16.2193, Review: Historical Ling/Socioling: Heine & Kuteva (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2193. Sun Jul 17 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2193, Review: Historical Ling/Socioling: Heine & Kuteva (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 16-Jul-2005
From: Aroldo Andrade < aroldo.andrade at gmail.com >
Subject: Language Contact and Grammatical Change 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:01:47
From: Aroldo Andrade < aroldo.andrade at gmail.com >
Subject: Language Contact and Grammatical Change 
 

AUTHOR: Heine, Bernd; Kuteva, Tania
TITLE: Language Contact and Grammatical Change
SERIES: Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-629.html


Aroldo L. Andrade, unaffiliated scholar

INTRODUCTION

Heine and Kuteva's book aims at demonstrating that transfer of grammatical 
meanings and structures across languages is a regular phenomenon, shaped 
by universal processes of grammatical change. It also provides an overview 
of typological studies on language contact and a good deal of data 
relevant to the subject from all over the world. 

DESCRIPTION

The book is divided into seven chapters. Its intended audience includes 
advanced students on language change, sociolinguistics and linguistic 
anthropology. 

Chapter 1 show the limits of the research. Among the sources of 
similarities between languages, language contact was chosen and, among the 
kinds of linguistic transfer available, the transfer of meanings was 
focused. Languages are more studied in the book than dialects for lack of 
data. Some basic concepts are presented, as those of use patterns and 
grammatical (or functional) categories: while the former refers to 
recurrent pieces of discourse associated with the same grammatical 
meaning, the latter label concerns stable, conventionalized form-meaning 
units serving the expression of grammatical functions. Alternative 
approaches and terms are compared to those used in the book. Besides, the 
authors explain the thesis, the theoretical and methodological assumptions 
and offer an overview of the remaining chapters.  

Chapter 2 draws on the role of use patterns in the emergence of new 
structures as a result of language contact. The framework used is based on 
the notion of replication, the transfer pattern from model to replica 
language. These notions are similar to Weinreich's (1964 [1953]) source 
and recipient language, with the difference that they do not involve form-
meaning units, but only meanings, as in the following example, where 
Portuguese (1a) is the model for the young Tariana speakers (1b), who 
recognised that relative pronouns are also used as relative clause markers 
in their L2 Portuguese (Tariana is an endangered North Arawak language 
spoken in Northwestern Brazil; examples are from Aikhenwald 2002).

(1) 
a. 
quem sabia, falava  assim.
who  knew   spoke   like.this
b. 
kwana ka-yeka-kani          kayu-na   na-sape.
who   REL-know-PAST.REL.PL  DEM:ANIM  thus-REM.P.VIS 3.PL-speak
'Those who knew, spoke like this'

When the grammaticalization process begins, Heine & Kuteva say, there is 
already some rarely used collocation, which they call a minor use pattern. 
The rise of a major use pattern relates to (i) increased frequency of use, 
(i) use in new contexts (=extension), and (iii) its association to new 
grammatical functions. This last item can be related either to the 
emergence of new meanings or to narrowing, it means, to the restriction of 
a pattern to a particular use, equivalent to one existent in the model 
language. Four case studies are provided in order to illustrate the 
mechanism. Lastly, the discussion on the transition from a major use 
pattern into a full-fledged category paves the way to the next chapter.  

Chapter 3 concerns the development of grammatical categories, the phase 
involving genuine grammaticalization. The authors distinguish two types of 
contact-induced grammaticalization, as they call the process that creates 
functional categories due to language contact. Ordinary grammaticalization 
is a process by which the model language only provides the category to be 
replicated, as shown in (2a). It is stressed that the process is a 
creative act, although constrained by (i) universal principles of 
grammaticalization; (ii) the nature of the model category and (iii) the 
structural outfit of the languages involved. On the other hand, replica 
grammaticalization is a process by which the model language provides not 
only the category, but also the way it is replicated, as in (2b). 

(2) 
a. Ordinary grammaticalization: Mx = [Ry > Rx]
b. Replica grammaticalization:  [My > Mx] >> [Ry > Rx]
where M = model language; R = replica language; x, y = use patterns or 
functional categories; > = "develops into"; >> = "is replicated on".

After the distinction, there is an attempt to interpret cases of polysemy 
copying -- also referred to as calquing or loan translation -- as also 
involving grammaticalization. An exemplification appears in a cross-
linguistic survey of future tense categories. The following consequences 
of the analysis are discussed: (i) contact-induced grammaticalization is 
unidirectional, with rare exceptions; (ii) the conceptual sources used in 
grammaticalization are not different from the ones found elsewhere, but 
relate to universal cognitive processes; (iii) there are limits to the 
kinds of grammatical structures that can be replicated; most of such 
processes will be identified as restructuring -- meaning the 
reorganization of the system as a result of change -- or spontaneous 
replication -- referring to an under- or overgeneralization of the 
principles of replication due to insufficient knowledge of the L2. 
Finally, there seems to be a correlation among space, time and degree of 
grammaticalization, but the identification of the time when it happened 
depends on the availability of records.

