sign in sign up
<<
Home , Catalan language, Catalonia, Dialect, History of Catalan, Susto

Journal of Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 brill.nl/jlc

Linguistic changes in the Catalan spoken in 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 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 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’ population in the late twentieth century and created new con- tact conditions between the Spanish and Catalan . Tre ff ers-Daller ( 1999 ) has shown in the contact across the linguistic frontier between Romance and 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 access

6 A. Arnal / Journal of 4 (2011) 5–25 it should be taken into account that they are two relatively close ; they have diff erences in their 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 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 and 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 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 . 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 , and syntax) are more resistant to change than the less stable elements (such as ). 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 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 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, until the twentieth century, Catalan speakers imported lexicon from Spanish, a language with which they had varying degrees of familiarity. Th ey did this mainly for reasons of prestige or to fi gaps in their own language. As Van Coetsem (1988 : 13) points out, the motivations for transfer in RL agentivity or borrowing are in general need and prestige . In Catalonia, Spanish started to gain increasing prestige as a language of culture from the sixteenth century onwards. According to Guy ( 1990 : 61), their motivation is also principally social and no relation to the structural characteristics of the languages in contact. In fact, the recipient language remains almost intact and only changes through the incorporation of superfi cial elements, because in borrowing the grammati- cal rules are not borrowed, and their entry is limited to lexical loans which sometimes bring with them their phonological and morphosyntactical forms, which are adopted along with the word. Th e most common form of borrowing is lexical and generally involves a language taking on non-basic vocabulary without any changes to its structure.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 9

Although speakers do not have to be fl uent in a to take words from it, they must have a good command if they are to adopt its syntactic and morphological structures. Th is is the reason for the separation between lexical borrowing and structural borrowing. A language may contain lexical borrowings without structural borrowings, but not the other way round. In lexical borrowing, isolated words are taken and incorporated more or less consciously. Th e syntactic and phonetic systems of the recipient language are not aff ected by the inclusion of these words. It is only the words that are borrowed, not their phonology. Speakers, above all monolingual speakers, impose their own phonology on the of these words. Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, pronounced words borrowed from Spanish as if they were Catalan words. In borrowing phonological source language mate- rial into the recipient language, which normally occurs as part of a lexical item, the infl uence of the source language is conditioned and minimized (Van Coetsem, 1988 : 98). In RL agentivity or borrowing, there is very little or no modifi cation in the structure of the recipient language. Th e imported ele- ments are adapted phonologically, morphologically and syntactically by the speakers, who need no knowledge of the source language. One can say that RL agentivity has a defensive and conservative character. With borrowing, the recipient language speaker adjusts the semantic inventory of his language, while at the same time preserving as much as possible the formal structure of the recipient language (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 59). As Van Coetsem ( 1988 : 10) points out, both bilingual and monolingual speakers of the recipient language can be agents of borrowing. Until the twen- tieth century there were very few bilingual Catalans, but this did nothing to impede the adoption of Spanish words. Monolingual speakers can incorporate external elements in this way because the process only occurs sporadically and unsystematically in the most superfi cial aspects of the language: non-basic vocabulary, neologisms and scientifi and technical terminology. In the case of most cultural borrowings, speakers do not need to have any knowledge of the source language. Heavy lexical borrowing takes place mostly among speakers of a , who take words from another language towards which they have a positive attitude, as was the case with Catalan speakers and their attitude towards Spanish. Th e fi rst words to be borrowed in these cases come from non-basic vocabulary and the most commonly borrowed word classes are , and the occasional (Th omason and Kaufman, 1988 : 74). In contrast to cul- tural borrowings, the result of interference through borrowing is the unneces- sary duplication or substitution of existing words in the recipient language,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

10 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 as is the case for Spanish words that have been in the lexicon of Catalan speak- ers for centuries. Th is is because, whereas the Catalan lexicon has been infl u- enced by languages other than Spanish only during particular historical periods, Spanish, due to its proximity and to political and cultural vicissitudes, has exercised a constant infl uence (Bruguera, 1985 : 66-67). Th us, in the lexicon of Catalan speakers we fi nd Spanish words such as the following nouns: acera (sidewalk), adorno (adornment), alfombra (carpet), andén (platform), aparato (set), aro (circle), arreglo (repair), assiento (), barco (ship), boda (wedding), bolso (bag), brillo (brightness), bulto (bulge), burro (donkey), cadera (hip), caldo (broth), camilla (stretcher), catarata (water- fall), cuento (story), curandero (quack doctor), desaigüe (drain), desaire (snub), enredo (entanglement), escape (leak), estrella (star), gasto (expense), hombro (shoulder), llaga (sore), llàstima (pity), llavero (key-ring), monedero (purse), mono (monkey), monyo (bun), mostrador (counter), ninyera (nanny), nòvio (boyfriend), pantorrilla (calf), passillo (corridor), pastilla (pill), pato (duck), pedido (order), pepino (cucumber), puesto (place), quarto (room), rato (while), robo (theft), sello (stamp), sillon (arm-chair), sombrero (hat), sòtano (basement), susto (fright), tamany (size), taquilla (ticket offi ce), tarda (afternoon), timo (swindle), vajilla (table service), valla (fence), visillos (net curtains), vivenda (dwelling), xispa (spark); the following verbs: adelantar (to advance), alabar (to praise), aliviar (to relieve), aminorar (to reduce), apoiar (to support), apre- tar (to press), atornillar (to screw), atrassar (to delay), buscar (to look for), cuidar (to care for), curar (to heal), despedir (to say goodbye), disfrutar (to enjoy), empenyar-se (to insist), enfadar (to anger), enterar-se (to get to know), entregar (to deliver), medir (to measure), mimar (to spoil), nombrar (to name), pitar (to beep), preguntar (to ask), quedar (to remain), queixar-se (to com- plain), resar (to pray), tatxar (to cross out), xupar (to suck); and the following : avorrit (boring), campetxano (good-natured), cursi (corny), enclenque (scrawny), fondo (deep), gandul (lazy), guapo (handsome), embustero (liar), empapat (soaked), infundat (unfounded), rentable (profi table), senzill (simple), sosso (tasteless), tacany (stingy), tonto (silly). In fact, we can fi nd many other nouns, verbs and adjectives borrowed from Spanish, but it is harder to fi nd and conjunctions. Most of these words are identical in Spanish and form part of the vocabu- lary of speakers who have Catalan as their fi rst language, despite the fact that there is an authentic Catalan synonym for each of these words. In some cases, however, the proper Catalan word is not used regularly by Catalan speakers because it seems too literary, whereas the Spanish word sounds more collo- quial. As a result, Catalan dictionaries that take a prescriptive stance face the problem of deciding which words borrowed from Spanish should be included (Bruguera, 1984 : 44).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 11

