[Mihalic] contribution and questions

[Thomas H. Slone]

>Mihalic list notes
>
>Tok Pisin changes noted in Kaliai West New Britain 2003
>
>Sibling and other kinship terminology:
>
>A) There is a shift in the reference of /brata/ and /sisa/ terms 
>towards English usage: that is, with the gender of the referent 
>determining the term regardless of the gender of the speaker 
>(/brata/ = male sibling; /sisa/ = female sibling). Older people 
>often use the original TP reference system terms (eg. woman speaking 
>/brata/ is female sibling; /sisa/ a male sibling, etc.). So, in 
>order to avoid confusion when talking to or about women we found we 
>had to ask if they meant /brata man/ or /brata meri/ or /sisa man/, 
>/sisa meri/.
>
>B)We also heard /anti/ and /ankal/ to refer to the siblings of one’s 
>parents. These changes have not affected the local vernacular 
>(Lusi-Kaliai).
>
>C) For many people (especially those under about 45) the term /kasin 
>brata/ has replaced /bisnis/ ("distant kinsman"), /brata/, or /sisa/ 
>("parellel cousin")and /kandere/ "cross cousin, maternal relative"). 
>It seems not to refer to the gender of any of the relatives. For 
>example: Datima (F) and Walasi (M) (parellel cousins – children of 
>male siblings) refer to each other as /kasin brata/
>
>Other changes noted (this is for starters, more to come!):
>
>The new utterance/change of topic markers /orait/, and /em nau/ are 
>being used interchangeably with /oke/ "Okay", and /so/ "So"; and 
>/long/ and has been replaced for most people by /lon/ and is being 
>written (on notices in the health centres, for example) as "lo."

Shortening of TP words has been addressed in 2 places that I know of:

Romaine, Suzanne & Wright, Fiona (1987). Short forms in Tok Pisin. 
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2(1):63-7.

Smith, Geoff P. 2002. Growing up with Tok Pisin: contact, 
creolization, and change in Papua New Guinea's national language. 
London: Battlebridge Publications.


>There will be more to come, as we are just starting to go through 
>the materials we collected in rural Kaliai in the May-July period 
>this year. After an eighteen year absence from the area we felt like 
>really old fashioned country bumpkins speaking our antiquated TP!
>
>A question for general discussion:  The person whose narrative I am 
>currently transcribing has a little English, but truly not much. He 
>is villager who has not worked outside the rural area and has thus 
>had little exposure to native english speakers. Yet his account is 
>liberally sprinkled with incursions from English  with respect both 
>to phonology and vocabulary. For example /naif/ "knife", whereas 
>before we would have heard only /naip/ with the 'traditional TP /f/ 
>-> /p/ shift. So, is he now speaking a "new" TP word, or is he 
>inserting a term from English into his TP narrative? Have you agreed 
>on criterion for judging when a term has been borrowed into TP and 
>when it is simply an insertion from the speakers' other language(s)? 
>When I was doing my thesis on Lusi-Kaliai (back in the dark ages), I 
>arbitrarily decided that if a TP term was inflected gramatically as 
>a lusi term or if it was shifted phonologically, then I would regard 
>it as a fully borrowed item and thus count it as lusi.  Help would 
>be appreciated
>
>David and Dorothy Counts


Another approach is to look at frequency of usage in a corpus.  We 
can use Smith's book for this method because he reports the number of 
times words (including variants) occurred in the corpus of spoken TP 
that he collected.  Example from his page 82:
variants of long em:
l'em: 25%
lo em: 42%
long em: 33%

Another question might be where one draws the line on including more 
common phonological variants vs. less common written variants.

--Tom Slone
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/mihalic/attachments/20030912/cbeba879/attachment.htm