Chapter iv language contact

AN INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLINGUISTICS 2015

CHAPTER IV

LANGUAGE CONTACT

Multilingualism and language contact has likely been common throughout much of human

history, and today most people in the world are multilingual. In tribal hunter-gatherer societies,

multilingualism was common, as tribes must communicate with neighboring peoples and there is

often inter-marriage. In present-day areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where there is much

variation in language over short distances, it is usual for anyone who has dealings outside their

own town or village to know two or more languages.

When speakers of different languages interact closely, it is typical for their languages to

influence each other. Languages normally develop by gradually accumulating dialectal

differences until two dialects cease to be mutually understandable, somewhat analogous to the

species barrier in biology. Language contact can occur at language borders, between adstratum

languages, or as the result of migration, with a “disturbing” language acting as either a super-

stratum or a sub-stratum.

Language contact occurs in a variety of phenomena, including language convergence and

borrowing. The most common products are code-switching and mixed languages. Other hybrid

languages, such as English, do not strictly fit into any of these categories.

The most common way that languages influence each other is the exchange of words.

Much is made about the contemporary borrowing of English words into other languages, but this

phenomenon is not new, nor is it very large by historical standards. The large-scale importation

of words from Latin, French and other languages into English in the 16th and 17th centuries was

more significant. Some languages have borrowed so much that they have become scarcely

recognizable. Armenian borrowed so many words from Iranian languages, for example, that it

was at first considered a branch of the Indo-Iranian languages. It was not recognized as an

independent branch of the Indo-European languages for many decades.


A. Adoption of Other Language Features

The influence can go deeper, extending to the exchange of even basic characteristics of a

language such as morphology and grammar. The language of Nepali, for example, spoken in

Nepal, is a Sino-Tibetan language distantly related to Chinese, but has had so many centuries of

contact with neighboring Indo-Iranian languages that it has even developed noun inflection, a

trait typical of the Indo-European family but rare in Sino-Tibetan. It has absorbed features of

grammar as well, such as verb tenses. Romanian was influenced by the Slavic languages spoken

by neighboring tribes in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, not only in vocabulary

but also in phonology and morphology.

English has a few phrases, adapted from French, in which the adjective follows the noun:

court-martial, attorney-general, Lake Superior. It is easy to see how a word can diffuse from one

language to another, but not as obvious how more basic features can do the same; nevertheless,

this phenomenon is not rare.

B. Language Shift

The result of the contact of two languages can be the replacement of one by the other. This

is most common when one language has a higher social position. This sometimes leads to

language endangerment or extinction.

However, when language shift occurs, the language that is replaced (known as the

substratum) can leave a profound impression on the replacing language (known as the

superstratum), when people retain features of the substratum as they learn the new language and

pass these features on to their children, leading to the development of a new variety. For

example, the Latin that came to replace local languages in present-day France during Roman

times was influenced by Gaulish and Germanic. The distinct pronunciation of the dialect of

English spoken in Ireland comes partially from the influence of the substratum of Irish. Outside

the Indo-European phylum, Coptic, the last stage of ancient Egyptian, is a substratum of

Egyptian Arabic.


C. Creolization And Mixed Languages

Language contact can also lead to the development of new languages when people without

a common language interact closely, developing a pidgin, which may eventually become a full-

fledged creole language through the process of creolization. A prime example of this is

Saramaccan, spoken in Suriname, which has vocabulary mainly from Portuguese, English and

Dutch, but phonology and even tones which are closer to African languages.

A much rarer but still observed process is the formation of mixed languages. Whereas

creoles are formed by communities lacking a common language, mixed languages are formed by

communities fluent in both languages. They tend to inherit much more of the complexity

(grammatical, phonological, etc.) of their parent languages, whereas creoles begin as simple

languages and then develop in complexity more independently. It is sometimes explained as

bilingual communities that no longer identify with the cultures of either of the languages they

speak, and seek to develop their own language as an expression of their own cultural uniqueness.