In some cases, we also fi nd that some Spanish words adapted to Catalan contain Spanish derivational suffi xes, such as palillo (Sp. palillo from , Cat. escuradents , Eng. toothpick), cutxaron (Sp. cucharón from cuchara, Cat. cullerot , Eng. soup-ladle), punyetasso (Sp. puñetazo from puño , Cat. cop de puny , Eng. blow with the fi st); however, these are not incorporated into the language as new morphemes, but rather come with the borrowed word as a package. We do not fi nd these derivational suffi xes from Spanish ( -illo, -ón, -azo) being added to Catalan words. Instead, we fi nd Catalan suffi xes added to Spanish words, as in alfombreta (Sp. alfombrilla , Cat. estora, Eng. mat) from Sp. alfombra (carpet) or ratet (Sp. ratito , Cat. estoneta , Eng. short while) from Sp. rato (while). When borrowing, what the speaker does is either imitate or adapt source language material in the recipient language. So, apart from the unnecessary increase in the lexicon, the types of linguistic change resulting from borrowing are very limited and are the same as internal changes because, although any word can be borrowed, no word can create a syntactic category or introduce a construction that does not exist in the recipient language; as Lefebvre ( 1985 : 43) says, ’on ’emprunte pas ce qu’on n’a pas . Th e few syntactical calques from Spanish that have been present in Catalan for a long time have not had any eff ect on Catalan syntax. Th e most common of these are the use of the preposition a with some direct objects, and literal translations of verbal periph- rases such as tenir que (Sp. tener que , Cat. haver de , Eng. to have to) and set phrases such as donar-se compte (Sp. darse cuenta, Cat. adonar-se, Eng. to real- ize). Th ese syntactical calques, which are in fact quite few in number and were documented by Fabra (1925 ), are in fact better described as examples of lexi- cal borrowing and have no eff ect on the structure of Catalan. According to Silva-Corvalán (1992 : 66), the speakers of a language that has undergone interference do not introduce elements that cause changes to its grammatical system because the of the recipient language cannot exactly copy that of the other language. Instead parallel structures in the recip- ient language are extended to embrace new functions. Th us, the susceptibility of grammatical systems to interference through borrowing partly depends on the existence of these parallel structures, and ungrammatical utterances are not produced but instead are adapted to the system of the language, as is the case with the in , whose meaning and form has been eroded because it has no real counterpart in English (Poplack, 1997 ). Th is type of structural borrowing limited to certain parallel syntactic structures could be found in the nineteenth-century written Catalan of people who had been educated in Spanish, but was not present in the oral Catalan of the majority (Fabra, 1912 : IX). Th e typological similarities between two languages can mean that certain structures are easier to borrow than others. Genetic proximity can favour

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

12 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 grammatical borrowing because, in a situation of contact, the shared linguistic structures tend to be more prominent than those that are completely diff erent. For this reason, in the case of two languages such as Catalan and Spanish, any diff erence between the syntactic change caused by contact and change which is internally motivated tends to be ironed out. Th e diff erence comes from the unleashing of change, not from the change itself (Th omason, 2001 : 86). Th us it is impossible to determine if the increased use of the subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses in Catalan is infl uenced by Spanish or if it is due to an internal tendency in the language (Badia, 1953 ; 1967 ). Although the diff erence between English and Gaelic is much greater than that between Spanish and Catalan, Sjoestedt-Jonval’s study (1928) of the Irish spoken in Kerry at the beginning of the twentieth century (reported by Stenson, 1993 ) shows the limits of phonetic and syntactic interference due to borrowing. Th us, whereas the non-basic lexicon was open to borrow- ings from English, as was the case with Catalan in relation to Spanish, none of the changes aff ected the morphology, the syntax and the phonology because they were introduced by Gaelic-dominant speakers. Th e only English infl u- ence on Irish that is not merely lexical, observed by Sjoestedt-Jonval, is in the form of calques or more or less literal translations of set phrases (Stenson, 1993 : 117), as has also been seen in Catalan, and the habitual use of well (Stenson, 1993 : 109), similar to the habitual use of bueno in Catalan (Sp. bueno, Eng. well). Just as the Catalan speakers of one hundred years ago were unaff ected by the phonetic infl uence of Spanish, Gaelic also seems to have been unaff ected pho- netically by English, given that Sjoestedt-Jonval does not describe any such diff erences apart from the pre-palatal voiceless and voiced aff ricates in match and job , which only appear in lexical borrowings (Stenson, 1993 : 113), just as in Catalan we fi nd the / χ/ in Spanish words such as ajedrez (chess), concejal (town councillor), despejar (to clear), jefe (boss), traje (man’s suit), agujetas (pains from fatigue), gemelos (cuff -links), juerga (carousal) and vajilla (table service). Th e phoneme /χ /, which is found only in these few words, cannot be con- sidered to have been incorporated into Catalan—although some scholars believe it has (Cerdà, 1967)—because, until recently, Catalan speakers who were less profi cient in Spanish had trouble pronouncing it, or pronounced it as / /, as in the word majo / 'maχo/, which has been adapted in Catalan as maco / 'maku / (nice). Veny ( 2006 : 75) explains that /χ / → [k] was a common adaptation in the Catalan spoken by less educated people, and it was not until after the (1939) that more Catalans learned to make the sound [χ]. Moreover, this sound does not appear in any Catalan word. Payrató

