The Pidgin languages have been claimed to be the result of simplification of the `upper language' and therefore it had also been claimed that one of the characteristic features of a true pidgin is the drastic reduction in grammatical structure and limited vocabulary (Hall 1966: xii).  The acceptance of the term upper language automatically implies the existence of a number of a `lower language'.  And a linguists, we know it quite well that there are no superior or inferior languages and that all languages irrespective of the economic status of the speech community concerned have more or less the same complexity.  This reminds one of the famous saying of sapir that where linguistic structures are concerned `the language of waltaire and of the head hunting Nagas march shoulder to shoulder'.  If that be the case, what are we talking about, while designating one language as `upper' and others as `lower'?  May be, these value judgements are based on the material goods the different speech communities possess.  Since every language has been able to meet the total requirements of the verbal behaviour of the communities concerned, we must disabuse from our minds, the very idea of the `upper-lower' languages.

            It is not proposed to discuss here the various hypotheses regarding the origin of Pidgin languages¹.  It is, however, felt that the basis of the `baby talk' hypothesis needs to be mentioned here as the very concept of simplification arose out of this hypothesis.

            Bloomfield (1933:472-3) felt that "speakers of a lower language may make so little progress in learning the dominant speech that the masters, in communicating with them, resort to `baby talk'.  This baby talk is the master's imitation of the subjects' incorrect speech . . . . .the subjects, in turn, deprived of the correct model can do no better than to acquire the simplified baby talk version of the upper language".  The very idea of the acquisition of the languages through mimicing and analogizing is incompatible with the findings of a number of researches on language acquisition by children, as it was found that the children fail to mimic the adult sentence even when they are provided with the correct model.  It was also found that certain maturation process is required before the young children acquire the adult model correctly.  Despite such evidences Robert Hall (1966:5) accepted the simplistic explanation of the baby talk hypothesis.  He went on to argue that the phonological system that the phonological system of various natural contact languages, which may have contributed something to their formation.  Since the baby talk hypothesis is incompatible with the language acquisition process of a child, we must look somewhere else for an explanation for this so-called simplistic phenomenon.  If P and C languages are analysed from the upper language perspective without looking to the significant role of the native languages of the P speakers, the simplistic theory might probably have some credence, but if the latter is taken into account, it would be seen clearly that what was believed to be an imitation of the simplified  version of the master's talk, infact, is the interpretation of the speakers of Ps through the medium of their own language or through simple inaccurate reproduction – These could be illustrated with examples from the Indian situation, beginning with the situation existing in Naga pidgin (NP).  The contact languages in this instance are: Assamese, the so-called `upper language', a number of Indo-Aryan family and different Naga languages of the Tibeto-Burman family.  We may begin the comparison with the phonological system of the languages in contact.

            Assamese has eight oral vowels, four in the back and four in the front each having its nasalized counterpart.  Most of the Naga languages on the other hand have two vowels each in the front, back and the central region with 2-3 tones with each of the vowels.  The NP has also two vowels each in the front, back and central region but lacks the tones totally.  In addition, the distribution at the sub-phonemic level shows differences between the Naga languages and NP.  To cite an instance ².  In the NP, the vowel phones uu and  are clubbed together to form /uu/ whereas in Sema the phones a, _˄ and Ə form /a/.  The consonantal phonemes also show a similar trend.  For instance:

            Within the stop series including the affricates, Assamese shows in the manner of articulation a two-way opposition in voice which in their turn show opposition in aspiration and the place of articulation shows a four-way opposition giving rise to a total of 16 stops, whereas the Naga languages while showing a four-way opposition in the place of articulation, show opposition in voice only with the unaspirate stops, with the unvoiced stops showing an additional opposition in aspiration.  The Ao and few other languages do not show opposition even between unaspirated unvoiced and unaspirated voiced stops.  All these are reflected in the different varieties of Naga Pidgin i.e. only a few languages in the southern NP³ show a four-way opposition in the manner of articulation.  Most of the varieties show the absence of voiced aspirated stops, and the Ao variety does not have even the voiced unaspirated stops except b.  The nasals show a three-way opposition in the place of articulation in all the three groups, viz., Assamese, Naga languages and NP.  The Naga languages in addition also have aspirated nasals.  The fricatives in Assamese show a three-way opposition in the place of articulation, viz. dental, velar and glottal, of which the dental has a voiced counterpart also.  Most of the Naga languages also show these oppositions with regard to the fricatives.  Some in addition, also show a voiced velar fricative.  But the NP does not have any voiced fricative.  In addition, it also shows difference in the place of articulation, viz., dental palatal and glottal.

