28.1460, Review: English; Middle English; Old English; Irish; Insular Celtic; Historical Ling; Lang Acquisition; Socioling: Schreier, Hundt (2015)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1460. Thu Mar 23 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.1460, Review: English; Middle English; Old English; Irish; Insular Celtic; Historical Ling; Lang Acquisition; Socioling: Schreier, Hundt (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:34:34
From: Steffen Schaub [steffen.schaub at uni-muenster.de]
Subject: English as a Contact Language

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36229497


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-4302.html

EDITOR: Daniel  Schreier
EDITOR: Marianne  Hundt
TITLE: English as a Contact Language
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Steffen Schaub, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

“English as a Contact Language”, edited by Daniel Schreier and Marianne Hundt,
is devoted to the role of language contact in the formation and dispersion of
English around the world. The volume’s objectives, formulated in the
introduction by Hundt and Schreier (Ch. 1), are “to show that the English
language has been contact-derived from its very beginnings onwards and to
highlight the immense potential for the field of contact linguistics“ (1). As
such, it encompasses interests from diverse subdisciplines of linguistics,
including historical linguistics, variational linguistics, pidgin/creole
studies and second language acquisition. The 17 contributions are not
thematically grouped, but may be loosely subgrouped into a) historical
accounts of English language contact (Chs. 2-4), b) language contact in
regional varieties of English (Chs. 5-9), and c) socio- and cross-linguistic
issues of English contact linguistics (Chs. 10-18). The contributions range
from theoretical discussions and research syntheses to original studies.
Below, each contribution is briefly summarized, followed by an evaluation of
the volume.

Chapters 2-4 evaluate the role of contact-induced language change at
historical-linguistic stages of English. In her contribution, Fischer (Ch. 2)
assesses contact-induced change on the syntactic level in Old and Middle
English. She points out that “[w]hereas lexical change […] [is] fairly easy to
spot, [contact-induced] syntactic change and syntactic loans are much harder
to observe” (18) due to the abstractness of the patterns and the high degree
of interaction between syntax and other parts of the grammatical system.
Fischer scrutinizes possible contact-induced change from three languages:
Latin, Old Norse, and medieval French. Critically discussing evidence from
past studies and considering the sociolinguistic nature of the contact
situations, she concludes that “borrowing is unlikely to have occurred as a
result of contact with Latin and French unless an analogous construction was
available in the target language” (40). Only in the case of Old Norse does
Fischer see a more profound influence, albeit of an indirect kind (through
imperfect learning). Schendl (Ch. 3) is concerned with the influence of
code-switching in late Middle English and its relevance for contact-induced
lexical change. Drawing on mixed-language medieval texts, Schendl demonstrates
that code-switching was “a widely accepted textual strategy in late
fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century England” (43), and concludes that
widespread multilingualism in late medieval England was a strong facilitator
of contact-induced lexical change. In Ch. 4, Wright explores the contact
origins of Standard English, and argues that the role of mixed-language texts
(cf. Schendl, Ch. 3) has so far been neglected in accounting for the emergence
of a written Standard of English. Tracing the reduction of minor spelling
variants in verb forms, she demonstrates that “it is the process of
elimination [rather than selection] that is so remarkable about writing from
1500 as compared to a hundred years later” (66).

Chapters 5 and 6 concentrate on contact phenomena on the British Isles.
Klemola (Ch. 5) challenges the traditional view that the insular Celtic
languages have had little to no contact-induced impact on the evolution of
English. Against the backdrop of archaeological, demographic and historical
evidence of Celtic contact, he discusses three case studies of possible Celtic
influence on the English language (Northern Subject Rule, self-forms as
intensifiers and reflexives, and third-person singular pronoun ‘en’ in
southwestern dialects), concluding that it is “perhaps impossible” (87) to
demonstrate Celtic influence conclusively, but that the linguistic and
non-linguistic evidence corroborates claims of linguistic change originating
from contact to the Celtic languages. Hickey (Ch. 6) addresses the complexity
of contact-induced language change in the context of language shift in Ireland
and Scotland. Focusing on Ireland, he critically summarizes evidence of
linguistic contact effects on English from Irish and provides examples of
(undisputed) cases of transfer, coincidental structural parallels, as well as
typological features from Irish which were not transferred. He argues that, in
unguided adult acquisition scenarios such as in Ireland, suprasegmental
phonology in particular plays a (so far) underestimated role. Comparing the
prosody of Irish and its structural English counterparts, he demonstrates that
primarily those constructions are transferred which correspond with the Irish
constructions in terms of intonation. The chapter closes with parallels to the
situation in Scotland.