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 13

(1985 : 103) considers it a satellite sound that became familiar to Catalan speakers during the second half of the twentieth century. It is important to point out that incorporation of these isolated words together with a pronunciation that aims to imitate, with varying degrees of success, the original Spanish has not had any eff ect on the phonetic system of Catalan.

3. Th e social situation of the today

As we have seen, borrowing from Spanish into Catalan is linked to a contact situation between the two languages that had not changed for several centu- ries, characterized mainly by a limited number of bilingual speakers and, more importantly, by the fact that the only speakers of Catalan were those people for whom it was their mother tongue. By the end of the twentieth century, however, this situation had changed: a new sociolinguistic situation in Catalonia changed the contact conditions between the two languages. Today, for the fi rst time in the history of the Catalan language, contact with Spanish has come to have an important eff ect on its syntax and, for the fi rst time, is aff ecting Catalan phonetics, something which has never before happened dur- ing all the centuries of contact. Th e changes that have so quickly occurred in the language, in approximately one generation, are caused by new contact conditions linked to the important demographic and political changes that took place in Catalonia in the second half of the twentieth century. According to Recolons (1987 ), in the twenty-fi ve years between 1950 and 1975, the population of Catalonia grew by 75%. In 1975, 36.3% of the popu- lation had been born outside Catalonia and nearly all of these had Spanish as their mother tongue. Th is contrasts with the previous situation whereby Catalonia had a very low percentage of people whose mother tongue was Spanish. Also, contemporary accounts indicate that earlier on the nineteenth century, the number of native Spanish speakers must have been very low (Anguera, 2002 : 34). To explain the eff ects of this new form of interference, it should be taken into account that for the fi rst time in its history Catalonia currently has a percentage of speakers whose fi rst language is Spanish but who also speak Catalan. Th is has never occurred before and it must be said that it is very rare for the speakers of a majority language, such as Spanish, which is also the offi cial language, to shift to a minority language with a more restricted ambit, such as Catalan. In Catalonia thirty years ago, most positions in the public administration and most of the migrant worker jobs were held by

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

14 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 monolingual Spanish speakers. According to the 1975 census of the of , only 10% of those who did not have Catalan as their mother tongue could speak it (Consorci, 1978; Strubell, 1981 : 136-137). Th e same census also showed that for the as a whole, but exclud- ing the capital, only 17% of the Spanish-speaking immigrant population could speak Catalan (Reixac, 1985: 71). If we compare these statistics on the population of Catalonia thirty years ago with data from a linguistic survey taken in 1998, we can observe a signifi - cant piece of sociolinguistic data regarding the evolution of the contact between the two languages. According to a 1998 survey by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (Centre for Sociological Investigations) (Siguán, 1999 : 28) into the main or mother tongue and the linguistic competences of the population of Catalonia, 41% of those questioned consider themselves to be primarily Catalan speakers, 16% feel that they have an equal command of both languages, 22% think of themselves as Spanish speakers who also speak Catalan, and 21% regard themselves as monolingual Spanish speakers. Th is means that 48% of the population of Catalonia that could speak Catalan in 1998 had Spanish as their mother tongue. Th e fact that nearly 80% of the population of Catalonia could speak Catalan does not mean that they actually used the language. Th is point is illustrated nicely by a survey carried out ten years later, in 2008, on the population’s skills in, and uses of, Catalan and Spanish, in which respondents were asked whether they actually used Catalan with their friends or at work ( and Strubell, 2009 ). Th is survey shows that the percentage of people whose mother tongue is Catalan decreased over the ten-year period, and that a signifi cant percentage of people whose mother tongue is Spanish often use Catalan as a second lan- guage. Th e 2008 survey asked people to identify their fi rst language (that is, the one they learned to speak at home) and their language of habitual use at work, with their friends and with their family. While 37% of respondents said their fi rst language was Catalan and 54.7% said it was Spanish, 45.7% said Catalan was their language of habitual use, compared with 50.3% for Spanish. When the people whose fi rst language was Spanish were asked why they used Catalan as their language of habitual use, work-related reasons were given as the most common response (18.4%), followed by friends (12%) (Querol and Strubell, 2009 : 69-70). Signifi cantly, when respondents who had children were asked what language they spoke with them, 51.5% said Catalan and just 43.8% said Spanish (Querol and Strubell, 2009 : 162). Th is had never before happened in Catalonia because, for political and social reasons, the only bilingual speakers were those who had Catalan as their fi rst language, whereas the few Spanish speakers in Catalonia were monolingual.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 15

