1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
  4. Volume 36, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study takes us to the South Pacific and concentrates on Bislama, one of the dialects of Melanesian pidgin (Siegel 2008: 4) and one of the official languages of Vanuatu. We take a discourse analysis perspective to map out the functions of , a conspicuous discourse marker in conversations and narratives. Using Labov & Waletzky (1967) model, we analyze the use of in narratives from the book (Lindstrom & Gwero 1998) and determine that is a discourse marker which indicates temporal sequence and consequence, frames speech reports and closes a digression. We conclude our study by considering a possible historical development of . We map out how French could have become Bislama using imposition and functional transfer (Siegel 2008Winford 2013a) of vernacular discourse markers (such as in Nguna).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
2022-01-14
2023-03-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Athanasiadou, Angeliki & René Dirven
    1997 Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. InAngeliki Athanasiadou & René Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again, 61–96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.143.05ath
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.05ath [Google Scholar]
  2. Bange, Pierre
    1989 Constitution of relationships as a factor in interactive coherence. InWolfgang Heydrich, Fritz Neubauer, János S. Petöfi & Emel Sözer (eds.), Connexity and coherence: Analysis of text and discourse, 305–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110854831.305
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110854831.305 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, Diane
    2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2019 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Computer program, version 6.0.46. www.praat.org, accessed2019-1-3.
  5. Bolden, Galina
    2009 Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics41(5). 974–998. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bollée, Annegret
    1977 Le créole français des Seychelles: Esquisse d’une grammaire, textes, vocabulaire. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111328874
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111328874 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourdin, Philippe
    2008 On the grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity. InMaría José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, 37–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.05bou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.05bou [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1996 Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruyn, Adrienne
    2009 Grammaticalization in creoles: Ordinary and not-so-ordinary cases. Studies in Language33(2). 312–337. 10.1075/sl.33.2.04bru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.2.04bru [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan & Paul J. Hopper
    2001 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 Beyond bartlett: Narratives and remembering. Poetics15(1–2). 139–151. 10.1016/0304‑422X(86)90037‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(86)90037-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1994 Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clift, Rebecca & Elizabeth Holt
    2007 Introduction. InElizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coetsem, Frans van
    1988 Loan word phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110884869
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884869 [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, Εlizabeth & Margret Selting
    2018 Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Crible, Ludivine & Elena Sanz Pascual
    2020 Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics156. 54–67. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Crowley, Terry
    1989 ‘Say, c’est, and subordinate constructions in Melanesian Pidgin’. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages4(2). 185–210. 10.1075/jpcl.4.2.03cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.4.2.03cro [Google Scholar]
  18. 1990 Beach-la-mar to Bislama: The emergence of a national language of Vanuatu. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2004 Bislama Reference Grammar. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser
    1997 Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics8(2). 109–136. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Fina, Anna
    2009 Narratives in interview – the case of accounts: For an interactional approach to narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry19(2). 233–258. 10.1075/ni.19.2.03def
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.19.2.03def [Google Scholar]
  22. De Fina, Anna & Alexandra Georgakopoulou
    2011 Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139051255
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051255 [Google Scholar]
  23. Escure, Geneviève
    1993 Focus, topic particles and discourse markers in the Belizean Creole continuum. InFrancis Byrne & Donald Winford (eds.), Focus and grammatical relations in creole languages: Papers from the University of Chicago Conference on focus and grammatical relations in creole languages, 233–247. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.12.17esc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.12.17esc [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferrara, Kathleen W.
