Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2008, Blaðsíða 126

124
Alexander Andrason
pre-pidgins are functionally reduced and their primary function is the
referential or cognitive one, they serve almost uniquely “the purpose of
exchanging simple information” (Miihlhausler 1986:82). In such com-
munication acts, what matters is principally the message and no
method or particular means is a priori prohibited.
Furthermore, in addition to the abovementioned linguistic properties,
the jargon of immigrants in Iceland displays some sociological charac-
teristics that are typical for stabilized pidgins: the community that speaks
the pidgin variety is socially homogenous — their members share low
social status, have a similar kind of employment and a similar econom-
ic situation. As observed above, the pidginized variety is commonly used
in communication between different groups of non-target language
speakers. In fact, since the majority of speakers does not intend to leam
Icelandic completely and is satisfíed with the minimal knowledge of the
standard language which they have, the pidgin language is a dominant
and unique means of communication in some multi-linguistic immigrant
groups. Sometimes, it is even perceived as a language of social identifi-
cation that differentiates immigrants ffom Icelanders and that unify them
as one homogenous non-Icelandic community.7 In this article, Pidgin
Icelandic (i.e. the pre-pidgin or partially stabilized jargon of immigrants)
will be further limited to the immigrant inter-language that emerges ífom
the database which includes approximately 500 sentences collected by
the author during his teaching experience at three companies in
Reykjavík (Toppfiskur, Eykt and Grandi) in 2006.8
The question may arise whether it is appropriate to label the lan-
guage of immigrants Pidgin Icelandic. The answer is definitely posi-
tive. The language that the immigrants use conforms to the defmition
of pidgin languages given by Muhlhausler (1986:5) according to
7 The author has frequently witnessed situations where using proper and correct
Icelandic instead of its pidginized version was perceived as betraying the homeland’s
identity or immigrant community. For instance, one could often hear in such situation
the following opinion: ‘Stop talking like Icelanders!’
8 It is interesting that the Pidgin Icelandic of these three different communities of
speakers shows a highly similar shape, especially in respect to the issue of the BÚNA-
construction which will be analyzed in this article.