Chapter 4 inquires upon the impact of the change on the grammatical 
structure of the languages concerned, as some grammatical changes may 
incur in a typological change in the language profile. The authors 
classify the possible structural effects of grammaticalization in six 
types, not mutually exclusive among themselves. The following 
classification would depend on the category under investigation. (i) Gap 
filling refers to the inclusion of a category in the system or of a 
meaning to a previous category. (ii) Coexistence describes a situation in 
which the new and the old structures encoding a category coexist, either 
by double marking or by variation. (iii) Differentiation means that the 
new and the old categories coexist but the structure of the old one is 
redefined; it is dealt with as a special instance of coexistence. The 
example in (1) suggests that Tariana speakers have retained their relative 
construction but also added an interrogative pronoun to it. (iv) 
Equivalence (or isomorphism) is the situation found when some category of 
the replica is restructured to be equivalent to a corresponding category 
of the model language, because they are conceived or described as the 
same. 

Again in Tariana, innovative speakers have given up the locative case 
distinctions of the fellow Arawak languages by replicating a generalized 
locative case, as happens in the East Tucanoan languages. (v) Category 
extension occurs when a new use pattern is assigned to some old category, 
when the grammatical categorization structure of the language is not 
affected, only the internal structure of categories. (vi) Category 
replacement happens when a new category replaces the old one, this being 
an ultimate process, usually triggered by category extension. Besides the 
change in a specific category, it is also discussed changes that involve 
entire domains of grammar by the introduction of a new conceptual domain, 
as tense marking in Nilotic languages as a result of contact with their 
Bantu neighbors. Another stage of change involves the overall typological 
profile of a language, which can affect its semantics, morphology or 
syntax (in this order, following the authors). As regards syntax, it is 
not immune to replication, as frequently assumed. Apart from the general 
grammaticalization parameters (extension, desemanticization, 
decategorialization and erosion), the authors present specific evidence 
for a morphological cycle leading from free syntactic structures and 
lexical forms to clitics and further to affixes. This cycle may not be 
carried through all its stages and renewal may not occur.

Chapter 5 investigates the nature of linguistic areas -- classes of 
languages that share a number of features as a result of contact. Three 
main types are distinguished: (i) 'sprachbund', defined by Heine and 
Kuteva on the basis of a set of linguistic features without reference to 
the historical forces that gave rise to it (differently from most of the 
work dedicated to this subject); (ii) metatypy, an ideal linguistic area 
where the languages concerned exhibit a high degree of 
intertranslatability, as a result of wholesale restructuring due to 
contact; and (iii) grammaticalization area, considered as a group of 
geographically contiguous languages that have undergone the same 
grammaticalization process as a result of language contact. A 
grammaticalization area prototypically consists of at least three 
languages, affected by two instances of the same grammaticalization 
process, and is considered the basis for the investigation of the other 
two types of areas. Therefore, a sprachbund is normally characterized by a 
bundle of grammaticalization areas; properties of the major sprachbunds 
identified in the literature, as the Balkans, Meso-America and South Asia, 
are reviewed by the authors. By its turn, a metatypy is a result of 
grammaticalization areas and also of processes leading to fixed 
collocations such as proverbial and idiomatic expressions. Finally, a 
comparative of African languages and languages from other continents is 
shown to argue that Africa constitutes a large grammaticalization area.

Chapter 6 discusses the limits of replication, i.e., additional factors 
generally characterizing situations of language contact. The fairly loose 
definition of equivalence adopted can raise problems if looked into in 
more detail. There are two main ways in which equivalence has been 
defined: structural isomorphism (the cross-linguistic compatibility of the 
linguist's theoretical construct of categories) and translational 
equivalence (what speakers in situations of contact conceive or treat as 
equivalent use patterns or categories). While the first is not consistent 
with the properties of corresponding categories, especially during the 
early stages of replication, the second can be identified by the study of 
translational work. The primary goal of speakers is the semantic 
equivalence between constructions of both languages. However, sometimes 
this is achieved through rather unexpected ways. For instance, the outcome 
of an equivalence process can be a morphologically distinct category from 
that identified in the model language. The constraints to replication may 
involve: (i) the particular structure of the languages involved; (ii) 
genetically motivated forces (=drift); (iii) sociolinguistic factors; and 
(iv) the length of contact, which is not considered a decisive aspect for 
structural change. The authors admit that besides contact, there are other 
variables that may delimit the behavior of use patterns, as phonological 
similarity, borrowing and the influence of written discourse. A discussion 
on the term 'attrition' shows that it is not incompatible with the idea of 
contact-induced grammaticalization. Finally, the distinction 
between 'natural' (language internal) and 'unnatural' (language external) 
change is considered in the light of the aforementioned generalizations.  

