Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_022
Wouter Küsters
This characterisation is based on a priori considerations, noticeable in terms such as "ideal language" and "deviations" (cf. Carstairs 1987: 12ff), but also on empirical evidence from language acquisition and language processing. The interplay of these Principles makes a wide range of scenarios possible. However, the most widely discussed example of simplification in inflectional morphology is the one of the Indo-European (IE) and especially the Germanic languages, where the following developments concurred:
{"title":"Morphological Simplification: More than Erosion?","authors":"Wouter Küsters","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_022","url":null,"abstract":"This characterisation is based on a priori considerations, noticeable in terms such as \"ideal language\" and \"deviations\" (cf. Carstairs 1987: 12ff), but also on empirical evidence from language acquisition and language processing. The interplay of these Principles makes a wide range of scenarios possible. However, the most widely discussed example of simplification in inflectional morphology is the one of the Indo-European (IE) and especially the Germanic languages, where the following developments concurred:","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127815996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_023
Jouko Lindstedt
The Balkan Sprachbund was the first linguistic area discovered by modern scholarship. According to Kopitar's (1829: 86) famous statement about Albanian, Wallachian, and Bulgarian (in modern terms: Albanian, Balkan Romance, and Balkan Slavic), in the Balkans "nur eine Sprach/orm herrscht, aber mit dreyerley Sprach/wtftene". The main features of the Sprachbund were described in Sandfeld's (1926, 1930) masterpiece and subsequent research by others (see Schaller 1975, Solta 1980, Asenova 1989). But we still lack an overall description of the historical development of this linguistic area. Especially the question of the origins and causation of the main areal features of the Balkans, the linguistic Balkanisms, is notoriously difficult. In this paper I shall discuss the typological characteristics of grammatical Balkanisms, as well as the nature of the sociolinguistic contact situation which gave rise to the convergence that can be observed among the languages of the area. I shall argue that the origins of most grammatical Balkanisms are not to be sought in the internal development of any one of these languages, but rather in the multilingual contact situation itself, to the extent that the traditional notions of "source language" and "target language" may not always be applicable. The languages or language groups of the Sprachbund are Albanian, Greek, Balkan Romance, Balkan Slavic, and Balkan Romani. Balkan Romance comprises the (Daco-)Romanian language spoken in Romania and Moldova, as well as Aromanian (Arumanian) and Megleno-Romanian spoken in the Central Balkans. Balkan Slavic means Bulgarian, Macedonian, and the so-called Torlak dialects of Serbian; Muslim speakers of Bulgarian and Macedonian are ofted referred to as Pomaks. Balkan Romani should be understood as an areal term comprising both Balkan dialects proper and those Vlax dialects spoken in the Balkan area. In addition to these five language groups, Ladino (Judezmo) and various forms of Balkan Turkic (such as Rumelian Turkish and Gagauz) have adopted some areal features; I will have to take them into account at a later stage of exploration.
