Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 brill.nl/jlc Linguistic changes in the Catalan spoken in Catalonia under new contact conditions Antoni Arnal Universitat Rovira i Virgili [email protected] Abstract Linguistic contact between Catalan and Spanish has undergone substantial change during the last quarter of the twentieth century. A new type of transfer linked to the sociolinguistic changes that have taken place in Catalonia have for the fi rst time after many centuries of contact brought Catalan much closer to Spanish. Th is article tries to interpret this sudden change in the evolution of modern Catalan by using a model of contact-induced change which takes into account the importance of the agents of change. Keywords borrowing ; Catalan ; change ; imposition ; Spanish 1. Introduction In this article we will try to explain the reasons behind the new linguistic changes that Catalan has experienced during the last quarter of the twentieth century as a result of its contact with Spanish. Th e principal characteristic of these changes is that they are very diff erent from those which Catalan experi- enced during the previous four hundred years of contact. Th ese new changes arose in such a short time due to modifi cations that aff ected the composition of Catalonia’s population in the late twentieth century and created new con- tact conditions between the Spanish and Catalan languages. Tre ff ers-Daller ( 1999 ) has shown in the contact across the linguistic frontier between Romance and Germanic languages how in some cases the structure of the languages can be as important as the sociolinguistic history of the speakers in establishing a series of syntactic restrictions on interference. Silva-Corvalán ( 2008 : 221) is also correct when she states that every change that occurs during contact between languages appears to be constrained by the structure of the aff ected language. However, in the case of Catalan and Spanish, © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/187740911X558815 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access 6 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 it should be taken into account that they are two relatively close Romance languages; they have diff erences in their lexicons and even more in their pho- netics, but the closeness of their internal structures means there are no restric- tions on grammatical or syntactical interference. Despite the lack of linguistic restrictions, however, Catalan had not previously undergone any signifi cant morphological, syntactical or phonetic changes due to the centuries-long infl uence of Spanish. In sharp contrast, the changes that appeared in late- twentieth-century spoken Catalan, especially among young people, aff ected syntax and phonetics for the fi rst time. Th ese changes have brought Catalan closer to Spanish than ever before in the four centuries of contact between the two languages. Th ere are diff erent agents of linguistic change. In internally motivated change, the agents of the change are monolingual speakers of the language that is changing who have no contact with any other language. In other cases, the changes come from outside, that is, from contact with other languages. Often, however, this distinction between internally and externally induced change becomes blurred in the case of two closely related languages such as Catalan and Spanish, or two geographical or social varieties of the same language. Where change is caused by contact, the point of contact is among the more or less bilingual speakers. In all situations of linguistic change caused by con- tact, there has to be some degree of bilingualism in either all or part of the population, as has been the case in Catalonia over the past hundred years. Nevertheless, as Van Coetsem ( 1988 : 9) reminds us, the distinction between bilingual and monolingual is a question of degree. Th e changes that took place in the spoken Catalan of Catalonia in the late twentieth century are without precedent, in that they have resulted from a diff erent sort of contact situation involving a diff erent sort of bilingual speaker. To explain these new contact results, the most suitable theoretical framework is the theoretical model proposed of Van Coetsem ( 1988 , 2000 ), which, by using psycholinguistic models to explain the processes of contact-induced change, makes it possible to distinguish between the results of contact-induced linguistic change and the processes underlying them. As Winford ( 2007 : 27) asserts, the authentic psycholinguistic process underlying contact-induced change is diffi cult to see directly; in fact, we can only observe its results. However, to explain this process we must pay heed to both the linguistic and psycholinguistic processes that aff ect the changes caused by contact. Th erefore, if we integrate linguistic analyses of contact phe- nomena with psycholinguistic models of language production, we should be able to better understand the processes that underlie contact-induced change (Winford, 2007 : 36). Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 7 In his theoretical model, Van Coetsem ( 1988 , 2000 ) uses the psycholinguis- tic criterion of linguistic dominance to distinguish between two diff erent transfer types. Th is idea is based on the fact that bilingual speakers in a contact situation tend to be more profi cient in one language than in the other. Th e language in which a speaker is most profi cient need not necessarily be his mother tongue. In practice, however, it generally is, or at least in Catalonia this has always been the case. A bilingual speaker’s degree of profi ciency is a key factor in determining the direction and degree of infl uence between two languages that are in contact with one another. On the basis of this criterion, Van Coetsem distinguishes between two transfer types based on the agent of the action: borrowing or recipient language agentivity and imposition or source language agentivity. Diff erences in linguis- tic dominance between the languages in contact are the basis of the diff erence between recipient language agentivity and source language agentivity. In addi- tion, the type of transfer is constrained by the stability gradient of language (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 42). Clearly, the smaller the diff erence in linguistic dominance between the languages of a bilingual is, the weaker will be the demarcation between the two transfer types (Van Coetsem, 1988 : 87). In a situation of contact between languages, material is transferred from the source language (SL) to the recipient language (RL). According to the theo- retical model proposed by Van Coetsem ( 2000 : 53-54), in the case of borrow- ing (RL agentivity), the agent speaker, who is linguistically dominant (most profi cient) in the recipient language, performs a transfer that aff ects his own linguistically dominant language. Borrowing therefore involves transfer from the language in which the speaker is less profi cient to the language in which he is more profi cient. In contrast, in the case of imposition (SL agentivity), the agent speaker, who is linguistically dominant (most profi cient) in the source language, performs a transfer that aff ects a language other than his own linguistically dominant language. Imposition therefore involves transfer from the language in which the speaker is more profi cient to the language in which he is less profi cient. Th e concept of stability gradient of language is based on the fact that, in a language-contact situation, the more stable elements (such as phonology, morphology and syntax) are more resistant to change than the less stable elements (such as vocabulary). Th us, in borrowing (RL agentivity), source language vocabulary (less stable) and occasionally grammatical material are transferred from the source language to the recipient language. Th e speaker modifi es neither the phonology nor the syntax (i.e. the more stable elements) of the language in which he is more profi cient. But in imposition (SL agentivity), the transfer from the language in which the speaker is more profi cient to the Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access 8 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 language in which he is less profi cient does involve phonology and syntax. Th at is, source language grammatical material and an important part of pho- nology are or may be transferred (i.e. imposed) upon the recipient language, which is the language in which the speaker is less profi cient (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 60-61). Th e distinction between these two transfer types, borrowing (RL agentivity) and imposition (SL agentivity), can help us to establish a relationship between the two diff erent results of contact between Spanish and Catalan and the dif- ferent types of agents involved. As we shall see, these two situations are related to two diff erent kinds of Catalan speakers. 2. Borrowing in Catalan Although Spanish began to appear in the sphere of highbrow Catalan litera- ture as early as the sixteenth century, bilingualism remained quite rare among most of Catalonia’s population, generally occurring only in certain social classes, such as the aristocracy. As indicated by Rafanell ( 2000 : 199), until the migrations of the twentieth century, Catalan was the only language of habitual use for most of the population. Nevertheless, as scholars who study the history of the Catalan lexicon know, Spanish words have continually been adopted in Catalan for the past four hundred years (Bruguera, 1984 : 41). Th e lexicon, as the most conscious part of the language, becomes a frontier or door through which infl uences can enter, depending on the prestige of the languages in contact. Th us, up until the twentieth century, Catalan speakers imported lexicon from Spanish, a language with which they had varying degrees of familiarity.