Mededeling Van De Redactie

Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

Topics in Contact Linguistics

Dedicated to Winfred P. Lehmann

†Frans van Coetsem

[When Frans van Coetsem died, on February 11, 2002, he left two unpublish- ed papers. One, in Dutch, dealt with convergence of language evolution in adjacent languages, especially in Dutch and French. This paper was ready for publication, except that the author had expressed his desire for a final stylistic check. This was done, and the paper was published by the undersigned in Leuvense Bijdragen 2002. The second, Topics in Contact Linguistics, is a summary of the innovative ideas that the author developed in a number of recent publications on various aspects of language contact; in addition, it often brings new viewpoints on old problems. This paper, the author wrote, was not quite finished, and he indicated a few places which required further checking and completing. Even so, when his children let us have a diskette with his work in progress, we decided that the scholarly reputation of Frans van Coetsem would in no way be harmed if it was published, unfinished as it was. But it could not be published as it was. Our main editorial decision has been to cut the last dozen or so pages of the original manuscript. They contain three topics, all very brief, and all dealing with various aspects of accentuation. Most of it is to be found, in much greater detail, in van Coetsem (1996). From the topics that we publish here, we have also cut some passages that seemed redundant or repetitive. These are indicated by suspension points between square brackets. In principle we have left the text unchanged, except for insignificant minor alterations, mainly stylistic ones. Wherever we have changed the text in a way that we were not absolutely sure would leave the author’s intention unaffected, we have given the original in a footnote marked by an asterisk. (The author’s original footnotes are numbered.) Asterisked footnotes also introduce our rare editorial comments. To enable anyone who would like to do so to make his or her own reconstruction of the author's thoughts and intentions, we have deposited in the library of the University of Antwerp the following records: (1) A copy of the author's print-out dated August 2001, as far as we know the last print-out the author made himself. (2) A diskette containing all the files exactly in the

- 27 - F. VAN COETSEM

state in which they were on his computer. (3) A print-out of these files. But the last work of a linguist of Frans’s stature deserved better than mere deposition in a library. May this publication therefore be a final homage to Frans van Coetsem, a man that we were privileged to know and to call our friend.

Antwerpen/Leuven, March 2003 Guy A.J. Tops & O. Leys]

Contents Introduction 1. Language mixing 2. Stability in language 3. Variation in language I. Exploring the systemic make-up of language 1. Language as an adjusted form of the item and relation model 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Aresearch survey in bird's eye view 1.3. The systemic make-up of language in different aspects 1.4. Systemic implications concerning language intelligibility and identity 1.5. The adequacy of the language system 2. Differentiating language from other forms of communication 2.1. Properties of the communication process 2.2. Some important structural implications of double articulation 2.3. The evolution of language 3. The language system and its extension 3.1. The language system as a relational network 3.2. Contact between the relational networks of genetically closely related idioms 3.3. The diasystem 3.4. Diasystem vs. system proper vs. extension of the system proper 3.5. An unexplained case of dialect mixing: The Hildebrand poem 4. Koineization 4.1. Convergence and divergence 4.2. Convergence between genetically closely related dialects or languages

II. Replacement 5. More on the replacement phenomenon 5.1. Replacement: From systemic technique to language change 5.2. Transmission vs. diffusion

- 28 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

6. Acase history: Early Romance and Germanic diphthongizations in northern Gaul 6.1. Introduction 6.2. The sociohistorical and sociolinguistic background 6.3. The Romance diphthongizations 6.4. The Germanic diphthongizations 6.5. Comparison between Romance and Germanic diphthongizations

III. Transfer of lexical items between languages 7. Lexical transfer in its basic occurrences 7.1. Lexical transfer and the adequacy of the language system 7.2. Lexical transfer in RL agentivity or borrowing: Coagentivity 7.3. Lexical transfer in SL agentivity 7.4. Converging conceptualizations 7.5. Lexical transfer in neutralization: Relexification

IV. The two modes of borrowing 8. The extended mode of borrowing and diglossia 8.1. Aproblem 8.2. The regular and the extended modes of borrowing 8.3. Standardization. 8.4. Diglossia 8.5. Bilingualism 9. The regular mode of borrowing in English

References

- 29 - F. VAN COETSEM

Introduction (1)

1. LANGUAGE MIXING

All existing and extinct languages arose by way of mixture. Even individual speech, which originates and is formed in contact with fully developed individuals, is the product of mixture and interaction. (J. Baudouin de Courtenay 1897 [1972]:213).

The study of language contact is an important, integral part of linguistics, but it is still very much in the process of being proven so. In spite of the com- mendable efforts of such consummate linguists as Weinreich (1953) and Haugen (1969 [1953]), who brought the language contact phenomenon to the forefront, it has traditionally been seen as a marginal topic in linguistics. Where in textbooks the aspect of interaction between languages is brought up at all, it is often handled in a casual manner under the notion of borrowing and without much further differentiation(2) . The language system has been seen too much in itself rather than in its language-interactive function. Yet, it is also true that with the rise of sociolinguistics the study of language contact has become more validated. Although it all occurs slowly, the interest for the topic is growing and the insights in the matter are deepening. Adirectly related and strongly resistant bias has produced the glori- fication of the 'purity' of language, with all that this implies. However, a 'pure' language does not exist, since all languages are mixed, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, as already Baudouin de Courtenay (1901 [1972])

(1) The present study offers commentaries on a variety of contact-linguistic topics organized in nine chapters. I already brought up these topics in my monograph of 2000 while proposing a theory of the transmission process in language contact. I am very grateful to those who have read and commented on provisional versions of this study. [The author's text has suspension points here, which probably indicate that the author wished to insert yet other acknowledgments. – Eds.] Odo Leys read different versions and as always made very useful remarks. Caroline Smits checked chapter 8 as it concerns the Maastricht dialect of which she is a native speaker. Winfred P. Lehmann read and commented on the last version. In appreciation of his work that has had a significant influence on my own research in general, I thankfully dedicate the present study to him. (2) The notion of borrowing (RL agentivity) was even used in cases of rephonetization or accent (SL agentivity), showing a common confusion of transfer types (cf. also Van Coetsem 2000:39). - 30 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

forcefully argued(3). Language contact and mixing language is the rule, not the exception. And Burney (1962:108) mentioned Dauzat as viewing language mixing as a boon, and as having stated that: "Les plus grandes langues sont les plus métissées." Dauzat is not the only one to think that way. Some scholars have maintained all along the crucial significance of the study of language contact and language mixing. H. Schuchardt is a typical case in point. And the theoretician of the neogrammarian school, Paul (1966 [1920]:390) himself, gave Schuhardt a qualified support: "Gehen wir davon aus, dass es nur Individualsprachen gibt, so können wir sagen, dass in einem fort Sprachmischung stattfindet, sobald sich überhaupt zwei Individuen miteinander unterhalten ... Nehmen wir Sprachmischung in diesem weiten Sinne, so müssen wir Schuchardt darin recht geben, dass unter allen Fragen, mit denen die heutige Sprachwissenschaft zu tun hat, keine von grösserer Wichtigkeit ist als die Sprachmischung". Another scholar, Révész (1950), from his perspective of the origin and prehistory of language, also emphasized the significance of the contact phenomenon in human and animal behavior, and in particular within the context of language. Perhaps, in the present monograph, chapters like the ones on the extension of the language system (chapter 3) and koineization (chapter 4) will help us concretely realize how much contact and interaction between languages is an intrinsic part of language itself. In the past and certainly during a major part of the 20th century, the circumstances for research in language contact and language mixing do not appear to have been particularly favorable. Being considered to be not much more than borrowing, language contact offered a rather limited interest, and information that appears to be highly pertinent now could then remain un- noticed. For example, Baudouin de Courtenay (1889 [1972]:138; 1930 [1972]:298) pointed out a type of language mixing in which the lexicon originates from one language and the morphology from another. He described this mixed pattern, which must have been considered very remarkable at the time, as follows: "One ... typically mixed language is the Russian-Chinese language of Kjaxta and Majmahina on the Siberian-Chinese border ... Its lexicon ... is almost exclusively Russian, but its structure, its morphology bear a clear imprint of Chinese." The reference remained generally without consequence. More recently Muysken (1981) described Media Lengua as being basically a combination of the lexicon of Spanish and the grammar and phonology of Quechua, thus instantiating (but also explaining) a case comparable to the one that Baudouin de Courtenay made earlier. However, this time the question caught on and influenced contact-linguistic research.

(3) He was less absolute in an earlier study of 1889, p. 138.

- 31 - F. VAN COETSEM

2. STABILITY IN LANGUAGE Difference in stability between language components or subcomponents is another essential matter that has been neglected in linguistics. In both my monographs of 1988 and 2000, I try to show how significant the stability gradient of language is in the study of language contact. Yet, the stability factor has an even broader application, as it appears to be relevant to the systemic make-up of language itself (chapter 1 of the present study). Such a view is founded on the fact that the language system is a manifestation of the item and relation model, in which stability is a feature basically distinguishing between item, as less stable, and relation, as more stable. This difference in stability, which satisfies a communicative need, is in line with the common, un- sophisticated observation that the vocabulary is a less permanent part of language, while the grammar and phonology constitute a more permanent one. Focussing on the systemic make-up of language from the standpoint of item and relation in combination with stability, important as it may be, is, however, one angle for understanding that system. We cannot exclude other perspectives, which may lead to descriptions that are complementary or mutu- ally compatible rather than opposed.

3. VARIATION IN LANGUAGE Anotion that is now being intensively researched and discussed in linguistics is the one of variation, with the linguistic subfield involved being referred to as variation linguistics. Variation is a significant phenomenon in language, which occurs not only internally to the language focussed upon, but also externally, as when a number of genetically closely related dialects or languages are considered. In that case the action of the language system quite naturally extends outside of its domain proper, since an element of the language focussed upon is compared to a corresponding element in another language. Consequently, there is a natural extension to the language system proper, which attends to variation between genetically closely related dialects or languages.

If the present study were somehow to contribute to the coming of age of contact linguistics, I would consider myself amply rewarded.

- 32 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

I. Exploring the systemic make-up of language

1. Language as an adjusted form of the item and relation model

1.1. INTRODUCTION Our primary concern here does not involve the nature of language but more specifically the organization of the language system, i.e., the systemic make- up of language. In focussing on language from the perspective of that systemic make-up, we concretely refer to the framework through which the communication is processed from the encoder to the decoder. Sebeok (1977:1065) makes a clear distinction here when he writes that: "The subject matter of linguistics ... is communication consisting of verbal messages and the under- girding verbal code enabling them." If we speak of language in general we include not only the language system as the framework through which the communication is processed, but, e.g., also semiotic facets of language, which directly involve the communication itself. And semiotics, like pragmatics, is far broader than linguistics, as it includes among other things nonverbal communication and animal communication. As we will discuss, the systemic make-up of language, as we con- ceive it here, is based on the so-called item and relation model. The complexity of the systemic make-up of language results in the first place from the fact that the stability factor closely interacts with the item and relation model. In my monograph on the transmission process in language contact (2000:113-7), I briefly describe this question and in the present discussion I intend to further elaborate on it. What particularly sets apart the systemic make-up of language from other nonderived communication systems is its double patterning or double articulation. And, as will be discussed later, since this feature results from reapplication or recursiveness of the item and relation model, the latter appears to be a solid foundation on which the systemic make- up of language can be built By the very nature of the subject matter, the present chapter cannot but be tentative. The stability factor awakened my interest for the issue, and I wrote my study hoping that other researchers might be encouraged to probe deeper into the topic.

1.2. A RESEARCH SURVEY IN BIRD'S EYE VIEW 1.2.1 The neogrammarians' postulates In the last two decades of the 19th century in Germany the neogrammarian school thrived; it served as a model for linguistic research during several decades, also in other countries. This major school of linguistics did not focus

- 33 - F. VAN COETSEM

on language as a system(4), that is, as a whole of interrelated elements, but rather on language as an inventory of elements; in other words, the emphasis was on the elements and not on the whole. More than anything else the neogrammarians were interested in the comparison, reconstruction and description of languages from a historical viewpoint. For them science of language was primarily history of language. "Sprachwissenschaft ist gleich Sprachgeschichte" was the doctrine of the neogrammarian school, as it was stated by Paul (1966 [1920]:21). In such an approach language change could not but be a primary concern. In this respect the neogrammarians presented the hallmark of their approach, die Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze 'the exceptionlessness of the sound laws'. From their outlook the use of the term law was entirely justified, since sound change was considered to operate without exception; if any exception occurred, it had to be the result of a secondary action, specifically that of analogy. These neogrammarian positions, which were already challenged and debated at the time, triggered two important reactions that proved the un- tenable character of the neogrammarian postulates. (i) One reaction concerns the neogrammarians' unidimensional perspective, the historical one. Saussure (1955:114ff.) opposed this view with the famous dichotomy between diachrony and synchrony. These are represented as two different, intercrossing axes. The view was also subject to discussion, primarily because of the fact that in Saussure's opinion the diachronic axis did not involve system. In response to this, Hjelmslev (1935:110) introduced a third notion, namely, metachrony, stating: "Par opposition à la diachronie qui fait abstraction des systèmes, la métachronie procède par la juxtaposition explicative de plusieurs systèmes successifs." To convey this idea others simply adjusted the meaning of diachrony. The neogrammarians and their followers have been quite prolific. As a result, numerous language descriptions were at the time of the diachronic- synchronic proposal quite naturally couched in historical, diachronic terminology. In order to achieve a consistent distinction between the diachronic- synchronic dimensions, concerned researchers deemed it necessary to promote the use of a corresponding distinction in terminology. But, as diachrony and synchrony became established notions, the insistence on that distinction appeared less compelling. An adequate awareness of the diachronic-synchronic distinction appeared by itself sufficient.

(4) The notion of system was not completely absent. Insofar as it occurred, it apparently was viewed as irrelevant. J. Grimm was in this respect closer to modern linguistics than the neogrammarians, as the 'law' named after him is in fact a first-time formulation of push chain/drag chain, or exchange rule. See Van Coetsem (1990: e.g., 56).

