Chinese Pidgin English Pronouns Revisited
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chinese Pidgin English Pronouns Revisited Geoff Smith English Centre The University of Hong Kong 1 Abstract Chinese Pidgin English was a thriving medium of inter-cultural communication on the south China coast from around the mid to late 18th century to the early 20th century. A number of accounts of the grammar have appeared, including descriptions of the pronoun system. Some problems remain, however, and new light can be shed on these by consideration not only of English language accounts, but by Chinese language sources, especially Tong’s Chinese and English Instructor (英語 集全). It was found that there were considerable differences in the choice of singular pronouns in the English and Chinese sources. Since Cantonese does not have any case distinctions, it was surprising to find that there was more differentiation of case in the Instructor data. Plural pronouns rarely appear either in English sources or in the Instructor, which has only a few varied representations of an incipient first person plural form. Reliance on Tong as the main source of information from Chinese, however, may not reflect the variability of everyday speech. The exact mechanism by which ‘my’ became the unlikely choice of generic first person pronoun also remains to be elucidated. Introduction: Chinese Pidgin English Chinese Pidgin English (CPE) is in many ways the ‘mother of all pidgins’ having given its name to the pidgin languages through an interpretation of the English word ‘business’ (Baker & Mühlhäusler, 1990, p. 93). It arose in the context of trade between Europeans and Chinese on the south China coast from around the mid-18th century. The typological distance between Chinese and European languages coupled with severe restrictions placed on the movements of visiting traders meant that command of the trading partners’ language was not feasible during the early contact period and for a considerable time thereafter (Van Dyke, 2005). The Portuguese had been in the area considerably earlier, establishing a trading post in Macau from the early 16th century, and it is likely that a pidginised form of Portuguese was used here during the early days of contact. However, Macau had become something of a trading backwater by the mid-17th century. A renewed expansion of trading opportunities between European maritime traders and Chinese entrepreneurs from the 18th century onwards was mainly conducted at Canton (now Guangzhou) with relay points in the Pearl River Delta such as Whampoa, in addition to the established settlement at Macau. As English became the most widely used of the European languages, with a minimal Portuguese presence at Canton, it was a pidgin with a largely English-derived lexicon which became the essential medium of trade communication from then until the early 20th century. The relexification of an existing Portuguese pidgin could have played a role in the formation of CPE, although direct Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 11,1 (2008); pp. 65 −78 G. Smith | 66 evidence for this is lacking. There are a number of words in CPE of Portuguese origin, such as ‘piccaninny’ (< pequeno , small), ‘savee’ (< saber , to know), ‘joss’ (< deus , god), and ‘mandarin’ (< mandarim, counselor), although a number of Portuguese words such as the first two of these had already appeared in pidgins worldwide by this time. The existence of a Cantonese substrate is very much in evidence in CPE, both in terms of phonology and syntax. Although CPE became an essential trade language for Europeans and an avenue of upward mobility for Chinese, the pidgin never creolised, and appears to have been used exclusively as a second language for a limited range of functions during its existence. The language situation in Canton in addition to the dominant Cantonese, Mandarin was also spoken meant that it had little relevance for inter-ethnic communication among Chinese. It did have a potential role in communication between Chinese people speaking different dialects as more treaty ports such as Shanghai were opened for external trade, but, to some extent, the existence of a common written standard served the same function. As more Chinese people were educated in Standard English in the British colony of Hong Kong, established in 1842, the pivotal role of CPE was gradually eroded, and the language went into terminal decline from about the beginning of the 20th century. Pronouns in English and Chinese The pronoun paradigm in English is somewhat more complex than that of Chinese. The first person differentiates subject, object and possessive forms in both the singular and plural (I, me, my, we, us, our). Second person pronouns do not distinguish subject and object or singular and plural, so the forms are restricted to ‘you’ and ‘your’. Third person singular forms additionally distinguish masculine and feminine (he, she, it, him, her, his, its) while