Th is was due to the fact that use of Catalan was prohibited in the public administration and in from the eighteenth century to the death of Franco in 1975, apart from a brief period during the Second Republic (1931- 1939) (Ferrer, 1985 ). But it was also due to the fact that these prohibitions forged a link between the Catalan language and the native Catalan ethnolin- guistic identity. As a result, as late as 1980 (Woolard, 1992 : 94), Catalan was only spoken by those who had learned to speak it at home growing up. Consequently, those people whose fi rst language was Spanish did not speak Catalan, because the use of Catalan was often taken as an affi rmation of one’s native Catalan identity, and this symbolic value ran counter to the adoption of the language by non-native speakers. When Catalan was made a co-offi cial language (with Spanish) in 1983, it became a language of instruction starting at the primary school level. Th is loosened the link between the language and the ethnolinguistic identity (Woolard, 1992 : 241). Moreover, knowledge of Catalan has also become an essential condition in order to be able to work in some parts of the public administration. Owing to this set of circumstances, as the linguistic surveys show, by 2008 Catalan had ceased to be a language reserved exclusively for internal use by the group of native Catalan speakers, and had been adopted for habitual use at work or with friends by some speak- ers whose fi rst language was Spanish. Due to these changes, among the present-day population of Catalonia, we can see for the fi rst time in the history of the Catalan language something which Silva-Corvalán ( 1994 ) describes as a bilingual continuum or an oral profi ciency continuum; that is, among these more or less bilingual speakers, knowledge of Catalan ranges from those who speak it without any interference from Spanish to those who make only an emblematic use of the language. In this bilingual continuum the diff erent degrees of competence at the individual level favour language mixing.

4. Imposition in Catalan

Over a short period of time, we have seen a series of changes in spoken Catalan, especially among young people, that have brought Catalan closer to Spanish in all aspects of the language that are in some way related to Catalonia’s new sociolinguistic situation. For the fi rst time ever, there is a widespread feeling that the Catalan spoken by young people is losing authenticity and becoming a sort of of Spanish. Prats, Rafanell and Rossich ( 1990 ) were the fi rst to speak about the fact that interference through contact with Spanish has subtly conditioned the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

16 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 evolution of Catalan in recent decades, making it more and more similar to Spanish. Above all they emphasize the point that what is happening nowadays is not the continuation of a historical tendency but rather a qualitative leap because the situation of Catalan has substantially changed. In contrast to what has occurred up to now, there are more and more speakers in Catalonia who express themselves better in Spanish than in Catalan. One of the most notable changes is the fact that the typical phonetic characteristics heard in Catalans speaking Spanish have disappeared in the youngest generations and it is now normal to fi nd people who speak Catalan with a Spanish accent, whereas fi fty years ago the opposite was true (Prats, Rafanell and Rossich, 1990 : 36-37). To understand the new changes in contemporary Catalan, it should be remembered that one of the things that causes the results of changes due to contact to become more or less fi xed in the recipient language is the relative sizes of the two groups of speakers in contact. If the group that is promoting the change is relatively numerous compared to the number of speakers of the recipient language, it is much more likely that any innovations introduced become fi xed. Th e widespread bilingualism of the current population of Catalonia is the result of the fact that a signifi cant group that has Spanish as its fi rst language has moved towards Catalan. As the surveys show, this group that has shifted and integrated itself into the group of bilinguals is almost as big as the original group of speakers whose fi rst language is Catalan. Today, in contrast to the past, the group of speakers whose fi rst language is Spanish includes teachers, politicians, radio and television announcers, actors, and people interviewed in the media. As a result, it is now common to hear Catalan spoken with diff erent degrees of competence. As Woolard (1992 : 240) observes, this means that today’s young Catalans hear more non-native Catalan spoken than did previous generations, and, in contrast with what until recently was the case, it is now possible that young urban Catalans are unable to distinguish between native and non-native speaking styles. Imposition takes place when these new speakers of Catalan, for communi- cative reasons, take certain characteristics from their own language (Spanish) and add them to the recipient language (Catalan). It implies transfer from the language in which the speakers are more profi cient to the one in which they are less profi cient—in this case, Catalan. Th e vocabulary of the new language is the fi rst they learn because using their own language’s vocabulary with the syntax and phonology of the recipient language would not be of much use in terms of communication. In the learning process of the recipient language, the source language speaker acquires recipient language material, which is primarily vocabulary; while so doing the speaker compensatorily imposes

