- Home
- e-Journals
- Language Ecology
- Previous Issues
- Volume 1, Issue, 2017
Language Ecology - Volume 1, Issue 1, 2017
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2017
-
Searching for “Agent Zero”
Author(s): Jackie van den Bos, Felicity Meakins and Cassandra Algypp.: 4–24 (21)More LessGurindji Kriol, a mixed language spoken in northern Australia, combines a Kriol VP with a Gurindji NP, including case suffixes ( Meakins 2011a ). The Gurindji-derived case suffixes have undergone a number of changes in Gurindji Kriol, for example the ergative suffix -ngku/-tu now marks nominative case ( Meakins 2011b , 2015 ). This study explores a new innovation in case morphology among Gurindji Kriol-speaking children: the use of -ngku/-tu to mark possessors as well as subjects, i.e. the emergence of a relative case system. Although rare in Australian languages, syncretism between agents and possessors is not uncommon cross-linguistically, reported in Caucasian Eskimo-Aleut, Mixe-Zoquean and Yucatecan-Mayan languages ( Allen 1964 ; Blake 1994 ; Palancar 2002 ). In the case of Gurindji Kriol, the relative case system found its origins in allomorphic reduction which led to syncretism between ergative and dative case forms. This syncretism was shaped by the syntactic grouping of subjects and possessors as dependents of verbs and possessums, respectively. Although partial syncretism between ergative and dative case is not unusual in Australian languages historically, it has gone to completion in Gurindji Kriol and can be observed in two other instances of rapid linguistic change in Australia: Ngiyambaa ( Donaldson 1980 ) and Dyirbal ( Schmidt 1985 ). The re-organisation of the case system can be traced back to a small group of second-generation Gurindji Kriol speakers at Nitjpurru (Pigeon Hole) and this change has since been transmitted laterally through familial connections to other children at Daguragu. There are also indications that it has begun propagating to other children at Kalkaringi and is now being acquired by the next generation of Gurindji Kriol speakers.
-
Hong Kong’s language ecology and the racialized linguistic order
Author(s): Kara Flemingpp.: 25–43 (19)More LessThis paper will argue that the role and status of the languages promoted as part of Hong Kong’s “trilingualism and biliteracy” policy cannot be understood without reference to each other and to their wider social, political and linguistic context. Particularly, in Hong Kong, race is a key mediating factor that structures social orders in which language is used and evaluated, and therefore its role in the ecology must be emphasized. This article will outline the links between language and social hierarchies of race, focusing particularly on the positioning of Hong Kong South Asians, based on ethnographic research in a Hong Kong secondary school and analysis of media and policy data. This approach is key to understanding the apparent contradictions in the evaluation of various languages spoken in Hong Kong, and demonstrates the necessity of a holistic, contextualized analysis of language and race.
-
Creoles are not typologically distinct from non-Creoles
Author(s): Guillaume Fon Singpp.: 44–74 (31)More LessTypological approaches involving the study of Creole languages have long triggered an unsettled dispute among creolists. Some claim that Creoles do not differ from non-Creole languages, and can only be defined socio-historically and not structurally, while others claim that Creoles are ʺdistinctʺ in many respects, and/or form a special class with specific typological properties. In an attempt to settle this dispute, Bakker et al. (2011) drew on a phylogenetic approach to provide evidence that Creoles form a structurally distinguishable subgroup within the world’s languages. However, their methods and conclusions appear to be questionable, as they are likely to be flawed. Standing as a challenge to the aforementioned article, this paper will reconsider their methodological and empirical approaches by re-evaluating the sets of Creoles and non-Creoles on the basis of identical or near-identical principles. It will ultimately appear that their conclusion could be an artefact of the selection as well.
-
Individuals, populations, and timespace
Author(s): Salikoko S. Mufwene and Cécile B. Vigourouxpp.: 75–103 (29)More LessIn the present article we distinguish the concept of ecology of language as articulated in Mufwene (2001ff) from that of ecolinguistics developed especially by Mühlhäusler (1996ff) , Fill and Mühlhäusler (2001) , Couto (2009) , and several contributors to Fill and Benz (to appear) . We explain how Mufwene’s ecology of language concept, inspired primarily by macroecology, applies to language evolution. We articulate various factors internal and external to a language that bear on how it emerged phylogenetically, underwent particular structural changes, and, in some cases, may have speciated into separate varieties. The external ecology also influences the vitality of languages, rolling the dice on whether they thrive or are endangered. Because these particular phenomena have been elaborately discussed in Mufwene’s earlier publications, we devote more space to explaining how the notion of language ecology, as others call it, also applies as a useful heuristic tool to qualitative sociolinguistics.
Volumes & issues
Most Read This Month

-
-
Searching for “Agent Zero”
Author(s): Jackie van den Bos, Felicity Meakins and Cassandra Algy
-
-
-
The Russian-Chinese Pidgin
Author(s): Kapitolina Fedorova
-
-
-
Style variation in the second formant
Author(s): Nala H. Lee
-
- More Less