- 34 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(ii) Another reaction to the neogrammarian view of linguistics, dialectology and especially areal linguistics, emerged, specifically in response to the postulate of the exceptionlessness of sound change. The movement again started out in Germany, but soon became a productive and international approach to the study of language. Where the neogrammarians focussed on the time dimension, the students of areal linguistics concentrated on the study of language areas. In so doing, they did not only illustrate the fact that the neogrammarian postulate of the exceptionlessness of sound change was un- tenable, but also documented the variation phenomenon in language, which would become an important rallying point in later, sociolinguistic research.

1.2.2 Structuralism: System as item and process/arrangement In the 20th century a new approach to the study of language developed, namely, structuralism. This actually refers to a range of approaches that share a number of characteristic conceptions, especially the central one of language as a system, or as a whole in which everything is interconnected, a whole "où tout se tient", as the saying goes. Yet, there are significant differences among the structuralist approaches. American structuralism is in the main behavior- istic and in this respect different from European structuralism, as represented in the Prague School. The French School, with A. Meillet as one of its major representatives, generally follows directly the line of Saussure. […] Directly relevant to the subject of our present treatment is an important elaboration of the notion of language system, which, in spite of the attention it received at the time, has not been really pursued. It concerns Hockett's (1954) discussion of the Two Models of Grammatical Description, namely, item and process and item and arrangement. These models include a two- dimensional distinction, i.e., one between item and process/arrangement, and a subordinate one between process and arrangement, as we can see in the following diagram:

(1) process item and arrangement

The distinction between process and arrangement corresponds generally to the one between diachrony and synchrony. Hockett had apparently similar concerns as those who wanted the diachrony-synchrony dichotomy to be reflected in the terminology, but, as we have seen, this did not prove to be a necessity of description.

- 35 - F. VAN COETSEM

With the distinction between item and process/arrangement Hockett was inspired by mathematical logic. On p. 225 of his study he states: "Agood many mathematical systems are characterized wholly or primarily as consisting of a set of elements for which certain relations are defined." While in mathematics the term element is in such a connection the regularly used one, the notion of item has become the current one in linguistics.

1.2.3 System as item and relation Process/arrangement occurs in time and space.* […] When applied to language, process/arrangement generally refer to the distinction between diachrony and synchrony, which imply one another. So, from the perspective of a higher level of abstraction, item and process/arrangement can be considered item and relation, or rule-governed item (Van Coetsem 2000:111-3), relation being used in a very general sense. Item and relation presents a basic and commonly occurring configu- ration. It was originally a view shared by structurally oriented linguists, which by now has become rather well-known. How common this view has turned out to be in the meantime is shown by the title Words and Rules of Pinker's (1999) popularizing book on linguistics; words and rules are then called the "ingredients of language". But, as was the case with structuralism itself, the view of item and relation gradually spread from one linguistic subfield to another. For example, Goossens (1969:18), in his application of structural linguistics to areal- linguistics, states: "Die strukturelle Sprachwissenschaft nimmt an, daß eine Sprache ein Kommunikationssystem mit einer bestimmten Struktur ist. Ihre erste Aufgabe sieht sie darin, die Glieder oder Elemente [= items, FvC] die- ses Systems, ebenso wie seine Struktur, d.h. die Ganzheit der Beziehungen [= relations, FvC] zwischen diesen Elementen zu beschreiben." We investigate the question of item and relation further, including for this purpose a new important factor, namely, stability. The item and relation model has a very broad application and is, for example, illustrated by games such as chess. The relations are the rules of the game. The items are the pieces, which themselves imply the relations. Here the notion of stability is applicable, and we find then, e.g., that items are less stable, while relations are more stable. Saussure (1955:43, 125, 153) compared language to the chess game. He appears to have been cognizant of such a difference in stability between pieces and rules, i.e., between item and relation, as the quotation shows (p. 43): "Si je remplace des pièces de bois par des pièces d'ivoire, le changement est indifférent pour le système, mais si je diminue ou augmente le nom- bre des pièces, ce changement-là atteint profondément la 'grammaire' du jeu."

(*) The original read: "is an arrangement occurring in time and space." [Eds.]

- 36 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

The number of pieces then modifies the relations and the rules. In other words, we can modify the pieces themselves, but we cannot modify the rules governing the pieces. If we modify the rules of the game, we obtain another game, which we may want to see as a variant of chess when the modification is minimal, or as a different game if the modification is more extensive. Using the vertical-bar symbol for differentiating stability, we can represent item, on the left of the bar, and relation, on the right, with the respective degrees of stability as follows:

(2) item relation

stability: less stable more stable

[…]

1.3. THE SYSTEMIC MAKE-UP OF LANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT ASPECTS 1.3.1 The stability gradient of language

The dual core of language

The stability factor is governed by a variety of interacting factors, some more basic than others, which makes stability a complex question. In my monograph of 2000, p. 106f. I view structure (structuredness) and frequency, with open and closed lists, as the two pre-eminent, interacting determinants of stability. Afurther distinction is that between inherent and subsidiary stability. It is essential to remember that overlapping and intimate interaction of the features involved is a characteristic of stability. As far as structuredness is concerned, we have called the unsophisti- cated distinction between vocabulary or lexicon (V), grammar or morpho- syntax (G) and phonology (PH) the primary partitioning of language:

(3) V vs. G vs. PH

The components (subcomponents) or domains (subdomains) of language do not have the same degree of stability. For example, in borrowing, contentive words (less stable) are in general far more easily transferred from the source language to the recipient language than grammatical or phonological elements (more stable). But here again there is overlapping and interaction between

- 37 - F. VAN COETSEM

these components, generally depending on different perspectives. There are also subdivisions or subcomponents and furthermore a number of combina- tions between the three components, which makes the basic formula V vs. G. vs. PH readily adaptable and susceptible to adjustment and rearrangement. A basic distinction is the one between V + G vs. PH. Indeed, V and G comple- ment one another functionally, i.e., V as [the set of] lexical items and G as [the set of] markers of grammatical relations between these items. This V + G is what we have called the dual core of language:

(4) V+ G

PH is not included in the formula as it fulfills an auxiliary purpose, providing a way for the language to manifest itself acoustically. Language can realize itself in other ways, namely, through a written system (written language) or a visual-gestural system (sign language)(5). V + G, as the dual core of language, illustrates the superordinate application of item and relation, and in connection with stability it can be generally formulated as follows:

(5) item relation

dual core:V G stability: less stable more stable

Item and relation in its various applications (i) As noted and as further discussed in section 3.2, with the introduction of grammar and phonology, item and relation is recursively applied. In the formulation of item and relation, item is used for referring to both item and relation. E.g., in English lords, lord is the lexical item that implies certain

(5) Sapir (1961:2): "As a matter of theory, it is conceivable that something like a linguistic structure could have been evolved out of gesture or other forms of bodily behavior. The fact that at an advanced stage in the history of the human race writing emerged in close imitation of the pattern of spoken language proved that language as a purely instrumen- tal and logical device is not dependent on the use of articulate sound. Nevertheless, the actual history of man and a wealth of anthropological evidence indicate with overwhelming certainty that phonetic language takes precedence over all other kinds of communicative symbolism, all of which are, by comparison, either substitutive, like writing, or excessively supplementary, like the gesture accompanying speech."

- 38 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

contentive relations, while -s is the grammatical item, the flexive, marking the grammatical relation involved, i.e., the plural. With the interaction of different applications of item and relation, we distinguish the superordinate application in V + G from the subordinate ones in grammar and phonology. (ii) An item may be ambiguous. In Latin domini the item -i marks not only the genitive singular, but also the nominative plural. In such a case the context is the disambiguating factor.

We must further consider item and relation in connection with contentives and functors. (i) The contentive word brother is a lexical item that implies a semantic relation to other items, such as sister, father and mother(6). Such a relation is internal to the item and is part and parcel of its semantic content. A relation that is internal to the item is by definition implied in the item, and does not have to be specified. Thus, using Vc for contentive, item in item and relation is Vc. (ii) In the sentence the brother loves his sister, a further relation is expressed, this time external to the item brother as the agent, i.e., the brother's love for his sister. This refers to the superordinate occurrence of item and relation. (iii) The sentence contains two functors identified by the items the and his, and a flexive identified by the item -s of love, marking the third per- son singular (internal relation). The functors/flexives express grammatical relations external to the agent item (brother). Such relations are expressed in items, which have to be specified. Thus, using the symbols Vf for functor and Gf for grammatical flexive, relation in item and relation is identified by the items Vf and Gf. In other words, items can be used to express relations to other items. Still other factors are involved. In John loves Mary/Mary loves John the word order on the syntagmatic level is the determining factor in item and relation.

We will now describe these facts in connection with the stability gradient of language.

Stability-determined adjustments of item and relation: (i) From the perspective of stability, which is primarily founded on a combination of structuredness and frequency, it is clear that we have to apply some adjustments. Lexical

(6) These are members of the old, Indo-European category of kinship terms in -r, which had a grammatical status of their own. Their relation is reflected in both the grammar and the lexicon.

- 39 - F. VAN COETSEM

interference reflects the semantic and functional difference between contentive and functor. V refers here to contentive words (Vc), which have less stability; V also refers to functors (Vf), which have more stability. G encompasses grammatical flexives (Gf), which have more stability as well. This can be represented as follows:

(6a) stability: less stable more stable

adjusted core: Vc Vf, Gf

Another lexical interference is directly based on frequency (text frequency). Aspecific type of contentive words such as those that belong toprimary the vocabulary (very commonly used contentive words) are highly frequent and for this reason they have a degree of stability more or less comparable to G. In such a case Vc can be subdivided in Vsec (less stable) and Vprim (more stable). It is not necessary to mention Vsec in the following diagram:

(6b) stability: less stable more stable

adjusted core: Vc Vf, Vprim, Gf

Vprim is comparable to what we found in soccer, where a player may be maintained in the team for a prolonged time owing, e.g., to his game-effectiveness. In G and PH there is a further distinction between median and maximal stability, depending on whether the item refers to the syntagmatic dimension, which concerns the redistribution of existing elements, or the paradigmatic dimension, which concerns the introduction of new items. Introducing new items encounters* more resistance than redistributing existing ones. The items in the paradigmatic dimension show therefore a higher degree of stability (maximal stability) than those in the syntagmatic dimension (median stability) (Van Coetsem 2000:115-6). In the next diagram we replace 'less stable' by 'minimal stability', and 'more stable' by 'median stability' (referring to the syntagmatic dimension) and by 'maximal stability' referring to the paradigmatic dimension.

(*) The author's text read "offers". [Eds.]

- 40 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(6c) stability: minimal stability median stab. maximal stab.

syntagm. dim. paradigm. dim.

adjusted core: Vc Vf, Vprim, Gf

This is actually stability in its basic form, inherent stability, which is subject to the operation of subsidiary stability factors, such as attitudinal and social ones (Van Coetsem 2000:118). The above-mentioned fact that in soccer a player may be maintained in the team for a prolonged time may be due, e.g., to his game-effectiveness, which is a form of subsidiary stability. (ii) Another adjustment concerns phonological interference in a morphonological connection (internal inflection), as, e.g., English drink (present) ~ drank (past), and in English foot (singular) ~ feet (plural). These cases of morphonological interference seem to reveal a tendency to functional polarization of G, reflecting the functional centrality of G. When assuming a grammatical function and thus becoming grammaticalized, vowel alternations (deriving historically from ablaut and umlaut in the above English examples) conform to the requirements of G. Grammaticalization instantiates the case of reconditioning from phonological to morphological conditioning (Van Coetsem/Buccini 1990). Lexical interference in the case of functors, resulting from the fact that functors express relation, supports the idea of polarization of G.

1.3.2 The dual pattern or double articulation of language From a one-dimensional to a two-dimensional structure. The dual pattern or double articulation of language concerns the systemic make-up of language. (i) With the first articulation there is the sign (V) as smallest significant language unit, with the distinction between signifié and signifiant. Aform like man would then not be broken up into discrete segments. (ii) With the second articulation the sign, again as in man, is subdivided into discrete segments, m + a + n. With this second articulation new language components, grammar and phonology, are introduced into language. In the grammar units refer to (grammatical) relations, e.g., flexives. In phonology such segments are not distinguished through meaning, but through mere otherness.

Double articulation allows language to become a unique communication tool that developed from a unidimensional, one-layered structure to a bidimen- sional, two-layered one (Martinet 1949, 1960:17-19, 1962:24, 26 28, Hockett

- 41 - F. VAN COETSEM

1958:574-5). Martinet (1960:17) states: "chacune des unités qui résultent d'une première articulation est ... articulée à son tour en unités d'un autre type." This strongly affects the economy of language (Pinker 1999:7) (7).

Recursiveness of item and relation. (i) In the grammar, specifically in the morphology, item and relation is reapplied or recursive, and we must then distinguish between the inflectional and the derivational morphology. Within inflectional morphology, the item is the flexive morpheme, while the kind of relation is represented in the case categories[, among other things]*. While functioning as a grammatical relation marker to the lexical item, the flexive is the more stable element, and inflectional morphology functions as the (more stable) relation in the overall organization of the language system, which is here the overriding principle. Within derivational morphology, the item is the affix, while the relation is represented in the fact that affixes function as markers of word classes or parts of speech. The item, the affix, is lexical and has normally the same stability as the contentive with which it is associated. Again, this fits into the overall organization of the language system. (ii) In the organization of the phonological subsystem (PH), item and relation is also reapplied or recursive. The item is the sound and the latter's relation is represented in the mutual relationships of the sounds, i.e., distribu- tional patterns and correlations. That the item, the sound, is within the phonological component the more stable element and not the relation is in accordance with the fact that the phonology too functions as the relation in the overall organization of the language system.

First language acquisition. The child acquiring his native language appears to go through a two-stage development, which can be seen as largely corresponding to the passage from the single to the double articulation of language. The first developmental stage is a holophrastic stage, the second an analytic one. In the first stage the sign (word) can refer to both an object and an entire situation, while in the next stage the sign becomes more and more analyzed. In his analyses the child makes hypotheses and (over)generalizations, and he will adjust his language until it virtually matches the adult language.

(7) Areflex of this evolution can also be seen in the development of writing, such as in ideograms in Chinese and hieroglyphs in Egyptian, which illustrate a stage in the evolution of writing. The economic superiority of the duality of pattern is clearly illustrated in the difference between ideograms and alphabets. (*) Editors' addition.

