1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 41, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Language contact phenomena have increasingly been researched from different historical linguistic, sociolinguistic and areal-typological perspectives. However, since most of this research is based on case studies, an assessment of contact phenomena from a worldwide comparative perspective has been missing in the literature. In this article, we draw inspiration from historical linguistics and language typology to present a new typological approach for evaluating evidence that given linguistic domains have been affected by language contact. This method has three parts: (1) a new approach to sampling, (2) the analysis of typological data, and (3) making probabilistic inferences about language contact. We argue that this is a parsimonious method for evaluating contact effects that can serve as a starting point for the further development of typological approaches to language contact.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
2024-06-25
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/dia.23029.sin.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Backus, Ad
    2014 Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. InRobert Nicolaï (ed.), Questioning language contact, 91–118. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004279056_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279056_005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, Balthasar
    2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. InIsabel Bril (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: The syntax and pragmatics interface, 51–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.121.03bic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.121.03bic [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kamal K. Choudhary, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2015 The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE10(8). e0132819. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickel, Balthasar, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe
    2022 The AUTOTYP database, version 1.1.0. Zenodo. 10.5281/ZENODO.6793367
     https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6793367 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowern, Claire
    2013 Relatedness as a factor in language contact. Journal of Language Contact6(2). 411–432. 10.1163/19552629‑00602010
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-00602010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS)231. 65–85. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cathcart, Chundra, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich Round
    2018 Areal pressure in grammatical evolution: An Indo-European case study. Diachronica35(1). 1–34. 10.1075/dia.16035.cat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16035.cat [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William A.
    2021 A sociolinguistic typology for languages in contact. InEnoch O. Aboh & Cécile B. Vigouroux (eds.), Variation rolls the dice: A worldwide collage in honour of Salikoko S. Mufwene, 2–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/coll.59.02cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.59.02cro [Google Scholar]
  9. Di Garbo, Francesca, Eri Kashima, Ricardo Napoleão de Souza & Kaius Sinnemäki
    2021 Concepts and methods for integrating language typology and sociolinguistics. InSilvia Ballarè & Guglielmo Inglese (eds.), Tipologia e Sociolinguistica: verso un approccio integrato allo studio della variazione: Atti del Workshop della Società Linguistica Italiana 20 settembre 2020, 143–176. Milan: Officinaventuno. 10.17469/O2105SLI000005
     https://doi.org/10.17469/O2105SLI000005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Di Garbo, Francesca & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza
    2023 A sampling technique for worldwide comparisons of contact scenarios. Linguistic Typology27(3). 553–589. 10.1515/lingty‑2022‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
    (eds.) 2013 WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533Available online athttps://wals.info
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, Stephen C. Levinson & Russel D. Gray
    2011 Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature473(7345). 79–82. 10.1038/nature09923
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923 [Google Scholar]
  13. Easterday, Shelece
    2019 Highly complex syllable structure: A typological and diachronic study. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/ZENODO.3268721
     https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3268721 [Google Scholar]
  14. Easterday, Shelece & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza
    2015 Is there evidence for a hierarchy in the synchronic patterning of syllable onsets?11th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Albuquerque, USA, August 1–3.
  15. Fortescue, Michael D.
    1998 Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London: Cassell.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Guy, Gregory R.
