The following paper deals with the central question whether Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole are inflected to indicate number or not. To begin with, the paper will first give a brief historical, linguistic and social background of both creoles. Then the paper focuses on the comparison between the two creole languages in terms of inflectional plural marking, analytic plural marking and bare nouns.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical, Social and Linguistic Background
3. Analysis
4. Conclusion
5. References
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines plural marking strategies in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole to evaluate the claim that creole languages lack inflectional morphology for number indication. Through a comparative analysis, it investigates how both languages utilize inflectional and analytic markers, as well as bare nouns, to express plurality.
- Inflectional morphology versus analytic marking in creoles
- Grammatical status of the plural suffix -s in Tok Pisin
- Analytic plural markers: -ol in Tok Pisin and -dem in Jamaican Creole
- The role and interpretation of bare nouns in creole syntax
- Comparative analysis of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole grammar
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.1 Plural Marker -s in Tok Pisin
First of all, Holm’s statement as presented in the introduction can be easily refuted, since Tok Pisin uses many nouns that are inflected by the –s suffix.
(1) Ol dispela lain liklik lain boys na girls.
‘This group of people a small group of boys and girls.’
(Mühlhäusler 1980: 59)
(2) Mi naintin yias.
‘I am nineteen years old.’
(Mühlhäusler et al. 2003: 196 as cited in Bobyleva 2011: 41)
(3) Disla gaden em i planim ol kukambas.
‘This garden he planted with cucumbers.’
(Smith 2002: 72)
The sentences listed above are only a few examples to prove that Tok Pisin makes use of inflectional morphology. The inflectional plural marker –s is found with recent loan words such as girls and boys as well as with old established lexical items, such as yias ‘years’ and seldom with words of non-English origin such as kapuls ‘possums’ or diwais ‘trees’ (cf. Mühlhäusler 1980: 60; Bobyleva 2011: 43).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the research area of plural marking and presents the core research question regarding the validity of claims that creoles lack inflectional morphology.
2. Historical, Social and Linguistic Background: This section provides a historical and structural overview of Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, establishing the context for the subsequent linguistic analysis.
3. Analysis: This chapter conducts a detailed comparison of inflectional plural markers, analytic indicators like -ol and -dem, and the function of bare nouns in both languages.
4. Conclusion: The final section summarizes the findings, refuting the idea that these creoles lack number marking and calling for further diachronic research.
5. References: This section lists the scholarly literature consulted for the comparative analysis of plural marking strategies.
Keywords
Tok Pisin, Jamaican Creole, Plural Marking, Inflectional Morphology, Analytic Plural Marker, Bare Nouns, Creoles, Pidgins, Language Contact, Decreolization, Number Marking, Linguistics, Syntax, Morphological Variation, Language Evolution
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this linguistic study?
The study focuses on comparing how Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole mark plurality, specifically examining whether these languages rely on inflectional morphology as traditional theories often dispute.
Which languages are analyzed in the paper?
The paper performs a comparative analysis of Tok Pisin, a Pacific Pidgin English, and Jamaican Creole, an Atlantic English-based creole.
Does the author agree with the claim that creoles have no inflectional number marking?
No, the author refutes this claim by presenting evidence of the use of the -s suffix in both languages, suggesting it is a functional part of their grammar.
What is the methodology used?
The author uses a comparative linguistic approach, analyzing existing literature and specific language examples to document the use of inflectional and analytic plural markers.
What are the central thematic areas?
The work covers historical backgrounds, inflectional plural markers (-s), analytic plural markers (-ol and -dem), and the syntactic role of bare nouns.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Tok Pisin, Jamaican Creole, plural marking, creolization, inflectional morphology, and syntactic variation.
How is the plural marker -ol used in Tok Pisin?
It acts as an analytic prenominal plural marker, often derived from the English quantifier "all," and is used to designate countability syntactically.
What is the function of -dem in Jamaican Creole?
It is a post-nominal plural marker derived from the pronoun "they," primarily used with definite nouns to indicate number and, according to some interpretations, definiteness.
Are bare nouns significant in these creoles?
Yes, the study concludes that both languages use bare nouns that are not strictly associated with singular or plural meanings, often falling into a category described as set nouns.
Why is further research recommended in the conclusion?
The author notes that while evidence for plural marking exists, there is ongoing debate regarding the status of markers like -dem and the diachronic development of the suffix -s, necessitating more profound study.
- Quote paper
- Kim Frintrop (Author), 2014, Plural Marking Strategies in Tok Pisin and Jamaican Creole, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/273205
