliche, pidgins cannot be characterized as having open
system. Their systems are
extensively lose (but not open) but their speakers do have some notion of
grammaticality. Secondly, their
variation is on account of evolving out a third code and learning it as an
out-group language (and not by initiation of imiation ad infinitum as is
the case in cocoliche). Pidgins may
have several donor languages (substratum languages) and they may show a varying
degree of interference13 but in no case should they be treated as
mere collection of idiolects.
11.
`. . . These processes are also used to Yield
Ogden and Richards Basic English, with only 850 words.
In Basic English verbs give way to a small set of operators and
preposition; almost any complex term can be paraphrased by an ingenious
translator' (Labov 1971: 455).
12.
As characterized by Whinnom, Cocoliche is X-ized Y which once extensively
was spoken by Italian immigrants in
I
have attempted to show that for our real understanding of the intrinsic nature
of pidgins we have to develop a more functional, a more realistic and a more
global perspective to the study of language.
Time has come to discard our elitist approach of making `standard'
languages as the standard for passing judgements over other for other forms of a
language otherwise functional in nature. Language
has, as a communicative device, a wonderfully flexible structure which takes its
form according to the functions assigned to it by its users.
This power of adaptability must not be looked at as generating a `broken'
and handicapped' form of a language or `debased' and `corrupted' varieties of
some other prestigious languages. In
fact, it is absurd to consider pidgins `deficient' and defective' simply because
they do not discharge the function for which they do not come into being.
It is as preposterious as asking why does a postman deliver letters and
not drive engines.
There are different
perspectives (orientations) to the study of language which tend to evaluate
different forms of a language differently. A
pure theoretical linguistic point of view accepts all languages as equal
implying thereby that each language has the potentiality for expressing any
concept as well as the potentiality for development.
This approach makes all languages equal in terms of structural
systematicity and developmental potentiality.
A sociolinguistic evolutionary point of view 14 sharply distinguishes
`between the potential upon to discharge functions other than those of which it
has been shaped. Similarly,
structure of a given form of a language can be said to be broken into senses
one, when its structure is found to be remarkably reduced (as compared to the
more elaborate structure of a language meant to be employed in all the possible
functions that a language can perform) and second, when its verbal structure
shows a drastic gap (-a gap which in actual communicative conduct is filled in
by non-verbal signs like kinesic, proximic or some other kinds of nonlinguistic
semiotic codes). It is crucial for a
geuine functional theory of a language to integrate the knowledge of verbal and
non-verbal codes which the users of a language display in their speech.
13.
One has to remember that it is the adults who generally learn and use a
pidgin. Secondly, pidgins emerge in
contact situation. Labov points out
to a general socio-linguistic principles `whenever a subordinate dialect is in
contact with a superordinate one, linguistic forms produced by a speaker of the
subordinate dialect in a formal context will shift in an unsystematic manner
towards the superordinate', (Labov 1971: 450).
14.
This approach makes a distinction between `what is not said because there
is no occasion to say it, and what is not said because one has not and does not
find a way to say it'. (Hymes 1974:
72).
From the point of view of a functional perspective, a pidgin may be conceived of as `a form of an inter-language (lingua-franca) which is evolved to serve primarily the communicative referential function and has, as a communicative code, a structure to the optimal benefit of its adult members. Implicit in this approach of defining a pidgin are a number of the assumptions of theoretical importance.
First, if all full-sized
primary languages which discharge all the three functions CR, EC and SS, with
all of their dimensional possibilities can be said to possess
`structure-maxima', pidgins can be described as a form of language having
`structure-minima' shaped to perform merely CR function.
These two may be considered as two extremes within which fall a number of
other forms of a language e.g. Koines, Argots, languages are special
purpose, restricted codes, undeveloped languages etc.
Second, for their better
understanding, pidgins call for a semio-linguistic approach to the study of
language (rather than a formal linguistic one).
I would like to call a theory semio-linguistic which includes in its
orbit all types of signs (i.e. symbolic as well as iconic and indexical)
manifested in and through language as well as all types of code (linguistic as
well as paralinguistic and non-linguistic) employed during performing a speech
act.
Third, there is no
difficulty in characterizing various forms of language as socio-linguistic types
but the terms (types) and features (characteristics) need not be interpreted as
evaluated. For example, it would be
wrong to assign values to functional and non-functional variation and claim that
there is something intrinsically positive about functional and something
inherently negative about non-functional variation.