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 17 material from the more stable components of his own language upon the recipient language (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 73-74). In the process of SL agentivity the vocabulary of the recipient language is acquired, while source language grammatical material and part of the source language phonology are transferred to the recipient language (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 61). Guy (1990 : 55) points out that, while borrowing can be partially conscious, in fact the lexicon is the part of the language of which speakers are most con- scious and, furthermore, they do not need a deep knowledge of another lan- guage in order to borrow from it, on the other hand, he also points out that imposition is unconscious; that is, non-native speakers unconsciously intro- duce phonetic and syntactic characteristics from their own language into the other. It is only when these errors are corrected that these speakers become conscious of them. Th e new speakers’ imperfect command of the language plays a fundamental role in this type of interference. What limits their ability to learn the language is not that fact that they do not have access to it, but rather their fi rst language itself (Th omason, 2001 : 75). Whereas the result of grammatical borrowing, despite several centuries of contact, rarely aff ects the most stable aspects of the recipient language, as we have seen in the case of Catalan, the principal characteristic of imposition is that, in contrast to borrowing, it does not begin by aff ecting the most superfi - cial aspects of the language such as the non-basic lexicon, but rather by aff ect- ing its phonology, morphology and syntax. It can include lexical interference too, but in this case these are secondary to the structural interferences. An important diff erence between linguistic changes resulting from borrow- ing and those resulting from imposition is the time they take to become fi xed. In all those cases where interferences from borrowing have been accompanied by some kind of structural change in the recipient language (however small these may be) this is the result of many centuries of contact. On the other hand, changes caused by source language agentivity, according to Van Coetsem ( 1988 : 84), only take a generation to become fi xed. Th is process is somewhat more complicated than borrowing. According to Th omason (2001 : 75), what can happen is that a group that is adopting a new language does not fully integrate with the other community of speakers and remains as an ethnic or national group diff erentiated from the original linguis- tic community. Another possibility is that the group that is learning the new language does integrate into the group of speakers of the original language, as has happened in Catalonia. Th us, if the group acquiring the is suffi ciently large, then their own way of speaking fuses with that of the native speakers. Th e language resulting from this adaptation can become the speech of the whole community due to a process of accommodation.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

18 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25

In contrast to the changes of centuries past, the changes now taking place in the Catalan spoken in Catalonia as a result of contact with Spanish are due to fact that Spanish—that is, the source language—is now the agent language in the contact between Spanish and Catalan, whereas this role was previously played by Catalan. Since SL agentivity aff ects the more stable components or subcomponents of the recipient language, people whose fi rst language is Spanish and speak Catalan as a second language unconsciously use syntactical constructions and sounds that are not used by speakers whose fi rst language is Catalan. Th ese new bilingual speakers introduce changes in Catalan by pre- serving the phonetics and syntax of Spanish, which is their linguistically dom- inant source language. As a result, Spanish grammatical material and, to an even larger extent, phonology are transferred upon the Catalan spoken by these bilinguals. As a result of this imposition, in their rendering of the recipient lan- guage (Catalan), these speakers preserve the accent of the source language (Spanish). Th e articulatory habits—one of the most stable subcomponents of a language—are often not acquired, and what remains is a so-called accent (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 77). Accent is a very stable set of articulatory, motoric habits, of which the accent user is not generally aware, but which speakers with a diff erent accent immediately detect and identify (Van Coetsem, 2000 : 178). Articulatory habits make up one of the most stable subcomponents of a language—one which cannot be acquired after a certain age. In light of this fact, the 2008 survey discovered some very interesting facts about speakers whose fi rst language is Spanish but report using Catalan outside of the home: the average age at which these speakers started using Catalan is 21.3 years, and 42.3% of them started using Catalan after age 17 (Querol and Strubell, 2009 : 69). Th ese speakers use an accent in which certain Catalan sounds are modi- fi ed to sound like Spanish. Th is happens because, as Van Coetsem ( 2000 : 74) points out, if the source language speaker is not able to identify the element to be acquired, he will impose, in the recipient language, the closest equivalent he can fi nd from his own language. Th us, he pronounces the Catalan [ɫ] as if it were the Spanish [l], and the [ǝ] as if it were the [a]; the / λ/ is also replaced by / / as in most of Spanish. Th ese changes do not aff ect the meaning; however, there are other changes in which are aff ected, such as the neutralization of oppositions between / / / s / or the /ɛ / / e / and / / / ɔ/, that do aff ect meaning. Even though these speakers make a conscious eff ort to distinguish between caça / 'kasǝ / (hunt) and casa / 'kazǝ / (home), they are not aware that voiced consonants are sometimes necessary in Catalan to distinguish meanings,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 19 because in Spanish this is not an issue. Th us, they fail to distinguish between els avis /ǝ l'zaβis/ (the grandparents) and els savis /ǝ l'saβis/ (the learned men), or les oques / lǝ'zɔkǝs / (the geese) and les soques / lǝ'sɔkǝs / (the logs), and instead make the sound / s / in all of these cases. Additionally, people who speak with this Spanish accent do not diff erentiate between the open and close vowels because these are not separate phonemes in Spanish, despite being a basic distinction in Catalan; thus, in / ' / () / 'ɔs / (bone), and / 'dew / (God) / 'dɛw/ (ten), respectively, they use [o] and [e] indis- criminately.1 Th ey also do not pronounce the groups of two consonants in word-fi nal position because these do not occur in Spanish, with the result that in some young speakers these become homophones: l 'amor / lǝ'mor / (the love) and la mort / lǝ'mɔrt/ (the death) are both pronounced as /la'mor/; el cos / ǝl'kɔs / (the body) and el cost / ǝl'kɔst / (the cost) are both pronounced as / al'kos/; cervell / sǝr'beλ / (brain) and servei / sǝr'bɛj / (service) are both pronounced as / sar'bej/. Th ese word pairs had never before been confused in Catalan, and these phonetic changes due to contact with Spanish are a new phenomenon in the . Th omason and Kaufman ( 1988 ) propose, among other things, that pho- netic and syntactic interference go together; that is, when one is found, the other must also be present. Th is is because the fi rst language of the groups of displaced speakers prevents them from learning certain characteristics of the recipient language that do not exist in their own. Many bilingual speakers who have Spanish as their fi rst language do not use the clitic en and hi when they speak Catalan because these do not exist in Spanish. Consequently, these speakers do not realize that sentences such as Havia un (Sp. Había uno , Cat. N'hi havia un , Eng. Th ere was one) are not possible in Catalan. Imposition aff ects the most stable components and subcomponents of the recipient language, such as syntax. Th ere are certain unstressed preposi- tions that are used diff erently in Catalan than in Spanish: Cat. por de, Sp. miedo a (Eng. afraid of), Cat. gust de, Sp. sabor a (Eng. taste of). We now increasingly fi nd cases where Catalan prepositions are substituted for Spanish ones, resulting in sentences like (1), where the preposition de is replaced with a , and as a result la veritat (the truth) becomes the indirect . In Spanish it is more common to duplicate the indirect object with a clitic (Sp. Dale esto a Juan ) than it is in Catalan (Cat. Dóna això al Joan ) (Eng. Give this to John).

