Current status

Although the name “Pidgin” is frequently used to refer to the language, Tok Pisin is spoken by an increasing number of children as a first language, i.e. as a creole. The use of a pidgin as a first language used to be considered a critical factor in the rate of change and development of a creole as it expanded to meet a full repertoire of communicative needs. However, studies on Tok Pisin such as Sankoff and Laberge (1973) have shown that creolization has not had the dramatic effect which might have been expected, and that children merely accelerate tendencies which had already been developing in the expanded pidgin through second language use in an increasing number of situations. As with Bislama, then, the distinction between the use of Tok Pisin as a pidgin or as a creole is somewhat fuzzy and does not seem to be as critical as was once thought.

In addition, Tok Pisin is continually expanding its geographical range into more and more remote locations, and to some extent the synchronic acquisition of the language in these situations is recapitulating its historical development. The possibility of re-pidginisation also exists in this situation, although an investigation by Holm and Kepiou in the Southern Highlands (1993) found no evidence of this.

The question of standardization of the language has arisen frequently, but there has been little inclination for government intervention, and successive administrations have been happy to adopt a laissez faire approach, and government-sponsored written communications in Tok Pisin are notorious for their variable and at times ambiguous style (Franklin 1990). A number of initiatives have been made to regularize or standardize vocabulary and syntax, even if some such as Bálint (1969) have been more an exercise in individual creativity than a reflection of the realities of a speech community. A number of academics have made some useful comments on the issue of standardization, but the most influential practical standards have been mission-initiated. Firstly, the Bible Society’s translation of the Old and New Testament has provide a lasting standard formal register, and considerable effort has gone into dealing with the linguistic complexities involved (Mundhenk 1990). Then there is the enormous contribution of the late Father Frank Mihalic of the SVD (Society of the Divine Word). His Jacaranda Dictionary of Melanesian Pidgin, first published in 1957 and revised in 1971, was a huge boost to the acceptance of the language. Although, as Mihalic (1990) himself realized, much in the dictionary is now looking distinctly dated, the absence of more up-to-date competitors has ensured that it remains the most widely used dictionary of Tok Pisin and the closest to a standard that exists. In addition to this, Mihalic translated the constitution of Papua New Guinea and his work also led to the standardized style sheet of the influential Wantok Niuspepa, a weekly publication begun in 1969. This reports overseas and local news in a formal style, as well as more creative sports reports (Romaine 1994) and items written in a more vernacular style such as letters to the editor and traditional stories. In the absence of formal investigations, it is difficult to know what effects these standards have on the language of today’s speakers.

The term Tok Pisin, then, refers to a complex of first and second language varieties. These are spoken with varying degree of fluency, and influenced to varying degrees by other languages used. Much remains to be known about Tok Pisin, especially with regard to regional variation in lexico-semantics and morphosyntax. One or two small-scale corpora have appeared recently (Smith 2002; Romaine 1992), to supplement earlier studies, but some large-scale research on the language in use would be desirable before major policy initiatives.