- 42 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

Replacement. Saussure (1955:103) quite pertinently pointed to the linearity of the sign (signifiant), as a "principe fondamental": "Ce principe est évident, mais il semble qu'on ait toujours négligé de l'énoncer, sans doute parce qu'on l'a trouvé trop simple; cependant il est fondamental et les conséquences en sont incalculables..." It is, however, necessary to point out that in linguistics linearity encompasses hierarchical differences, as tree representations show. There is further a duality including two axes, the one of successivity (the linearity principle) and the one of simultaneity (Saussure 1955:11, and Jakobson, cf. Waugh/Monville-Burston 1990:39). The successivity-simultaneity duality is a result of the duality of pattern and is reflected in the syntagmatic-paradigmatic distinction (for this distinction, see, e.g., Birnbaum 1967). However, syntactic patterns may be opposed to other syntactic patterns and thus enter into a paradigmatic opposition (Trnka 1964:39). Simultaneity suggests replacement as a basic systemic technique. While in Latin dominus 'lord' indicates the singular, the plural is marked by simple replacement of -us by -i: domini 'lords', and a different grammatical context results. Thus, replacement, referring to a fundamental, systemic technique, is a highly important, basic concept, which, depending on the case, is further qualified by more specialized notions such as opposition, contrast, adaptation and correspondence. Replacement as a fundamental notion is further examined and illustrated in chapters 5 and 6. In conclusion, successivity is vs. simultaneity the most basic characteristic, and this has some important implications, as we will see. The following diagram visualizes the distinction between single and double articulation:

(7) single articulation double articulation

successivity successivity i m u l t a n e i t y

- 43 - F. VAN COETSEM

1.3.3 Language nature and language culture: Potentiality and act Generally used notions. Next to the dual pattern or double articulation is another structure-differentiating dichotomy that contributes to the specification of language as a communication system. Saussure recognized this distinction with the famous differentiation between langue 'language' and parole 'speech' For this, Jakobson used the notions of code and message (Jakobson 1984 [1990]). Chomsky replaced Saussure's notions by competence and performance.* There are other more or less comparable distinctions, such as between system and usage, language nature and language culture. All such notional pairs stem from a need to express a duality that seems to force itself upon the linguist as soon as he thinks of language in terms of system. Yet, direct illustrations of such distinctions are usually not provided. But there is no direct need for proving their existence in linguistics, insofar as these notional pairs reflect a duality that is universal, overwhelmingly evidenced, and represents one of the basic distinctions in metaphysics, i.e., between potentiality and act. Act implies potentiality. Chomsky's pair competence and performance is conceptually closest to the metaphysical duality. Acrude but perhaps effective comparison may be the one of the mould giving a particular shape to something that is in a molten state. The particular shape will not occur unless there is a mould for it; performance will not occur unless there is competence. […] That the distinction between potentiality and act has been expressed in diverse ways in linguistics is ascribable to the fact that it concerns a very complex reality, as also appears from Jakobson's (1984 [1990]:108) analysis, in which he distinguishes four dualities: (i) potential value, or langue, versus realized value, or parole, (ii) social aspect (intersubjective) versus individual aspect (subjective), (iii) conformity versus nonconformity, (iv) spatial aspect versus temporal aspect.

Linguistic competence and the genetic code. Lees (1980:226) argues, in my view correctly, "that linguistic competence be viewed analogously to the genetic code ...". Bickerton (1981) introduced the notion of genetic bioprogram. For example, in his conclusions on p. 296-7, he stated: "Thus, though languages may diversify and complexify, they can never become un- learnable - or if they do, children will soon pull them back to earth again. The child does not initially 'learn language.' As he develops, the genetic program for language which is his hominid inheritance unrolls exactly as does the genetic program that determines his increase in size, muscular control, etc.

(*) The author's text read "Chomsky renamed Saussure's notions by using competence and performance."

- 44 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

'Language' consists of adapting this program, revising it, adjusting it to fit the realities of the cultural language he happens to encounter. Without such a program, the simplest of cultural languages would presumably be quite un- learnable. But the learning process is not without its tensions - the child tends to hang on to his innate grammar for as long as possible - so that the 'learning trajectory' of any human child will show traces of the bioprogram, and bioprogram rules and structures may make their way into adult speech whenever the model of the cultural language is weakened." The assumption of a genetic bioprogram in terms that will still have to be worked out, is in agreement with the potentiality - act dichotomy. As compared to the previously proposed concepts for indicating potentiality and innateness (langue, competence, etc.), bioprogram offers the advantage of being more specific, as it pinpoints the area to focus on, genetics. The potentiality—act duality is reflected in the fact that all humans have the potential (competence, innateness) for using language, but each language is specific to a particular individual or a particular group. Potentiality is naturally innate, act is culturally acquired. In this connection it is interesting to note that given the required circumstances any human can acquire any language as his mother tongue. […] Consequently, language potentiality, and thus the genetic bioprogram of language, is the same for humans of all races, whatever kind or type of language they use, including creoles (as products of nativized pidgins). Given the implications of language potentiality, creoles will not differ from other languages in the nature of their applied (developmental) features, but they can differ in the choice and the degree of concentration of certain of these features, as I already remarked in my monograph of 1988, p. 68-9. […]

1.3.4 The binary principle Responding to a requirement of language economy, the binary principle appears to be a vital one in linguistics. This does not imply that all linguistic distinctions are necessarily binary. For example, in the aperture parameter proceeding from 'close' to 'open', a three-way distinction in the front vowels, namely, i, e, a, can be expressed with two features, 'high' and 'low', as follows: i = [+ high, – low], e = [– high, – low], a = [+ low, – high]. The binary tree- representation in the generative-transformational approach, too, has proven to be a very convenient analytic procedure in language, particularly in syntax.

- 45 - F. VAN COETSEM

1.4. SYSTEMIC IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING LANGUAGE INTELLIGIBILITY AND IDENTITY The language system as described above also contains implications for language intelligibility and language identification. (i) In the dual core of language (V + G), V, specifically as the less stable Vc (contentive), represents the semantic nucleus, while G, specifically referring to the more stable Vf and Gf, fulfills the function of a semantic marker of relationship. Any treatment of intelligibility will have to start from this semantic difference between V and G, in particular between contentive and functors. (ii) In the dual core of language, G often functions as a primary marker of the identity of language, while V plays in this respect a secondary role. For instance, a variety of Afrikaans that is lexically speaking maximally close to Dutch is usually not viewed as Dutch because of the fact that the Afrikaans grammar deviates from the Dutch grammar in a rather significant way. However, other factors, such as attitudinal ones, may lead to a different interpretation. As Gumperz (1979:328) observes: "Hindi and Urdu, the com- peting literary standards of north India, or Serbian and Croatian, in Yugoslavia, are grammatically almost identical. They differ in their writing systems, in their lexicons, and in minor aspects of syntax. Nevertheless, their proponents treat them as separate languages." One can also point to the fact that creoles are usually associated with and considered derived from the European languages with which they usually share a representative amount of lexical material; e.g., the Haitian creole, often called Haitian French, shares a representative amount of vocabulary with French. However, such an argumentation refers not so much to the identity of the language involved, but rather to its group affiliation. Identity of language in its systemic make-up implies internal bond- ing or cohesion (Van Coetsem 2000:92). In the case of neutralization or near- neutralization such cohesion weakens, but does not disappear.

1.5. THE ADEQUACY OF THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM The stability factor significantly contributes to the general adequacy of the language system. While functioning as it does, language, through a structural differentiation in stability, allows for an efficiently operating relationship between language and society. (i) On the one hand, the less stable lexical item, as a carrier of contentive meaning (Vc) and as a direct link to society, readily enters or exits language, and adapts meaning. In such a case language directly and instanta- neously reacts to change in society. (ii) On the other hand, the more stable grammar primarily functions

- 46 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

as a marker of relation and satisfies the requirement of relative continuity and permanence in language; the phonology fulfills the acoustic function. Alexico-semantic link between society and language, as described above in (i), does not exist between society on the one hand, and grammar and phonology, on the other. Change here is usually more delayed and gradual, not instantaneous. Grammar and phonology, as subsystems in their own right, follow their own developmental rules. However, there are here relations between society and language. There is the question of attitudes in general (e.g. Baker 1992). In particular, social attitudes can be reflected in language. As we have noted: "strong structural regularization (regularity) and uniformization (uniformity), as aspects of internally induced change, were in Gothic reflexes of a specific attitude and behavioral pattern" (Van Coetsem 2000:211, with further discussion). Fashion in language too is a well-known factor (see chapter 5 below and e.g., Van Coetsem 2000, chapter 7). In this area research has been done in the past (cf., e.g., Cohen 1971), and is being done in present-day sociolinguistics. […]

2. Differentiating language from other forms of communication

2.1. PROPERTIES OF THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS For evaluating a nonderived communication system, Hockett (1958:574f., 1963; see also 1973:98ff., 362ff.), discusses seven properties, which are: duality of pattern, productivity, arbitrariness, interchangeability, specializa- tion, displacement and cultural transmission. Hockett uses these properties as criteria for differentiating human language from animal communication, as reflected, e.g., in bee dancing, stickleback courtship, herring gull care of off- spring, and gibbon calls. The notion of arbitrariness (of the sign) keeps engendering much discussion and debate. See recently, e.g., Levin (1999:519), who argues for the arbitrary as the unmotivated, "taking its essential characteristic from its conventionality". The synchronic-diachronic perspectives have to be included here. So, Levin states that in space/time, "there is only a continuum", and talk- ing about a synchrony without a diachrony "is an illusion". He adds: “Ultimately, there is no understanding in any field of knowledge without diachrony..." And he goes on: "it is when we plunge beneath the surface of language that we realize that the unmotivatedness, the 'arbitrariness' of con- ventional signs, is a necessary synchronic illusion". He concludes that a "diachronic perspective of the sign presents the sign as motivated, while the synchronic perspective is vested in an unmotivated sign". We can go on using the notion of arbitrariness, but it will have to be clearly qualified.; cf. also

- 47 - F. VAN COETSEM

Jakobson (1949 [1990]; 1965 [1990]) and Jakobson/ Waugh (1979, the first part of ch. 4). Double articulation or duality of pattern (chapter 1, section 3.2) appears to be the crucial distinction between human language and the ways of communication in the animal world. This distinction represents the transition from the basic one-dimensional successivity (syntagmatic dimension) to the two-dimensional successivity/simultaneity (simultaneity representing the paradigmatic dimension). Since Hockett's studies much more research on animal communication has been performed and it has significantly increased our knowledge in this respect (e.g., Sebeok (ed.) 1977), but it has not affected the view that double articulation is a feature unique to human language. […]

2.2. SOME IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF DOUBLE ARTICULATION 2.2.1 A typological distinction: The analytic vs. the synthetic type of language Here we have to focus on formal simultaneity as represented in morphology. In a continuum we find a typological distinction between: (i) a low degree of simultaneity, i.e., in an analytic type of language, such as English, and (ii) a high degree of simultaneity, i.e., in a synthetic type of language, such as Latin. The distinction between the two language types occurs on a continuum and is a significant one. The distinction between first language acquisition (in childhood) and second language acquisition (in adolescence and adulthood) is essential here. While the child acquiring his native language learns any language evenly, whatever its degree of complexity and whether it be of the synthetic or analytic type, the adult acquires a language of the analytic type more easily than one of the synthetic type. (i) In Latin, as a synthetic type of language, the nominal paradigm generally contains six cases with further differentiation between singular and plural and between specific paradigms (first declension, second declension, etc.). And, what is more, declension is only part of the morphology. The result is the occurrence of a very elaborate morphological apparatus, covering a wealth of (paradigmatic) simultaneity and categorial distinction. Thus, Latin deviates markedly from the fundamental principle of successivity of language on which language is primarily based (chapter 1, section 3.2). Because of this deviation, the acquisition of Latin as a second or foreign language quite understandably requires serious efforts on the part of the language learner, as is very well known. (ii) In sharp contrast with Latin, in English, the nominal declension is, comparatively speaking, a very simple one, displaying far less categorial

- 48 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

distinction or more uniformization, and rules with few exceptions (regularization)(8). Of course the so-called irregular verbs (ablaut verbs, etc.) in the conjugation remain the "bane of every language student" (Pinker 1999:ix). In general, given the simplicity and reduction of the English morphology, the semantic function in English has been shifted to a considerable extent to the lexicon (contentives and functors), and also to the syntax. And since both lexicon and syntax operate primarily on the successivity level, English deviates from the basic successivity principle far less than Latin, while still sharing the advantages of simultaneity. For example, where Latin domini/domino operates on the simultaneity axis, the corresponding English structures of the lord/to the lord function on the successivity axis. The fact of operating less on the simultaneity axis (and thus more on the successivity one) implies that in second or foreign language acquisition, English (and languages of the analytic type, including creoles) are (much) easier to learn by adults than Latin (and languages of the synthetic type), and this fact is overwhelmingly evidenced. Indeed, the ratio difference in deviation from the successivity axis is the key factor here. The strongly analytic structure of English is primarily the result of internally induced change, specifically, of segmental and syllabic reduction, which itself is a segmental reflex of the change from an accentually nondominant language (traditionally called pitch accent) to an accentually dominant one (traditionally called stress accent) in Proto-Germanic (Van Coetsem 1994: e.g., 61; and Van Coetsem 1996). What we see here is a development towards successivity, greater abstraction, and thus greater analycity, which seems to reflect a more general trend (Levin 1999:521). This accentual change occurred in the last millennium B.C. and gradually but drastically modified the language type of the Germanic languages. However, there are differences in this respect among these languages; e.g., while Icelandic remained conservative, English maximized the segmental and syllabic reduction so that most items of its original Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) lexicon became monosyllabic(9). This was brought on* through sociolinguistic circumstances, such as language contact. There is no evidence whatsoever for assuming that the standardized varieties of English have undergone pidginization-creolization. On the contra- ry, with the presence of ablaut verbs in such variety we have positive proof

(8) For the notions of regularization and uniformization, see Van Coetsem (2000:index). (9) In a count of the number of syllables in the Gospel of St. Matthew in ten languages, Anglo-Saxon came in fifth place, modern English in ninth place just before Chinese; cf. Miller (1963:114). (*) The author's text read "onto the language". [Eds.]