Wolfram (Ch. 7) describes structural adaptation in socio-ethnic varieties of
English in North America. By comparing representative phonological variables
(such as consonant cluster reduction) and morphosyntactic variables (such as
tense marking) in newly emerging varieties, for instance Hispanic English in
the Mid-Atlantic South, as well as durable ethnic varieties, such as
African-American Vernacular English, he demonstrates that L1-to-L2 transfer
and accommodation do not take effect abruptly but gradually, leading to
intermediate structural forms present in neither input variety. Wolfram’s
focus is on both product and process by looking at durable ethnic varieties
which have been extensively researched, such as AAVE and Native American
Indian English as well as incipient varieties which emerge in North America as
the result of transplanted communities, e.g. the newly developing Hispanic
communities in the Mid-Atlantic south. Wolfram investigates a representative
set of phonological variables (consonant cluster reduction, syllable timing,
vowel production) and morpho-syntactic variables (past tense marking,
third-person singular –s absence). Example study on glide reduction shows that
the phonetic transition from Spanish to Southern English in Hispanic speakers
does not occur abruptly, but gradually, leading to an intermediate form not
present in either languages, and that lexis plays an important role in this
process. Wolfram finds that transfer and accommodation do not take effect
abruptly, but gradually, leading to intermediate, inter-dialectal phonetic
output which may stabilize eventually. He also finds that the acquisition of
phonetic processes is linked to lexical factors.

Schneider’s contribution (Ch. 8) inspects the role of contact in models
accounting for the emergence of “New Englishes“ (postcolonial L2 varieties of
English). Following a brief overview of  the World Englishes research agenda
and a critical discussion of terminological issues, he compares the role of
contact in three popular conceptual models of World Englishes (the ENL/ESL/EFL
distinction, Kachru’s Three Circles Model, and Schneider’s Dynamic Model), and
concludes that the first two frameworks place little interest in
contact-induced change. In contrast, he considers contact and its effect to be
of central concern in Schneider’s Dynamic model, although he asserts that its
impact is not equally strong throughout the evolutionary cycle. He then
concentrates on the influence of contact in terms of his model by looking at
extra-linguistic factors (such as the historical and sociolinguistic
background) as well as the linguistic outcome (i.e. the linguistic contact
effects). His contribution demonstrates that contact has significantly (but
not exclusively) shaped postcolonial varieties of English.

Schreier (Ch. 9) advocates the study of so-called lesser-known varieties of
English (LKVEs) in addition to the existing canon of well-known and closely
studied varieties of English. In particular, he makes the criticism that
varieties such as Tristan de Cunha English or Dominican Kokoy are “virtually
unknown to scholars“ (149) and, consequently, are usually not represented in
current models of English as a world language. LKVEs, he argues, offer
potential for uncovering processes of convergence in contact situations, and
he provides discussions of two exemplary processes, namely mixing and colonial
lag. With regard to mixing, Schreier asserts that ''[w]e are still quite far
from developing a coherent theory as to why mixing operates the way it does“
(160), but offers LKVEs as a chance to investigate this process in great
detail. Furthermore, he provides evidence of the retention of an otherwise
unattested phonological legacy (h-insertion) from nineteenth-century London
retained in Tristan de Cunha English as an example of what has been termed
‘colonial lag‘. In conclusion, he argues that, despite their relatively
insignificant population sizes, LKVEs are ideal candidates for scrutinizing
contact-induced change in early formative phases of variety emergence.

