In His Contribution to Sherzer and Stolz's Edited Volume Minor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RCLT workshop: Shaping of Language 14-16/7/2010 On the relation between social and linguistic factors in migrant language contact1 Michael Clyne (Monash University and University of Melbourne) In this paper I will explore what happens when languages are dissociated from their earlier (often bilingual) environment and transplanted into a new one based on English- dominant multilingualism. What effects do the earlier situations leave on the sociolinguistic aspects of the language and how are they reflected in bilingual behaviour (such as code-switching) and in the languages’ survival chances? I will present nine sets of examples at the interface of the social (including sociolinguistic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical) and linguistic features or factors and see what effects this interface has on language contact outcomes. These are: 1. Facilitation of code-switching 2. Modal particles and discourse markers 3. Address 4. Standardization/Codification 5. Language as a core value 6. Purism 7. Pluricentric languages 8. Diglossia 9. Oracy vs literacy The first three examples involve more the linguistic aspects and the other six more the sociolinguistic or social aspects. The categories are not watertight and for instance Language as a cultural core value is influenced by factors such as Diglossia, standardization and purism. Whether the factors constitute elements of a sociolinguistic typology could be the subject of discussion. Peter Trudgill (e.g. 1998, 2002) has done a lot of thinking about this and I would merely like to discuss their role in migrant language contact. Australia with its approximately 200 migrant languages of all linguistic types, with different sociolinguistic histories and from all over the world offers an outstanding laboratory for language contact studies. They share the functions of language: (a) Communication (b) Identity (c) Cognitive and conceptual development (d) Action (the performance of speech acts). 1. Facilitation of code-switching 1 I thank Stephen Morey for some very stimulating comments. 1 One of the fascinating aspects of this is the fact that the same broad phenomenon enters different levels of language in different language contact pairs according to typological criteria. The phenomenon of triggering, or the facilitation of code-switching, has been examined as part of contact studies since Hasselmo’s work on Swedish in America (1961, 1974) and Clyne’s on German in Australia (1965, 1967). Overlapping items facilitate (trigger) switching between languages. In combinations of English with German, Croatian, Vietnamese, Italian and Spanish, Hungarian-German-English , the items that are most likely to facilitate (or trigger) an inter-lingual switch (Table 1 from Clyne 2003a: 170) are lexical transfers (loanwords) from English used in one or more other languages proper nouns (names of people, places or titles of books) common to the languages, and bilingual homophones (items that are identcal orm almost identical in two or more languages or realized that way by speakers, e.g. (1) Das ist ein Foto gemacht an der beach could be kann be kann sein in Mount Martha That’s a photo taken on the beach Could be (Eng.) can (Ger.) be (Eng.) can be (Ger.) in Mount Martha. (Lexical transfer) Lexical facilitation of switching by beach (which the participant uses in both languages) is promoted by syntactic convergence between the two languages. Incidentally, proper nouns are relatively numerous in German-English bilinguals in early German settlements in western Victoria due to the frequent reference to place names in both languages (Table 1 from Clyne 2003a: 170). Table 1: From Clyne 2003a:170 The types of trigger-words enumerated above do have strong switching facilitation function in Dutch-English bilinguals, e.g. (2) Ik heb gelezen ‘Snow White, come home’. It’s about a winter-pet. (Proper noun) 2 The switching is facilitated by the title of the book. However, Dutch-English contact has also generated a different pattern which has predominated among these bilinguals. This is due on the one hand to the relatively close similarity between Dutch and English as spoken by adult Dutch immigrants (lexically, phonologically and morphosyntactically, Cf. Clyne 2003: 132-136) and on the other by the strong acceptance of most Dutch immigrants of the Australian assimilation policy (various papers in Peters 2006), reflected in the high language shift rate. Table 2: Language shift in the first generation, 2006 Language shift, overseas born, 2006 Viet Nam 3.0% Russian Fed 14.2% Mauritius 28.5% China 3.8% Ukraine 14.2% India 34.4% Iraq 3.9% Ethiopia 14.9% France 35.0% Eritrea 4.4% Indonesia 17.3% Malaysia 35.0% Somalia 