- 49 - F. VAN COETSEM

against such an assumption. However, Haugen (1987:52) pointed out that "The Germanic base brought to England by the Anglo-Saxons has been re- duced to an almost creolized set of form words in a more analytic than synthetic grammar." And he rightly added that English, by natural selection, "has achieved a form that meets the needs of an international language better than any of its artificial rivals like Esperanto". By its very structure English is indeed a language that is well-suited for internationalization. From the perspective of (second) language acquisition the lexicon can be subdivided into levels, depending on the degree of lexical knowledge that the language learner has acquired. By the fact that in English the semantic function is heavily concentrated on the lexicon and far less on the morphology, a foreign learner of English can use the language at different levels of lexical proficiency depending on how much lexical knowledge he has acquired, and he can do so without being too much hampered by a cumber- some morphology. In comparison with Latin, English thus shows extended applicability. The proposal of Basic English as a kind of auxiliary English makes sense, and in spite of a number of objections (e.g., Burney 1962:76-9), it has been considered useful "as an easy initiation to Standard English" (Whatmough 1957:64-5, and cf. Hall 1964:459).[…]

2.2.2 Factors that make a language a candidate for internationalization As the above has shown, insofar as its structural make-up is concerned, English, as a more analytic language, definitely qualifies as a candidate for internationalization. But as far as structural make-up goes, there are languages that qualify equally well as or even better than English, such as (certain) creoles (derived from pidgins). But such languages are usually lacking in social dominance. One could instead* resort to language manipulation or language "engineering" (Miller 1963:13-4, 197) and construct an artificial language, a language cut down to size, which satisfies the above- mentioned requirement of optimal structure. However, in other respects, such languages do not come up to the mark either. As I stated elsewhere (2000:266): "In order to be able to exert influence, a language has to represent a concrete, human community with cultural, economic and political components; artificial languages ... are usually propagated on idealistic grounds without a societal basis to support them." In conclusion, English, as compared to Latin, satisfies far more the structural requisite, apparently also containing an adequate amount of redun- dancy. In addition, English has the social dominance to warrant its areal expansion, and already shows a noteworthy degree of global dispersion.

(* ) The author's text read "then". [Eds.]

- 50 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

2.3. THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE The introduction of double articulation as a crucial step in the speaker's internal analysis of language triggered a radical modification of the language system. The event reflects an unsurpassed modification in the human's mental capacity. It opened an entirely new horizon to the human's evolution. So far, the double articulation feature has not been found in the communication system of hominids that are closest in kin to humans; such hominids remain on the successivity level of the sign. (i) The first articulation alone offered only restricted possibilities, with a finite number of signs (calls), owing to memory limitations. Language was then a linear one-dimensional tool, probably supported by gestures. For example, if a distinction such as between back and bock had occurred, it would not have been further analyzed in its phonological components, and the difference between a and o would not have had any significance, except that it produced variation. Hockett (1973:382) then sees a transitional development that "slowly gave rise to a vocal-auditory communicative system very different from a close call system: to an open system that we shall call prelanguage. In a call system, the signals are unitary and indivisible. In prelanguage, the typical call was composite, built from individually meaningful pieces that recurred in other calls, the patterns for putting the pieces together also being familiar from other calls." (ii) The second articulation with the introduction of grammar and phonology (each of these with a reapplication of the item and relation model), created entirely novel possibilities. To successivity (syntagmatic dimension) was added the dimension of simultaneity (paradigmatic dimension), which strongly revolutionized the economy of language, as we have observed (chapter 1, section 3.2). The introduction of double articulation, as a recursive application of the item and relation model, constitutes indeed the decisive transition to homo sapiens.

3. The language system and its extension

3.1. THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM AS A RELATIONAL NETWORK The language system displays clear-cut edges, but, as we will discuss, it also shows a rather variable 'fringe' with a function of its own. The language system proper is then quite naturally extended. When we speak of the language system as a manifestation of the item and relation model, we refer to a relational network consisting of regularities (rules) and deviations (exceptions) that interconnect items. Let us look at some examples. The word cat occurs in the plural as

- 51 - F. VAN COETSEM

cats. The relation singular-plural expresses a productive regularity in which replacement can be applied:

(1) Ø ← singular, plural → -s

[…] Regularities interact with one another. For example, in Dutch a plural marker is -en in, e.g., boek 'book' ~ boeken, hand 'hand' ~ handen. Another Dutch plural marker is -s in, e.g., jongen 'boy' ~ jongens 'boys', meisje 'girl' ~ meisjes 'girls'. The two plural markers -en and -s may be used in connection with the same lexical item, as in gemeente 'municipality, community', plural gemeenten or gemeentes. As a consequence, intercrossing deviations, e.g., -en ↔ -s, are corresponding plural markers in Dutch. Such intercrossings are recognized by the speaker. They are essentially different from regularities in that they do not serve to distinguish systemic categories of the language. In a regularity the relation between the items can be read starting from either direction, which is expressed by the bidirectional arrow ↔. Similarly, the replacement mechanism operates in two directions. E.g., know- ing that cats is a plural, we can derive from it the singular form cat. The regularity in the English example is between Ø and -s […]. Other forms of regularities are: In Latin, the singular dominus and plural domini form the regularity -us ↔ -i; in French, the singular la femme and the plural les femmes form a regularity -a (of la) ↔ -ε (of les). There are exceptions to regularities. The English plural feet is an exception to the regularity Ø ↔ -s. Such exceptions are often relics of earlier regularities. Thus, relation in the item and relation model generally refers to a total of regularities and deviations between items, which can be represented as follows:

(2) regularity vs. deviation –––––––––––––––––––––––––– item ← relation → item

The regularities and deviations/exceptions in the language system are perceived or registered and gradually incorporated by the child acquiring his native language while following his inherited bioprogram. The child will only have acquired the regularities and deviations insofar as acquisition has pro- gressed. It is therefore to be expected that the language of the child during the acquisition stage shows overregularizations or overgeneralizations.

- 52 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

Well-known is the occurrence of the regularized plural foots or feets for feet in the child's language. Remembering what we state above about the plural formation in substantives in Dutch, we also mention that Dutch children learning their mother tongue have used the plural voets 'feet' for singular voet, while the regular plural is voeten (Goorhuis/Schaerlaekens 1997:64). The two regularities, one with plural -en and the other with plural -s, were then already present in the child's language, but the one in -s was dominant.

3.2. CONTACT BETWEEN THE RELATIONAL NETWORKS OF GENETICALLY CLOSELY RELATED IDIOMS 3.2.1 Comparing similarities and differences between relational networks This concerns the contact between genetically closely related idioms that show a certain degree of mutual intelligibility. So as to optimalize mutual intelligibility during communication, the (adult) speakers of these idioms do what they did when acquiring their native languages, i.e., they compare, revi- se, analyze and internalize perceived similarities and differences between the relational networks of the idioms involved. They thus quite naturally apply internal contrastive analysis(10). The relational networks then comprise items as well as relations. Such a contrastive analysis is applied to different degrees depending on the duration of the interaction between the contacting idioms and the needs of the communication. Similarities and differences between relational networks can be considered in terms of correspondences either between differences or between similarities. If the similarities prevail, as is normally the case with genetically closely related idioms, the differences between these will be marked and encoded; if the differences prevail, the similarities will be marked and encoded. The use of the contrastive technique in connection with idioms that are less or not genetically related is less functional in our present context. The speaker's innate ability to apply contrastive analysis is crucial, as it allows for the occurrence of variation, and thus for innovation (creativi- ty, productivity) and change in language. […]

3.2.2 The speaker's handling of the similarities and differences between relational networks Correspondence rules. As we noted in the previous section the speaker applies internal contrastive analysis. In a study on language typology, Jakobson

(10) Hockett (1973:101) notes that "from the earliest stages the child's language behavior moves in the direction of a particular language.That it can and does do this must be in part due to genetics. But the detailed adjustments are brought about by the same mechanisms that account for changes of language habit throughout adult life."

- 53 - F. VAN COETSEM

(1958 [1990]:144) pertinently states that "speakers compare languages," and they thus establish correspondence rules between these languages. How many such similarities and differences are recognized depends on the nature and duration of the communication involved.

The extension to the language system. From a decoding to an encoding function. The knowledge of such similarities and differences functions mostly in a passive way, i.e., it is applied not so much to speak the other speaker's dialect, but in the first place to decode or understand it. Each speaker uses his own dialect, but applies the decoding function of the contrastive technique for a better understanding of the other speaker's dialect. The recognition of differences between idioms promotes interdialectal/interlingual understanding. In the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium until recently standard Dutch was only used exceptionally in oral interdialectal communication. As I have repeatedly observed, in such a communication speakers use their own dialects, but through mutual perception and encoding of differences between these dialects, they are able to adequately understand one another. Meillet (1926 [1911]:122) already made an important remark in this connection: "Dès l'instant que des hommes appartenant à des groupes divers emploient des parlers déjà differenciés, ils ont le sentiment de ces règles de correspondance: un Ionien savait qu'à ses ê correspondent, dans des cas défi- nis, des â doriens ou éoliens". In this connection Meillet had remarked earlier (p.121): "Il y a des règles de correspondance (my italics, FvC) dont les sujets parlants ont conscience, et qui leur donnent le moyen de transposer en gros un parler dans l'autre." Meillet saw quite clearly the great functional significance of such correspondence rules. More recently, in a chapter on linguistic variation, Anttila (1972:48) made comparable comments: "In American English alone the vowel of grass can be [εf, æf, æI, æ, a, af], not to speak of English on other continents. Such differences do not impede communication at all, because people who come into contact with any of these variants learn the proper correspondences ... Every speaker builds such correspondences into his grammar, depending on the dialects he hears, since he is more likely to speak his own variant ... than to adopt the variants of each interlocutor." This contrastive analysis with the establishing of correspondence rules, which are also applied in the case of accent differences within the same language, occurs as an extension to the system proper insofar as it refers to elements that are external to that system, i.e. to the contact between the relational networks of genetically closely related idioms. This passive knowledge of similarities and differences on the basis of correspondence rules may in certain conditions switch over to an active

- 54 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

stage, in what we call koineization, discussed in the next chapter.

Language acquisition: Pronunciation acquisition. Meillet (1964 [1937]:22) noted further: "S'il a constaté par example que toi, moi, roi, prononcés twé, mwé, rwé dans son dialecte, sont en français normal (au fond parisien), twa, mwa, rwa, un paysan qui pourra n'avoir jamais entendu prononcer le mot loi saura substituer naturellement lwa à la forme lwé de son parler"; the difference occurring in a regularity here is [we] ↔ [wa]. The procedure based on this we have called pronunciation acquisition (Van Coetsem 2000:129-39, 190-1). Pronunciation acquisition is a clear reflex of the replacement mechanism, quite pertinently characterized by Meillet's use of the verb substituer 'to substitute, replace'. Aspeaker of a certain dialect area may apply it as a decoding technique when he comes into contact with a speaker of another genetically closely related dialect area; it is indeed an interdialectal phenomenon, which, however, occurs also interlingually in the case of languages that are genetically closely related, such as Dutch and German. In this way, a speaker of Dutch learning German may postulate, on the basis of Dutch -v- (even 'even', zeven 'seven') ↔ German -b- (eben, sieben), German graben and loben from Dutch graven ('dig') and loven ('praise'). The acquisition of such differences in regularities is part of interlanguage, and as long as the language acquisition in the interlanguage stage is not completed, there will be differences between the language of the language learner and the target language(11). Pronunciation acquisition exemplifies the application of the contrastive technique in language acquisition, also in language standardization. For pronunciation acquisition as language change, cf. chapters 5 and 6.

Calquing. On the basis of differences in regularities and while applying any of the three transfer types, new forms are introduced into a language. In this way the Dutch form hopelijk has been calqued from German hoffentlich on the basis of the following correspondence:

(3) German /f/ (offen) ↔ Dutch /p/ (open).

(11) In this connection it is perhaps useful also to mention the notion of pivot grammar in first language acquisition. Achild applies such pivot wordsallgone as and names such as boy and milk, saying allgone boy, and allgone milk, indicating that a boy "has just departed or a glass of milk has just been drunk up" (Hockett 1973:116).

- 55 - F. VAN COETSEM

3.3. THE DIASYSTEM 3.3.1 The relational network in time The development of the relational network in time is contained in the notion of diasystem. This diasystem refers to a diachronic or metachronic development of the relational networks. The similarities and differences between such relational networks are not necessarily similar to the similarities and differences that occur between relational networks in language and dialect contact. Goossens (1969:18) in his application of structural linguistics to linguistic geography draws a clear picture of the notion of diasystem. His characterization is as follows: "Diachronische Sprachwissenschaft ist ... Systemvergleich. Die Formel, welche das Verhältnis zweier oder mehrerer Stufen darstellt, kann man ein Diasystem nennen." Goossens' example of the diasystemic correspondences between Middle High German (MHG) and New High German (NHG), is formalized as follows:

(4)

MHG iig eƒ~ ~ ë ë~ ~ ä ä a ü ö u o ––––– — ≈ ––––––––– ≈ –– ≈ –– ≈ –– ≈ –– ≈ — NHGI Íε ∆a Y Úœ U ºc e […]

3.3.2 The relational network reflected in geographical space The development of the relational networks in time may be reflected in geographical space. For example, [we] in the above [we] ↔ [wa] of twé ↔ twa (toi) represents an earlier stage. Kloeke (1927) in his pioneering study about the Hollandse expansie 'Hollandic expansion'(12) already illustrated how developmental stages in time (hus → hvs → hœys 'house') are reflected in geographical space. The Hollandse expansie is an instance of lexical diffusion, in which the replacement mechanism is applied. We will discuss lexical diffusion further in chapters 5 and 6. Using sp for 'speaker' (sp 1, sp 2, sp 3) and a, b, c, d, as items in correspondences, e.g., a ↔ b, an example of diachronic change (stage I, II, III) reflected in geographical space is represented in simplified, idealized form as:

(12) The study is mentioned in Bloomfield's Language (1933:325, 329).