巴尔干地区是现代学者发现的第一个语言区域。根据Kopitar(1829: 86)关于阿尔巴尼亚语，瓦拉几亚语和保加利亚语(现代术语:阿尔巴尼亚语，巴尔干罗曼语和巴尔干斯拉夫语)的著名陈述，在巴尔干半岛“nur eine Sprach/orm herrscht, aber mit dreyerley Sprach/ wttene”。在Sandfeld(1926, 1930)的杰作和其他人随后的研究中描述了Sprachbund的主要特征(参见Schaller 1975, Solta 1980, Asenova 1989)。但我们仍然缺乏对这一语言领域历史发展的全面描述。特别是关于巴尔干主要地域特征的起源和原因的问题，即语言上的巴尔干主义，是出了名的困难。在本文中，我将讨论语法巴尔干主义的类型学特征，以及导致该地区语言之间可以观察到的趋同的社会语言学接触情况的性质。我认为，大多数语法上的巴尔干主义的起源不应该在任何一种语言的内部发展中寻找，而应该在多语言接触的情况中寻找，以至于传统的“源语言”和“目标语言”的概念可能并不总是适用。斯拉夫语族的语言有阿尔巴尼亚语、希腊语、巴尔干罗曼语、巴尔干斯拉夫语和巴尔干罗姆语。巴尔干罗曼语包括罗马尼亚和摩尔多瓦使用的(达科)罗马尼亚语，以及巴尔干中部使用的阿曼语(阿鲁曼语)和megleno -罗马尼亚语。巴尔干斯拉夫语指的是保加利亚语、马其顿语和所谓的托拉克塞尔维亚语方言;说保加利亚语和马其顿语的穆斯林通常被称为波马克人。巴尔干罗姆语应该被理解为一个地区术语，包括巴尔干方言和巴尔干地区所说的那些弗拉克斯方言。除了这五个语言群，拉迪诺语(Judezmo)和各种形式的巴尔干突厥语(如鲁梅里亚土耳其语和加加乌兹语)也采用了一些地区特征;我将不得不在以后的探索阶段考虑到它们。
{"title":"Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-Induced Change By Mutual Reinforcement","authors":"Jouko Lindstedt","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_023","url":null,"abstract":"The Balkan Sprachbund was the first linguistic area discovered by modern scholarship. According to Kopitar's (1829: 86) famous statement about Albanian, Wallachian, and Bulgarian (in modern terms: Albanian, Balkan Romance, and Balkan Slavic), in the Balkans \"nur eine Sprach/orm herrscht, aber mit dreyerley Sprach/wtftene\". The main features of the Sprachbund were described in Sandfeld's (1926, 1930) masterpiece and subsequent research by others (see Schaller 1975, Solta 1980, Asenova 1989). But we still lack an overall description of the historical development of this linguistic area. Especially the question of the origins and causation of the main areal features of the Balkans, the linguistic Balkanisms, is notoriously difficult. In this paper I shall discuss the typological characteristics of grammatical Balkanisms, as well as the nature of the sociolinguistic contact situation which gave rise to the convergence that can be observed among the languages of the area. I shall argue that the origins of most grammatical Balkanisms are not to be sought in the internal development of any one of these languages, but rather in the multilingual contact situation itself, to the extent that the traditional notions of \"source language\" and \"target language\" may not always be applicable. The languages or language groups of the Sprachbund are Albanian, Greek, Balkan Romance, Balkan Slavic, and Balkan Romani. Balkan Romance comprises the (Daco-)Romanian language spoken in Romania and Moldova, as well as Aromanian (Arumanian) and Megleno-Romanian spoken in the Central Balkans. Balkan Slavic means Bulgarian, Macedonian, and the so-called Torlak dialects of Serbian; Muslim speakers of Bulgarian and Macedonian are ofted referred to as Pomaks. Balkan Romani should be understood as an areal term comprising both Balkan dialects proper and those Vlax dialects spoken in the Balkan area. In addition to these five language groups, Ladino (Judezmo) and various forms of Balkan Turkic (such as Rumelian Turkish and Gagauz) have adopted some areal features; I will have to take them into account at a later stage of exploration.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133813353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_028
C. Odé
Mpur (West Papuan Phylum) is a Non-Austronesian language with approximately 5,000 speakers in the Northeast Bird's Head Area, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In the literature Mpur is sometimes referred to as Kebar or Amberbaken, which are geographic names for the two regions where it is spoken. Mpur is a phylum-level isolate with dialectal differences in at least lexicon and prosody between speakers in the Kebar valley, in the mountains and on the coast, respectively. Mpur has three lexical tones: high, mid and low. The analysis of the results of some perception and production experiments on tone is still in progress: the issue is whether a fourth, midrising tone is phonologically significant. In polysyllabic words, syllables can be more prominent than their surrounding syllables, especially under the influence of high tone; yet there is no evidence for lexical stress in Mpur. The lexicon is of Papuan origin, but morphology and syntax show Austronesian features (Reesink 1998: 603ff.), such as subject-verb-object word order and the absence of heavy verb morphology. For a discussion of features of Austronesian and Non-Austronesian languages, the reader is referred to Foley (1998). Many loans, predominantly from neighbouring languages, entered Mpur from Numforese, Irianese Malay, Standard Indonesian, and also from Dutch. Indonesian is taught in village schools mainly by non-Mpur teachers, but they play truant as much as Mpur children do. In town Mpur children learn Indonesian more properly and only they are fairly able to distinguish between Indonesian and Mpur words. Mpur is an unwritten language. Apart from my work, texts have been collected by Greg and Carol Kalmbacher (Summer Institute of Linguistics) and are written down in Indonesian orthography. A phonology of Mpur is forthcoming (Kalmbacher 1996). A brief description of Mpur morphology will appear (Ode). The prosodie phenomena discussed below are analysed by means of an analysis-by-resynthesis method, using GIPOS (Graphical Interactive Processing of Speech), developed at the Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, by E. Gigi and L. Vogten, in which the PSOLA (Pitch Synchronous Overlap and Add) technique for speech synthesis based on waveform editing is implemented.
