The Function of I in Tok Pisin

Abstract

The use of the Tok Pisin particle i, traditionally known as the "predicate marker," is shown to be overwhelmingly subject to two constraints, i.e., that of "nondeictic" use (as controlled by subject arguments), and that of "resumptive" use, with the latter sometimes overriding the former. Here, nondeictic means any nonpronominal or pronominal nonfirst and nonsecond person NP. The hypothesis concerning the first constraint seems weakened by apparent counterevidence in the use of i as triggered by -pela pronouns, by the failure of prima facie nondeictic subjects in equa-tional constructions to trigger the use of i, and by the use of i with follow-up verbs in serial constructions and with downstairs verbs in causative constructions. However, all these apparent exceptions are shown either to serve primarily resumptive rules or to be in fact compatible with the non-deixis rule. A corollary reviews openness of i to reanalysis as a copula.

Creole/Superstrate code-switching: Structure and consequences

“…This is not usual in English, but is a well-known feature of TP, where the particle i has been explicitly described as a predicate marker (Woolford 1979b;Mühlhäusler 1987Mühlhäusler , 1990Verhaar 1991;Romaine 1993;Crowley 2000), or associated with an oceanic substrate-modelled subject referencing pronoun (Keesing 1988). Questions of semantics lead us to consider the alternative explanations offered by an appreciation of a potential trend towards congruence between TP and English grammars.…”

Suzanne Romain. Language, Education, and Development. Urban and rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea

“…I have found only a bare minimum of variation in this entire corpus, and thus this is a lect all its own. In keeping with work done on standardization of TP by a Committee for this purpose in the University of Papua New Guinea, I consider this lect as a de facto "standard", or a "virtual standard" (vs), as I called it in Verhaar (1991). The homogeneity of this corpus is so great that it cannot possibly be due to accident, and must thus go back to earlier conceptions of what is "good" TP, notably, of course, that begun by Mihalic's (1971) grammar and dictionary of TP, but also other sources which have, so far as I know, not yet been fully identified in any study, but which clearly go back to some forms of rural TP.…”

“…In Verhaar (1991) I argued that i is essen tially a device for picking up nondeictic participants. In VS TP this is an cast-iron rule, its use according to this rule is distinctly "classical" and it parallels a more "archaic" rule (still followed only in the TP dialect of the island of Manus, as far as I have been able to make out), which picks up even DEICTIC participants -not with i but with full 1st and 2nd personal pronouns.…”