- 56 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(5) sp 1 stage I a ↔ b Ta ↔ b

I sp 1 sp 2 stage II a ↔ c Ma ↔ ba ↔ c

E sp 1 sp 2 sp 3 stage III a ↔ d a ↔ b a ↔ c a ↔ d

AR E A

In the above example of diagram (5), sp 2 (a ↔ c) may acquire knowledge of the correspondences a ↔ b in the dialect of sp 1 and a ↔ d in the dialect of sp 3. At the same time sp 1 may acquire knowledge of the intercrossing correspondence b ↔ c in his dialect and that of sp 2, and of the intercrossing correspondence c ↔ d in his dialect and that of sp 3. Depending on the nature and degree of his interdialectal interaction, a speaker will have acquired a certain knowledge of the similarities and differences between his dialect and neighboring dialects, including synchronic reflexes of the diasystem in geographic space. Anttila (1972:292) notes: "An extreme structuralist position denies structural dialectology, because when a system is defined solely by its internal relations, its items cannot be compared with those of other systems because they are likewise defined by their internal relations. But it is obvious that speakers and hearers can handle different dialects or parts of dialects without impairing communication; and equally obvious that this is usually done by taking such systems as variations of one underlying system. To solve this dilemma the so-called overall pattern has been suggested. This notion is best seen in phonology." It is very important to observe that such an overall pattern is only functional insofar as the speaker in his internal contrastive analysis is able to reconstruct that pattern on the basis of the available surface realizations.

- 57 - F. VAN COETSEM

3.4. DIASYSTEM VS. SYSTEM PROPER VS. EXTENSION OF THE SYSTEM PROPER We have to distinguish between diasystem in its synchronic reflexes and the system proper. We can do so by applying the notions of inclusion and integration (e.g., Van Coetsem 2000:71-2) in the following way. In its performa- tive aspects, the system is integrated while the synchronic aspects of the diasystem will in principle only be included. Integration and inclusion are manifestations of the same continuum, integration representing a stronger internalization and inclusion a weaker one(13). Knowledge of the language system proper is by definition a requirement for the speaker. In contrast, knowledge of the extension of the system proper , i.e., of the similarities and differences between relational networks, is a question of circumstance, i.e., a matter of choice or optionality and degree. Aspeaker who has no contact outside of his minimal area of interaction will evidently have little or no knowledge of the differences and similarities between genetically closely related dialects or languages of the broader area of interaction. However, with koineization (section 2.2) integration occurs and the extension of the language system becomes integrated into the system proper.

3.5. AN UNEXPLAINED CASE OF DIALECT MIXING: THE HILDE- BRAND POEM Language (dialect) mixing is the result of natural language interaction and development, and far less the outcome of language manipulation produced on the spot. If this occurs there must be some particular reason for it. Arather uncommon example of dialect (language) mixing of genetically related idioms that extended over a broad area is found in the language of the Hildebrand poem of the 8th-9th century, notorious among historical and literary Germanists. The dialect mixing found here ranges from Low German to High German and from coastal Ingveonic (Frisian, Saxon) to East Franconian in the eastern part of Germany. Such a mixing is apparently an enigma for modern researchers, and since the 19th century the poem has been a topic of ongoing philological investigation, discussion and debate; cf., e.g., Van der Kolk (1967:2): "Rätselhaft ist die Sprache des Liedes mit ihrem selt- samen Gemisch von Hochdeutsch und Niederdeutsch." And on p. 20: "Die eigentümliche Sprachmischung, die einem jeden, der mit der altdeutschen Sprache einigermassen vertraut ist, auffallen muss, ist eines der umstrittensten Probleme des Hildebrandliedes." Deviations from the dialects or languages involved are then regularly viewed as 'errors'. The most common opinion is

(13) We also give the status of inclusion to nonnative phonemes, which are indeed included and not (yet) integrated.

- 58 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

that two or even more 'editors' of the text have been involved. cf., e.g., what Lühr (1982:75) states after a very exhaustive analysis of the text: "Als Ergebnis der Untersuchung des Dialekts des HL (Hildebrand poem) kann festgehalten werden, daß unserer Hs, soweit man das beurteilen kann, drei Vorlagen vorausgehen: das mit dem Laut- und Graphiesystem der Vorlage ... aus Fulda stammende Original, die Abschrift eines Baiern ..., und die saxoni- sierte Fassung." Against the contact-linguistic background of the extended language system described above, the language mixing in the Hildebrand poem appears to be far less mysterious. In medieval Europe, where there were no overarching standard languages as we know them now, and where the regional idioms were a regular means of communication(14), people were generally well-aware of the differences and similarities and thus of the correspondences between their dialect and the related idioms which were part of their larger area of interaction; such a situation is still observable in modern times, as we have discussed in section 2.2 above. And people will have applied their knowledge of such differences and similarities in what we have called natural contrastive analysis, also for entertainment. Speaking of the Middle High German period (1050-1350), specifically of the language used by the knights, Waterman (1966:88) notes that "there were attempts to overcome the crasser features characterizing the many dialects. These features were known at least in a general way, for the knights were among the most mobile members of medieval society." Poets and other writers of the vernacular, by the very nature of their 'trade', also were well-informed about differences between the dialects. Hugo von Trimburg (end of the 13th century) displays his familiari- ty with other dialects than his own East Franconian by describing dialectal traits of, e.g., Austrians, Bavarians, Carinthians, Franks, Saxons and Swabians (Waterman, p. 110). It is furthermore well-known that poets were concerned about their rimes in case of a 'translation' of their poems into another dialect. The unknown author of the Hildebrand poem apparently also had a certain knowledge of the similarities and differences between the dialects and languages in question, and he applied it in his poem probably as a game and

(14) Cf. Hall (1964:359): “Our modern standard languages have not existed and enjoyed their present status since time immemorial ... After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was in a state of near-anarchy for some centuries; national states were almost nonexistent or very weak, and the largest effective political unit was the duchy or province, or in some regions (e.g. Italy) the city-state. Correspondingly, the largest linguistic unit was the regional dialect, and before about 1200 or 1300 most writings in the vernacular were specifically identifiable, not as 'French' or 'Italian' or 'Spanish,' but as Norman, Picard, Leonese, Asturian, Milanese, Genoese, Venetian, Neapolitan, and so forth".

- 59 - F. VAN COETSEM

a form of entertainment. From the contact-linguistic perspective presented here, the 'errors', which were stumbling blocks in earlier explanations, are often nothing else than interlanguage manifestations and consequently part of the game. For example, heittu 'I am called' in the Hildebrand poem is a typical interlanguage crossing of Old High German heizzu and Old Saxon hetu (cf. Van der Kolk 1967:21-2). If one wonders what motivated the poet to resort to such dialect mixing, perhaps it may be that he simply wanted to give his poem in an entertaining way the greatest possible expansion within the 'Old German' society. Without excluding the possibility of manipulations of the text by 'editors' and copyists, it seems that the dialect mixing of the Hildebrand poem comforms to an intention of the poet. Indeed, the mixing occurs to such a degree and is so artificial that one cannot but see a purpose behind it. The mixed language of the Hildebrand poem is basically not the outcome of igno- rance, messing up or mistaking, but rather a willfully pursued display of dialectal differences. Therefore, Collitz (1901), who has been the only one to view the language of the Hildebrand poem as an artificially constructed idiom, may well have come closest to reality. Even a rather extreme case of language mixing like the Hildebrand poem is not unique. Something comparable is found in the Romance language area. The Provençal poet Rambaut de Vaqueiras (12th century) wrote a love poem in which he used five languages, Italian, French, Gascon and a mixture of Spanish and Portuguese (Pei 1976:104-5, 302). The game factor in the poem here resides in the idea that the poet, confused by a disappointment in love, could no longer clearly distinguish between those languages. In my study of 1988 (p. 62) in connection with interlanguage in second language acquisition, I make a distinction between early branching and late branching. The first implies a less advanced stage in language acquisition (as in the Hildebrand poem), the second a more advanced one (as in Rambaut's poem).

4. Koineization

4.1. CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE Convergence and its counterpart divergence are superordinate concepts that are not only applicable to language, but are used in a broader anthropological perspective as well, i.e., in connection with the human as a social being (Kluckhohn 1949:102, 268). Convergence and divergence are basic occurrences and form a continuum. They help us understand how languages develop, how they interact with one another and how they disappear. The traditional interpretation of divergence resorts to metaphors, the family-tree theory

- 60 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

and the wave theory, which may be regarded as visual aids to the divergence phenomenon (compare Anttila 1972:300-9). The traditional reference to convergence occurs through the use of such terms as Sprachbund (Jakobson). The terms convergence and divergence allow for a more unified and consistent application. To acquire a more precise view, we consider the languages Aand B in their mutual, converging and diverging, relationships. They either grow away from each other or towards each other. This can be formulated as follows:

(1) (1a) ←AB→ divergence (1b) A→←B convergence

The developments themselves can be considered, for example, over two peri- ods, namely, period 1 (A1 and B1) and period 2 (A2 and B2). Using the arrow representations in diagram (1) these developments can be viewed in the following way:

(2) ↓ divergence AB ←A1 B1→ ←A2 B2→

↓ convergence A2→←B2 A1→←B1 AB

Divergence and convergence are parameters of one continuum, the prefixes di- and con- indicating only a difference of perspective. This continuum can be seen as two nonparalleling lines with one side tending to zero and the other to infinity. Divergence occurs when, for example, groups are separated, and convergence occurs when groups join one another. As soon as language becomes involved in such cases, there is a social basis for language divergence (split) and language convergence (merger). For our present purpose we focus on the case of convergence between languages that are genetically closely related.

- 61 - F. VAN COETSEM

4.2. CONVERGENCE BETWEEN GENETICALLY CLOSELY RELATED DIALECTS OR LANGUAGES 4.2.1 The koineization factor In the following quotation concerning Iowa Dutch, Smits (1996:15) brings up an interesting question: "The fact that dialect features occur only marginally in Iowa Dutch becomes quite remarkable when we realize that most of the Dutch immigrants who went to the Unites States in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries ... must, above all, have spoken a dialect ... The Dutch language as it developed in the overseas settlements, then, must have had its origins primarily in the Dutch dialects and not in the standard language." And she notes further: "Although dialect features are largely absent in Iowa Dutch, ... the language is certainly not identical to Standard Dutch." Here we must consider the important phenomenon of (inter)dialectal leveling (cf. Hinskens 1996). What happened was a quite natural interdialectal leveling with application of the accommodation strategy in a convergence area. Indeed, in order to increase mutual intelligibility and improve effectiveness of communication, speakers of various Dutch dialects interacting within a common area, gave up dialectal features, and this led to a sort of uniformization. It produced an Iowa Dutch uniformization of its own, which did not have to conform to the standard language of the Netherlands. Such converging interdialectal leveling is not exceptional at all in, e.g., cases of colonization. For example, Buffington (1939:278) has described for Pennsylvania German a development paralleling the one of Iowa Dutch: "as the various Franconian and Alemannic dialects mingled in Pennsylvania, a general leveling took place, which finally resulted in the dropping of most of those dialectal characteristics, which were peculiar only to the Alemannic or the western Palatinate dialects." An aspect of such (colonial) leveling is further evidenced in American English, which shows far less dialectal diversification than British English. Similarly, Afrikaans displays far less dialectal diversification than Dutch in Europe. Yet, there is a difference in that (pidginized) Afrikaans has become a language in its own right, distinct from Dutch, while American English is viewed as a variety of English. Romance languages also illustrate the effects of colonization. The American varieties of Spanish and Portuguese are also more homogeneous than their respective European counterparts (Vidos 1959:206-7). This (colonial) interdialectal leveling with application of the accommodation strategy is a very common phenomenon, which must have regularly occurred in historical and prehistorical times. The well-known Greek koine is an archetypal example. Vendryes (1945:ix) described it as follows: "On peut dire de la κοινy que c'est de l'attique, diminué de ce qu'il avait de trop spécial et augmenté de quelques traits secondaires." These "traits secondaires"

- 62 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

came from other Greek dialects. It seems appropriate to give this specific form of leveling a suggestive name of its own, and such a name is koineization(15).

4.2.2 Koineization and standardization How they differ. Koineization and standardization are then two forms of supradialectal codification:

(3) supradialectal codification

koineization standardization

The question is: What is the distinction between them? They differ rather strongly in the way in which the codification is implemented, and this difference is itself the natural outcome of differences in the underlying societal constellation. (i) Koineization comes about as the result of a more or less spontaneous compromise between the languages involved, i.e., as the reflex of mutual concession or accommodation between speakers of genetically closely related dialects, in order to optimalize communication conditions. It represents a pragmatic strategy of interdialectal leveling between the languages involved, and presupposes a nonspecific societal situation that will probably have occurred regularly in the development of mankind. In ancient Greece, in a civilization characterized by a rather loose totality of town-state cultures, koineization was a quite natural codification process. (ii) In contrast, in standardization, as traditionally conceived, the codification occurs in a more specific way, i.e., when a socially dominant 'dialect' becomes a 'standard' or model for other (genetically closely related) dialects or idioms. It is a form of acquisition-initiated staging, occurring usually in a two-stage development (Van Coetsem 2000:170). Acharacteristic situation underlies standardization in its usual sense, i.e., a situation in which a social stratification is determinative. This is the way in which languages

(15) In Van Coetsem (2000:175-6) I observe: "The differentiation between standardization and koineization appears largely reducible to the one between standardization and interdialectal leveling. It might then perhaps be preferable to use the notion of interdialectal leveling instead of koineization, the former being more descriptive." Yet, for referring to a characteristic system of supradialectal codification and as a counterpart of standardization, the concept of koineization seems more appropriate than interdialectal leveling.