1 Lleó, Cortés and Benet ( 2008 ) show that the phonology of Catalan in some is developing towards the loss of these vocalic distinctions.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

20 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25

(1) New form Tenir-li por a la veritat to have+PR fear to the truth-DAT S p . Tenerle miedo a la verdad to have+PR fear to the truth-DAT Cat. Tenir por de la veritat to have fear of the truth ‘To be afraid of the truth’ Further evidence of Spanish infl uence can be found in the use of certain verbs as if they were pronominal verbs: Cat. callar , Sp. callarse (Eng. to silence), Cat. caure , Sp. caerse (Eng. to fall). In (2), it is important to note that the caure (to fall) is not pronominal in Catalan, but is pronominal in Spanish (Sp. caerse ), and that the prepositional phrases formed with terra (fl oor) in Catalan do not take the article as in Spanish or English (Cat. PREP + terra ) (Sp. PREP + el -ART suelo ) (Eng. PREP + the fl oor). (2) New form Caure's al terra to fall-REFL to the fl oor S p . Caerse al suelo to fall-REFL to the fl oor Cat. Caure a terra to fall to fl oor ‘To fall to the fl oor’ Spanish infl uence on Catalan syntax can also be seen in verbs that are transi- tive in Catalan but can take a prepositional object in Spanish: Cat. apropiar-se + OBJ, Sp. apropiarse de (Eng. to appropriate), Cat. necessitar + OBJ, Sp. neces- sitar de (Eng. to need). In (3), the speaker has turned the verb apropiar-se (to appropriate), which in Catalan (as in English) is transitive, into an intransitive verb with a prepositional phrase as in Spanish (Sp. apropiarse de), even though in Spanish this verb can also be transitive. (3) New form S'apropia de tot he appropriates-INTR of everything Sp. Se apropia de todo he appropriates-INTR of everything Cat. S'ho apropia tot he appropriates-TR everything-OBJ ‘He appropriates everything’ And it can also be seen in verbs that are always intransitive in Catalan but can take a direct object in Spanish: Cat. dinar-INTR, Sp. comer -TR+ OBJ

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 21

(Eng. to lunch), Cat. sopar -INTR, Sp. cenar -TR + OBJ (Eng. to dine). In (4), the speaker has turned the verb sopar (to dine)—which, like other that refer to meals (esmorzar, dinar, berenar) (to breakfast, to lunch, to snack) is intransitive as in English—into a transitive verb as in Spanish. (4) New form Sopar sopa to supper-TR soup-OBJ S p . Cenar sopa to supper-TR soup-OBJ Cat. Menjar sopa per sopar to eat-TR soup-OBJ for supper ‘To have soup for supper’ Th ese new forms are not perceived as deviant and are identifi ed as normal Catalan utterances by many bilingual speakers, above all among the youngest. In some cases, these structures correspond to what Mougeon and Beniak ( 1991 ) call ambiguous changes that are not strictly ungrammatical. It should be taken into account that in many cases, the genetic proximity of the two languages and the situation of generalized bilingualism mean that the speakers do not perceive any anomaly in certain sentences which are normal in Spanish but are ill-formed in Catalan. Th ese important changes caused by imposition are not surprising if we compare both languages; nevertheless, they have never appeared before in Catalan in four hundred years of contact. In this process where Catalan becomes ever more similar to Spanish as a result of the linguistic eff ects of imposition, lexicon, which before was the part of the language most aff ected by borrowing, has come to mark the conscious diff erence between the two languages. Although an utterance such as Tenir-li por a la veritat (Cat. Tenir por de la veritat, Sp. Tenerle miedo a la verdad , Eng. To be afraid of the truth) may be identifi ed by some bilingual speakers as cor- rect Catalan, it is in fact a Spanish utterance formed using Catalan words. Th is happens because, as Dixon ( 1997 : 24) observes, speakers consciously identify the language with the lexicon, as if a language was only a dictionary of nouns, verbs and adjectives, and they are not conscious of the functions or grammati- cal categories and therefore are rarely aware of the changes that should occur. Th is identifi cation means that in some cases of contact, as with contemporary Catalan, the only real diff erence between the two languages is the most con- scious part thereof, that is, the form of the words. A similar case can also be found on the border between Colombia and Brazil, as described by Aikhenvald ( 1996 ), where the Tariana language has changed aspects of its syntactic and phonetic system to be more similar to those of the Tucanoan language, although for cultural reasons lexical borrowing is avoided.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

