200 likes | 466 Views
Sociolinguistic Typology*. Deny A. Kwary www.kwary.net *A simplified version of the lecture given by Prof. Peter Trudgill at the University of Agder, Norway, 26 May 2009. Main Concept. Sociolinguistic Typology: Contact vs. Isolation. Linguistic Typologists: Contact and Complexification.
E N D
Sociolinguistic Typology* Deny A. Kwary www.kwary.net *A simplified version of the lecture given by Prof. Peter Trudgill at the University of Agder, Norway, 26 May 2009.
Main Concept Sociolinguistic Typology: Contact vs. Isolation Linguistic Typologists: Contact and Complexification Sociolinguists & Dialectologists: Contact and Simplification
A. Contact and Complexification (1) • Nichols (1992: 294-301) on Complexity: • Highest: Amharic (Africa), Tarascan (Mesoamerica), Ket (Northern Asia). • Lowest: !Kung (Africa), Mixtec (Mesoamerica), Gilyak (Northern Asia). • High-complexity languages are in areas of linguistic diversity and contact. • Example: Ket vs. Gilyak (next slide)
A. Contact and Complexification (2) Ket is in the area of more linguistic diversity and contact than Gilyak. Picture Source: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/languagefamilies.html The Ket verb is notoriously complex; its morphology can involve tense and subject-number suppletion, discontinuous roots, and the prefixation, suffixation, and infixing of diverse series of agent and patient markers. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/315634/Ket-language)
A. Contact and Complexification (3) • Nichols (1992: 193): “It can be concluded that contact among languages fosters complexity, or, put differently, diversity among neighbouring languages fosters complexity in each of the languages.” • The contact will have to be long-term contact situations involving childhood–and therefore proficient bilingualism.
B. Contact and Simplification • Types of Simplification: • Regularisation of Irregularities • Increase in transparency • Loss of redundancy
B.1. Regularisation of Irregularities • English Language: • Help (present) – Holp (past) Help (present) – Helped (past) • Cow (singular) – Kine (plural) Cow (singular) – Cows (plural)
B.2. Increase in transparency (1) • English Language • Twice Two times • Seldom Not often • ‘Two times’ and ‘not often’ are more transparent than ‘twice’ and ‘seldom’, respectively. See the Corpus Evidence on the Next Slide: BNC (British National Corpus) published in 1994 vs. BAWE (British Academic Written English) published in 2008.
B.2. Increase in transparency (2) BNC, 100 million words, UK, 1980 – 1993. BAWE, UK, 6.5 million words, UK, 2004 – 2007. *The calculation is based on www.sketchengine.co.uk The corpus evidence shows that the percentages of using ‘two times’ and ‘not often’—the more transparent forms—have increased.
B.3. Loss of Redundancy (1) • Loss of repetition of information • In Indonesian language: • Old manuscript: banyak rumah-rumah ‘many houses’ • New manuscript: banyak rumah ‘many house’ • Loss of morphological categories: • Faroese has undergone fewer changes than the continental Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish).
B.3. Loss of Redundancy (2) • For example: The adjective narrow has 3 forms in Norwegian, but 2 stems and 11 different forms in Faroese. • Compared to Faroese, Norwegian has undergone considerable loss of morphological complexity.
B.3. Loss of Redundancy (3) • Faroese has been a relatively isolated language over the last millennium. • Contact has played an important role in the developments in continental Scandinavian. • Adult language and dialect contact, because of the diminished language-learning abilities of speakers who have passed the critical threshold, favor pidginization. (Notice that pidginization is a process which occurs wherever adult language acquisition takes place, and only in very exceptional circumstances leads to the development of a pidgin language.)
Conclusion • High-contact, long termpre-critical threshold contact situations are more likely to lead to additive (and only additive) complexification; • High-contact, short termpost-critical threshold contact situations are more likely to lead to simplification; • Low contact situations are likely to lead to preservation of existing complexity.
References • http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/languagefamilies.html. Posted July 15, 2000; revisions posted November 25, 2003. • http://www.sketchengine.co.uk. Accessed 29 June 2009. • Ket language. (2009). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/315634/Ket-language • Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. • Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. In J. K. Chambers, N. Schilling-Estes and P. Trudgill (eds.) Handbook of Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 707-728.