As we have seen, the term Tok Pisin covers rather a wide range of varieties, with variation along a number of dimensions, such as the speaker’s first or second language status, area of residence, degree of formality and familiarity with the lexifier, English. Different speakers vary considerably not only in core phonology, but lexis and morphosyntax as well. Indeed there is so much variation that, unlike the case with non-standard regional dialects of English, it is very difficult to identify a variety which can be considered typical or standard. However, an attempt will be made to do just this so that a yardstick can be established for comparison with other varieties of Melanesian Pidgin described in the volume.

Mühlhäusler (1975) identifies four sociolects of Tok Pisin: Bush Pidgin, Rural Pidgin, Urban Pidgin and Tok Masta, and this is a useful point of departure. Bush Pidgin is described as the somewhat unstable second language variety heavily influenced by the phonology and syntax of the mother tongue. Rural Pidgin may also be influenced to varying degrees by the first language, but is the stable variety generally used for inter-ethnic communication throughout the rural areas where Tok Pisin is spoken. There may also be a gradation between Bush Pidgin and Rural Pidgin as speakers acquire greater competence in the language. Urban Pidgin is characterized as a variety heavily influenced by English and spoken mainly in urban areas. Finally, Tok Masta, which has little relevance here, refers to the unsystematic attempts by English-speaking expatriates to incorporate Tok Pisin features into their speech, possibly in the belief that Tok Pisin is little more than a garbled form of English. In the light of today’s knowledge it is not really a “variety” of Tok Pisin at all.

While this classification provided a valuable insight into variation in Tok Pisin, my impression is that the rural-urban distinction is somewhat problematic. It is possible that a more valid criterion would be emerging bilingualism in Tok Pisin and English, which is not necessarily determined by urban or rural status. Many young people in the Manus and New Ireland Provinces, for example, appear to be becoming bilingual in these languages whether resident in rural or urban areas, and there is increasing influence from English phonology in their speech. The closest to a standard among the four lects above would be rural pidgin, and it is this which most closely approximates the ideal core phonology attempted here.