22 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25

Th us, while Catalan syntax and phonetics become unconsciously closer to Spanish, the speakers consciously avoid Spanish words that were common until just a few years ago. Th is identifi cation of the language with the lexi- con leads these speakers to use a certain few words that did not exist in the Catalan of one hundred years ago, such as bústia (letter-box) (Sp. buzón ), cursa (race) (Sp. carrera ), endoll (plug) (Sp. enchufe ), entrepà (sandwich) (Sp. boca- dillo) or llumí (match) (Sp. cerilla), solely because they are markedly diff erent from the corresponding words in Spanish, which were the habitual forms in older speakers. In contrast, however, they are unable to avoid unconsciously imposing the semantic distribution of the Spanish lexicon on Catalan. Th us, in order for there to be exact word-for-word correspondence between the lexi- cal meanings of Catalan and Spanish, the vocabulary has to be simplifi ed, which means that contemporary Catalan is losing words in order to make its model of semantic organization more similar to that of Spanish. Th us, it can be seen that words have disappeared from the vocabulary of the youngest Catalan speakers because they do not have an exactly corresponding semantic form in Spanish, such as the diff erences between calaix (drawer) and caixó (large box), in which calaix disappears because in Spanish the word cajón encompasses both meanings. Likewise, with caixa (box) and capsa (small box), the word capsa is disappearing because the Spanish word caja contains both meanings. Th e same occurs with other word pairs: calor (heat) and escalfor (hotness) (Sp. calor ), assecar (to dry) and eixugar (to wipe) (Sp. secar ), estripar (to tear) and trencar (to break) (Sp. romper ), rodar (to roll) and rodolar (fall rolling) (Sp. rodar ), and cridar (to shout) and escridassar (to scold) (Sp. gritar ). As a rule, the word that disappears is the one that is most diff erent from the Spanish and has the most restricted meaning. It can be seen, therefore, how linguistic change caused by this new situation of contact with Spanish means that elements of the grammatical, phonetic and lexical systems of Catalan are lost among the youngest Catalan speakers as the language becomes more and more similar to Spanish. For this reason, Prats, Rafanell and Rossich ( 1990 : 36) believe that Catalan is in a process of assimilation with Spanish and is even evolving into a dialect of this language, so that it may end up losing the idiosyncrasies that make it a diff erent language. It should be taken into account that, in the current situation of generalized bilingualism in Catalonia, the change caused by contact does not aff ect Span- ish, but rather only aff ects Catalan, which is a language that no longer has any monolingual speakers. Furthermore, the entrenchment in Catalan of the changes that are bringing it closer to Spanish is taking place coherently and systematically because all those who speak Catalan as a second language are speakers of Spanish, that is, of the same language. Th ey are not speakers of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 23 diff erent languages, which would prevent the results of interference from becoming consolidated, a process which is helped by the fact that the two languages are genetically very close.

5. Conclusion

During its evolution over a thousand years, Catalan has maintained lexical, phonetic and morphosyntactic characteristics that make it a distinct Romance language from Spanish. Today, it seems, this could be changing. In this article, we have tried to explain the reasons behind two phenomena: 1) the fact that, although Catalan and Spanish are genetically very close, the results of the contact between the languages were for several centuries limited to the impor- tation of lexicon (much of which was unnecessary), and 2) the fact that the changes that have occurred in just the past few years raise the question of whether this contact could cause Catalan to become a dialect of Spanish. Van Coetsem (1988 ; 2000 ) draws a distinction between two types of trans- fer (or cross-linguistic infl uence) that helps us to understand both 1) and 2) and proposes a psycholinguistic model that enables us to relate both phenom- ena to recent changes in the composition of Catalonia’s population. For centuries, the only people who spoke Catalan were those for whom it was their mother tongue. Th is circumstance was brought about in part by the fact that, starting in the eighteenth century, Catalan was not the offi cial lan- guage of any state and was banned in many areas of public life. Bilingualism did not become widespread among the population of Catalonia until the late nineteenth century. Even then, however, these bilinguals—who were more pro- fi cient in Catalan—limited themselves to importing elements from Spanish, a language with which they had varying degrees of familiarity. Th ese imported elements were adapted to Catalan because, in this case, the recipient language acted as the agent language. Th is type of transfer, corresponding to what Van Coetsem (1988 ; 2000 ) calls borrowing, had an infl uence on the Catalan vocabulary but did not change the structure of the language in any way. Th e more recent changes in the language are the result of a new contact situation involving a diff erent sort of speaker of Catalan. Between 1950 and 1970, the population of Catalonia increased considerably due to a wave of Spanish-speaking immigrants from other parts of , especially the south. Catalan remained in use as a language linked to the Catalan ethnolinguis- tic identity, and the situation of contact between the two languages stayed the same. When the Franco dictatorship came to an end in 1975, spoken Catalan gradually began to take on a greater role in public life, theatre, radio,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

24 A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 television and cinema, and it became a co-offi cial language of instruction in Catalonia’s schools. Surveys have shown that many of the bilingual speakers whose fi rst language is Spanish—that is, those who are more profi cient in Spanish than in Catalan— also use Catalan as a second language at work or with their friends. Because of the infl uence of these speakers who are linguistically dominant in Spanish, the source language (Spanish) has started to act as the agent language. Th us, Spanish grammatical material and phonology are transferred to—that is, imposed upon—the Catalan spoken by these bilinguals. Th is type of trans- fer, corresponding to what Van Coetsem (1988 ; 2000 ) calls imposition, has resulted in a series of changes in Catalan syntax and phonetics that have grad- ually become more widespread among young people in recent years.