{"title":"Some Notes on Prosody in Mpur and Local Indonesian","authors":"C. Odé","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_028","url":null,"abstract":"Mpur (West Papuan Phylum) is a Non-Austronesian language with approximately 5,000 speakers in the Northeast Bird's Head Area, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In the literature Mpur is sometimes referred to as Kebar or Amberbaken, which are geographic names for the two regions where it is spoken. Mpur is a phylum-level isolate with dialectal differences in at least lexicon and prosody between speakers in the Kebar valley, in the mountains and on the coast, respectively. Mpur has three lexical tones: high, mid and low. The analysis of the results of some perception and production experiments on tone is still in progress: the issue is whether a fourth, midrising tone is phonologically significant. In polysyllabic words, syllables can be more prominent than their surrounding syllables, especially under the influence of high tone; yet there is no evidence for lexical stress in Mpur. The lexicon is of Papuan origin, but morphology and syntax show Austronesian features (Reesink 1998: 603ff.), such as subject-verb-object word order and the absence of heavy verb morphology. For a discussion of features of Austronesian and Non-Austronesian languages, the reader is referred to Foley (1998). Many loans, predominantly from neighbouring languages, entered Mpur from Numforese, Irianese Malay, Standard Indonesian, and also from Dutch. Indonesian is taught in village schools mainly by non-Mpur teachers, but they play truant as much as Mpur children do. In town Mpur children learn Indonesian more properly and only they are fairly able to distinguish between Indonesian and Mpur words. Mpur is an unwritten language. Apart from my work, texts have been collected by Greg and Carol Kalmbacher (Summer Institute of Linguistics) and are written down in Indonesian orthography. A phonology of Mpur is forthcoming (Kalmbacher 1996). A brief description of Mpur morphology will appear (Ode). The prosodie phenomena discussed below are analysed by means of an analysis-by-resynthesis method, using GIPOS (Graphical Interactive Processing of Speech), developed at the Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, by E. Gigi and L. Vogten, in which the PSOLA (Pitch Synchronous Overlap and Add) technique for speech synthesis based on waveform editing is implemented.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125137194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_007
H. B. Brijnen, J. Nerbonne, J. Schaeken, D. Gilbers
{"title":"German Influence on Sorbian Aspect: The Function of Directional Adverbs","authors":"H. B. Brijnen, J. Nerbonne, J. Schaeken, D. Gilbers","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114609803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_014
J. Nerbonne, Peter Kleiweg
Up to the middle of the 20th century, for people on both sides of the DutchGerman border, the border was no impediment for understanding each other. The Low Saxon dialects on both sides of the border formed a smooth continuum. Until the Second World War the use of the Dutch and German standard languages was restricted almost completely to school, the church and government circles. Especially since the Second World War, the use of standard languages has increased particularly in everyday communication, while the use of the dialect has increasingly been restricted to the private sphere. Furthermore, the dialects in Eastern Netherlands were becoming more Dutch while the dialects in North West Germany were becoming more German (cf. Auer and Hinskens 1996: 15-18 for the influence of political borders in Europa). On the one hand a number of everyday objects were no longer used, so words denoting them in both the Dutch and the German Low Saxon dialects disappeared. On the other hand, when new objects are introduced, the name is often borrowed from the standard language. Existing words were also replaced by words which are the same or similar to ones in the standard languages. The result is that the significance of the political border as dialect border is increasing (Kremer 1984, 1990, Niebaum 1990). The present paper examines the contemporary situation in order to find out whether the border continues to drive the dialects apart and to examine the effect of the standard languages. Remarkably, the effects are noticeable over a period of two to three generations.