    2011 Variation and change. InWarren Maguire & April McMahon (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 178–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511976360.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976360.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Guzmán Naranjo, Matías & Laura Becker
    2022 Statistical bias control in typology. Linguistic Typology26(3). 605–670. 10.1515/lingty‑2021‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-0002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hübler, Nataliia
    2022 Phylogenetic signal and rate of evolutionary change in language structures. Royal Society Open Science9(3). 211252. 10.1098/rsos.211252
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211252 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jäger, Gerhard & Johann-Mattis List
    2018 Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change8(1). 22–54. 10.1163/22105832‑00801002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00801002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kashima, Eri, Francesca Di Garbo, Olesya Khanina & Ruth Singer
    . In review. The design principles of a sociolinguistic-typological questionnaire for language contact research. Language Dynamics and Change.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    2010 Linguistic typology and language contact. InJae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 568–590. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0027 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lesage, Jakob, Hannah J. Haynie, Hedvig Skirgård, Tobias Weber & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2022 Overlooked data in typological databases: What Grambank teaches us about gaps in grammars. InProceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2884–2890. Marseille: European Language Resources Association. https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.309
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Levshina, Natalia
    2019 Token-based typology and word order entropy: A study based on Universal Dependencies. Linguistic Typology23(3). 533–572. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0025 [Google Scholar]
  24. List, Johann-Mattis
    2019 Automated methods for the investigation of language contact, with a focus on lexical borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass13(10). e12355. 10.1111/lnc3.12355
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12355 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lüpke, Friederike
    2019 Language endangerment and language documentation in Africa. InH. Ekkehard Wolff (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of African linguistics, 468–490. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108283991.015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108283991.015 [Google Scholar]
  26. Macklin-Cordes, Jayden L. & Erich R. Round
    2022 Challenges of sampling and how phylogenetic comparative methods help: With a case study of the Pama-Nyungan laminal contrast. Linguistic Typology26(3). 533–572. 10.1515/lingty‑2021‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-0025 [Google Scholar]
  27. Maddieson, Ian
    2013 Syllable structure. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533Available online atwals.info/chapter/12
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  28. Marten, Lutz & Malin Petzell
    2016 Linguistic variation and the dynamics of language documentation: Editing in ‘pure’ Kagulu. Language Documentation & Conservation101. 105–129. hdl.handle.net/10125/24651
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Maslova, Elena
    2003 A case for implicational universals. Linguistic Typology7(1). 101–118. 10.1515/lity.2003.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2003.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel
    2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language31(4). 829–865. 10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat [Google Scholar]
  31. McGhee, George R.
    2011 Convergent evolution: Limited forms most beautiful. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016421.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262016421.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Miestamo, Matti
    2011 Skolt Saami: A typological profile. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 2011(93). 111–145. 10.33340/susa.82233
     https://doi.org/10.33340/susa.82233 [Google Scholar]
  33. Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe
    2016 Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology20(2). 233–296. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo, Francesca Di Garbo, Kaius Sinnemäki, Eri Kashima, Noora Ahola, Anu Hyvönen & Oona Raatikainen
    2022 Typologizing contact effects on a global scale. Paper presented at the14th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, 15–17 December 2022, Austin, TX.
  35. Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo & Kaius Sinnemäki
    2022 Beyond segment inventories: Phonological complexity and suprasegmental variables in contact situations. Journal of Language Contact15(3–4). 439–480. 10.1163/19552629‑15030001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-15030001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Neureiter, Nico, Peter Ranacher, Nour Efrat-Kowalsky, Gereon A. Kaiping, Robert Weibel, Paul Widmer & Remco R. Bouckaert
    2022 Detecting contact in language trees: A Bayesian phylogenetic model with horizontal transfer. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9(1). 1–14. 10.1057/s41599‑022‑01211‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01211-7 [Google Scholar]
  37. Polinsky, Maria
    2014 Heritage languages and their speakers: Looking ahead. InMarta Fairclough & Sara M. Beaudrie (eds.), Innovative approaches to heritage languages: From research to practice, 325–346. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33946918
     [Google Scholar]
  38. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2023 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Ranacher, Peter, Nico Neureiter, Rik van Gijn, Barbara Sonnenhauser, Anastasia Escher, Robert Weibel, Pieter Muysken & Balthasar Bickel
    2021 Contact-tracing in cultural evolution: A Bayesian mixture model to detect geographic areas of language contact. Journal of The Royal Society Interface18(181). 20201031. 10.1098/rsif.2020.1031
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.1031 [Google Scholar]
  40. Riad, Tomas
    2014 The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sinnemäki, Kaius, Francesca Di Garbo, Eri Kashima, Ricardo Napoleão de Souza & T. Mark Ellison
    2023 Language contact effects in their multilingual ecology: A typological approach. A paper presented at the56th Annual Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), 29 August–1 September 2023, Athens.
  42. Sinnemäki, Kaius & Noora Ahola
    2023 Testing inferences about language contact on morphosyntax: A typological case study on Alorese–Adang contact. Transactions of the Philological Society121(3). 513–545. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12284
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12284 [Google Scholar]
  43. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2001 Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman
    1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
  45. Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis
    2018 Bilingualism in the community: Code-switching and grammars in contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108235259
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235259 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trudgill, Peter
    2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Johanna Nichols, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Taras Zakharko & Balthasar Bickel
    2022 Managing AUTOTYP data: Design principles and implementation. InAndrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Bradley McDonnell, Eve Koller & Lauren B. Collister (eds.), The open handbook of linguistic data management, 631–642. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0061
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0061 [Google Scholar]
  48. Yakpo, Kofi
    2020 Social factors. InEvangelia Adamou & Yaron Matras (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language contact, 129–146. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351109154‑10
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351109154-10 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ylikoski, Jussi
    2022 South Saami. InMarianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 113–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Bickel, Balthasar, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe
    2022 The AUTOTYP database, version 1.1.0. Zenodo. 10.5281/ZENODO.6793367
     https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6793367 [Google Scholar]