            The two liquids, viz. r.1 are distinct phonemes in Assamese.  While in some Naga languages like Sema, r is absent, in some others r alternates with l.  The Sema variety of NP has r.1 as distinct phonemes.  Most of the varieties of the northern group of NP, 1 is a distinct phoneme, but r alternates with l.  After discussing the phonemic pattern in the three groups, let us have a look at the grammatical categories occurring with the nouns.

Number :

            Assamese does not have a single marker to indicate the simple plurality, rather it has six plural markers whose selection depends upon the social norms.  When different markers are put on a scalogram in respect of the degree of respect/disrespect, the forms hƆt (only kinship terms), lok, bilƏk and xokal have an ascending order of respect and conversely, the forms mokha, bor (with Nouns human being class) have a descending order of respect with the nouns having hƆt virtually considered as an absusive term.  BilƏk and lok with pronouns indicate respect bor occurs with nous denoting inanimate class, but indicates an inferior status when used with nouns denoting human being class, and in:

            ghor/ghorbor                 `house/houses'

            lora `boy'                       `lorabor `boys (inferior status).

            The plurality, however, is invariably indicated with an appropriate marker in Assamese.  As opposed to these features, most of the Naga languages how a single marker to indicate plurality.  Further, the plurality is the property of the Noun Phrase, rather than of the nouns.  The plurality is not overtly marked when the context indicates it, as in:

            tiḿ                               `man'   

            tiḿ kiwi                       `good man'

            tiḿ kiwi kutumo            `many good men'

            tiḿq̣                           `men'

            tiḿ kiwiig̣                  `goodmen'

            tiḿ kith́                  `three men' etc.

            The NP has two markers to indicate plurality, viz., bilƏk and khan.  Of these, some varieties use bilƏk with nouns and khan in all instances.  As in the case of Naga languages plurality in NP is overtly unmarked when the context indicates it, as in:

            Suali `girl' sualibilƏk `girls'

            duy suali/suali duy `two girls'

            bisi suali `many girls' etc.

            The plural marker khan of the NP has no corresponding form either in Assamese or in any of the Naga languages.

Gender :

            In Assamese, gender is indicated by three means, viz, qualifying terms like mota `male' maiki `female', by employing different lexical terms and by suffixing gender markers, as in,

            manuha `man'                maiki manuha `woman'

            mota kukura `dog'          maiki kukura `bitch'

            bibhaha `widow'

            bƏrola `widower'

            ghora `horse'                 ghuri `mare' etc.

Ao, Angami and some other Naga languages mark gender overtly with all nouns animate being class.  Sema and Lotha, show a three-way opposition in gender in that the citation form is that of the common gender out of which masculine and feminine genders are derived.  This however, is applicable only to certain professions and all other nouns whether of animate/inanimate being class are unmarked for gender.

            As opposed to these features in Assamese and Naga languages, all varieties of NP have only two means to indicate gender, viz., by the use of term mota `male' and mayki `female' and by employing different lexical items as in:

            manu                `man'                mayki               `women'

            mota/mayki kukur `dog/bitch'

            mota/mayki boysi  `he/she buffalo' etc.

There are a few overtly marked pairs like ladka/ladki `boy/girl', murga/murgi `cock/hen' which are recent borrowings from Hindi.  Even such pairs are for all intents and purposes considered as different lexical items, rather than reflectional features.  Further, these recently borrowed words are still in competition with the corresponding earlier forms viz, lora/suali `boy/girl', mota/mayki kukura `cock/hen'.

Case :

            Assamese shows a six-way opposition in case, viz., Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Genitive, Locative and Instrumental.  All these are overtly marked as in: manuh `man' manuh-e (Nom.) manuho-k (acc.), manuho-loi (dat.), manuho-r (gen.), manuho-t (loc.), manuhe-re (inst.).  Each of these markers has phonologically conditioned positional variants.  As opposed to these, in most of the Naga languages the Accusative, Dative and Genitive case relationships are indicated by fixed word order rather than overt case markers.  Nominative, (no/zero), instrumental (Pe), Sociative (sas) and locative lo) are, however overtly marked.

            The case system in these two groups of contact languages may now be compared with the one found in NP.  Locative is the only case that is clearly marked in all the varieties of the NP, having different markers with different varieties (te, ti, t).  The nominative is unmarked with all the varieties.  All the varieties have fixed word order for making, accusative, dative and genitive case-relations.  The dative and the accusative markers get blended even in the varieties that show overt case markers, for instance in some k marks the accusative with the nouns and ke marks the dative of the nouns and pronouns and also the accusative of the pronouns.  As far as the instrumental case is concerned, some mark it with di, others with re while yet some others mark it with the post positions pora `from' laqa `with'.  Some varieties mark the genitive of the nouns in the singular with r and the nouns in the plural optionally use the post-position laqa `with'.  Most varieties mark it only by the fixed word order, where the determiner precedes the determined noun, as in:

            moy/moy laga/mor kitab `my book'

                                                            (lit. (I/I with/my book)

            suali (laga) kitab                        `the girl's book' etc.