    1997 Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics35(2). 343–378. 10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.343
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.343 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischer, Kerstin
    (ed.) 2006a Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2006b Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: Τhe functional polysemy of discourse particles. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 427–447. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588_023
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_023 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fraser, Bruce
    1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31(7). 931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gardner, Rod
    2001 When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  29. Georger, Fabrice
    2011 Créole et français à La Réunion: une cohabitation complexe. Ph.D. Thesis: Université de la Réunion.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Goffman, Erving
    1981 Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. González, Montserrat
    2004 Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.122
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.122 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goodwin, Charles
    1986 Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text6(3). 283–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Goss, Emily & Joseph Salmons
    2000 The evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German-American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism4(4). 469–484. 10.1177/13670069000040040501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040040501 [Google Scholar]
  34. Guérin, Valérie
    2006 Documentation of Mavea. Endangered Languages Archive. https://elar.soas.ac.uk/Collection/MPI67426
  35. Guerin, Valerie & Angeliki Alvanoudi
    2022 The role of ale in Mavea narratives. Oceanic Linguistics61(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Günthner, Susanne
    2000 From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of ‘obwohl’ in everyday German interaction. InElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast, 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043‑018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-018 [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2003 On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language27(3). 529–572. 10.1075/sl.27.3.04hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.3.04hei [Google Scholar]
  40. Henri, Agnès
    2011 Le sungwadia. Éléments de description d’une langue du Vanuatu. Louvain: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Heritage, John & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    (eds.) 2018 Between turn and sequence: Turn-Initial particles across languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31 [Google Scholar]
  42. Holm, Johh
    2000 An introduction to pidgins and creoles. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164153
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164153 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InGene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  44. Johnstone, Barbara
    2016 Oral versions of personal experience: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of Sociolinguistics20(4). 542–560. 10.1111/josl.12192
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12192 [Google Scholar]
  45. Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
    (eds.) 1998 Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
  46. Labov, William
    1972 Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1981 Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. InDeborah Tannen (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981, 219–247. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1997 Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History7(1–4). 395–415. 10.1075/jnlh.7.49som
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.49som [Google Scholar]
  49. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. InJune Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts: Proceedings of the 1966 annual spring meeting of the American Ethnological Society, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lefebvre, Claire
    2004 Issues in the study of pidgin and creole languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.70
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.70 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lenk, Uta
    1998 Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lerner, Gene H.
    1992 Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology15(3). 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  53. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lindenfeld, Jacqueline
    1990 Speech and sociability at French urban marketplaces. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.7 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lindstrom, Lamont
    2011 Big Wok: The Vanuatu Cultural Centre’s World War Two Ethnohistory Project. InJohn Taylor & Nick Thieberger (eds.), Working together in Vanuatu: Research histories, collaborations, projects and reflections, 43–57. ANU Presshttps://press.anu.edu.au/publications/working-together-vanuatu. 10.22459/WTV.10.2011.07
     https://doi.org/10.22459/WTV.10.2011.07 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lindstrom, Lamont & James Gwero
    (eds.) 1998 Big Wok: Storian blong Wol Wo Tu long Vanuatu. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific; Christchurch: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Maschler, Yael
    1994 Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society23(3). 325–366. 10.1017/S0047404500018017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018017 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2009 Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.181
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.181 [Google Scholar]
  59. Meyerhoff, Miriam
    2000 Constraints on null subjects in Bislama (Vanuatu): Social and linguistic factors. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 2002a Formal and cultural constraints on optional objects in Bislama. Language Variation and Change14(3). 323–346. 10.1017/S0954394502143031
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394502143031 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2002b All the same? The emergence of complementizers in Bislama. InTom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, 341–362. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.21mey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.21mey [Google Scholar]
  62. Migge, Bettina
    2020 Broadening creole studies: From grammar towards discourse. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages35(1). 160–177. 10.1075/jpcl.00050.mig
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00050.mig [Google Scholar]
  63. Mühleisen, Susanne
    2011 Forms of address and ambiguity in Caribbean English-lexicon Creoles: Strategic interactions in a postcolonial setting. Journal of Pragmatics43(6). 1460–1471. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.017 [Google Scholar]
  64. Norrick, Νeal R.
    1998 Retelling stories in spontaneous conversation. Discourse Processes25(1). 75–97. 10.1080/01638539809545021
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545021 [Google Scholar]
  65. Norrick, Neal R.
    2000 Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.203
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.203 [Google Scholar]
  66. Norrick, Νeal R.
    2001 Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics33. 849–878. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80032‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Norrick, Neal R.
