Kamloops Chinúk Wawa, Chinuk pipa, and the vitality of pidgins by David Douglas Robertson B.A., Columbia University, 1988 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Linguistics © David Douglas Robertson, 2011 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Kamloops Chinúk Wawa, Chinuk pipa, and the vitality of pidgins by David Douglas Robertson B.A., Columbia University, 1988 Supervisory Committee Dr. Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins, Supervisor (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Dr. Sarah Grey Thomason, Departmental Member (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria; University of Michigan) Dr. Wendy Wickwire, Outside Member (Department of History, University of Victoria) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins, Supervisor (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Dr. Sarah Grey Thomason, Departmental Member (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria; University of Michigan) Dr. Wendy Wickwire, Outside Member (Department of History, University of Victoria) Abstract This dissertation presents the first full grammatical description of unprompted (spontaneous) speech in pidgin Chinook Jargon [synonyms Chinúk Wawa, Chinook]. The data come from a dialect I term ‘Kamloops Chinúk Wawa’, used in southern interior British Columbia circa 1900. I also present the first historical study and structural analysis of the shorthand-based ‘Chinuk pipa ’ alphabet in which Kamloops Chinúk Wawa was written, primarily by Salish people. This study is made possible by the discovery of several hundred such texts, which I have transliterated and analyzed. The Basic Linguistic Theory-inspired (cf. Dixon 2010a,b) framework used here interprets Kamloops Chinúk Wawa as surprisingly ramified in morphological and syntactic structure, a finding in line with recent studies reexamining the status of pidgins by Bakker (e.g. 2003a,b, forthcoming) among others. Among the major findings: an unusually successful pidgin literacy including a widely circulated newspaper Kamloops Wawa , and language planning by the missionary J.M.R. Le Jeune, O.M.I. He planned both for the use of Kamloops Chinúk Wawa and this alphabet, and for their pre-planned replacement by English. Additional sociolinguistic factors determining how Chinuk pipa was written included Salish preferences for learning to write by whole-word units (rather than letter by letter), and toward informal intra-community teaching of this first group literacy. In addition to compounding and conversion of lexical roots, Kamloops Chinúk Wawa morphology exploited three types of preposed grammatical morphemes—affixes, clitics, and particles. Virtually all are homonymous with and grammaticalized from demonstrably lexical morphs. Newly identified categories include ‘out-of-control’ transitivity marking and discourse markers including ‘admirative’ and ‘inferred’. Contrary to previous claims about Chinook Jargon (cf. Vrzi ć 1999), no overt passive voice exists in Kamloops Chinúk Wawa (nor probably in pan-Chinook Jargon), but a previously unknown ‘passivization strategy’ of implied agent demotion is brought to light. A realis-irrealis modality distinction is reflected at several scopal levels: phrase, clause and sentence. Functional differences are observed between irrealis clauses before and after main clauses. Polar questions are restricted to subordinate clauses, while alternative questions are formed by simple juxtaposition of irrealis clauses. Main-clause interrogatives are limited to content-question forms, optionally with irrealis marking. Positive imperatives are normally signaled by a mood particle on a realis clause, negative ones by a negative particle. Aspect is marked in a three-part ingressive-imperfective- completive system, with a marginal fourth ‘conative’. One negative operator has iv characteristically clausal, and another phrasal, scope. One copula is newly attested. Degree marking is largely confined to ‘predicative’ adjectives (copula complements). Several novel features of pronoun usage possibly reflect Salish L1 grammatical habits: a consistent animacy distinction occurs in third-person pronouns, where pan-Chinook Jargon iaka (animate singular) and klaska (animate plural) contrast with a null ( ∅ ) inanimate object/patient; this null and iaka are non-specified for number; in intransitives, double exponence (repetition) of pronominal subjects is common; and pan-Chinook Jargon klaksta (originally ‘who?’) and klaska (originally ‘they’) vary freely with each other. Certain etymologically content-question forms are used also as determiners. Kamloops Chinúk Wawa’s numeral system is unusually regular and small for a pidgin; numerals are also