{"title":"Dutch-German Contact in and Around Bentheim","authors":"J. Nerbonne, Peter Kleiweg","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_014","url":null,"abstract":"Up to the middle of the 20th century, for people on both sides of the DutchGerman border, the border was no impediment for understanding each other. The Low Saxon dialects on both sides of the border formed a smooth continuum. Until the Second World War the use of the Dutch and German standard languages was restricted almost completely to school, the church and government circles. Especially since the Second World War, the use of standard languages has increased particularly in everyday communication, while the use of the dialect has increasingly been restricted to the private sphere. Furthermore, the dialects in Eastern Netherlands were becoming more Dutch while the dialects in North West Germany were becoming more German (cf. Auer and Hinskens 1996: 15-18 for the influence of political borders in Europa). On the one hand a number of everyday objects were no longer used, so words denoting them in both the Dutch and the German Low Saxon dialects disappeared. On the other hand, when new objects are introduced, the name is often borrowed from the standard language. Existing words were also replaced by words which are the same or similar to ones in the standard languages. The result is that the significance of the political border as dialect border is increasing (Kremer 1984, 1990, Niebaum 1990). The present paper examines the contemporary situation in order to find out whether the border continues to drive the dialects apart and to examine the effect of the standard languages. Remarkably, the effects are noticeable over a period of two to three generations.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128107066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_005
D. Beck
The Pacific Northwest of North America is home to one of the most geographically extensive Sprachbunds in the world, stretching from the north of California to southern Alaska and extending at its widest point as far east as the Rocky Mountains of Alberta and Montana. Within this area is found a diverse set of languages belonging to a wide range of families and phyla, many of which have come to resemble each other in typological terms to a remarkable degree. Unfortunately, while extensive trade, intermarriage, and bilingualism in the region seem likely, we can only speculate about the extent and the nature of the contact between the various language groups in prehistoric times. There is, however, at least one example of substantial grammatical approximation within the Central Northwest group of languages (see Map 1) which has taken place at a manageable timedepth and which might allow us to build a model of language interaction that reflects one type of contact situation found in the NWC Sprachbund as a whole. The case in point is Bella Coola, the most northerly of the coastal Salish languages; in its modern range Bella Coola is completely cut off from its relatives, being bounded on three sides by the Wakashan languages Haisla, Heiltsuk, and Oowekyala, and to the east by two languages of the Athapaskan family, Carrier and Chilcotin. According to Mcllwraith (1948), the Bella Coola held the Wakashan in some esteem and admired their superior knowledge of ceremonial lore and rituals. The Bella Coola believe many of their rites to have originated with the Wakashan peoples, particularly the Bella Bella (Heiltsuk). Mcllwraith reports intimate contact, including trade and intermarriage, between the two groups, and, judging by the nature and direction of lexical borrowings, the Bella Coola seem to
{"title":"Bella Coola and North Wakashan: Convergence and Diversity in the Northwest Coast Sprachbund","authors":"D. Beck","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_005","url":null,"abstract":"The Pacific Northwest of North America is home to one of the most geographically extensive Sprachbunds in the world, stretching from the north of California to southern Alaska and extending at its widest point as far east as the Rocky Mountains of Alberta and Montana. Within this area is found a diverse set of languages belonging to a wide range of families and phyla, many of which have come to resemble each other in typological terms to a remarkable degree. Unfortunately, while extensive trade, intermarriage, and bilingualism in the region seem likely, we can only speculate about the extent and the nature of the contact between the various language groups in prehistoric times. There is, however, at least one example of substantial grammatical approximation within the Central Northwest group of languages (see Map 1) which has taken place at a manageable timedepth and which might allow us to build a model of language interaction that reflects one type of contact situation found in the NWC Sprachbund as a whole. The case in point is Bella Coola, the most northerly of the coastal Salish languages; in its modern range Bella Coola is completely cut off from its relatives, being bounded on three sides by the Wakashan languages Haisla, Heiltsuk, and Oowekyala, and to the east by two languages of the Athapaskan family, Carrier and Chilcotin. According to Mcllwraith (1948), the Bella Coola held the Wakashan in some esteem and admired their superior knowledge of ceremonial lore and rituals. The Bella Coola believe many of their rites to have originated with the Wakashan peoples, particularly the Bella Bella (Heiltsuk). Mcllwraith reports intimate contact, including trade and intermarriage, between the two groups, and, judging by the nature and direction of lexical borrowings, the Bella Coola seem to","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128509373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_030