- 63 - F. VAN COETSEM

such as English in England and French in France have been standardized. (iii) The above reveals a clear difference between koineization and standardization as archetypal forms of supradialectal codification. In practice, the distinction between them is often not as sharp as it is presented here, and is mainly a question of prevalence. The Greek koine itself was in fact based on the socially dominant Attic dialect of Athens, but social dominance was then, in contrast with what happens in standardization, rather a secondary aspect. The social component appears to be an important differentiating element here, as is also suggested in the following quotation from Anttila (1972:176): "Akind of lingua franca with prestige overtones is standardthe language of a stratified society ... Then, a kind of standard ... without necessarily having social overtones is a koiné ..."(16)

In order to become better aware of the various possibilities, let us briefly look at some cases. (i) There is the well-known standardization developed on the basis of the language of a socially dominant center, like London in the case of English. But in the origination of American English, koineization with (colonial) leveling may have taken place, as it shows far less dialectal diversification than British English. However, in such cases, especially in the absence of time depth, forms of regular diffusion (chapter 5) may be the regular development. In such a connection Jespersen (1964 [1921]:260) noted: "If the divergence between American and British English is not greater than it actually is, this is probably due partly to the continual influx of immigrants from the old coun- try, and partly to that increased facility of communication between the two countries in recent times which has made mutual linguistic influence possible to an extent formerly undreamt-of." (ii) In the case of Dutch, standardization followed successive, regional dominance developments within the low countries, i.e., first Flanders, then Brabant (fifteenth c.), and finally Holland (sixteenth c.); together with standardization koineization (accommodation) will have occurred. (iii) In German, supradialectal codification (interdialectal leveling and koineization) started out with the 'East Colonization' in the 12th-13th centuries resulting in greater homogeneity in the eastern part of the German language area than in the western one (Bach 1950:189-99). Lerchner (1992:211) notes: "Im traditionsfreien Raum des mitteldeutschen Ostens gelangten mit

(16) In the beginning of the twentieth century the development of supradialectal codification was still not well recognized. Cf. Meillet (1926 [1911]:123): "Les voies par lesquelles se réalise une langue commune superposée aux parlers locaux sont multiples et embrouillées."

- 64 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

den bäuerlichen Siedlern aus der Mitte, dem Süden und schwächer, aus dem Norden des deutschen Altsiedellandes heterogene Dialektsysteme in die sich herausbildenden neuen Kommunikationsgemeinschaften; ihre Vermischung führte ... zu einem Ausgleich, der gute Voraussetzungen für die Entstehung der deutschen 'Hochsprache' (des späteren nationalen Standards) bot." There was also a clear influence of written traditions. But, as Lerchner notes further, it remains undeniably true, "daß sich in dem Gebiet auf Grund der von Frings und seiner Schule beschriebenen historisch-dialektalen Situation günstige Bedingungen für eine relativ frühe Koinébildung herausgebildet hatten. Sie tritt vor allem in den Städten bzw. administrativen Zentren des Gebietes oral als Verkehrs- und literal als Geschäftssprache ... in Erscheinung."

Specific applications. While koineization and standardization generally refer to codifications that serve all language purposes of the community involved, specific or restricted applications are possible. We find an example in the case of medieval Provençal or perhaps more precisely medieval Occitan, i.e., in the langue d'oc or the language of the troubadours (used in particular in meridio- nal France). This language really represents a koine, as defined above, but one which is only used for the literary purposes of the troubadours (Bec 1963:63- 70).

4.2.3 Koineization and the extension to the language system In the previous chapter, we have shown that the language system has an extension designed to cope with similarities and differences between genetically closely related idioms. This allows the speakers involved to optimalize mutual intelligibility and increase effectiveness of communication, in spite of naturally occurring variation. They apply the method of analyzing similarities and differences with correspondence rules, i.e., the method of contrastive analysis, which they have become familiarized with since the acquisition of their native language. This extension of the language system often has only a passive usage, as we have seen (chapter 3, section 2.2), but with koineization it acquires an active function insofar as it adjusts itself to meet the requirements of a new convergence area. This active stage thus completes the functionality of that extension and validates its existence. With koineization, the material included through this process of extension becomes integrated into the language system*, which shows how much that extension is part of the total system.

(*) The author's text read: "elements of the included material of the extension become integrated". [Eds.]

- 65 - F. VAN COETSEM

II. Replacement*

5. More on the replacement phenomenon

5.1. REPLACEMENT: FROM SYSTEMIC TECHNIQUE TO LAN- GUAGE CHANGE While speaking of pronunciation acquisition (section 2.2) and lexical diffusion (section 3.2) in chapter 3, we mention these as instances of contact- linguistic change illustrating the replacement mechanism. As stated in chapter 1, section 3.2, replacement is a very basic, very common, consciously operating systemic technique. It is applied already with first language acquisition, during the child's acquisition of his native language. Indeed, children become familiarized with it from early on, i.e., from the time they acquire the regularities and deviations of their mother tongue. This replacement mechanism is also applied in second language acquisition. In the child's acquisition of his native language, the replacement mechanism is used in connection with items that already exist in the language. But replacement is then also employed as a form of language change, i.e., as a language-modifying technique. This occurs, for instance, when English-speaking children in the acquisition of their language replace the regularized form foots by the norm-required deviation feet, an example also found in second language acquisition. Yet, this remains a case of replacement. Different from this is a change in which an item, such as a nonnative phoneme, is added to the language. The replacement technique is illustrated in simultaneity or the paradigmatic dimension, also in selection. Jakobson has extensively discussed these distinctions (cf. Waugh/Monville-Burston 1990: e.g., 39; and Jakobson- Waugh 1979). Thus, replacement or substitution is in language an important and broadly applied mechanism (cf., e.g., Van Coetsem 1988:99, 2000:95-6). In order to acquire more insight into the replacement phenomenon, we look further into its occurrence as a language change in language contact. For this, we consider two archetypal replacement changes, lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing. But first, we briefly examine transmission and diffusion as the background against which any form of contact-linguistic change occurs.

(*) This was the latest title the author gave to this topic; the last print-out he sent one of us, in August 2001, had the longer version “Replacement: Transmission and diffusion”. A still earlier title, “Transfer of lexical items between languages” (in a separate file on his computer, dated June 16, 2001) he apparenly intended to discard. [Eds.]

- 66 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

5.2. TRANSMISSION VS. DIFFUSION In the study of all cases of language contact it is necessary to make a basic differentiation between transmission and diffusion, that is: (i) Transmission in its three different transfer types; these are processes. (ii) Diffusion as the spread of these transfer types or their products over a certain geographic area; diffusion is thus realized in areal expansions.

5.2.1 Transmission The three transfer types In my monograph on language contact (2000) I discuss the three transfer types that characterize the transmission phenomenon, and here I repeat briefly their basic characteristics. In the transfer types there is always a source language (SL) and recipient language (RL), and the direction of the transfer is always from the SL to the RL. The basic formula is:

(1a) SL → RL

If the RL is linguistically dominant, i.e., if the RL is the language in which the bilingual speaker is most fluent, the RL speaker is the agent of the action and he performs a pull action, which is indicated here by underscoring RL. This is RL agentivity or borrowing:

(1b) SL → RL

If the SL is linguistically dominant, i.e., if the SL is the language in which the bilingual speaker is most fluent, the SL speaker is the agent of the action and he performs a push action, which is here indicated by underscoring SL. This is SL agentivity or imposition:

(1c) SL → RL

If the speaker is equally fluent in the SL and the RL and is thus a symmetrical bilingual, the difference between RL agentivity and SL agentivity is neu- tralized. RL agentivity, SL agentivity and neutralization are the three transfer types in the transmission process.

- 67 - F. VAN COETSEM

Coagentivity In the transmission the three transfer types are forms of interference, but so is coagentivity, which refers to a complementary usage of a bilingual's languages. For example, a speaker of English who has a practical knowledge of French borrows vocabulary from French (RL agentivity), and while using French, imposes (some of) his pronunciation or articulatory habits upon French (SL agentivity). In both cases English maintains its stable components or subcomponents. It is for the bilingual the socially dominant language, and it functions as the RL in RL agentivity and as the SL in SL agentivity. Coagentivity is a commonly occurring relational pattern (Van Coetsem 2000:35-6, 55-6, and diagrams (1) and (2) at the end of the volume).

Conversion With RL and SL agentivity the language-interactive function occurs through conversion (Van Coetsem 2000:154f., 188f.), which is implemented on the basis of imitation and/or adaptation, which are the two fundamental opera- tions in language contact (Van Coetsem, p. 49).

5.2.2 Diffusion In my monograph on transmission in language contact (2000: index), I repeatedly pay attention to the diffusion phenomenon, pointing out the need of a systematic study of that subject. In this respect the following may perhaps serve as a preliminary. We first consider two forms of diffusion, an areal and an intergenerational.

Areal diffusion Areal diffusion consists of a form of repetition or recursiveness of transfer types, the form of recursiveness differing between RL agentivity, on the one hand, and SL agentivity and neutralization, on the other. (i) In the case of RL agentivity, diffusion involves repetition of the RL agentivity process by imitation of one individual to another. If a speaker borrows a socially dominant velar R by replacing the dental r of his own system by R, he imitates R. Another speaker can again apply the same borrowing process by replacing r of his own system by R. The same process can be repeated on and on, and that represents the actual diffusion of R. Consequently, we have to distinguish between RL agentivity as [transmission] process and RL agentivity as diffusion. This distinction is represented as:

- 68 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(2a) transmission diffusion

RL agentivity process recursiveness of RL agentivity process

(ii) In the case of SL agentivity and neutralization, diffusion mostly happens quite differently. Here the process (SL agentivity with language acquisition) or the circumstance (neutralization with symmetrical bilingualism) can be repeated, though not by simple imitation, as other speakers than the directly involved ones are not in the position required for SL agentivity or neutralization. Simple repetition occurs only when entire populations or groups of people are involved in the acquisition of another language than their own (SL agentivity) or when participants in the diffusion are symmetrical bilinguals (neutralization). These exceptional cases can be represented as follows:*

(2b) transmission diffusion

SL agentivity process recursiveness of the SL neutralization process recursiveness of the neutralization product

But otherwise, i.e., in the majority of cases, diffusion after the SL agentivity process and neutralization will consist of repetition by imitation or recursiveness of the RL agentivity process:

(*) The author's text of this paragraph read: "With SL agentivity and neutralization the case of diffusion displays a quite different situation. Here the process (SL agentivity with language acquisition) or the circumstance (neutralization with symmetrical bilingualism) can be repeated but not by simple imitation insofar as other speakers than the one(s) directly involved are not in the required position, which is SL agentivity or neutralization, respectively. With diffusion simple repetition of SL agentivity occurs only insofar as whole populations or groups of people are involved in the acquisition of another language than their own; with diffusion simple repetition of the neutralization product occurs only insofar as the speakers are symmetrical bilinguals:" [Eds.]

- 69 - F. VAN COETSEM

(2c) transmission diffusion

SL agentivity process recursiveness of RL agentivity neutralization recursiveness of RL agentivity

This prevalent use of RL agentivity with diffusion is quite understandable, since it is the common, unmarked transfer type, while the other two, SL agentivity and neutralization, are the marked ones (Van Coetsem 2000: e.g., 50, 102-3). Cases of SL agentivity as process, followed by RL agentivity as diffusion, are not uncommon. In the case of RL agentivity the diffusion occurs through the direct use of the language (which can be labeled directly determined diffusion); in the case of SL agentivity and neutralization the diffusion occurs through relocation or migration of people using the language (which we label indirectly determined diffusion, and Hägerstrand has called relocation diffusion)(17). […] The distinction between transmission and diffusion [thus] resides in the fact that transmission refers directly to transfer types, while diffusion is characterized by the recursiveness of transfer types […]. The transfer type can be equated with a link and the recursiveness of transfer types with a string of links forming a chain. We thus identify link with transmission and chain with diffusion.

Intergenerational diffusion In the case of intergenerational diffusion, the child acquiring its native language normally will, in accordance with its needs, incorporate whatever language material it is exposed to, whether that material results from RL agentivity, SL agentivity or neutralization. From a certain age, the child will also act selectively. The language of its peers will then prevail as a model over that of its parents (RL agentivity). Here again the diffusion takes place through people using the language, not, however, through relocation or migration, but through alternation of generations in time (which we call intergenerational diffusion). Transmission and diffusion cannot be confused in spite of the fact that the transfer types occur in both of them. The transfer types are differently applied depending on whether they refer to the process or to the diffusion. The distinctions for diffusion thus far established are outlined in the following diagram; the diffusion forms in their relation to the transfer types are indicated by RL ag. (RL agentivity), SL ag. (SL agentivity) and N (neutralization):

(17) Hägerstrand's (1967) research concerns diffusion of societal phenomena.

- 70 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(3) directly determined indirectly determined diffusion (direct use of the language) (through people) RL ag RL ag., SL ag., N

relocation, migration alternation of generations (of people) (of people) ↓↓ relocation diffusion intergenerational diffusion

Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing will help us to differentiate between forms of directly determined diffusion.

5.2.3 Lexical diffusion: Similarities and differences between lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing, as typical examples of the replacement strategy, are two very commonly occurring forms of directly determined diffusion, and they are so closely related to each other that one can view them as essentially the same phenomenon. Let us consider a phonological change from a to b. As an internally induced change, it occurs automatically, that is, without the speaker being aware of it. As such, it develops without exceptions, although it may be limited, as in cases of consonantal conditioning. This may constitute a preliminary stage to lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing. Indeed, if the area of the b-pronunciation is prestigious or socially dominant, speakers of other areas may imitate this b-pronunciation. This occurs in a subsequent developmental phase. In this phase there is first the transmission process. The RL speaker replaces his a (or phonetic variants) by b of the SL. This is realized through a transfer type in the transmission process, namely, RL agentivity or borrowing. Being the result of imitation, the change is no longer automatic, but a consciously operated strategy, with all of its possible consequences. Thus, it takes place in a developmental phase that is quite distinct from the preliminary stage described above. Transmission is commonly followed by areal diffusion, which can be more or less extensive. During the diffusion or areal expansion, the replacement of a by b is repeated in time and space, from one speaker to another, from one lexical item to another, and this repetition represents precisely the diffusion phenomenon or areal expansion of the b-pronunciation. Now we have arrived at the point where we have to distinguish between lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing.