gender neutral forms occur in the plural (they, them, their). In Chinese, there are a smaller number of basic particles which provide an analytic framework to construct the pronoun paradigm. The situation is complicated by the fact that Standard Written Chinese forms are used when reading and writing, even by Cantonese speakers, but the spoken paradigm diverges from this. In Standard Written Chinese, basic first, second and third person forms are respectively 我 wǒ ‘I’, 你 nǐ ‘you’ and 他 tā ‘he, she, it’. Plural forms are derived by adding the particle 們 men and possessives by adding 的 de .2 Table 1 Pronoun paradigm in Standard Written Chinese Personal Possessive First singular 我 ‘I, me’ 我的 ‘my’ First plural 我們 ‘we, us’ 我們的 ‘our’ Second singular 你 ‘you’ 你的 ‘your’ Second plural 你們 ‘you’ 你們的 ‘your’ Third singular 他 ‘he, she, it, him, her’ 他的 ‘his, her, its’ Third plural 他們 ‘they’ 他們的 ‘their’ | 67 Chinese Pidgin English pronouns revisited The situation is slightly complicated by the existence of distinct masculine and feminine written forms of the third person singular他 tā ‘he’ and 她 tā ‘she’ respectively although there is no difference in the pronunciation, so they are indistinguishable in speech. In Cantonese, the paradigm has an identical shape. However, while the same Chinese characters 我 ‘I’ and 你 ‘you’ are used for first and second person forms, the pronunciation is different, namely ngóh and néih respectively. 3 In addition, different forms are used for third person, plural and possessive, pronounced kéuih , deih and ge respectively. Since these are not represented in the Standard Written Chinese character inventory, special Cantonese characters 佢 kéuih , 哋 deih and 嘅 ge have been adopted to indicate these. Table 2 Pronoun paradigm in Cantonese Personal Possessive First singular 我 ‘I, me’ 我嘅 ‘my’ First plural 我哋 ‘we, us’ 我哋嘅 ‘our’ Second singular 你 ‘you’ 你嘅 ‘your’ Second plural 你哋 ‘you’ 你哋嘅 ‘your’ Third singular 佢 ‘he, she, it, him, her’ 佢嘅 ‘his, her, its’ Third plural 佢哋 ‘they, them’ 佢哋嘅 ‘their’ CPE Grammar Numerous references were made to CPE in works by early travellers to the Far East during the 18th and 19th centuries. For many, the language was a source of amusement or curiosity and few attempts were made to understand or describe the system beyond its quaintness. Comments were typically negative, describing the pidgin as a corrupted, bastardised or mangled form of the standard language, but admittedly that was in the days before there was a general understanding of language contact phenomena such as pidginisation. Many of the references to pidgin are quite brief, with merely a vague description of the language used or a few words illustrating it. The biggest corpus of texts produced in the 19th century was Charles Leland’s Pidgin English Sing-song (1876), a 140-page collection of poems, anecdotes and the like, along with a vocabulary and some very brief grammatical notes. Although much in this work conforms to the style of CPE as described by other observers, as a corpus it is seriously flawed. It now appears that the author never ventured to the region, and constructed his texts from language whose vocabulary and grammar were gleaned from others’ descriptions, probably in the British Library. One major problem is that CPE changed considerably during its history, and as Baker and Mühlhäusler (1990) have pointed out, there is great inconsistency in the kind of language used by Leland, mixing up constructions used at widely different periods. More seriously, some of the constructions used appear to be fabrications, based on the kind of language found in pidgins elsewhere, such as the suffix ‘-fella’ well known from Australian and Melanesian pidgins, but shown to be unattested in CPE (Baker, 1987). G. Smith | 68 A more serious attempt to deal with the language was the work of Hall (1944, 1952), who gave a comprehensive account of the language according to the sources available to him and his own investigation of those who could still claim to speak CPE. A corpus of samples transcribed by him in a broad phonetic transcription are one of the best authentic sources of the language, even though the speakers were native English speakers recalling the language they used a considerable time earlier (Baker, 1987). Hall considered that plural pronouns did not exist, but this may have been due to the limited data at his disposal, as a number of attestations of plural forms will be documented below. Baker and Mühlhäusler (1990) take a more detailed look at pronouns and point out the puzzle of the late adoption of ‘my’ as the form most widely used as first person pronouns both in subject and non-subject positions, a question examined in more detail below. Sources of Information For many years, the only generally available information about CPE consisted of the English language sources. Recently, however, these have been supplemented by some valuable comparative data in Chinese.