Sarah Thomason
Linguistic areas, or Sprachbunde, have been the topic of a very large amount of research for more than a century.1 But although there are numerous valuable studies of particular linguistic areas and of particular features within certain linguistic areas, there is still little consensus on the general nature of the phenomenon. This paper is a preliminary attempt to characterize the notion ‘linguistic area’. Section §1 below begins with a definition of the term and a justification of the definition. I will also state my position, with reasons, on several controversial issues in this domain, and then articulate what seem to me to be the most important historical questions about linguistic areas: How do linguistic areas arise? And how do the areal structural features originate and diffuse through the area? The section concludes with an outline of the crucial requisites for determining that contact-induced change has occurred; this outline sets the stage for the attempt, in §2, to interpret the areal features of five representative Sprachbunde historically. Section 3 is a brief conclusion. Not surprisingly, given the immense complexity and diversity one finds in the contact situations that comprise linguistic areas, no simple answers to the ‘how’ questions are possible; but comparing different linguistic areas at least shows what some of the many possibilities are. The most important (though not very neat) conclusion, however, is that attempts to find very general social and/or linguistic principles of convergence in a linguistic area are doomed—not only because every Sprachbund differs from every other one, but also because the conditions of contact in large Sprachbunde will inevitably vary over time and space. In other words, Sprachbund is not a uniform phenomenon linguistically, socially, or historically.
{"title":"Linguistic Areas and Language History","authors":"Sarah Thomason","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_030","url":null,"abstract":"Linguistic areas, or Sprachbunde, have been the topic of a very large amount of research for more than a century.1 But although there are numerous valuable studies of particular linguistic areas and of particular features within certain linguistic areas, there is still little consensus on the general nature of the phenomenon. This paper is a preliminary attempt to characterize the notion ‘linguistic area’. Section §1 below begins with a definition of the term and a justification of the definition. I will also state my position, with reasons, on several controversial issues in this domain, and then articulate what seem to me to be the most important historical questions about linguistic areas: How do linguistic areas arise? And how do the areal structural features originate and diffuse through the area? The section concludes with an outline of the crucial requisites for determining that contact-induced change has occurred; this outline sets the stage for the attempt, in §2, to interpret the areal features of five representative Sprachbunde historically. Section 3 is a brief conclusion. Not surprisingly, given the immense complexity and diversity one finds in the contact situations that comprise linguistic areas, no simple answers to the ‘how’ questions are possible; but comparing different linguistic areas at least shows what some of the many possibilities are. The most important (though not very neat) conclusion, however, is that attempts to find very general social and/or linguistic principles of convergence in a linguistic area are doomed—not only because every Sprachbund differs from every other one, but also because the conditions of contact in large Sprachbunde will inevitably vary over time and space. In other words, Sprachbund is not a uniform phenomenon linguistically, socially, or historically.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123824945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_026
L. Naiditch
Since the year 1989, over 900,000 persons were repatriated to Israel, more than 84% of them from the countries of the former USSR. Practically all of them know Russian, and for most it constitutes a mother tongue. The motivation for the preservation of Russian as a language of conversation at home and sometimes in the working place, and as a language of culture in the Russian community in Israel is still very strong and has even been enhanced during the last decades. Its use is implemented, on the one hand, by the access to Russian sources (TV, libraries, book shops, guest performances of Russian actors) and by relatively convenient communication with native speakers in the metropolis and, on the other hand, by a tendency towards cultural autonomy in Israel. Many examples collected by us demonstrate a contrary situation to the well-known conservatism usually ascribed to languages spoken in foreign-speaking environments. Thus, the traditional notion of a Sprachinsel is challenged. Several peculiarities of RI have led to the development of a specific variety of Russian as a minority language in Israel (Moskovich 1978; Orel 1994). The degree of interference varies depending on linguistic proficiency of speaker and interlocutor, subject of conversation, and register of speech.
