Alex Francois
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Areal studies and language families Alex François LACITO-CNRS, Paris Linguistic areas “A linguistic area is generally taken to be a geographically delimited area including languages from two or more language families, Parallel meanings, sharing significant traits.” [Dixon 2001] “The central feature of a linguistic area is the existence of structural similarities shared among languages of a geographical area, divergent forms where usually some of the languages are genetically unrelated in the north Vanuatu or at least are not all close relatives.” [Campbell 2006] Sprachbund স Most areal studies involve distinct language families: Balkans, Mesoamerica, Ethiopia, SE Asia, India, Siberia... Diffusion or genetic inheritance? স Another type: Contact situations involving languages which are genetically closely related. e.g. Heeringa et al. 2000 for Germanic lgs; Chappell 2001 for Sinitic lgs… 28 September 2007 — ALT7, Paris Structural similarities < common ancestor or diffusion? স This case study: the 17 languages of north Vanuatu. 2 Torres Is. Banks Is. Maewo Santo Ambae Pentecost Malekula Efate Tanna ƥ Negative existential׀Hiw The 17 languages tȪ of north Vanuatu ȳ׀Lo- tatȪ Toga Löyöp mȳp ȳ׀Lehali tȳt ȳh׀Volow taƒȳ Mwotlap tatȳh Lemerig niƒ Close genetic relationship ai׀Mota ta ׀ita׀ Austronesian > Oceanic Veraa > North-Central Vanuatu [Clark 1985] Mwesen ȳnȳІ > North Vanuatu [François 2005] Negative existential Vurës odiaІ Sustained language contact and • “not be there, be absent” plurilingualism through trade, exogamy, • “have not; lack” shared cultural events… [Vienne 1984] Nume • (sentential) “no” bȳk Little mutual intelligibility Lakon • “it's alright” iƒ • “(try) to no avail” Modern vehicular language: Olrat iƒ ƥbȳk Dorig b k ́׀Bislama (Eng-lexifier pidgin) Koro Mwerlap ȳ t́ utujȪ Qualitative restrictive adverbאAdverb “properly” І ׀wugωƥ շrƒȳ wȪrȪІƥ tԙøjmat wjȳ ȳẃ׀ alsi ȳwwȳ׀ alsæ׀ alsi ́ẃ׀ ƥr׀ƥאkp ٧ørma٧ ap׀ ׀manta iƒa׀ ׀mintȳ ƥp׀ maІtȳ Qualitative restrictive adverb ȳm׀ ’just, only‘ • ׀Adverb ‘properly’ warȳ • “(do s.th.) properly, correctly” • restrictive with adjectives pragmatically oriented negatively • “(eat, drink+) completely” liІliІi am • used with small numbers • “(speak) sincerely” ڴkȳrȳ • used with recent past wƥ • “nicely (fat+)”… • ‘just (fine)’ taƒul wƥj wƥr ڴƒ́ĺ ƥm׀ taƒul menmen wƥr g “just tell the truth” utujȪ The case of BislamaאІ ׀at́t wu ωƥ׀ speakV wellADV onlyADV ƒȪsȪ շrƒȳ wȪrȪІƥ Bislama ƒap tԙøjmat wjȳ স English-based Pidgin with various Oceanic languages as its substratum th [alsæ ȳwwȳ (XIX century) [Tryon & Charpentier 2004׀ ƒƒap .ȳẃ স Bislama is the Vanuatu variety of Pacific English pidgins׀ alsi׀ ƒap (The variety here discussed is the one spoken in North Vanuatu) alsi ́ẃ׀ ƥr hƥlȳ׀ƥאkp ٧ørma٧ tȳk Relexification ap׀ ׀ato manta׀ iƒa স About Haitian Creole, Lefebvre (1998: 9) defines relexification as׀ ׀t́k mintȳ ƥp “a process of vocabulary substitution in which the only information adopted׀ Structural isomorphism ƒ́trƥw maІtȳ •on the paradigmatic axis from the target language in the lexical entry is the phonological information” ȳm׀ ׀warȳ אakpאsemantic structure of lexicon) kp) স Pre-existing functional moulds (lexemes, constructions…) were re-lexified •on the syntagmatic axis syntagmatic with “phonological” (formal) material from the lexifier language. (syntax) manȳs liІliІi am স Bislama = Oceanic structures x English forms “One grammar, 17 lexicons” [Camden 1979, Keesing 1991] ڴcf. Friedman 1997] luw kȳrȳ wƥ] …or 18 counting Bislama! at taƒul wƥr׀wƥj ƒ ڴƒit ƒ́ĺ BISL tok gut nomo ƒit taƒul wƥr ƥm 11׀ talk good no-more luw menmen* > ƥ Negative existential The model of areal convergence׀tȪ ȳ স Another case where languages with different forms׀tatȪ come to share parallel structures: mȳp ȳ Metatypy׀tȳt ȳh׀taƒȳ স Ross (2001) compared Papuan Waskia and neighbouring Oceanic Takia. tatȳh niƒ স As a result of contact, Takia has kept its forms unchanged .ai but has entirely remodelled its structures following the Papuan model׀ta ׀ita׀ ȳnȳІ স Sustained contact between lgs A and B results typically in A Negative existential odiaІ undergoing “metatypy” under the influence of B: • “not be there, be absent” “the reorganization of the language's semantic patterns • “have not; lack” and ‘ways of saying things’ • (sentential) “no” bȳk the restructuring of its syntax.” • “it's alright” iƒ • “(try) to no avail” স In both cases (relexification & metatypy), contact phenomena iƒ ƥbȳk are defined by their ability to disrupt genetic inheritance. bȳk ́׀BISL nogat t́ < Engl. *no-got 13 A polysemous term: maƒȪ The model of areal convergence “heavy” meƒȪ Is areal convergence the right model? স Oceanic vs (Pidgin) English mmap (relexification) Before After mmap Forms different different Structures different same dew mĴƒ স Papuan vs Oceanic (metatypy) Before After maƒa Forms different different Proto-form *mamaǃa mamaƒa mamaҸ Structures different same adjective “heavy” maƒ • “heavy” স Oceanic vs Oceanic (North Vanuatu) • “weighty, important” Protolanguage History Present • “solemn, respectful” ¾ forms have changed Forms same ? different • “taboo” ¾ structures have • “elaborate”… either been retained Structures same ? same or changed and reconverged map 14 Language-internal relexification Language-internal relexification Protolanguage Pre Mwotlap Modern Mwotlap Protolanguage Neighbouring languages *dew *mamaǃa semantic shift semantic restructuring? Areal pressure (?) ‘heavy, solemn…’ + lexical competition Modern Mwotlap The meaning of the new word has been between 2 forms “forced” into the pre-existing mould. (partial synonymy) Because languages change one at a time, generally, the semantic structure that is thus being retained is indirectly inherited from earlier stages / from the common protolanguage. Change of form, retention of meaning. ¾ Hybrid Micro-perspective: contact phenomenon *dew *mamaǃa Macro-perspective: genetic retention ‘heavy, solemn…’ ‘taboo’ Tikopia tafito Teanu utele tєt Noun “tree stump” Conclusion tȪsi Tahitian The paradox of language contact ntԙøtԙi tumu nt́t স Language contact is generally observed insofar nt́t as it disrupts genetic inheritance. :n٧uƒu nօtօti স But contact can sometimes act as a conservative force Proto Oceanic *puqun it tends to preserve original functional patterns ׀eteאkp .٧uƒu even when original forms have long been forgotten i׀t́אProto North-Vanuatu *X kp INH i ERIT স This resistance to change induced by language contact׀t́́אkp Noun “tree stump” PO TED OLYS can be of great help to the historical linguist. • “stump, base of tree” EMY i׀itאunit in counting plants kp • • “beginning (song, month+)” t́́אkp • “origin (family, custom+)” i׀օtאi kp׀օtאt́ kṕאcause, reason (event+)” kp“ • ׀utuאt́ ḱאkp e׀Nêlêmwa pu jєjwjȪ ti kȪmi Tankyu tumas ! References Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) 2001. Areal ——. f/c. Des valeurs en héritage: Les isomorphismes séman- diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in comparative tiques et la reconstruction des langues. In I. Choi-Jonin, M. lowiȪ luwo e kȪmi linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Duval & O. Soutet (eds), Typologie et comparatisme. Camden, William. 1979. Parallels in structure and lexicon and Hommages à Alain Lemaréchal. Louvain: Peeters. syntax between New Hebrides Bislama and the South Santo Heeringa, Wilbert, et al. 2000. Dutch-German contact in and ẃ kimi language spoken at Tangoa. In Papers in Pidgin and Creole around Bentheim. In D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne & J. Schaekeń׀ ƒap æwȳ kimi Linguistics, No.2. Pacific Linguistics, A-57. Canberra: (eds), Languages in Contact. Studies in Slavic and General׀ ƒap Australian National University. Pp.51-117. Linguistics. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Pp.145-156. ȳlwƥ Campbell, Lyle. 2006. Areal linguistics. In K. Brown (ed.) Keesing, Roger M. 1991. Substrates, calquing and׀ȳ nאƒ́ẃ kimi gb Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In E.C. Traugott & vol.1. Oxford: Elsevier. Pp.455-460. B. Heine (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol.1. ƒ́ẃ kimi a nilwƥ Chappell, Hilary. 2001. Language contact and areal diffusion in Typological Studies in Language. Philadelphia: Benjamins. .ȳ lƥwƥ Sinitic languages: Problems for typology and genetic Pp.315-342׀ ƒarȳan affiliation. In A. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds), 328–357. Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of ƒarean we poa Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: the grammar: The case of Haitian creole. Cambridge: CUP. a luwƥ semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact-induced change and the׀ ƒarian .a lƥwƥ languages. Language 76, 546-592. comparative method: cases from Papua New Guinea. In M׀ ƒarȳan François, Alexandre. 2003. La sémantique du prédicat en Durie & M. Ross (eds), The Comparative Method Reviewed: .ølüwօ mwotlap (Vanuatu). Collection Linguistique de la Société de Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford: OUP׀ ƒarȳan Linguistique de Paris, 84. Paris, Louvain: Peeters. Pp.180-217. ——. 2005. Unraveling the history of the vowels of seventeen ——. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in ƒarȳan ƒȳllaƒ northern Vanuatu languages. Oceanic Linguistics 44-2, 443- North-West Melanesia. In A. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon 504. (eds), 134–166. ——. f/c. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Tryon, Darrell & Charpentier, Jean-Michel. 2004. Pacific Pidgins Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In M. and Creoles: Origins, Growth and Development. Berlin-New ׀a ŕ׀ ƒarȳan ƒarȳan ƒilwƥ Vanhove (ed.) From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards York: Mouton de Gruyter. ƒarȳan sasa mun kimi a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. Amsterdam: Vienne, Bernard. 1984. Gens de Motlav. Idéologie et pratique ar an luw Benjamins. sociale en Mélanésie, vol.42. Paris: Société des Océanistes. ƒ ȳ ƒ ƥ tȳmtȳm nulap 22.