- 71 - F. VAN COETSEM

(i) In the case of lexical diffusion, a → b occurs within the words, i.e., consonantal frames, that the SL and the RL have in common, which implies that the replacement occurs in dialects or languages that are genetically closely related. Above, in section 3.2 of chapter 3, we have mentioned the example of the expansion in the Dutch language area of u → v → œy in hus → hvs → hœys () 'house'; we find the same change, e.g., in mus → mvs → mœys () 'mouse', ut → vt → œyt () 'out'. Due to differences in message frequency between the lexical items involved, exceptions occur, as when an older form with its existing vocalism is maintained (e.g., v in the above Dutch example); in this way the colloquial (or dialectal) Dutch form dvzend (modern spelling ) 'thousand' came to stand next to the standard form dœyzend .* The lexical character of the change consequently has a deregularizing effect (for more details, see Van Coetsem 2000:108-10, with further references). (ii) The case of pronunciation borrowing is different in that it represents a phonological change that occurs without any lexical involvement. Above in section 2.2, we have mentioned the case of the speaker who borrows a socially dominant or prestigious velar R-pronunciation by replacing the dental r of his own system by R. This is instantiated by the well-known diffusion of velar R from one language to another in Europe. Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing are essentially the same change; they differ in that they apply in different circumstances. Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing share a number of significant features. First, they have the same motivation; the SL is the socially dominant language, which stimulates the RL-speaker to imitate the SL-element in question. Second, in both cases the transfer type involved is RL agentivity, which is realized through the replacement strategy. Third, lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing apply the same form of diffusion. Diffusion, based on imitation, is a reflex of fashion. Indeed, in geographical space, diffusion displays the expansion pattern of a fashion, proceeding from one center (town) to another, i.e., from a major center (metropolis) to a minor one, and from the centers to the surroundings. It is an expansion pattern that has been called hierarchic diffusion (Hägerstrand 1967), which is an aspect of distance contact, and which (secondarily) interferes with contiguous diffusion, i.e., with contact through contiguity. We should therefore be well-aware of the fact that lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing do not at all exclude the occurrence of contiguous diffusion.**

(*) The author omitted the intermediate form in the development u>v>oey [Eds.]. (**) At this point the author intended to draw a diagram, but we have not been able to trace any copy of it. [Eds.]

- 72 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

Expertly applying the areal linguistic approach in a broad perspective Goossens (1992) illustrates such a diffusion over a network of towns (ste- dennetwerk) in the Dutch area of Belgium. His treatment not only reveals the complexity of the phenomenon but also the relativity of the notion of hierar- chy in this connection. […]

Summarizing the different forms of diffusion. There are two modes of diffusion, namely, (i) directly determined diffusion and (ii) indirectly determined diffusion. Directly determined diffusion comprises two submodes, namely, (ia) contiguous diffusion and (ib) hierarchic diffusion. Indirectly determined diffusion also includes two submodes, namely, (iia) relocation diffusion and (iib) intergenerational diffusion.

6. A case study: Early Romance and Germanic diphthongizations in northern Gaul

6.1. INTRODUCTION Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing are very important as they not only exemplify the replacement technique as a language change, but are also illustrative of the diffusion phenomenon, as we have seen. Lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing often interfere with one another as they occur in complementary conditions that are easily chang- ing, lexical diffusion affecting genetically closely related idioms, and pronunciation borrowing occurring between languages in which genetical relatedness is not immediately recognizable. In the case study we are now about to discuss, lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing again play a decisive part, as they illustrate their mutual complementarity in developments in which lexical diffusion follows pronunciation borrowing. While handling such topics, we can also apply principles that are the fruit of more recent contact-linguistic research.

6.2. THE SOCIOHISTORICAL AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC BACKGROUND During the classical period of Latin, its vocalism was essentially regulated by quantity correlation, with the language having nondominant accent prominence; in popular Latin, however, a certain degree of accentual intensity may have been present. With the Germanic and other invasions of Europe, particularly in the first half and the middle of the first millennium, and with the fall of the Roman Empire, entirely new societal conditions originated. These triggered changes in the emerging Romance daughter languages. Especially the accentuation of these languages became affected as their accent prominence

- 73 - F. VAN COETSEM

changed to a dominant one. This in turn created conditions favorable to the emergence* of diphthongs, as the dominant prominence induced lengthening of the accented vowels in free position. Such long vowels were candidates for segmentation and further differentiation in the process of diphthongization (Bourciez 1946:141ff.). Amajor Frankish-Romance contact occurred in northern Gaul. The Franks first invaded northern Gaul before the middle of the first millennium and subsequently they imposed their rule upon the occupied part of the coun- try. The Gauls being culturally superior to the Franks, the Frankish elite learn- ed Romance, but spoke it with a Frankish (Germanic) accent. This produced a Franco-Romance variety of Romance with a remodeled articulation basis that largely contributed to the specific nature that French has among the Romance languages. In this articulation basis a strongly dominant accent prominence prevailed, possibly reinforcing an already existing dominant accent prominence. Again, accented vowels in free position became lengthened, which created in Franco-Romance a condition favorable to diphthongization; cf. the review article of Legros (1942:188ff, with references to A. Durrafour, W. von Wartburg and C. Bruneau).

6.3. THE ROMANCE DIPHTHONGIZATIONS Let us now consider the Romance diphthongizations in the second half of the first millennium. We describe these as they occurred in northern Gaul in their first stage, and not in their subsequent developments, since these are not relevant to our argument about the origins of the diphthongizations. (i) The older diphthongization affected the front vowel e, the so- called 'e ouvert libre', i.e., e [d] in accented position, and the correlating back vowel o, the so-called 'o ouvert libre, i.e., o [n]. These vowels will have been lengthened, [d] → [w], [n] → [r], and subsequently segmented into two components, [dd], [nn], with further differentiation of the components by raising the first one, ie [id], uo [un]. An example of e is: Latin mel, French miel, and an early documentation of the diphthong is dieci (Latin decem) in a Merovingian document of 671 (e.g., Bourciez 1937:65, 94). (ii) The younger diphthongization affected the front vowel e, this time the so-called 'e fermé libre', i.e., e [g] in accented position, and the correlating back vowel o, the so-called 'o fermé libre', i.e., o [p]. The vowels will have been lengthened, [g] → [l], [p] → [q] and subsequently segmented into two components, [gg], [pp], with further differentiation of the components, this time by raising the second one, ei [gi], ou [pu]. Examples are: French moi via mgi < mgg < ml from Latin me and bellezour [= -pur] (Cantilène d'Eulalie)

(*) The author's text read "the occurrence". [Eds.]

- 74 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

from *bellatiqre (e.g., Bourciez, p. 74, 102). The diphthongization will have originated in the 8-9th century.

The diphthongizations show differences in the degree of aperture. The first and oldest one (6-7th century) shows a (more) open vocalism (OV), and can be called an OV-diphthongization. The second one (8-9th century) shows a (more) closed vocalism (CV), and will here be called a CV-diphthongization. The diphthongizations are represented within the Romance vocalism as follows:

(1) iu

8-9th century ei < gp> ou CV-diphthongization

6-7th century ie < dn> uo OV-diphthongization

Such diphthongizations occupy a significantly larger area than northern Gaul, particularly the older OV one producing ie/uo, which is found, e.g., in Italian and Spanish. In general these diphthongizations seem to have reacted to the same accentual conditions as in northern Gaul, especially the presence of a (reinforced) dominant accent prominence (Bourciez 1946:141ff.), possibly again to be ascribed to (Germanic) population invasions. But here too diffusion may have played a role. In a perspective broader than that of northern Gaul the younger VC- diphthongizations, producing ei/ou, occur very exceptionally (Bourciez, p. 149). Thus, northern Gaul appears to have been the area where the diphthongizations were most generally and systematically developed.

6.4. THE GERMANIC DIPHTHONGIZATIONS As in Romance we find two diphthongizations in neighboring Germanic languages, the older one, an OV-diphtongization, the younger one, a CV-diphthongization. While dealing with diphthongizations, we will, for practical rea- sons, use the notion of Germanic in a generic way for referring to Germanic languages, namely, Frankish, English (Middle English), German (Middle High German) and Dutch (Middle Dutch). (i) The older diphthongization affected the vowels e (continuation of earlier e2) and o and is consequently an OV-diphthongization. Examples are

- 75 - F. VAN COETSEM

Old High German (Old Frankish) hier 'here' from earlier her, Gothic her, and suohhen 'to search', Gothic sokjan. The diphthongization occurred in the 8-9th century (Braune 1987:36-9). The diphthongization also occurs in Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian, but appears to have developed from e/ee and o/oo to ea and oa, that is, by the lowering of the second component instead of the raising of the first as in Old Frankish. This lowering represents a quite natural adaptation of the diphthongization to requirements of the system of Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian. Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian have thus responded to the diphthongization in question by applying an internal development of their own. Graphics like ie and ea are thus parts of different diphthongal developments (a difference based on the raising of the first component or on the lowering of the second one); they were not the result of a single development, e.g., e > ee > ea > ia > ie, as was commonly assumed in an earlier view. I have discussed such issues in my article of 1975, basing my opinion largely on Rauch's (1967) research, which appears to be a safe guide. (ii) The younger diphthongization affected the high vowels i, u and v and is consequently a CV-diphthongization. It opened the first component (e.g., i > ii > ei) and started out around the beginning of the second millennium in three areas that are clearly noncontiguous, (i) in English (Middle English) from the London area in Britain, (ii) in German (Middle High German) from the southern Austrian-Bavarian region, and (iii) in Dutch (Middle Dutch) from the southern Flemish-Brabantic area in the low countries. Examples are: Old High German min, hus, English mine, house, German mein, Haus (plural Häuser from v), Dutch mijn, huis (from v).

The diphthongizations in their initial stages can be represented from the viewpoint of the Frankish vocalism as follows:

(2) 11th century ei < iu> ou CV-diphthongization

8-9th century ie < eo> uo OV-diphthongization

While there was no rounded front vowel v in Old Frankish (Old High German), such a vowel subsequently developed in different conditions in the Middle Germanic dialects, and German and Dutch show clear reflexes of it.

- 76 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

6.5. COMPARISON BETWEEN ROMANCE AND GERMANIC DIPHTHONGIZATIONS 6.5.1 A systemic difference In their graphic representations the Romance and Germanic CV-diphthongizations differ, in that the Romance CV-diphthongization refers to mid-high vowels (/), the Frankish CV-diphthongization, on the other hand, to high vowels (/). However, we have to see this from a contact-linguistic perspective, which means that we have to establish how the Romance and Frankish speakers identified and adapted each other's vocalisms. In other words, we have to know the vocalic equivalencies between Romance and Frankish from the viewpoints of the Romance and Frankish speakers. Such equivalencies can be easily indicated by opposing the Romance and Frankish vowel systems at the beginning of the diphthongizations, as follows:

(3) Romance Frankish

1. high iu––

2. high eo iu mid 3. low dn eo

4. low a a

The above representation, combining the front-back and high-low parameters, clearly brings out the similarity and dissimilarity that conditioned vowel identification and adaptation in the contact between Romance and Frankish at the beginning of the diphthongizations. Romance had four apertures, Frankish three. In Frankish the high vowels i and u were realized in a more open way than in Romance. When diphthongization happened, the Romance i and u, as maximally closed and tense vowels, had, as compared to Frankish, an aperture of their own, i.e., aperture 1. Thus Romance and Frankish in their diphthongizations affected the same part of their respective systems, apertures 2 and 3. Modern French again has a system of tense vowels, and, comparable to the distinction between Romance and Frankish, we now find a difference in the mid-high and high vowels between French, as a development of Romance, and Dutch, as a continuation of Frankish. In his comparison of standard French and the Brussels-French vernacular, the latter reflecting a

- 77 - F. VAN COETSEM

Dutch (Brabantic) accent, Grootaers (1953:38) notes that one of the most characteristic properties of the French vowel system is that the vowels are pronounced with considerable tenseness; the high vowels [i, u, y], written i, ou, u, are as tense (high) as possible. Furthermore, this tenseness is maintained for the whole duration of the vowel and there is no tendency to diph- thongize. In contrast, in Brussels-French there is lack of tenseness and a tendency to diphthongization. For example, Grootaers (p. 39) mentions that the short i of Brussels-French is pronounced more loosely and in a more open fashion than in standard French, while the i of cerise also shows a tendency to diphthongization. Grevisse (1961:48) makes some comparable remarks. In the CV-diphthongization the distinction in diphthongal development between Romance (early French), on the one hand, and Middle English, Middle High German, and Middle Dutch, on the other, was a direct consequence of the systemic difference between these languages. In Romance the second component was raised (e > e > ee > ei↑), in the Germanic languages the first component was lowered (i > ii > ↓ei).

6.5.2 Further correspondences and differences (i) What we have seen thus far shows that there are similarities or correspondences and differences between the Romance and Germanic diphthongizations, but also that the similarities prevail over the differences. (ii) In connection with the older, OV-diphthongizations (ie, etc.), researchers have already formulated hypotheses and explanations to demon- strate that language contact is a basic causality (section 3.2 above). First, the Romance-Frankish contact produced in Romance the conditions for the emergence of the OV-diphthongs in question. Second, Romance, being at the time the socially dominant language in the area, Frings (1939), after a very exhaustive, areal-linguistic analysis, postulated that Frankish imitated and thus borrowed these Romance diphthongs, and he very pertinently concluded (p. 103): "Das Germanische griff mit seinen Längen in das Romanische ein, das Romanische mit Diphthongen in das Germanische zurück." The idea of language contact has in this connection also been reject- ed on the assumption that the Romance and Germanic (Frankish) OV-diphthongizations are both spontaneous developments (cf., e.g., Braune 1987:37). Indeed, these diphthongizations are both changes acting on the presence of a dominant accent prominence and long vowels; in other words, both Romance and Frankish had the potential to develop diphthongs. But this is only part of the issue. The question is also why both Romance and Germanic developed diphthongs (i) in corresponding Romance-Germanic vowels, (ii) within a comparable time bracket, and (iii) in a similar ranking or succession. The explanation of spontaneous developments therefore leaves a lot of loose ends,

- 78 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

and that there has been contact or interference between Romance and Germanic seems hardly deniable. In earlier studies (1975, 1993), I explained the Old High German OV-diphthongization in question as resulting from internally induced change, i.e., from a chain reaction, in which the first component of a long bimoraic vowel (e.g., ee) was raised by one degree (from ee to ie), producing the OV- diphthongizations in question. As I showed in my studies, this generalized raising by one degree, which included the CV diphthongization and the monop- thongization ai/au > ae/ao > ee/oo, occurred in a number of steps. That there is not only raising and thus internally induced change, but also diphthongization as externally induced change is shown by the fact that Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian apply a form of the diphthongization of their own, namely, the lowering of the second component (e > ee > ea), while Old Frankish raised the first component (e > ee > ie). In other words, Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian reacted to an outside diphthongizing pressure by applying internally induced lowering of the second component of the vowel involved. In sum, what appears to have occurred in Old High German (Old Frankish) is an interference between an internally induced change, namely, raising, and an externally induced one influenced by Romance, namely, the OV diphthongization. These two changes were not identical but partly over- lapped, these being cases of multiple causation (Malkiel 1968:27). The following, which is part of the concluding diagram in my study of 1993, p. 302, outlines the Old High German (Old Frankish) raising of the first component of long vowels. The case where the internally induced raising shift and the diphthongization due to language contact (diagram (2)) interfere with one another is framed:

(4) ai ai > ei ae > ee/e monophthongization

au au > ou ao > oo/o monophthongization

e/ee > ie diphthongization o/oo > uo diphthongization

eo > io eww eu > iu

- 79 - F. VAN COETSEM

(iii) In former research the Romance and Germanic CV-diphthongizations (ei, etc.) have not been included in the same view of language contact as the OV-diphthongizations (ie, etc). In my view they should be.