Chapters 10-18 discuss issues of English contact linguistics in a wider
context, including sociolinguistic and cross-linguistic concerns. Britain (Ch.
10) investigates the effects of everyday mobility and the resulting contact on
the attrition and genesis of dialect forms. While drastic, life-changing
mobility has been at the center of attention in sociolinguistic research,
Britain, drawing on numerous studies, demonstrates that the same linguistic
changes caused by life-changing (long-distance) transportation of speech
communities (such as is the case in colonial settings) can also be observed in
scenarios of less dramatic, everyday-life mobility. In discussing different
factors causing or leading to mundane mobility, including commuting,
urbanization and counter-urbanization (a more recent trend), Britain
convincingly shows that mundane mobility is a subtle, but widespread form of
mobility, “whose mundaneness has meant […] that it has fallen below the
dialectological radar until relatively recently” (172). He emphasizes that
mobility is not free, but socially stratified, which leads Britain to conclude
that any linguistic consequences of dialect contact can only be assessed with
the speaker’s socioeconomic background in mind. Turning to the linguistic
outcomes of mundane mobility, he summarizes research which reports on the
attrition of striking dialectal features in East Anglia and Dorset on the one
hand, but also on linguistic outcomes which can be labelled ‘dialect genesis’.
He concludes that mundane mobility helps in accounting for subtle dialectal
changes.

In her contribution, Hundt (Ch. 11) takes an evaluative look at the concept of
‘epicenter’, i.e. a local norm-producing variety exerting a linguistic
influence on neighboring areas. Although the concept is intuitively appealing
and has recently attracted attention, Hundt argues that the concept poses
theoretical and methodological problems. Regarding the theoretical problems,
Hundt finds that the epicenter concept is a) ill defined, b) that the
metaphorical connotations of the term are potentially misleading, and c) that
its application to standard varieties of language (excluding vernacular
varieties) is questionable. She further points to methodological challenges,
asking, for instance, whether the identification of epicentres should (or
possibly can) be based on synchronic data alone. Turning to methodological
challenges, Hundt surveys empirical research on new and emerging epicenters,
taking into consideration synchronic corpus-based studies, diachronic studies
and language attitude studies, and assesses in how far these approaches meet
the methodological requirements for identifying epicenters. In her conclusion,
Hundt calls for a clearer definition of the concept, an expanded application
to vernacular varieties, and basing future claims of epicentral status on a
combination of empirical evidence from corpus-based, diachronic and language
attitude studies.

Mufwene (Ch. 12) criticizes the still commonplace practice in historical
linguistics of largely ignoring the impact of language contact in accounts of
the history of English. Arguing that “the history of English and any modern
language is necessarily contact-based” (205), Mufwene states that an approach
to language evolution which marginalizes contact influence is misguided, as it
fails to account for the underlying reasons and dynamics of variation, not
only in contact-based pidgins and creoles, but also in dialect contact
scenarios (koinéization) as well as the emergence of New and even native
Englishes. The core of the contribution is a concise review of contact
evidence throughout the history of English. For Old and Middle English,
Mufwene emphasizes the underestimated role of the Celtic languages as the most
protracted contact influence on English grammar. He also corroborates the
argument that dialects are as much shaped by contact as colonial varieties,
pidgins or creoles, and that there should be no qualitative distinction of
them based solely on their contact-based emergence. For English spoken outside
the British Isles, Mufwene criticizes the long-held view that indigenized
Englishes and pidgins/creoles have traditionally been considered ''children
out of wedlock'' (212) whereas colonial Englishes with a largely European
population have been perceived as legitimate offspring of British English. His
contribution summarizes how and in how far contact has shaped all colonial
varieties of English, and underscores the role of population structure and
inter-idiolectal contact.