D. Mutual and Non-Mutual Influence

Change as a result of contact is often one-sided. Chinese, for instance, has had a profound

effect on the development of Japanese, but the Chinese language remains relatively free of

Japanese influence, other than some modern terms that were re-borrowed after having been

coined in Japan based on Chinese precepts and using Chinese characters.

In India, Hindi and other native languages have been influenced by English up to the extent

that loan words from English are part of day to day vocabulary. In some cases, language contact

may lead to mutual exchange, although this exchange may be confined to a particular geographic

region. For example, in Switzerland, the local French has been influenced by German, and vice-

versa. In Scotland, the Scots language has been heavily influenced by English, and many Scots

terms have been adopted into the regional English dialect.


E. Linguistic Hegemony

Obviously, a language's influence widens as its speakers grow in power. Chinese, Greek,

Latin, Portuguese, French, Spanish, Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Russian, German and English have

each seen periods of widespread importance, and have had varying degrees of influence on the

native languages spoken in the areas over which they have held sway.

Some forms of language contact affect only a particular segment of a speech community.

Consequently, change may be manifested only in particular dialects, jargons, or registers. The

South African dialect of English has been significantly affected by Afrikaans, in terms of lexis

and pronunciation, but English as a whole has remained almost totally unaffected by Afrikaans.

In some cases, a language develops an acrolect which contains elements of a more prestigious

language. For example, in England during a large part of the Medieval period, upper-class

speech was dramatically influenced by French, to the point that it often resembled a French

dialect. A similar situation existed in Tsarist Russia, where the native Russian language was

widely disparaged as barbaric and uncultured.

F. Code Mixing

Code-mixing refers to the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in

speech. Some scholars use the terms "code-mixing" and "code-switching" interchangeably,

especially in studies of syntax, morphology, and other formal aspects of language. Others assume

more specific definitions of code-mixing, but these specific definitions may be different in

different subfields of linguistics, education theory, communications etc.

Code-mixing is similar to the use or creation of pidgins; but while a pidgin is created

across groups that do not share a common language, code-mixing may occur within a

multilingual setting where speakers share more than one language.

Some linguists use the terms code-mixing and code-switching more or less

interchangeably. Especially in formal studies of syntax, morphology, etc., both terms are used to

refer to utterances that draw from elements of two or more grammatical systems. These studies


are often interested in the alignment of elements from distinct systems, or on constraints that

limit switching. While many linguists have worked to describe the difference between code-

switching and borrowing of words or phrases, the term code-mixing may be used to encompass

both types of language behavior.

While the term code-switching emphasizes a multilingual speaker's movement from one

grammatical system to another, the term code-mixing suggests a hybrid form, drawing from

distinct grammars. In other words, code-mixing emphasizes the formal aspects of language

structures or linguistic competence, while code-switching emphasizes linguistic performance.

While linguists who are primarily interested in the structure or form of code-mixing may

have relatively little interest to separate code-mixing from code-switching, some sociolinguists

have gone to great lengths to differentiate the two phenomena. For these scholars, code-

switching is associated with particular pragmatic effects, discourse functions, or associations

with group identity. In this tradition, the terms code-mixing or language alternation are used to

describe more stable situations in which multiple languages are used without such pragmatic

effects.

In studies of bilingual language acquisition, code-mixing refers to a developmental stage

during which children mix elements of more than one language. Nearly all bilingual children go

through a period in which they move from one language to another without apparent

discrimination. This differs from code-switching, which is understood as the socially and

grammatically appropriate use of multiple varieties.

Beginning at the babbling stage, young children in bilingual or multilingual environments

produce utterances that combine elements of both (or all) of their developing languages. Some

linguists suggest that this code-mixing reflects a lack of control or ability to differentiate the

languages. Others argue that it is a product of limited vocabulary; very young children may know

a word in one language but not in another. More recent studies argue that this early code-mixing

is a demonstration of a developing ability to code-switch in socially appropriate ways.