  51. Corbett, Greville G.
    2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  52. Diessel, Holger
    1999a Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  53. 1999b The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology3(1). 1–50. 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Goedemans, Rob & Harry van der Hulst
    2009 StressTyp: A database for word accentual patterns in the world's languages. InMartin Everaert, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.), The use of databases in cross-linguistic studies, 235–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198744.235
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198744.235 [Google Scholar]
  55. Goedemans, Rob, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst
    2015 StressTyp2, version 1. st2.ullet.net
  56. Gordon, Matthew
    2016 Phonological typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Haspelmath, Martin
    2017 Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft36(2). 193–231. 10.1515/zfs‑2017‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0009 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hyman, Larry M.
    2006 Word-prosodic typology. Phonology23(2). 225–257. 10.1017/S0952675706000893
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675706000893 [Google Scholar]
  59. Igartua, Iván
    2015 From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle. Language91(3). 676–722. 10.1353/lan.2015.0032
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0032 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jun, Sun-Ah
    2014 Prosodic typology: by prominence type, word prosody, and macrorhythm. InSun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 520–539. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kibort, Anna & Greville G. Corbett
    2008 Grammatical features inventory: Number. University of Surrey. 10.15126/SMG.18/1.02
     https://doi.org/10.15126/SMG.18/1.02 [Google Scholar]
  62. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    2003 Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe. InFrans Planck (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe, 621–722. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. König, Ekkehard
    2001 Internal and external possessors. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Volume 2, 970–978. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Maddieson, Ian, Sebastien Flavier, Edigio Marsico & Francois Pellegrino
    2014–2016 LAPSyD: Lyon-Albuquerque Phonological Systems Databases, Version 1.0. https://lapsyd.huma-num.fr/lapsyd/
  65. Nichols, Johanna
    1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel
    2013 Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases. InMatthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.7385533. Available online atwals.info/chapter/24
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  67. Ortmann, Albert
    2018 Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: alienability splits and the morphology-semantics interface. Morphology28(1). 99–144. 10.1007/s11525‑017‑9319‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9319-6 [Google Scholar]
  68. Roettger, Timo & Matthew Gordon
    2017 Methodological issues in the study of word stress correlates. Linguistics Vanguard3(1). 20170006. 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  69. Anderson, Gregory D. S.
    2008 Gtaʔ. InGregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 682–763. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. David, Anne Boyle
    2015 Descriptive grammar of Bangla. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614512295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512295 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ghosh, Arun
    2008 Santali. InGregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), The Munda languages, 11–98. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hall, Elizabeth
    2010 A phonology of Muak Sa-aak. MA thesis, Payap University, Chiang Mai.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Maddieson, Ian, Sébastien Flavier, Edigio Marsico & François Pellegrino
    2014–2016 LAPSyD: Lyon-Albuquerque Phonological Systems Databases, Version 1.0. www.lapsyd.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/lapsyd/
  74. Neukom, Lukas
    2001 Santali. Languages of the World/Materials, 323. München: Lincom.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Ring, Hiram
    2015 A grammar of Pnar. PhD dissertation, Nanyang Technological University. 10.32657/10356/62519
     https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/62519
  76. Sibasis Mukherjee
    2011 Bengali. InWest Bengal: Part-I, 48–102. India: Language Division Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Ranacher, Peter, Nico Neureiter, Rik van Gijn, Barbara Sonnenhauser, Anastasia Escher, Robert Weibel, Pieter Muysken & Balthasar Bickel
    2021 Contact-tracing in cultural evolution: a Bayesian mixture model to detect geographic areas of language contact. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 18(181). 20201031. 10.1098/rsif.2020.1031
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.1031 [Google Scholar]
  78. Sinnemäki, Kaius & Noora Ahola
    2023 Testing inferences about language contact on morphosyntax: A typological case study on Alorese – Adang contact. Transactions of the Philological Society121(3). 513–545. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12284
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12284 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
Loading
A typological approach to language change in contact situations
Diachronica 41, 379 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23029.sin
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bayesian approach; convergence; language contact; language typology; language variation; sampling; stability

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error