S. Mufwene on 'what is a jargon?'

[Dave Robertson]

Hello, linguists,

This weekend I had the opportunity to sit down and read Salikoko S. Mufwene's fine paper, "Jargons, Pidgins, Creoles, and Koines:  What Are They?"  [It's pages 35-70 in the volume "The Structure and Status of Pidgins and Creoles", ed. by Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford (Amsterdam:  Benjamins; volume 19 of the Creole Language Library.]  Here's an excellent paragraph from it:

     "I speculate that uses of the term _jargon_ in the names Chinook      Jargon, Delaware Jargon, and Eskimo Trade Jargon (coined by      nonlinguists) are still justified historically by the fact that, under      the interpretation 'mixed language', the English colonists may have      used the term also for any contact variety that was not lexified by a      European language.  This practice has fostered the inability of some      creolists to distinguish the term _jargon_ from the term _pidgin_ and      to use them synonymously....  The literature shows no particular usage      that justifies the distinction proposed by Muehlhaeusler [whereby      'jargons' are 'pidgins that are very rudimentary and unstable']."       (page 44)

And another:

     'JARGONS, as the French travelers and colonists named some           seventeenth-century contact-based varieties in contrast with the           creoles then being developed by the Africans in the New World, HAVE      DISAPPEARED [my emphasis -- DR].  The main justification for      preserving the term in contrast with _pidgin_ and _creole_ would thus      be historical.  As noted above, in names such as Chinook Jargon, the      term is synonymous with _pidgin_.  Muehlhaeusler (1986) proposes that      the term be used in reference to early stages of pidgin development,      when this is not yet stable.  However, since much of the restructuring      associated with pidginization (as 'becoming a pidgin') is similar to      second language development (Andersen 1983, Mufwene 1990a), terms such      as _interlanguage_ may be equally adequate.  Much of the research on      the genesis of contact-based language varieties has not been concerned      with this stage anyhow, so it is not obvious why a term is needed."

In regard to the first paragraph quoted, I find it of interest to wonder at what point the *term* 'Chinook Jargon' was first used.  Moreover, when did Chinook Jargon come to be, or be commonly seen as, significantly lexified by English and French -- and thus no longer quite as alien as it might have seemed at the earliest stages of cultural contact?  These are probably questions awaiting the work of a linguist specializing in CJ, one who's not as tired as I am right now!

Good evening,

Dave


--
"Asking a linguist how many languages she knows is like asking a doctor how many diseases he has!" -- anonymous



__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

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