- Home
- e-Journals
- Diachronica
- Previous Issues
- Volume 22, Issue, 2005
Diachronica - Volume 22, Issue 2, 2005
Volume 22, Issue 2, 2005
-
Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
Author(s): Robert A. Blustpp.: 219–269 (51)More LessA number of well-documented sound changes in Austronesian languages do not appear to be either phonetically or phonologically motivated. Although it is possible that some of these changes involved intermediate steps for which we have no direct documentation, the assumption that this was always the case appears arbitrary, and is in violation of Occam's Razor. These data thus raise the question whether sound change must be phonetically motivated, as assumed by the Neogrammarians, or even linguistically motivated, as assumed by virtually all working historical linguists.
-
Pre-diaspora Arabic: Dialects, statistics and historical reconstruction
Author(s): Jonathan Owenspp.: 271–308 (38)More LessArabic dialects, the native spoken Arabic of about 250 million people, are spread over an immense, contiguous geographical area from Iran to Lake Chad, from Morocco to Yemen. Corresponding to this geographical spread is considerable linguistic diversity. An explanation for this diversity has proved elusive. The existence of variants found either in the modern dialects or in the Classical literature (or both), which are not self-evidently derivable from a normalized Classical Arabic (largely standardized by the ninth century), argues for a more diverse set of inputs into the Arabic which spread outwards from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century. I elucidate this problem by comparing four varieties of Arabic located in widely separated areas and settled at different times. To account for the internal diversity of the areas compared, a dataset is established with 49 phonological and morphological features, which, using simple statistical procedures, permits a normalized comparison of the varieties. From this set of variables, two specific linguistic features are discussed in detail and reconstructions proposed, which place their origins in a pre-diaspora variety. I conclude that the Arabic which preceded the Arabic diaspora of the seventh century was considerably more diverse than interpretations of the history of Arabic traditionally allow for.Additional information and data: http://german.lss.wisc.edu/Diachronica/Owens/pdfs.htm
-
Understanding the present through the past: Processes of koineisation in Cyprus
Author(s): Marina Terkourafipp.: 309–372 (64)More LessStudies of Greek as spoken today in Cyprus draw attention to a generalised variety of Cypriot Greek, free from local variation within the island, yet diverging in several ways from the standard spoken on the mainland. In this article, I attempt first to classify this variety, examining whether it exhibits structural and sociohistorical characteristics of koinés. Having established today's generalised Cypriot variety as a koiné, I then trace its evolution, arguing that an early koiné already came into existence in the late 14th c., playing an important role in the formation of both the modern Cypriot dialect and today's koiné.
-
Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes
Author(s): Donald Winfordpp.: 373–427 (55)More LessTraditionally, contact-induced changes in languages have been classified into two broad categories: those due to ‘borrowing’ and those due to ‘interference’ by an L1 or other primary language on an L2 in the course of second language acquisition (SLA). Other terms used for ‘interference’ include ‘substratum influence’ and ‘transfer.’ Inconsistencies in the use of these terms pose a problem for the classification and analysis of the outcomes of contact-induced change. Moreover, labels like these, unfortunately, have been used to refer both to the outcomes of language contact and to the processes that lead to such results. This imprecision in the use of key terms poses serious problems for our understanding of what is actually involved in the two types of crosslinguistic influence. Moreover, it has led to inaccuracy in our assignment of changes to one or the other category. The aim of this paper is to reassess the conventional wisdom on the distinction between borrowing and ‘interference,’ and to clarify the vehicles of change as well as the outcomes characteristic of each. My approach is based on Van Coetsem's (1988) distinction between two transfer types – borrowing under RL agentivity, and imposition under SL agentivity, with their shared but differently implemented processes of imitation and adaptation. Crucially, this approach recognizes that the same agents may employ either kind of agentivity, and hence different transfer types, in the same contact situation. It is the failure to recognize this that has sometimes led to inaccuracy in accounts of the nature and origins of contact-induced changes, as well as to conflicting classifications of the outcomes of contact. The present paper proposes a more rigorous and consistent classification, based on the kinds of agentivity involved.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 41 (2024)
-
Volume 40 (2023)
-
Volume 39 (2022)
-
Volume 38 (2021)
-
Volume 37 (2020)
-
Volume 36 (2019)
-
Volume 35 (2018)
-
Volume 34 (2017)
-
Volume 33 (2016)
-
Volume 32 (2015)
-
Volume 31 (2014)
-
Volume 30 (2013)
-
Volume 29 (2012)
-
Volume 28 (2011)
-
Volume 27 (2010)
-
Volume 26 (2009)
-
Volume 25 (2008)
-
Volume 24 (2007)
-
Volume 23 (2006)
-
Volume 22 (2005)
-
Volume 21 (2004)
-
Volume 20 (2003)
-
Volume 19 (2002)
-
Volume 18 (2001)
-
Volume 17 (2000)
-
Volume 16 (1999)
-
Volume 15 (1998)
-
Volume 14 (1997)
-
Volume 13 (1996)
-
Volume 12 (1995)
-
Volume 11 (1994)
-
Volume 10 (1993)
-
Volume 9 (1992)
-
Volume 8 (1991)
-
Volume 7 (1990)
-
Volume 6 (1989)
-
Volume 5 (1988)
-
Volume 4 (1987)
-
Volume 3 (1986)
-
Volume 2 (1985)
-
Volume 1 (1984)
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699714
Journal
10
5
false

-
-
What happened to English?
Author(s): John McWhorter
-
- More Less