Chinook Jargon in Areal and Historical Context

Abstract

This paper addresses two current controversies about the nature and origin of Chinook Jargon. First, evidence is presented to support the claim that CJ is a true pidgin—rather than a jargon, in Silverstein's sense (1972) of a speech form without independent grammatical status. When structural features of CJ, as used by English (and French) speakers and by Indians, are compared with those of the speakers' native languages, we see that CJ possesses a grammatical norm that differs in non-simplificatory ways from the native languages. Second, the paper explores the implications of CJ structure for the older controversy as to whether CJ existed before Europeans set up permanent trading posts in the Northwest. The major point here is that phonological and syntactic features of CJ fit well with typological features of Northwest Amerindian languages, but they are markedly non-European. This weakens the case for a post-European origin, since it is hard to explain on the hypothesis that CJ arose from Indian–white communication.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 88 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.