            At the phrase level the Assamese has the word of determiner – determined.  In Naga languages except in certain predetermined situations the word order is: determined noun + determines + plural, whereas in the NP, the determiner can either follow or precede the determined noun as in:

            mayki duyta/duyta mayki            `two women'

            mosto mayki/mayki mosto          `a fat woman' etc.

            We might now try to compare the features found in all the three groups.  The phonemic pattern of the NP while showing differences from both Assamese as well as the Naga languages, is close to the Naga system.  For instance, the Assamese has voiced aspirated stops but not with the Naga languages, yet the southern variety shows the aspirated stops.  In terms of the direct contact with Assamese, Ao and Lotha of the central and Konyak of the northern groups had greater and earlier contacts with Assamese and Britishers than the southern variety that show the voiced aspirates stops.  While Assamese has a voiced dental fricatives, some Naga languages have also the voiced Velar fricative yet none of the varieties of the NP has the voiced fricatives.  In the place of articulation of the fricatives also the NP differs from the contact language in that it has dental, palatal and glottal unvoiced fricatives whereas the Assamese and Naga languages have dental, velar and glottal fricatives.  Sema and some other languages are r in all position and all varieties have –r in word –final position as a distinct phoneme, though in word-initial and medial positions r in alternates with l in the northern varieties.  Thus, if we take into count only the consonants of the NP it is not the common core of the two contact languages, though it is partly so in the case of vowels.

            We might now have a look at the grammatical categories occurring with the nouns.  NP does not have a grammatical gender, though some nouns mark the genders by the qualifying words mota `male', mayki `female' preceding the nouns concerned.  In this, it parallels the system in Assamese.  When it comes to number, most of the varieties are close to the Naga pattern, in that most of the varieties take only a single marker for indicating plurality.  Even those that have two forms restrict one to nouns and the other to the pronouns.  As opposed to these, the six plural markers in Assamese are also used to indicate respect/disrespect.  Again Assamese uses plural marker in all instances whereas the NP as well as the Naga languages delete the plural marker when the context indicates plurality.

            In realizing the case relations the word order gets priority over the case markers in the Naga languages.  Hence the cases like nominative, accusative, dative, genitive are unmarked with most of the Naga languages.  The locative, sociative and instrumental cases are overtly marked in Naga languages, whereas all case relations including the nominative is overtly marked in Assamese.  Here again the NP is more akin to the Naga languages.  The nominative is unmarked in all the varieties.  Some varieties mark the accusative and dative in a very inconsistent manner, in that the accusative marker k and dative marker ke get interchanged.  Assamese has for accusative and loi for dative.  In most of the varieties the genitive occurs with the first person pronoun in the singular with the plural forms optionally taking laga `with'.  The locative is marked by all the varieties of the NP.

            At the phrase level, the only instance cited ⁴ here is that of a NP having a noun+adjective.  In Assamese, the adjective precedes the noun while in Naga languages, the adjective follows the noun, though in certain limited environments adjectives could precede the noun.  The NP has both the types.

            The illustrative examples given so far clearly indicate that even though the NP arose out of contact between the Naga languages and Assam , and consists almost exclusively of Assamese lexical items, it is not a simplified version of Assamese, and its origin and development cannot be accounted for by the `Baby talk' hypothesis.  If the optional deletion of the grammatical categories are to be considered a simplification, then Gujarati and many other languages could also be called the simplified versions for instance, plurality is deleted in Gujarati when context indicates it, as in:

            chokri   `girl'      chokrio             `girls'

            be chokri `two girls' etc.

The NP, like many other pidgins and Creoles is a new system related to the languages in contact by restructuring of the grammars that came in contact but having unique features of its own – an independent language by right.

NOTES :  

1. For an exhaustive treatment of this, please refer to: Loreto Todd, `pidgins and creoles', London , 1974: 29-49.

2. Unless otherwise stated, the illustrative examples of the Naga languages are from Sema.  Features found with Sema could generalized for most of the Naga languages.

3. For details regarding the varieties of Naga pidgin, variations etc. please refer to: M.V. Sreedhar, `Naga pidgin: A socioloinguistic study of inter-lingual communication pattern in Nagaland', Mysore 1974.

4. For want of space, the grammatical categories of VP are not cited here.  This writer's forthcoming book deals with these features exhaustively.  The features of Halbi and Sadari are also not given for want of space.

5. Some other creolists also have spoken of `on simplification' in this vein in respect of the languages they had worked.