In psychology and in psycholinguistics the label code-mixing is used in theories that draw

on studies of language alternation or code-switching to describe the cognitive structures


underlying bilingualism. During the 1950s and 1960s, psychologists and linguists treated

bilingual speakers as, in Grosjean's term, "two monolinguals in one person.” This "fractional

view" supposed that a bilingual speaker carried two separate mental grammars that were more or

less identical to the mental grammars of monolinguals and that were ideally kept separate and

used separately. Studies since the 1970s, however, have shown that bilinguals regularly combine

elements from "separate" languages. These findings have led to studies of code-mixing in

psychology and psycholinguistics.

Sridhar and Sridhar define code-mixing as "the transition from using linguistic units

(words, phrases, clauses, etc.) of one language to using those of another within a single

sentence.". They note that this is distinct from code-switching in that it occurs in a single

sentence (sometimes known as intrasentential switching) and in that it does not fulfill the

pragmatic or discourse-oriented functions described by sociolinguists. (See Code-mixing in

sociolinguistics, above.) The practice of code-mixing, which draws from competence in two

languages at the same time suggests that these competences are not stored or processed

separately. Code-mixing among bilinguals is therefore studied in order to explore the mental

structures underlying language abilities.

A mixed language or a fused lect is a relatively stable mixture of two or more languages.

What some linguists have described as "code switching as unmarked choice" or "frequent code

switching" has more recently been described as "language mixing", or in the case of the most

strictly grammaticalized forms as "fused lects". In areas where code-switching among two or

more languages is very common, it may become normal for words from both languages to be

used together in everyday speech. Unlike code-switching, where a switch tends to occur at

semantically or sociolinguistically meaningful junctures, this code-mixing has no specific

meaning in the local context. A fused lect is identical to a mixed language in terms of semantics

and pragmatics, but fused lects allow less variation since they are fully grammaticalized. In other

words, there are grammatical structures of the fused lect that determine which source-language

elements may occur.

A mixed language is different from a creole language. Creoles are thought to develop from

pidgins as they become nativized. Mixed languages develop from situations of code-switching.


There are many names for specific mixed languages or fused lects. These names are often used

facetiously or carry a pejorative sense. Named varieties include the following, among others:

Chinglish,Denglisch,Dunglish,Englog,Franglais,Franponais,Greeklish,Hinglish,Konglish,

Manglish,Maltenglish,Poglish,Porglish,Portuñol,Singlish,Spanglish and Tanglish.

G. Code Switching

In linguistics, code-switching is switching between two or more languages, or language

varieties, in the context of a single conversation. Multilingual—people who speak more than one

language—sometimes use elements of multiple languages in conversing with each other. Thus,

code-switching is the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the

syntax and phonology of each variety.

Code-switching is distinct from other language contact phenomena, such as borrowing,

pidgins and creoles, loan translation (calques), and language transfer (language interference).

Borrowing affects the lexicon, the words that make up a language, while code-switching takes

place in individual utterances. Speakers form and establish a pidgin language when two or more

speakers who do not speak a common language form an intermediate, third language.

On the other hand, speakers practice code-switching when they are each fluent in both

languages. Code mixing is a thematically related term, but the usage of the terms code-switching

and code-mixing varies. Some scholars use either term to denote the same practice, while others

apply code-mixing to denote the formal linguistic properties of said language-contact

phenomena, and code-switching to denote the actual, spoken usages by multilingual persons.

In the 1940s and 1950s, many scholars considered code-switching to be a sub-standard use

of language. Since the 1980s, however, most scholars have recognized it is a normal, natural

product of bilingual and multilingual language use.