Winford (Ch. 13) focuses on the interplay between language universals and
contact-induced substrate influence, often considered competitors in causes of
variation in contact Englishes. Winford evaluates the interaction in light of
two opposing views on universals: the formalist view, which sees universals as
innate features written into the Universal Grammar, and the functional view,
which considers the causal mechanisms themselves as the true universals.
Focusing on the tense/aspect systems of Caribbean contact Englishes, Winford
provides support for both perspectives: Whereas the tense categories Relative
Past and Future are shaped by internally motivated grammaticalization  without
any external influence, he finds evidence of contact-induced (i.e. externally
motivated) grammaticalization in the Perfect category. He argues that such
grammaticalization is the result of analogical inferencing. As an explanation,
Winford offers the mechanism of 'imposition', which involves the transfer of
properties of a category in the dominant L1 to the L2, and which explains
contact-induced grammaticalization in a cognitively plausible way.

Mesthrie (Ch. 14) presents an original study on the use of be + ing in
narrative function in South African Indian English (SAIE). He argues that the
functional range of be + ing is wider in colonial and postcolonial contexts
than would be allowed in traditional varieties. The construction, whose use in
functions other than traditionally expected had been subject to
stigmatization, has stabilized in some stigma-free community settings (such as
personal narrative). Mesthrie’s study takes a closer look at be + ing in such
narratives, and reveals that in SAIE the construction shows innovative
grammatical nuances absent from traditional standards, for instance a marked
contrast between backgrounding progressives (was + ing) and foregrounding
progressives (is + ing), as well as the use of variations for climactic
effects. In terms of a contact-induced explanation, he considers the
functional extension of the tense marker to show “continuity with that of
Indian languages” (256).

Chapters 15 and 16 focus on the respective roles of children, adolescents and
adults in language contact. The study by Kerswill, Cheshire, Fox & Torgensen
(Ch. 15) is concerned with the role of children and adolescents in
contact-induced change. Reviewing the literature, they find that contact
linguistics has long underestimated the importance of adolescents and,
particularly, young children for introducing contact-induced changes. A basic
assumption is that adult-to-adult contact leads to simplification, e.g. in
morphology, whereas contact among children may lead to complexification, such
as in the form of added innovations. Kerswill et al. provide data from recent
and ongoing research on inner-city London English, and show that adolescents
and children exhibit phonological (vowel system), morphological (was/were
variation) and syntactic (new quotative this is +speaker) innovations and
change when compared to their adult counterparts. The authors largely
attribute these innovations and changes to the highly diverse multicultural
context of adolescent contact, and are thus able to show the relative
importance of adolescents and children as agents of contact-induced change.

This is complemented by Thomason (Ch. 16), who discusses the relative
contribution of adults and children to contact-induced language change, i.e.
which types of change can be attributed to either group. Thomason demonstrates
that while both adults and children can be initiators of borrowing, change
resulting from shift-induced interference (i.e. language change as a result of
imperfect learning) is likely exclusively initiated by adults. Providing
evidence (from languages/dialects, mixed languages as well as pidgins/creoles)
of child- and adult-initiated change, Thomason demonstrates how children or
adults initiate language change. She concludes that neither are the sole
initiators of contact-induced change, which also suggests that both are agents
of internally motivated change as well.