used ordinally in a distinctly Chinook Jargon type of personal name. There is a null allomorph of the preposition kopa . This preposition has additionally a realis complementizer function (with nominalized predicates) distinct from irrealis pus (with verbal ones). Conjunction pi also has a function in a syntactic focus-increasing and -reducing system. v Table of contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………… iii Table of contents ……………………………………………………… v List of tables ……………………………………………………………… xii List of figures ……………………………………………………………… xiv Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………… xv Abbreviations and conventions used in this study ……………………… xvii Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………… 1 1.1 Acknowledging previous work: Chinúk Wawa ……………… 3 1.1.1 Birth: how CW came to be ……………………………… 4 1.1.2 Growth: pan-CW ……………………………………… 6 1.1.3 Elaboration: creolized CW ……………………………… 10 1.2 Building on previous work: an under-described CW variety and writing system ……………………………………………………… 11 1.2.1 Chinuk pipa shorthand ……………………………… 11 1.2.2 Kamloops Chinúk Wawa (KCW) ……………………… 13 1.2.3 How KCW and Chinuk pipa are unusual ……………… 18 1.3 Methodology …………………………………………………........ 19 Chapter 2: The Chinuk pipa script …………................................ 25 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………… 25 2.2 History ……………………………………………………… 25 2.3 Structural description ……………………………………………… 37 2.3.1 Rationality ……………………………………………… 39 2.3.2 Broad phoneticity ……………………………………… 41 2.3.3 Alphabeticity ……………………………………………… 43 2.3.4 Cursiveness ……………………………………………… 43 2.3.5 Direction of writing ……………………………………… 45 2.3.6 Subdivisions in Chinuk pipa text ……………………… 46 2.3.6.1 Syllabification ……………………………………… 47 2.3.6.2 Word spacing ……………………………………… 47 2.3.6.3 Larger units: punctuation ……………………… 47 2.3.6.4 Other symbols ……………………………................ 59 2.4 Epilogue: Adapting Chinuk pipa to latter-day technology ……… 50 Chapter 3: How extensive is KCW morphology? ……………… 52 3.1 Unproductive affixes ……………………………………………… 54 3.1.1 Externally-sourced affixal material ……………………… 55 3.1.1.1 Foreign morphological material subject to KCW syntax 55 3.1.1.2 KCW material subject to Salish syntax and morphology 60 3.1.1.3 Summary of externally-sourced unproductive forms 61 3.1.2 Unproductive forms native to KCW ……………………… 61 vi 3.1.2.1 Suffixoidal localisms ……………………………… 62 3.1.2.2 Possible suppletion ……………………………… 63 3.1.2.3 Summary of unproductive forms native to KCW 63 3.1.3 Summary of unproductive forms ……………… 64 3.2 Productive grammatical morphology ……………………………… 64 3.2.1 Word-formation: conversion and compounding ……… 64 3.2.1.1 Conversion (‘zero-derivation’) ……………… 65 3.2.1.1.1 Treating KCW conversion as morphological in nature ……………………… 65 3.2.1.1.2 Frequency and distribution ……… 67 3.2.1.1.3 Summary of conversion ……… 68 3.2.1.2 Compounding ……………………………………… 68 3.2.1.2.1 Identifying compounds in KCW 69 3.2.1.2.2 Characteristics of KCW compounds 71 3.2.1.2.3 Summary of compounding ……… 74 3.2.1.3 Summary of word-formation ……………………… 75 3.2.2 Other forms ……………………………………………… 75 3.2.2.1 Prefix: negative w͡ik- ……………………………… 77 3.2.2.2 Proclitics ……………………………………… 81 3.2.2.2.1 The range of proclitics ……… 83 3.2.2.2.1.1 Diminutive tanas= ……… 83 3.2.2.2.1.2 Causative mamuk= ……… 85 3.2.2.2.1.3 Aspectual proclitics ……… 88 3.2.2.2.1.3.1 Imperfective aj ͡u= 88 3.2.2.2.1.3.2 Ingressive tʃ͡ako= 91 3.2.2.2.1.3.3 Summary of aspectual proclitics ……… 93 3.2.2.2.1.4 Out-of-control (transitivity) tlap= 93 3.2.2.2.1.5 Subject/agent agreement: iaka= , klaska= ……………… 94 3.2.2.2.1.6 Summary of the range of proclitics 96 3.2.2.2.2 Summary of proclitics ……………… 96 3.2.2.3 Notes on ‘grammatical particles’ ……………… 96 3.2.2.3.1 Defining KCW grammatical particles 97 3.2.2.3.2 Functions of the grammatical particles 99 3.2.2.3.2.1 Transitivity (permissive): patlat ͡ʃ 100 3.2.2.3.2.2 Mood and modality particles 101 3.2.2.3.2.2.1 Irrealis pus ……… 101 3.2.2.3.2.2.2 Imperative tlus 103 3.2.2.3.2.2.3 (Negative) potential w͡ik-kata 104 3.2.2.3.2.2.4 Summary of mood and modality particles 105 3.2.2.3.2.3 Aspect particles ……… 105 3.2.2.3.2.3.1 Completive kopit 105 3.2.2.3.2.3.2 Conative trai ……… 107 vii 3.2.2.3.2.3.3 Summary of aspect particles 108 3.2.2.3.2.4 Polarity (negative) particles 108 3.2.2.3.2.4.1 ilo ……………… 108 3.2.2.3.2.4.2 w͡ik ……………… 119 3.2.2.3.2.4.3 Summary of polarity particles 110 3.2.2.3.2.5 Summary of grammatical-particle functions ……………… 110 3.2.2.3.3 Summary of grammatical particles 110 3.2.2.4 Summary of overt, productive grammatical forms 110 3.2.3 Summary of overt grammatical forms ……………… 110 3.3 Summary of morphology ……………………………………… 111 Chapter 4: Syntax 1: phrases and simple clauses ……………… 113 4.1 Predicates