Constraints on Contact-Induced Linguistic Change

Abstract

In a recent paper on "Social and Linguistic Factors as Predictors of Contact-Induced Change" Thomason (2007) reiterates the claim made earlier by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) and others (e.g., Harris & Campbell 1995; Curnow 2001) that there are no linguistic constraints on interference in language contact, in that any linguistic feature can be transferred to any language, and any change can occur as a direct or indirect result of language contact, and she is satisfied to observe that all the specific constraints on contact-induced change that have been proposed have been counterexemplified.The present paper takes issue with this stance, arguing that it might be in need of reconsideration, in that there are in fact some constraints on contact-induced linguistic change. These constraints relate to grammatical replication, as it has been described in Heine & Kuteva (2003; 2005; 2006), thus lending further support to the generalizations on language contact proposed there.

Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German

“…We concur with Heine and Kuteva (2008, p. 59) that the term “borrowing” is best reserved for contact-induced linguistic transfer which involves “phonetic substance, that is, either sounds or form–meaning units such as morphemes, words, or larger entities”. This is not the case in our study, which focuses on concepts and meanings and the structure or patterns in which they occur.…”

Cladistic Parsimony, Historical Linguistics and Cultural Phylogenetics

“…However, a number of considerations indicate that the problem is not as serious for languages as is sometimes suggested by opponents of cultural phylogenetics. First, according to Heine and Kuteva (), the claim that anything may be borrowed from one language to another has been over‐stated. There are a number of plausible examples of constraints on contact‐induced change, e.g.…”

Millest räägivad eesti õppijakeele käändeasendused?

“…Oma töös olen arvesse võtnud nende lingvistide seisukohti, kes püüavad keeles toimuvaid muutusi määratleda kas keeleomase variatiivsusena või keeltevahelisest mõjust tingitud nähtusena (vt nt Aikhenvald 2007;Heine & Kuteva 2008;Ehala 2009b). Sünkroonne varieerumine on keelekasutusele omane tunnusjoon, mis kõneleb keele arengupotentsiaalist, sageduse ja produktiivsuse dialektikale tuginevatest tendentsidest ning võimalikest muutustest (vt nt Nikolaev & Niemi 2006;Lüdeling & Evert 2003;Lüdeling jt 2000;Kaalep 2010;.…”