Scholars are motivated to assign such values simply because they find in
so called developed languages the number of functional variants more
(non-functional variants less) than in the so called undeveloped languages.
Variation is the natural consequence of languages living existence and in
fact, provides material upon which social processes operate.
It is a reflex of naturalness condition.
(Had it not been the case, we could not have labelled variation-free
engineered form of language (Esperanto or Loolan) as artificial).
In case of pidgins the non-functional variations are dramatically
extensive because their sources are multiple.
Pidgins come into being as a consequence of learning by adults an
out-group language lacking well-defined norms in a contact situation.
Learning by adults, learning an out-green language'
learning a language marked for absence of well-defined norms learning in contact
situation all these contribute to their stock of non-functional
variants. But one would like to ask
is learning itself in whatever the context that may not be non-functional?
The typological
similarities shared by pidgin with that of `child language, `basic language'
(like Basic English), the language forms of bilingual neophytes, restricted
code, L-variety (of diglossic situation) and various forms of a lingua-franca
should be stated with care without losing the functional perspective of language
studies. One has first to identify
the area of functional similarities i.e. the commonness of purpose, before
jumping at the structural similarities which may due to accident or chance.
Secondly, if at all a form of a language has to have any evaluative
orientation, our approach should be in the direction of measuring it for its functional
or contextual adequacy (and not merely for its structural inadequacy).
Pidgins for instance may prove themselves to possess somewhat
contextually adequate codes inspite of their referentially inadequate lexicon
and structurally defective form.
REFERENCES
:
Bernstein,
B. 1967, Elaborated and restricted codes:
An outline, Explorations in
Sociolinguistics,
Ed. By
Chomsky,
N. 1966. Cartesian linguistics.
Gumperz, S and R. Wilson. 1971. Convergence and creolization, a case from
the
Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in
Hall,
R.A. Jr. 1966. Pidgins and creole languages.
----
1967. Models of the
interaction of language and social setting.
Journal of
Social Studies 23. 8-28.
----
1972. Pidgins and Creoles as
standard languages. Socio-linguistics,
ed,
by J.B. Pride and J. Holmes
142-153. Penguin Books.
Halliday,
M.A.K. 1973, Explorations in the functions of language
Edward Arnold.
Hymes,
D. 1971. Introduction. Pidginization
and creolization of languages, ed.
By D. Hymes.
Hymes
D. 1972. Foreword.
The orgin and diversification of languages, by M.
Swadesh, ed. By J. Sherzer.
V-X
----
1973. Foundations in
Sociolinguistics an ethnographic approach.
Labov,
W. 1971. the notion of `System' in
creole languages, Pidginization and
creolization of languages,
ed. By Dell Hymes. 447-72.
Le
Page, Robert B. 1967. Review of
Pidgin and Creole Languages by R.A.
Hall, Jr. Journal of
African Languages 6: 83-86.
Nida,
E.A. and W.L. Wonderly, 1971. Communication
roles of languages in
multilingual
societies. Language Use and Social
Change, ed. By W.H. Whiteley. 57-74,
Neustuphny,
J.V. 1971: Toward a model of linguistic distance Linguistic
Communication 5.11-32.
----
1974. The moderization of the
Japanese System of communication.
Language in Society 3:
33-50.
Reinecke,
J.E. 1971. tay Boi: Notes on the
Pidgin French spoken in
Pidginization and
Creolization of languages, ed. By Dell Hymes. 47-56.
Samarin,
W.I. 1971. Salient and substantive
pidginization.
Pidginization and
Creolization of Languages, ed.
By Dell Hymes. 117-140.
Smith,
N.V. 1969. Relations between languages: lingua franca.
Encyclopaedia
of Linguistics, ed. By A.R.
Meethan perganion Press.
Srivastava,
R.N. 1977a. Linguistic perspective to the study of social meaning.
Papers in Linguistic
Analysis 1-18. (
----
1977b. Academic Report,
Language teaching in a bi- or plurilingual and
multicultural environment.
Stewart,
Wm. A. 1968. A sociolinguistic
typology for describing national
multilingualism.
Fishman 531-45.
Mouton:
Thomson,
R. 1959. The psychology of thinking.
Penguin.
Whinnom,
K. 1971: Linguistic hybridization and the `special case' of pidgins
and Creoles.
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, ed. By Dell
Hymes.
91-115.