Lexical Retention in Contact Grammaticalisation: Already in Southeast Asian Englishes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
journal of language contact 12 (2019) 737-783 brill.com/jlc Lexical Retention in Contact Grammaticalisation: Already In Southeast Asian Englishes Debra Ziegeler Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 [email protected] Sarah Lee University of Queensland [email protected] Abstract Amongst the problems of contact grammaticalisation research in past studies has been, first, the problem of searching for diachronic evidence in relatively ‘new’ lan- guage situations, something which was advocated by Bruyn (2009), amongst others as essential to contact grammaticalisation research. Because of the absence of stage-by- stage diachronic evidence for contact grammaticalisation, many cases of ordinary contact-induced grammaticalisation may at first appear as simply calques (polysemy- copying in Heine & Kuteva 2005). The present study reveals the presence of lexical persistence in the age-graded distribution of the perfective marker already in Singa- porean and Malaysian English, and demonstrates that even ordinary contact-induced grammaticalisation may be gradual if it is mediated by constraints from the lexifier source material. The study also questions the hypothesis of Total Systemic Transfer of the Chinese perfective aspectual system in Singapore English (Bao, 2001; 2005; 2015), and suggests an extended function for the Lexifier Filter in contact. Keywords the lexifier – persistence in contact-induced grammaticalisation – the extension of the Lexifier Filter – age-grading in contact grammaticalisation © Debra Ziegeler and Sarah Lee, 2020 | doi:10.1163/19552629-01203006 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the prevailing cc-by-nc License at the time of publication. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 11:10:11AM via free access <UN> 738 Ziegeler and Lee 1 Introduction It has been more than 10 years since the initial theories of contact grammati- calisation of Heine and Kuteva (2003; 2005) were first launched, and the field of research has not been without its fair share of debate, mainly in discussion of the mechanisms by which contact grammaticalisation takes place. In Heine and Kuteva’s studies, it was first argued that in the hypothesis of replica gram- maticalisation speakers in contact apparently intuitively pursue the same pathways of grammaticalisation that were followed in the Model language. This was frequently misunderstood to imply that speakers were able to trace the diachronic evolution of a grammaticalising item in their L1s, and intention- ally replicate it in the contact language. Such a hypothesis was often contested as being impossible (e.g. Matthews and Yip, 2009; Gast and van der Auwera, 2012; Szeto, Matthews and Yip, 2017): how, it was claimed, was it possible for speakers to “know” the diachronic evolution of the Model language and to fol- low it in grammaticalising categories under contact? The process of ordinary contact-induced grammaticalisation in Heine and Kuteva’s (2003; 2005) model has not escaped the judgements of its critics ei- ther; according to Bruyn (2009) many cases of ordinary contact-induced gram- maticalisation may be described as “apparent grammaticalisation” or calquing (relexifying of a substrate function using lexifier material), as they were con- sidered to proceed too fast in creoles to have gradual stage-by-stage develop- ments. Heine and Kuteva (2005) had described similar processes as ‘polysemy copying’ but found that even these could often qualify as grammaticalisation processes. Bruyn (2009) has suggested that many such cases could be identi- fied instead as simple reanalyses without grammaticalisation. Since then, however, alternative hypotheses have been proposed, including one that suggested that speakers may not always be following the diachronic development of a grammaticalising item in the substrate or L1 model, but in- stead, may retrace stages of the history of the item in the lexifier, from which the lexical material was transferred in the first place (Ziegeler, 2014; 2017, Kute- va et al (to appear)). It was shown in several case studies of Singaporean and Indian English that it may in fact be possible to predict such a process, since the grammaticalisation of a lexical item should normally follow a universal process whenever the same lexical source material is used, and regardless of the circumstances under which it takes place. If that is the case, then all that remains to be investigated is whether the path of grammaticalisation is also universal across a wide range of languages and contact situations, or is unique to the lexifier model, therefore suggesting a “replication as recapitulation” hy- pothesis. Even in Heine and Kuteva’s (2003; 2005) ‘replica’ grammaticalisation journal of language Downloadedcontact from 12 Brill.com09/30/2021 (2019) 737-783 11:10:11AM via free access <UN> Lexical Retention in Contact Grammaticalisation 739 account, it is usually assumed that the Model language, which supplies the functional justification for replication in contact, is the L1 of the speakers who are creating the new language. A further question that arises, then, is in determining when contact gram- maticalisation follows the grammaticalisation processes of the substrate or L1 (replica grammaticalisation), when it follows grammaticalisation patterns of the lexifier (replication as recapitulation), and when it simply uses universal strategies of grammaticalisation, known to other contact situations (ordinary contact-induced grammaticalisation, according to Heine and Kuteva (2003; 2005)). One of the most under-researched areas of study for work in contact grammaticalisation has been the application of the five Principles of Gram- maticalisation first outlined by Hopper (1991) and often used to explain mono- lingual grammaticalisation, but rarely applied to contact.1 The aims of the present study are to attempt to apply one of the Principles, persistence or re- tention (Bybee and Pagliuca, 1987), to the case of already, an aspect marker in Singapore Colloquial English and Malaysian English, and an example of ordi- nary contact-induced grammaticalisation according to Matthews and Yip (2009), and Szeto, Matthews and Yip (2017). Evidence will be provided of the likely adherence of lexical retention from the lexifier source material, inhibit- ing the grammaticalisation of the adverb with respect to the substrate func- tions it represents, and providing some evidence that ordinary contact-induced grammaticalisation may be more gradual than is assumed in earlier studies. The question is then raised how such lexical retention may emerge in the intu- itions of native speakers, a more global problem associated with any situation of grammaticalisation. Section 2 will look at the earlier studies on the use of already in Singapore Colloquial English and Malaysian Colloquial English (mce), and 3 reviews the controversies surrounding the theories of contact grammaticalisation put for- ward by Heine and Kuteva (2003; 2005), comparing them to earlier approaches of polysemy copying and relexification. Section 3 also briefly reviews the his- torical development of already in English. Section 4 discusses the sociolinguis- tic status of English in Singapore and Malaysia, and will present the results of a spontaneous survey of the distributional range of already amongst Singapor- ean and Malaysian speakers, in which speakers’ intuitions of lexical retention or persistence are tested against three apparently marginal uses of already as a perfective aspect marker. Section 5 discusses the survey, and the observations 1 Hopper’s (1991) principles are: Layering, Divergence, Specialisation, Persistence, and Decat- egorialisation. They were seen by Hopper as evidence of grammaticalisation, but not neces- sarily applying uniquely to grammaticalisation (1991: 21). journal of language contact 12 (2019) 737-783 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 11:10:11AM via free access <UN> 740 Ziegeler and Lee of generational age biases in the data. It also proposes a clearer function for the operation of the Lexifier Filter of Bao (2001; 2005) in transfer. Section 6 will summarise the study. 2 Already in Singapore English The use of already as a perfective marker was first discussed by Bao (1995) as replicating the exact functions of Mandarin Chinese le in Singapore Colloquial English (Singlish).2 In earlier studies, such as Ho and Platt (1993) and Kwan- Terry (1989, cited in Bao, 2005), it had been recognized as at least a marker of anteriority, and other functions such as inchoativity were also observed. But Bao’s study was to demonstrate that the many different functions were repre- sentative of equivalent uses in Chinese: it expressed the entire gamut of per- fective functions of marking completion, inchoativity, and inception as well; i.e., other functions representative of perfective markers crosslinguistically. The adverb is clearly identified as one of the defining characteristics of contact English in Singapore, but it is not restricted to use in Singapore English. A glance at the World Atlas of Linguistic Structure (Haspelmath, Dryer et al., 2008) reveals that already is also found in mce, and it is clearly an areal feature of the southeast Asian region, its translation equivalents appearing in many different neighbouring languages. Dahl (2006) finds 21 languages in Haspel- math, Dryer et al (eds., 2005) that have grammaticalised a perfective aspect marker from a lexical source meaning ‘already’ or ‘finish’, which led him to refer to the sources as gram-types labelled ‘Iamitives’.