The term code-switching is also used outside the field of linguistics. Some scholars of

literature use the term to describe literary styles which include elements from more than one

language, as in novels by Chinese-American, Anglo-Indian, or Latino/writers. In popular usage


code-switching is sometimes used to refer to relatively stable informal mixtures of two

languages, such as Spanglish, Franponais or Portuñol.

Both in popular usage and in sociolinguistic scholarship, the name code-switching is

sometimes used to refer to switching among dialects, styles or registers, such as that practiced by

speakers of African American Vernacular English as they move from less formal to more formal

settings.

There may be many reasons that people code-switch. Code-switching relates to, and

sometimes indexes social-group membership in bilingual and multilingual communities. Some

sociolinguists describe the relationships between code-switching behaviors and class, ethnicity,

and other social positions. In addition, scholars in interactional linguistics and conversation

analysis have studied code-switching as a means of structuring talk in interaction. Some

discourse analysts, including conversation analyst Peter Auer, suggest that code-switching does

not simply reflect social situations, but that it is a means to create social situations.

The Markedness Model, developed by Carol Myers-Scotton, is one of the more complete

theories of code-switching motivations. It posits that language users are rational, and choose

(speak) a language that clearly marks their rights and obligations, relative to other speakers, in

the conversation and its setting. When there is no clear, unmarked language choice, speakers

practice code-switching to explore possible language choices. Many sociolinguists, however,

object to the Markedness Model’s postulation that language-choice is entirely rational.

Scholars such as Peter Auer and Li Wei argue that the explanation of the social motivation

of code-switching lies in the way code-switching is structured and managed in conversational

interaction; in other words, the question of why code-switching occurs cannot be answered

without first addressing the question of how it occurs. Using conversation analysis (CA), these

scholars focus their attention on the sequential implications of code-switching. That is, whatever

language a speaker chooses to use for a conversational turn or part of a turn has implications for

the subsequent choices of language by the speaker as well as the hearer. Rather than focusing on

the social values inherent in the languages the speaker chooses (brought along meaning), the

analysis should try to concentrate on the meaning that the act of code-switching itself creates

(brought about meaning).


The Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), developed by Howard Giles,

professor of communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara, seeks to explain the

cognitive reasons for code-switching and other changes in speech, as a person seeks either to

emphasize or to minimize the social differences between him- or herself and the other person(s)

in conversation. Prof. Giles posits that when speakers seek approval in a social situation they are

likely to converge their speech with that of the other person speaking. This can include, but is not

limited to, the language of choice, accent, dialect, and paralinguistic features used in the

conversation. In contrast to convergence, speakers might also engage in divergent speech, with

which an individual person emphasizes the social distance between him- or herself and other

speakers by using speech with linguistic features characteristic of his or her own group.

In a diglossic situation, some topics and situations are better suited to one language over

another. Joshua Fishman proposes a domain-specific code-switching model (later refined by

Blom and Gumperz) wherein bilingual speakers choose which code to speak depending on where

they are and what they are discussing. For example, a child who is a bilingual Spanish-English

speaker might speak Spanish at home and English in class, but Spanish at recess.

Bilinguals who code-switch report grammatical intuitions such that switching at some

grammatical boundaries is licit while switching at other boundaries is illicit. In this sense, code-

switching exhibits speakers' intuitions about grammaticality just as monolingual language does.

Linguists have made significant effort toward defining the difference between borrowing

(loanword usage) and code-switching. Generally, borrowing occurs in the lexicon, while code-

switching occurs at either the syntax level or the utterance-construction level.

In studying the syntactic and morphological patterns of language alternation, linguists

have postulated specific grammatical rules and specific syntactic boundaries for where code-

switching might occur. Historically, research on the grammar of code-switching has focused on

constraint-oriented approaches and constraint-free approaches.

Attempts to formulate grammatical constraints on code-switching include the Free-

morpheme Constraint, which stipulated that a code-switching cannot occur between bound

morphemes, and the Closed-class Constraint, which posited that closed class items (pronouns,

prepositions, conjunctions, etc.), cannot be switched.