4.5% Italy 17.3% Sri Lanka 35.0% Taiwan 4.8% Japan 17.4% Hungary 36.7% Cambodia 5.3% Argentina 18.1% Malta 39.9% Former Other Sth 6.5% 19.3% Yugoslavia America Latvia 42.4% El Salvador 7.0% Brazil 20.0% Lithuania 44.6% Lebanon 7.4% Portugal 20.5% Switzerland 44.9% Turkey 8.2% Egypt 22.2% Singapore 49.1% Greece 8.6% Poland 23.6% Germany 53.9% Hong Kong 11.2% Philippines 27.0% Austria 55.2% Chile 13.8% Spain 27.5% Netherlands 64.4% 3 Table 3 – Language shift, second generation contrasting exogamous and endogamous families, 1996 (English only by birthplace of parents; from Clyne and Kipp 1997: 463) Birthplace of parent(s) Language shift (%) Endog. Exog. Second generation (aggregated) Austria 80 91.1 89.7 Chile 12.7 62.3 38 France 46.5 80.4 77.7 Germany 77.6 92 89.7 Greece 16.1 51.9 28 Hong Kong 8.7 48.7 35.7 Hungary 64.2 89.4 82.1 Italy 42.6 79.1 57.9 Japan 5.4 68.9 57.6 Korea 5.4 61.5 18 Lebanon 11.4 43.6 20.1 Macedonia, Rep. of 7.4 38.6 14.8 Malta 70 92.9 82.1 Netherlands 91.1 96.5 95 Other South American 15.7 67.1 50.5 Poland 58.4 86.9 75.7 PRC 17.1 52.8 Spain 38.3 75 63 Taiwan 5 29.2 21 Turkey 5 46.6 16.1 . This encourages lexical transference and convergence towards L2 English, so the second generation who do not speak Dutch can still participate in intergenerational conversations. In Dutch, unlike the other migrant languages, bilingual homophones, often the result of convergence rather than lexical transference and proper nouns , predominate as trigger words. The convergence mentioned above means that it is very difficult to identify which items are Dutch and which are English, e.g. (3) Ik hebt een kop of tea or something. ‘I have a cup of tea or something’ where kop of are part of the Dutch as well as English speech of the respondent’s parents, who are the source of his Dutch, and 4) Dat’s one of de nieuwer plaatsen in Holland. ‘That’s one of the newer places in Holland’ where only one of and plaatsen are clearly in English and Dutch respectively and the other items could be either language. (5) I don’t know what/wat ze doen . 4 Items such as wat, is, was, and de/the are identical in the speech of many Dutch-English bilinguals. The effects of SVO overgeneralization in the German examples are much more frequent in Dutch, which is employed less reciprocally intergenerationally. It was partly this data that led Muysken (2000) to characterize his third type of code- mixing/switching (‘congruent lexicalization’), where there is interlingual sharing of grammatical structures through overlap or convergence and lexical items originating from two or more languages. The triggering theory (Clyne 1967, 1980, 2003) has been discussed and refined in recent articles by overseas scholars (Broersma and de Bot, 2006, Broersma et al 2009, De Bot, Broersma and Isurin 2009, Broersma 2009). As will be evident, the language repertoires discussed here extend beyond languages with minor status in the country of origin. Languages requiring a high level of integration of lexical transfers have less potential for switching facilitation. Compare (Hung) szép swimmingpoolal (Acc) ‘a nice swimmingpool’ and (Ger.) swimmingpool Aclandstreetre (Sublative) ‘looking down Acland Street’ and (Ger.) in der Acland Street. Hungarian-German-English trilinguals switch as the result of a trigger-word a total of 46 times from German to English and six times from Hungarian to English. As already mentioned, Table 1 indicates the extent of switching after different kinds of trigger words in a range of language pairs from which we have data. Each additional combination of languages adds to our knowledge of contact phenomena and plurilingual processes. So while the Dutch-English data give us better insights into the effects of convergence, data from tonal languages Vietnamese and Mandarin in contact with non- tonal language English indicate that tonal factors can facilitate switching. Ho-Dac (1996, 2003) found that 85% of switches occurred where the Vietnamese items immediately before the switch is in a mid to high pitch tone, these being the tones which Vietnamese speakers are most likely to equate with English pitch and stress – unstressed syllables with mid tones and stressed syllables with high tones. In Mandarin-English language contact, it is falling2 and neutral tones that facilitate switching, with 97% of switches in her corpus following such a tone, corresponding to English pitch and stress (Zheng 1997). (Examples in Clyne 2003: 175-76) In the case of trilinguals, all their languages interact to produce tendencies that are like those of bilinguals. This also applies to the facilitation of switching. A trigger word may be common to two or three languages, e.g. (6) Dan ga ik naar de shops einkaufen 2 Stephen Morey has drawn my attention to the possible marked status of falling tone in English.