Fiji English: phonology Conclusion

The descriptions we have given of Fijian and Indo-Fijian Fiji English, including the pervasive absence of yod, illustrate the complexity and multifariousness of Fiji English phonology. Since the variety is overwhelmingly an L2 English, many of its phonological features are the result of phonological transfer from the first languages involved. Although this makes it no less interesting than any L1 variety of English, it does make it rather more difficult to analyze and characterize (at least from a phonological perspective). Unlike L1 varieties of English, L2 varieties, such as Fiji English, have the added variable of degree of competence: wide variation in competence in the language results in great differences in pronunciation.

A description and analysis of the phonology of Fiji English should not merely focus on the phonology of its L1 speakers, even though this would certainly be much more straightforward. To do so would present only a very small aspect of the complete phonological picture. What is needed are careful and detailed descriptions of each speech community’s variety of Fiji English. This has been achieved by Tent (2001) for a single variable, absence of yod, but the overall task is far more complex, and the pronunciation of more phonological variables needs to be empirically investigated.

Apart from the L2 phonological features outlined above, Fiji English has several features that are also attested in English-based pidgins/creoles and basilectal/casual register native Englishes, some of which include:

– the common reduction of the {-ing} morpheme to [ɪn],

– the reduction of final consonant clusters, especially with /-Ct/ and /-Cd/ clusters,

– the metathesis of clusters such as [-sk-] as in ask, and

– the insertion of epenthetic vowel in final /-lC/ clusters, e.g. Burns Philp > [filɐp] , film > [filam], milk > [milik]

We have argued that Fiji English is not a homogeneous variety but a group of co-existent systems or a series of continua. The phonological sketches we have presented above bear this out, but also show the need for a greater amount of detailed research and analysis for each system. What we have attempted to do here is lay the foundation for such studies by presenting an overview of Fiji English phonology. Future sociolinguistic studies concerning other linguistic features will also show to what extent our interpretations are well-founded.

We are much indebted to all our informants, in particular those who kindly agreed to be recorded, and many of the students enrolled in LL311 (Varieties of English) at the University of the South Pacific in Semester 1, 2003. We are also grateful to Maraia Lesuma and Ravi Nair for helping with the recordings, David Blair for helping with the phonetic transcriptions, and to Paul Geraghty for his valuable comments. Finally, we would like to thank Kate Burridge and Bernd Kortmann for their suggestions to improve our two papers. Errors and shortcomings are, of course, our own.