The Equivalence Constraint suggests that code-switching can occur only in positions where

"the order of any two sentence elements, one before and one after the switch, is not excluded in

either language." Thus, the sentence: "I like you porque eres simpático" ("I like you because you

are nice") is allowed because it obeys the syntactic rules of both Spanish and English. The

Functional Head Constraint is another constraint-based theory. It holds that code-switching

cannot occur between a functional head (a complementizer, a determiner, an inflection, etc.) and

its complement (sentence, noun-phrase, verb-phrase).

Although constraint-based theories are widely discussed, linguists continue to debate

apparent counter-examples to each proposed constraint.

The constraint-free approach views explicit reference to code-switching in grammatical

analysis as tautological, and looks to explain specific instances of grammaticality in code-

switching in terms of the unique contributions of the grammatical properties of the languages

involved in the construction of interest. Jeff McSwan characterized this approach with the

research program refrain, "Nothing constrains code switching apart from the requirements of the

mixed grammars." This approach focuses on the repudiation of any rule or principle which

explicitly refers to code switching itself.

Working within a speech production framework advocated by Willem Levelt, Carol

Myers-Scotton has proposed the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model of code-switching which

distinguishes between the roles of the participant languages. Some theories, such as the Closed-

class Constraint, the Matrix Language Frame model, and the Functional Head Constraint, which

make general predictions based upon specific presumptions about the nature of syntax, are

controversial among linguists positing alternative theories. In contrast, descriptions based on

empirical analyses of corpora, such as the Equivalence Constraint, are relatively independent of

syntactic theory, but the code-switching patterns they describe vary considerably among speech

communities, even among those sharing the same language pairs.

Scholars use different names for various types of code-switching. Intersentential switching

occurs outside the sentence or the clause level (i.e. at sentence or clause boundaries). It is

sometimes called "extra-sentential" switching Whereas, Intra-sentential switching occurs within

a sentence or a clause. Tag-switching is the switching of either a tag phrase or a word, or both,


from language-B to language-A, (common intra-sentential switches).Intra-word switching occurs

within a word, itself, such as at a morpheme boundary.

Researcher Ana Celia Zentella offers this example from her work with Puerto Rican

Spanish-English bilingual speakers in New York City. In this example, Marta and her younger

sister, Lolita, speak Spanish and English with Zentella outside of their apartment building.

Zentella explains that the children of the predominantly Puerto Rican neighborhood speak

both English and Spanish: "Within the children’s network, English predominated, but code-

switching from English to Spanish occurred once every three minutes, on average."

MORE INFO ABOUT THIS:

An introduction of Sociolinguistics

This is a book which is compiled to make easy for the students to understand

https://abudira.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/an-introduction-of-sociolinguistics/

https://abudira.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/b7ef1-an2bintroduction2bto2bsociolinguistics.jpg

https://abudira.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/b7ef1-an2bintroduction2bto2bsociolinguistics.jpg


and appreciate basic knowledge of Linguistics particularly the study of

Sociolinguistics. This book is designed in an easiest, systematic and effective

form to achieve general overview and understanding of Sociolinguistic

theories and its application or real sociolinguistic phenomena in daily life.

I hope this book will be beneficial as the Introduction to be the most useful

students’ handbook of Sociolinguistics.

IDR : Rp.50.000

contact person: Faizal hp number 0856 4201 9501

Whatsapp: 085642019501

E-mail: [email protected]

Harga Rp. 50rb belum termasuk ongkir (silakan cek via TIKI ONLINE ). Harga

buku dan ongkir bisa dikirimkan melalui transfer pembayaran via rekening

Bank BRI a/n :

FAIZAL RISDIANTO

Bank BRI

No rekening :

671-301-012-907-530

http://www.tiki-online.com/

https://abudira.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/bri-bank-logo-flat-200px_thumb255b1255d.png

Education

Chapter iv language contact