Odlin (Ch. 17) presents the results of an original study of Finnish and
Swedish learners of English. The central question is whether the respective
substrate languages work as accelerators or inhibitors in interlanguage
development. Odlin is particularly interested in two aspects, namely the
relation between transfer and developmental sequences, and between the
individual and the group (313). The results show that in some Finnish
learners, the substrate works as an accelerator, e.g. in the acquisition of
subordinate clauses, it also operates as an inhibitor, as in the use of
articles and prepositions. The strong individual variation across learners
even within the same L1 group leads Odlin to conclude that strong
deterministic claims of substrate influence cannot be substantiated for a
group in general. Nevertheless, he sees merit in group comparisons, especially
if the tendencies can be replicated in other contact situations. He closes
with a call for researchers to trace contact-induced substrate influence using
large samples and detailed sociolinguistic information.
The concluding contribution by Mair (Ch. 18) is dedicated, quite fittingly, to
the possible future of English as a contact language. Mair, aware of the
challenging task at hand, takes a look back at mid-20th century prospects on
the future of English as a world language, and concludes that predicted
linguistic changes in such prophecies often turn out to be false. With this in
mind, Mair restricts his own predictions to only three: there will be more and
more diverse contact between English and other languages; there will be more
and more diverse contact among (standard and non-standard) varieties of
English; and the mediated performance of vernaculars […] will be far more
important as a site of language contact in the future (317). Considering the
first two uncontroversial, Mair proceeds to discuss his third prediction,
using data from a diasporic Nigerian online discussion forum. He argues that
the use and ‘hyper-awareness’ of language in the digital mediascape challenge
traditional notions of static, geographically clearly locatable language
varieties. Mair concludes that, at least for the context of digital
communication, it is perhaps best “if we see World English not as a bundle of
separate varieties […], but rather as a pool of standard and non-standard
features of varying and fuzzy regional reach” (325-326, author’s own
emphasis), and calls for more research on contact phenomena in their
communicative context instead of any detached long-term effects.

EVALUATION

'English as a contact language' is a ground-breaking volume capturing the
growing field of English contact linguistics. In line with the editors’
objective to “bring together insights from a number of disciplines that
interact in complex ways” (17), the seventeen contributions included approach
the topic of English contact linguistics from a diversity of perspectives,
ranging from historical linguistics to dialectology, World Englishes research,
language typology and second language acquisition. Linguistic evidence comes
from historical stages of English (Old and Middle English), regional varieties
of English, dialects and sociolects, pidgins and creoles, mixed languages and
learner language, and covers all levels of linguistic analysis, from phonology
to morpho-syntax and semantics. Despite the diversity of (sometimes
contradictory) viewpoints included, the volume is coherently designed towards
the common goal of gaining ''a better understanding of the full complexity of
contact-induced language change'' (xvi).

A particular merit of the volume is that its contributors often go beyond
describing effects of language contact seeking explanations and underlying
mechanisms of contact-induced change. While comparative research in English
contact linguistics has primarily (and importantly so) focused on the question
of what, i.e. the structural effects of contact, it has neglected to address
the questions of how and why, i.e. the underlying dynamics and motivation. The
volume addresses these issues and raises questions of agency in contact
scenarios, such as the relative importance of children and adolescents, as
well as seeking cognitively plausible, potentially universal explanations of
contact-induced change, among others.

A major challenge is the concept of language contact itself, which escapes a
uniformly accepted definition. Several contributions problematize the
conceptualization of contact in light of different modes of transfer. While
indirect forms (television) or diffusing factors (social class) of language
contact are also acknowledged, face-to-face conversation is considered the
primary mode of contact. Consequently, rather than relying on decontextualized
contact effects alone, several contributions call for researchers to include
speakers, communicative setting and the general context into consideration
when investigating contact-induced change (see, for instance, Britain,
Mesthrie or Mufwene).

In sum, the volume succeeds in demonstrating the contact-intensive nature of
the English language throughout its history, and how contact operates on
different scales, from mundane dialect contact to the emergence of regional
epicentres. Furthermore, by adopting a broadly interdisciplinary approach, it
facilitates innovative perspectives into the study of contact linguistics in
general. The volume is highly recommended reading for beginning and
experienced scholars in (English) contact linguistics, English variational
linguistics, language typology, and beyond.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Steffen Schaub is a Lecturer of linguistics in the English department at the
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. He holds a degree in
English Linguistics, Linguistic Engineering and American Studies. His research
interests include English corpus linguistics, second-language acquisition,
sociolinguistics and language typology.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $70,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out the Fund Drive 2017 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

We collect donations via the eLinguistics Foundation, a
registered 501(c) Non Profit organization with the federal tax
number 45-4211155. The donations can be offset against your
federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program. Contact
your human resources department and send us the necessary form.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1460	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/