Chapter 7 summarizes the most relevant findings discussed in the book. It 
is stressed, among other points, that sociolinguistic factors are not 
decisive for the occurrence of grammatical replication and that a number 
of notions proposed in contact linguistics are of limited relevance for 
the study. 

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Heine and Kuteva's book presents an organized review of data on language 
contact, and represents indeed a useful guide for those interested in 
language change. The authors are very clear regarding the thesis proposed, 
and also explicit clearly the differences and similarities to previous 
studies. Maybe the concern in representing the existing terminology and 
theories, although positive, would better be concentrated in the 
introduction and conclusion of the book for the sake of clarity. An 
example can be observed in chapter 6, where some of the subsections 
present limits to replication, while others deny the importance of some 
limits proposed in the specialized literature. 

The functional-typological orientation displayed by the book has some 
advantages, as the explicit methodology and the clear analysis, supported 
by many examples. This permits the authors to evaluate the range of their 
proposed generalizations without the fear of a failed analysis. 
Notwithstanding this, sometimes there is a sort of readiness to admit 
exceptions, as in the discussion on replication from an aspect marker to a 
topic (or focus) marker in Solomons Pijin, having Kwaio as a model 
language, in page 108f. It is not explained why this would be a 
counterexample to the principle of unidirectionality or not conceptually 
plausible. I believe the comment was unnecessary, once it is sound with a 
theory of grammar in which topic/focus are the leftmost categories of the 
sentence. Specific examples of grammaticalization of aspect/modal 
particles to topic categories are provided by Roberts & Roussou (2003).

In fact, assumptions generally taken in functionalist works were not 
explained. Although this would be expected -- as most of 
the "grammaticalization community" follows this theoretical background -- 
some of those assumptions have direct import to the issues dealt with in 
the book. I would like to mention specifically the gradualist view of 
language change, which has been opposed to the catastrophic view based in 
the individual (cf., among others, Lightfoot 1999). The focus on continua 
restrains a clear rendering of the distinction between functional category 
as opposed to use pattern. A corollary of this relates to the definition 
of "markedness" of a grammaticalization process as a result of its low 
frequency, which seems insatisfatory when it comes to identify universal 
principles of grammaticalization. Moreover, the frequency necessary for 
one to consider an element a trigger of changes in the grammatical 
structure of a language is another unclear point. 

Many problems with the adopted framework were foreseen by the authors. 
Firstly, when a replica grammaticalization happens, it is not plausible to 
conceive that the speakers of the replica language would have access to 
the reconstructed form of the model language. The device of recurring to a 
universal principle of grammaticalization seems not to be satisfactory, 
once there are rare processes of grammaticalization that cannot be 
explained without the recognition of the role of a specific language 
contact. One of these examples is the Irish English "hot news" perfect, 
e.g. "She's after selling the boat" (meaning 'She has just sold the 
boat'), in page 94. The second aspect is frequently mentioned in the 
functional literature and relates to the view of grammaticalization as 
involving primarily a semantic process. It seems that the instances of 
case syncretism indeed offer evidence for change in many domains of 
language happening in a simultaneous fashion, as it is normally observed 
with other phenomena of language change. 

Of course, with these observations I do not wish to invalidate this piece 
of scholarship. Overall, the aims proposed in the book were fairly well 
achieved. The book demonstrates that language contact is a regular 
process, in total connection with the parameters of grammaticalization. 
This solely is an invaluable contribution to the field of historical 
linguistics. Formal researchers on grammaticalization will definitely 
profit from this work as well.

REFERENCES

Aikhenwald, Alexandra Y. (2002) Language contact in Amazonia. New York: 
Oxford University Press.

Lightfoot, David. (1999) The Development of Language: acquisition, change 
and evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. (2003) Syntactic change: a minimalist 
approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weinreich, Uriel. (1964) [1953] Languages in contact. London: The Hague; 
Paris: Mouton. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Aroldo Andrade has research interests in syntax, morphology and historical 
linguistics. His MA dissertation deals with causative alternation and 
partial agreement of unaccusative constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. 
He is presently researching the syntax of infinitive constructions in the 
diachrony of Portuguese.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2193