    2009 Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics41(5). 866–891. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  68. Plag, Ingo
    2002 On the role of grammaticalization in creolization. InGlenn G. Gilbert (ed.), Pidgin and creole linguistics in the twenty-first century, 229–246. New York: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sacks, Harvey
    1974 An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling. InRirchard Bauman & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sankoff, Gillian & Penelope Brown
    1976 The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language52(3). 631–666. 10.2307/412723
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412723 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sankoff, Gillian & Suzanne Laberge
    1974 On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. InDavid De Camp & Ian F. Hancock (eds.), Pidgins and Creoles: Current trends and prospects, 73–84. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schifrin, Deborah
    1992 Anaphoric then: aspectual, textual, and epistemic meaning. Linguistics30. 753–792. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.4.753
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.4.753 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schourup, Lawrence
    1999 Discourse markers. Lingua107(3–4). 227–265. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schütz, Albert J.
    1969a Nguna texts. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 1969b Nguna grammar. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Sebba, Mark
    1997 Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. New York: St Martin’s Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑25587‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25587-0 [Google Scholar]
  78. Sidnell, Jack
    2001 Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of Pragmatics33(8). 1263–1290. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00062‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00062-X [Google Scholar]
  79. Siegel, Jeff
    2008 The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Sierra Soriano, Ascensión
    2006 Interjections issues d’un verbe de mouvement: étude comparée français-espagnol. Langages161. 73–90. 10.3917/lang.161.0073
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.161.0073 [Google Scholar]
  81. Smith, Geoff P.
    2002 Growing up with Tok Pisin: Contact, creolization, and change in Papua New Guinea’s national language. London: Battlebridge Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Snow, Peter
    2003 Talking with tourists in a Panamanian Creole village: An emerging site of production. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages18(2). 299–309. 10.1075/jpcl.18.2.09sno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.18.2.09sno [Google Scholar]
  83. 2005 The use of ‘bad’ language as a politeness strategy in a Panamanian Creole village. InSusanne Mühleisen & Bettina Migge (eds.), Politeness and face in Caribbean Creoles, 23–43. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/veaw.g34.04sno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g34.04sno [Google Scholar]
  84. Spears, Arthur K.
    1993 Foregrounding and backgrounding in Haitian Creole discourse. InFrancis Byrne & Donald Winford (eds.), Focus and grammatical relations in Creole languages: Papers from the University of Chicago Conference on focus and grammatical relations in creole languages, 249–265. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.12.18spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.12.18spe [Google Scholar]
  85. Spears, Arthur & Donald Winford
    (eds.) 1997 The structure and status of pidgins and creoles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.19
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.19 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tryon, Darrel T. & Jean-Michel Charpentier
    2004 Pacific pidgins and creoles: Origins, growth and development. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899689
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899689 [Google Scholar]
  87. Ward, Nigel
    2004 Pragmatic functions of prosodic features in non-lexical utterances. Speech Prosody4. 325–328.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Winford, Donald
    2008 Processes of creole formation and related contact-induced language change. Journal of Language Contact2(1). 124–145. 10.1163/000000008792525228
     https://doi.org/10.1163/000000008792525228 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2013a Substrate influence and universals in the emergence of contact Englishes: Re-evaluating the evidence. InDaniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds.), English as a contact language, 222–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 2013b On the unity of contact phenomena: The case for imposition. InCarole de Féral (ed.), In and out of Africa: Languages in question. In honour of Robert Nicolaï, 43–71. Leuven: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
Loading
The discourse marker ale in Bislama oral narratives
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 36, 264 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.00076.alv
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bislama; discourse marker; functional transfer; imposition; narrative analysis; Vanuatu

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error