{"title":"Code-Switching and -Mixing in Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals","authors":"L. Naiditch","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_026","url":null,"abstract":"Since the year 1989, over 900,000 persons were repatriated to Israel, more than 84% of them from the countries of the former USSR. Practically all of them know Russian, and for most it constitutes a mother tongue. The motivation for the preservation of Russian as a language of conversation at home and sometimes in the working place, and as a language of culture in the Russian community in Israel is still very strong and has even been enhanced during the last decades. Its use is implemented, on the one hand, by the access to Russian sources (TV, libraries, book shops, guest performances of Russian actors) and by relatively convenient communication with native speakers in the metropolis and, on the other hand, by a tendency towards cultural autonomy in Israel. Many examples collected by us demonstrate a contrary situation to the well-known conservatism usually ascribed to languages spoken in foreign-speaking environments. Thus, the traditional notion of a Sprachinsel is challenged. Several peculiarities of RI have led to the development of a specific variety of Russian as a minority language in Israel (Moskovich 1978; Orel 1994). The degree of interference varies depending on linguistic proficiency of speaker and interlocutor, subject of conversation, and register of speech.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115473916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_009
E. Courtney
Quechua and Spanish, languages long in contact throughout the Andes, are particularly interesting partners in bilingual speech because the word order patterns of Quechua exactly mirror those of Spanish: while Quechua is uniformly leftbranching for all maximal projections, Spanish is generally right-branching.1 Hence, the canonical ordering of major constituents in Quechua is SOV, whereas, in Spanish, the basic surface order is SVO. The L2 Spanish produced by Quechua-speaking children in Peru has yielded intriguing observations of interlanguage phenomena, with corresponding speculation concerning early syntactic development in the second language. In work exploring the development of Spanish word order in young native speakers of Quechua (Minaya and Lujan 1982; Lujan, Minaya, and Sankoff 1984), for example, it was reported that children frequently produced "hybrid" (S)VOV structures. To account for these odd constructions, Minaya and Lujan proposed that the children had a transitional grammar with a nonadult phrase structure rule: VP » VP V. They further maintained, in support of this proposal, that the pattern was idiosyncratic of the children's interlanguage, since it could not be derived from either of the participating languages, Quechua and Spanish. This study presents a vigorous challenge to these claims. First, the reduplicative pattern is very much alive in the Quechua spoken by both adults and children, who duplicate, presumably for emphatic effect, not only verbs but also subjects, objects, adjunct expressions, negative forms even entire phrases. It will thus be shown that the appearance of the VOV pattern in child L2 Spanish clearly represents transfer of a discourse-pragmatic strategy and not a transitional, nonadult, hybrid grammar.2
盖丘亚语和西班牙语，这两种在安第斯山脉长期接触的语言，在双语讲话中是特别有趣的伙伴，因为盖丘亚语的词序模式完全反映了西班牙语的词序模式:盖丘亚语在所有最大投射上都是统一的左分支，而西班牙语通常是右分支因此，在克丘亚语中，主要成分的标准顺序是SOV，而在西班牙语中，基本表面顺序是SVO。秘鲁说克丘亚语的儿童制作的第二语言西班牙语对中介语现象进行了有趣的观察，并对第二语言的早期句法发展进行了相应的推测。在研究母语为盖丘亚语的年轻人的西班牙语语序发展的工作中(Minaya and Lujan 1982;Lujan, Minaya, and Sankoff 1984)，例如，据报道，儿童经常产生“混合”(S)VOV结构。为了解释这些奇怪的结构，Minaya和Lujan提出，孩子们有一种过渡性语法，带有一种非成人短语结构规则:VP»VP v。为了支持这一建议，他们进一步坚持认为，这种模式是孩子们中间语的特质，因为它不可能来自克丘亚语和西班牙语这两种参与语言。这项研究对这些说法提出了有力的挑战。首先，重复的模式在克丘亚语中非常活跃，成人和儿童都说，他们重复，可能是为了强调效果，不仅是动词，还有主语，宾语，形容词表达，否定形式甚至整个短语。因此，儿童二语西班牙语中VOV模式的出现明显代表了语篇语用策略的转移，而不是过渡的、非成人的混合语法