References

Aikhenvald , Alexandra . 1996 . Areal diff usion in north-west Amazonia: Th e case of Tariana . Anthropological 38 : 73 - 116 . Anguera , Pere . 2002 . Els usos del català a Catalunya al segle XIX . In Miquel Nicolás (ed.) Bernat i Baldoví i el seu temps , 33 - 49 . València : Universitat de València . Badia , Antoni . 1953 . El subjuntivo de subordinación en las lenguas romances y especialment en iberorrománico . Revista de Filología Española 37 : 95 - 129 . Badia , Antoni M. 1967 . Calcs lingüístics en les lletres reials escrites per Johan Coloma, secretari de Ferran el Catòlic de 1483 a 1510 . In Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives , vol. II , 41 - 54 . Barcelona : Universidad de Barcelona Bruguera , Jordi . 1984 . La normativa del lèxic . In Problèmatica de la normativa del català. Actes de les Primeres Jornades ’estudi de la llengua normativa , 37 - 49 . Barcelona : Publicacions de l’Abadia de . Bruguera , Jordi . 1985 . Història del lèxic català . Barcelona : Enciclopèdia . Cerdá , Ramón . 1967 . Apreciaciones generales sobre cast. / / → cat. [X] en el Campo de . Revista de Filología Española 50 : 57 - 96 . Consorci d’Informació i Documentació de Catalunya. 1978 . Avenç de resultats del padró municipal del 1975 de la província de Barcelona (dades provisionals ) . Barcelona . Dixon , M. . 1997 . Th e Rise and Fall of Languages . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Fabra , Pompeyo . 1912 . Gramática de la lengua catalana . Barcelona : Tipografi a L’Avenç : Massó, Casas & Cª. Fabra , Pompeu . 1925 . Les principals faltes de gramàtica . Barcelona : Barcino . Ferrer , Francesc . 1985 . La persecució política de la llengua catalana. Història de les mesures preses contra el seu ús des de la Nova Planta fi . Barcelona : Edicions 62 . Guy , Gregory . 1990 . Th e sociolinguistic types of . Diachronica 7 ( 1 ): 47 - 67 . Lefebvre , Claire . 1985 . Grammaires en contact. Défi nition et perspectives de recherche. Revue québécoise de linguistique 14 ( 1 ): 11 - 47 . Lleó , Conxita , Susana Cortés and Ariadna Benet . 2008 . Contact-induced phonological changes in the Catalan spoken in Barcelona . In Peter Siemund and Noemi Kintana (eds.) Language Contact and Contact Languages , 185 - 212 . Amsterdam : John Benjamins .

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access

A. Arnal / Journal of Language Contact 4 (2011) 5–25 25

Mougeon , Raymond and Beniak , Edouard . 1991 . Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction. Th e Case of French in Ontario . Oxford : Clarendon Press. Payrató , Lluís . 1985 . La interferència lingüística. Comentaris i exemples català-castellà . Barcelona : Curial Edicions Catalanes. Poplack , Shana . 1997 . Th e dynamics of apparent convergence. In Gregory R. Guy , Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiff rin and John Baugh (eds.) Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of Labov 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures , 285 - 309 . Amsterdam : John Benjamins . Prats , Modest , August Rafanell , and Albert Rossich . 1990 . El futur de la llengua catalana . Barcelona : Empúries . Querol , Ernest and Miquel Strubell . 2009 . Llengua i reivindicacions nacionals a Catalunya. Evolució de les habilitats, dels usos i de la transmissió lingüística (1997-2008) . Barcelona : UOC . Rafanell , August . 2000 . El català modern (set estudis d’història cultural) . Barcelona : Empúries . Recolons , Lluís . 1987 . Les migracions a Catalunya en un nou període demogràfi c . In Visió de Catalunya: El canvi i la reconstrucció nacional des de la perspectiva sociològica , 257 - 302 . Barcelona : Diputació de Barcelona . Reixach , Modest . 1985 . Coneixement i ús de la llengua catalana a la província de Barcelona . Barcelona : de Catalunya. Siguán , Miguel . 1999 . Conocimiento y uso de las lenguas. Investigación sobre el conocimiento y uso de las lenguas coofi ciales en las comunidades autónomas bilingües . : Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Silva-Corvalán , Carmen . 1992 . Sobre la cuestión de la permeabilidad de los sistemas gramaticales . Voz y Letra 3 ( 1 ): 53 - 67 . Silva-Corvalán , Carmen . 1994 . Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles . Oxford : Clarendon Press . Silva-Corvalán , Carmen . 2008 . Th e limits of convergence in language contact . Journal of Language Contact , Th ema 2 : 213 - 224 . Sjoestedt-Jonval , Marie-Louise . 1928 . L’infl uence de la langue anglais sur un parler local irlandaise . In Mélanges . Macon : Protat Frères . Stenson , Nancy . 1993 . English infl uence on Irish: the last 100 years. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 2 : 107 - 128 . Strubell , Miquel . 1981 . Llengua i població a Catalunya . Barcelona : La Magrana . Th omason , Sarah . and Terrence Kaufman . 1988 . Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics . Berkeley : University of Press . Th omason , Sarah G. 2001 . Language Contact , Edimburgh : Edimburgh University Press . Tr e ff ers-Daller , Jeanine . 1999 . Borrowing and shift-induced interference: Contrasting patterns in French-Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2 ( 1 ): 1 - 22 . Van Coetsem , Frans . 1988 . Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact . Dordrech : Foris . Van Coetsem , Frans . 2000 . A General and Unifi ed Th eory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact . Heidelberg : Universitätsverlag, C. Winter . Veny , Joan . 2006 . Contacte i contrast de llengües i dialectes . València : Universitat de València . Winford , Donald . 2007 . Some issues in the study of language contact . Journal of Language Contact , Th ema 1 : 22 - 39 . Woolard , Kathryn A. 1992 . Identitat i contacte de llengües a Barcelona . Barcelona : La Magrana .

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:16:16PM via free access