An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles (review)

This book by a leading specialist in pidginistics and creolistics is a very readable introduction to the field. Holm is well-known for his comprehensive two-volume Pidgins and creoles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988–89); however, that work is far too all-encompassing and detail-oriented to serve as a rudimentary textbook whereas the book undergoing review, consisting of seven well-written and well-organized chapters, was designed with the beginning student in mind. Although the work contains much new material, the author confides that it ‘rests on the foundation of my earlier volumes’ (xii). The excellent maps (xviii–xxi) of the world’s pidgin and creole languages are, in fact, reproduced from those earlier volumes. Let me comment on the designations of the two Arabic-based contact languages on the world map (xix). The so-called ‘Juba Pidgin Arabic’ is also indubitably a creole since more and more children have grown up speaking it as their mother tongue over the past 20 years; thus, one can easily justify the name most often referred to in the literature, viz., Juba Arabic (which in no way implies that it is only a pidgin). ‘Nubi Creole Arabic’ (ibid.), on the other hand, spoken in Kenya and Uganda, is solely a creole; it is almost always designated (Ki-)Nubi and is not to be confused with Nubian, an East Sudanic member of Nilo-Saharan.

Ch. 1, ‘Introduction’ (1–13), presents inter alia the basic terminology; e.g. pidgin is best understood as a ‘reduced’ (not ‘simplified’) language (5). H is right to criticize the term ‘creoloid’ but then continues to use it (10) and also promulgates the notion of semicreolization (ibid.). For H, Popular Brazilian Portuguese and Afrikaans are semicreoles. Let me reiterate what I wrote in a review of the second edition of one of the leading texts (Pidgin and creole linguistics by Peter Mühlhäusler [JPCL 15:2:397]): ‘the notions “creoloid” = “semi-creole” = “quasi-creole” . . . are confusing and obfuscatory labels . . . [and] these misleading terms should, in my opinion, be abandoned’.

Ch. 2, ‘The development of theory’ (14–67), is very strong on the history of the discipline discussing such giants as Hugo Schuchardt, John Reinecke, Robert A. Hall, Jr., etc. I agree with H’s assertion that ‘the issue of the importance of substrate languages emerged yet again in the 1950s, the revival of the debate becoming something of a rite of passage for each succeeding generation of creolists’ (43).

Ch. 3, ‘Social factors’ (68–105), presents minisociolinguistic histories of Angolar Creole Portuguese, Papiamentu, Negerhollands Creole, Haitian Creole, Jamaican Creole, Tok Pisin, and Ki-Nubi. In a discussion of the latter (102–5), the author rightly points out that its phonological characteristics are not so strange (e.g. loss of emphasis or loss of pharyngeals), especially when one compares them with dialects of Arabic spoken in the western Sudan. One can, incidentally, see the ‘multifunctionality of the lexeme’ principle at work in some lexemes mentioned: nyerekú bágara ‘calf’, lit. ‘child-cow’ (104).

Ch. 4, ‘Lexicosemantics’ (106–36), gives many excellent illustrations of archaic, slang, and regional survivals. An intriguing example of a slang survival occurs in the use of the word ‘piss’ in Krio switpis ‘diabetes’, pisbag ‘bladder’, and pisol ‘urethra’ (112).

Ch. 5, ‘Phonology’ (137–70), and Ch. 6, ‘Syntax’ (171–236), discuss the various changes in these domains from the superstrate languages. Many convincing examples are presented demonstrating substrate influence on creole phonology, prompting the author to note that ‘the validity of this interpretation has never been seriously challenged’ (139). A number of West African languages have classic vowel harmonic systems, as is exemplified by Papiamentu dede ‘finger’ < Spanish dedo (152). In the realm of syntax, H points out that the serial verb ‘say’ in the Atlantic creoles typifies syntactic substrate influence (209).

Ch. 7, ‘Conclusions’ (237–40), offers some penetrating thoughts for the future; ‘is creolization an allor- nothing process?’ (238). As H comments, there is no clear-cut answer...