{"title":"Duplication in the L2 Spanish Produced by Quechua-Speaking Children: Transfer of a Pragmatic Strategy","authors":"E. Courtney","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_009","url":null,"abstract":"Quechua and Spanish, languages long in contact throughout the Andes, are particularly interesting partners in bilingual speech because the word order patterns of Quechua exactly mirror those of Spanish: while Quechua is uniformly leftbranching for all maximal projections, Spanish is generally right-branching.1 Hence, the canonical ordering of major constituents in Quechua is SOV, whereas, in Spanish, the basic surface order is SVO. The L2 Spanish produced by Quechua-speaking children in Peru has yielded intriguing observations of interlanguage phenomena, with corresponding speculation concerning early syntactic development in the second language. In work exploring the development of Spanish word order in young native speakers of Quechua (Minaya and Lujan 1982; Lujan, Minaya, and Sankoff 1984), for example, it was reported that children frequently produced \"hybrid\" (S)VOV structures. To account for these odd constructions, Minaya and Lujan proposed that the children had a transitional grammar with a nonadult phrase structure rule: VP » VP V. They further maintained, in support of this proposal, that the pattern was idiosyncratic of the children's interlanguage, since it could not be derived from either of the participating languages, Quechua and Spanish. This study presents a vigorous challenge to these claims. First, the reduplicative pattern is very much alive in the Quechua spoken by both adults and children, who duplicate, presumably for emphatic effect, not only verbs but also subjects, objects, adjunct expressions, negative forms even entire phrases. It will thus be shown that the appearance of the VOV pattern in child L2 Spanish clearly represents transfer of a discourse-pragmatic strategy and not a transitional, nonadult, hybrid grammar.2","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124058663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_032
N. Volskaya, Anna S. Grigoryan
Melodic patterns of so-called 'intonation questions' (IQ) reveal certain similarities in a number of languages: a rise in pitch on the tonic syllable or a high tone level of the whole utterance. Absence of lexical or syntactic markers of interrogativity is compensated by the intonation (Peskovskij 1930). In this study pitch patterns of the IQs in Armenian will be investigated. The research includes listening experiments in which the effect of Armenian intonation question patterns on native English speakers was studied.
{"title":"Typological and Language Specific Features in Intonation Questions of Armenian and English","authors":"N. Volskaya, Anna S. Grigoryan","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_032","url":null,"abstract":"Melodic patterns of so-called 'intonation questions' (IQ) reveal certain similarities in a number of languages: a rise in pitch on the tonic syllable or a high tone level of the whole utterance. Absence of lexical or syntactic markers of interrogativity is compensated by the intonation (Peskovskij 1930). In this study pitch patterns of the IQs in Armenian will be investigated. The research includes listening experiments in which the effect of Armenian intonation question patterns on native English speakers was studied.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"66 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126130863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：