Z. Vrzic contra supposed differences among CJ varieties

[Dave Robertson]

Hello,

Just a quick reference to page 148 of Zvjezdana Vrzic's 1999 Ph.D. thesis titled "Modeling Pidgin/Creole Genesis:  Universals and Contact Influence in Chinook Jargon Syntax".

     "...as noted by Thomason (1983) and confirmed here for an expanded set      of features...CJ shows significant uniformity across the various      Indian and non-Indian samples, and that characterization applies      to [Kamloops Wawa CJ] as well."

I've been wanting to write a note in answer to Mike Cleven's, which have discussed the supposed efforts of some (e.g. Grand Ronde partisans) to artificially impose a standard of "correct" Chinook Jargon, at the expense of divergent varieties.  To view such a standard as inviolable would, I agree with you, Mike, have little to do with the linguistic realities; the Jargon has always shown a great deal of variability due to the specific circumstances of each person who has spoken it.

Any discussion of "the best" Chinook Jargon that I've been privy to has pivoted upon the notion of the *perceived* best, rather than on any quixotic desire to *prescribe* the best way to talk Chinook.  This means, among other metrics, the use of the values noted as having (formerly) existed in the Grand Ronde, Oregon, community, where people who were either native speakers of Chinookan proper, or members of their families, were felt to speak the most elegant and expressive Jargon.  (I hope that I will be corrected by Henry Z. if I'm missing the point of his findings here.)

I don't recall offhand having read or heard of anyone deriding another person's Chinook Jargon as relatively *improper* or *bad*.  This is a most interesting point.  Of course, the not infrequent labeling of the Jargon as per se inexpressive is another matter, but what I'm getting at is that the rule of thumb appears to have long been "if you can talk Chinook Jargon, you're talking good Chinook Jargon".

Another really good point established by Vrzic is that virtually all the features that characterize Grand Ronde CJ can also be found in other sources which record the CJ speech of other geographical areas.  For example, the use of /hayu/ as a sort of verbal prefix of the continuative aspect (as in /hayu lhatwa/ "walking") can be found also in "Kamloops Wawa".

To summarize so that I can get out for a bike ride, there are many fewer absolute differences among the varieties of Chinook Jargon than we might at first perceive.  There's a different dynamic at work, I feel, whereby each person's and each community's usage of CJ shows a unique balance of proportions:  Short-form vs. long-form pronouns, use of /hayu/ as a continuative marker vs. absence of it; a phonology virtually identical to that of an indigenous NW language vs. a phonology which much less closely approximates that sound-system; and so forth.

I don't dream of, say, uniting all Northwesterners under a single banner of a Chinook Jargon nation -- But neither is it necessarily a propos to look for distinctions that aren't and cannot be made.  I really like the attitude in evidence at one of the Chamorro-language websites like chamorro.com, essentially that "the day when the people in Guam, Saipan, the Northern Marianas Islands, and the U.S. diaspora can agree on how to write their language will be the day hell freezes over, so don't get too worried about reading the stuff on our pages!"  When it comes to an endangered language, there are issues of much greater concern, like the above-stated "do you speak this language at all?"

Dave
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/