In the same accentual conditions (derived from Frankish) as in the OV-diphthongizations but about two centuries later, Romance developed g > ei and p > ou. This diphthongization, used by the socially dominant language, French, became a prestigious pronunciation, which was imitated and borrowed by other languages, Middle English, Middle High German, and Middle Dutch. Following the hierarchic diffusion pattern, the diphthongization expanded around the beginning of the second millennium to three noncontiguous areas, three secondary centers, namely, the London area in Britain, the Austrian- Bavarian region, and the southern Flemish-Brabantic area of the Low Countries. In the following discussion we will also elaborate on this question.

6.5.3 Correspondences between the Romance and Germanic diphthongizations The Romance and Germanic diphthongizations show a number of remarkable similarities or correspondences, which together tend to suggest that more than pure coincidence is involved. (i) Development. In both the Romance and the Germanic languages (Frankish, Middle English, Middle High German, Middle Dutch) the older OV-diphthongization and the younger CV-diphthongization show a remarkable similarity in their initial development. (ii) Timing. In Romance the younger CV-diphthongization followed the older OV-diphthongization by about two centuries. In the Germanic languages (Frankish, Middle English, Middle High German, Middle Dutch) the younger CV-diphthongization followed the older one also in about two centuries. The older and younger diphthongizations in the Germanic languages follow the corresponding Romance ones by about two centuries. The correspondences are summarized as follows:

(5) Romance OV-diphthongization: 6-7th century CV-diphthongization: 8-9th century

Germanic OV-diphthongization: 8-9th century (Frankish) CV-diphthongization: 11th century (Middle English, Middle High German, Middle Dutch)

- 80 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(iii) Diffusion. In the CV-diphthongizations the noncontiguous character of the diffusion is revealed most clearly, as they reflect the hierarchic diffusion pattern of lexical diffusion and pronunciation borrowing, as was already illustrated in Kloeke's (1927) study on Dutch. The noncontiguous areas where the CV-diphthongizations started were the London area in Britain, the southern Austrian-Bavarian area, and the southern Flemish- Brabantic area in the Low Countries; these were at the time socially dominant. Vis-à-vis French these were secondary centers, functioning so to speak as intermediaries; they exhibit the second stage in the diffusion, the stage of lexical diffusion.* This contact between Romance (early French), on the one hand, and Middle English, Middle High German and Middle Dutch, on the other, was one between idioms in which genetical relatedness was not directly recognizable. The diphthongization started in the socially dominant French area, a place of high culture and civilization, and expanded to the aforementioned secondary centers. The expansion operated as a fashion, through imitation in RL agentivity, which followed the pattern of hierarchic diffusion. The diffusion of the OV- and CV-diphthongizations is summarized in the following diagrams.

(i) Diffusion of the OV-diphthongization:

(6a) Romance ↓ pronunciation borrowing ↓ ––––––––––––––––––––––––– Old Frankish ↓ lexical diffusion ↓ ——––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———— Old Frankish (Old Allemanic, Old Bavarian)

(*) The author's text read "they represent the second stage in the diffusion and proceeded as lexical diffusion". [Eds.]

- 81 - F. VAN COETSEM

(ii) Diffusion of the CV-diphthongization:

(6b) Romance (French) ↓ pronunciation borrowing ↓

Middle English, Middle High German. Middle Dutch ↓ lexical diffusion ↓

English, German, Dutch

III. Transfer of lexical items between languages*

7. Lexical transfer in its basic occurrences

Dès qu'un mot répond à un besoin, il a tôt fait le tour du monde (A. Dauzat in: Burney 1962:108).

7.1. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM RL agentivity or borrowing has a defensive and conservative character. It generally preserves language structure, while offering minimal or no resistance to lexical transfer (Van Coetsem 2000:59). Borrowing of words is indeed "The simplest kind of influence that one language may exert on another" (Sapir 1949 [1921]:193). In chapter 1, section 5 we already noted how adequately the language system under consideration is organized. While language has its stable, more permanent components or subcomponents that counter, curb or prevent the transfer of language material, it also has a lexicon, specifically contentives (Vc) that are far less stable (less permanent) and far more open to external influence; in contrast with contentives, functors (like flexives) are more stable (more permanent).

(*) On the author's computer this topic also carried an older title, "Replacement: Trans- mission and diffusion". [Eds.]

- 82 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

When we thus speak of a high degree of lexical transferability, we refer to contentives, with the exception, however, of the primary vocabulary (Vprim). This lexical transferability responds to a need of society. Indeed, contentives, serving a maximally semantic purpose, constitute the open door, the free-access area through which languages most commonly and naturally interact with one another; this free-access area is at the same time the direct link between language and society, the link through which change in society is directly reflected in language. Also, the transfer type through which this lexical transfer (Vc) occurs is characteristically RL agentivity. With the borrowing of cases like criterions, we speak of hybridiza- tion since criterion, as a less stable lexical item, is transferred from the SL, namely, Greek, while the more stable grammatical plural marker -s originates from the RL, namely, English (Van Coetsem 2000:141). English borrowed, i.e., imitated a tremendous amount of lexical items from a variety of languages, and a great many of these items were transferred from French and Latin-Greek during the Middle English-Norman French contact.

7.2. LEXICAL TRANSFER IN RL AGENTIVITY OR BORROWING: COAGENTIVITY Jespersen (1964[1921]:208-13) discussed what he called a general theory of loan-words. One will probably wonder what is so 'theoretical' about borrowing words. But Jespersen looked at this question from a specific perspective, as appears from the following quotation: "When we try to learn and talk a foreign tongue we do not introduce into it words taken from our own language; our endeavour will always be to speak the other language as purely as possible ... But what we thus avoid in speaking a foreign language we very often do in our own. Frederick the Great prided himself on his good French, and in his French writings we do not find a single German word, but whenever he wrote German his sentences were full of French words and phrases." Part of Jespersen's point was that in case of RL agentivity or borrowing, the mixing of a language was not caused by external intervention, but by the direct action of its own speakers. The fact is that Jespersen was to a certain extent cognizant of an important transfer mechanism, which, however, he did not formulate theoret- ically(18) ; in my study on the transmission process in language contact I have identified this transfer mechanism as coagentivity (see chapter 5, section 2.1 of the present study, and Van Coetsem 2000: e.g. 37, 55-7). This refers to the complementary occurrence of RL agentivity and SL agentivity within the

(18) This reflects a quite common attitude in former research; cf. Van Coetsem (2000:98, footnote 21).

- 83 - F. VAN COETSEM

same relational context, a complementarity that is based on difference in stability. For example, a speaker of English (linguistically dominant language; indicated by underscoring), who has a practical knowledge of French and is acquiring that language further, borrows (contentives, minimally stable) from French (French → English, RL agentivity). While using French he imposes some of his English usage (articulatory habits, maximally stable) upon French (accent) (English → French, SL agentivity)(19). In a very general characterization, considering the two languages A and B of a bilingual, one can say that, within the relational framework of coagentivity: (i) the speaker of the dominant language B will primarily and characteristically apply lexical borrowing (RL agentivity); (ii) the same speaker will also primarily and characteristically impose his articulatory habits upon language A(SL agentivity). Thus, with coagentivity RL agentivity and SL agentivity are used complementarily within the same relational framework, the linguistically dominant language B being the RL in RL agentivity and the SL in SL agentivity. This is summarized as follows:

(1) A → B, RL agentivity: lexical borrowing (contentives, minimally stable) from A into B B → A, SL agentivity: imposition of articulatory habits (maximally stable) of B upon A

While being aware of this complementarity, Jespersen focussed on borrowing. Jespersen has not been the only one to recognize the phenomenon in question. The following is a description of a coagentivity case that antedates our theory, but is strikingly in agreement with the predictions of that theory. Speaking of interference in an example that she observed in Chicago, between so-called English Hungarian and Hungarian English, Horváth Janda (1976:590) in fact gives an archetypal description of coagentivity. She notes that "The most observable interferences from Hungarian into English in the speech of a bilingual is on the phonological level, H/v/ instead of E/w/, the rolling of /r/ instead of the use of retroflexion are some of the many examples. However, the very same speaker speaking Hungarian would exhibit the most interferences on the lexical level, that is borrowing English vocabulary items and treating them grammatically in the same way as any Hungarian word." For the speaker in question, Hungarian* was the linguistically

(19) If French becomes the linguistically dominant language, it acquires the potential to apply RL agentivity. (*) The author's text read "English". [Eds.]

- 84 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

dominant language. He or she borrowed lexical items from English (RL agentivity), while imposing Hungarian pronunciation or articulatory habits upon English (SL agentivity).

7.3. LEXICAL TRANSFER IN SL AGENTIVITY Lexical transfer also occurs in SL agentivity, although it is in this connection not a characteristic phenomenon. For example, a speaker of English who has a practical knowledge of Dutch, may impose the word credit in the specific sense of 'unit of study' upon that language (Van Coetsem 2000:67).

7.4. CONVERGING CONCEPTUALIZATIONS As we know, each language reflects a unique conceptualization of the human in his environment. Given the high degree of transferability of contentives (secondary vocabulary), such conceptualizations become more similar to one another as convergence proceeds, and cultural, linguistic distinctions between the converging languages tend to disappear. Such a convergence has taken place in the contact between immi- grant languages and English in the US. Speaking of the Norwegian-English contact in the US, Haugen (1969:53-97) shows that in such convergence areas lexical mixing is virtually unavoidable. And in certain cases the speakers are aware of the mixing, but in other cases they are not (osmotic leveling). The unevitable nature of language mixing is a point that is also clearly made by Martinet (1960:174): "Il n'y a ... que quelques virtuoses qui soient capables de manier deux ou plus de deux langues sans que se produisent chez eux les phénomènes qu'on désigne sous le nom d'interference linguistique." See also Jespersen (1964 [1921]:148). Because of the high degree of lexical transferability in particular in RL agentivity, any language has the potential to acquire an adequate conceptualization. In other words, a so-called 'primitive' language or a pidgin may develop into a language of high culture if the required circumstances are present. Such a development may take place within a relatively short period. For example, Sango, originally a pidgin, has become the national language of the Central African Republic (Pasch 1993).

7.5. LEXICAL TRANSFER IN NEUTRALIZATION: RELEXIFICA- TION (i) Lexical transfer in the borrowing process occurs in different degrees. It may be minimal, average or maximal. Using the vertical-bar symbol (|), Vc for contentives, Vf for functors, Vprim for primary vocabulary, Gf for flexives, we already established in chapter 1, diagram (6c)) the stability relationship of Vc vs. Vf, Vprim, Gf:

- 85 - F. VAN COETSEM

(1) Vc (minimal stability) | Vf, Vprim, Gf (median or maximal stability)

In this formula lexical transferability is expressed in Vc, in which the amount of transfer can be minimal, average or maximal. For example, in the contact of Middle English with Norman French, the amount of transfer of contentives from Norman French and Latin-Greek to Middle English has been maximal. English is indeed an archetypal example of maximal lexical transfer. While in that process contentives are maximally borrowed, only few functors have been adopted (Van Coetsem 2000:73). (ii) Lexical transfer, as we have described it, is different from relexification. Relexification is generalized transfer of lexical material regardless of whether this transfer concerns contentives or functors; we are here no longer in an RL or SL agentivity process, in which stability is active, but in a neutralization situation, in which stability has been overruled; in relexification not only contentives are transferred but also functors. Atypical instance of relexification is found in Media Lengua, as I have discussed in my monograph of 2000, p. 241-6.

IV. The two modes of borrowing

8. The extended mode of borrowing and diglossia

8.1. A PROBLEM In the conclusions of her comparison of the transfer relationships between standard Dutch and the Maastricht dialect in the Dutch province of Limburg, Smits (1999:473-5) applies theoretical principles proposed in language contact models, and while doing so she arrives at conflicting results. She therefore wonders whether models of language contact (including my partial theory of 1988) are able to predict the type of transfer that will occur when the contact happens between a dialect and a genetically closely related standard language. In the Maastricht dialect itself, Smits differentiates between the dialect of the middle class (MM) and the dialect of the working class (WM). Next to MM and WM we also have to consider the local (Limburgic) variety of standard Dutch. The following diagram visualizes this three-way distinction:

- 86 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

(1) (i) Dutch (i) local (Limburgic) variety of standard Dutch = (ii) Maastricht dial. (iia) middle class dial. (iib) working class dial. (MM) (WM)

Like in other varieties of Dutch, Smits finds in the local variety of standard Dutch "phonetic/phonological features (i.e. a regional accent) and ... grammatical features originating from the dialects spoken in the region". This is completely in line with what SL agentivity predicts in the theory I have proposed (1988, 2000). However, Smits adds: "Surprisingly, in the Maastricht area we encounter grammatical influence from the standard language into the dialect as well, notwithstanding the fact that Standard Dutch is not the linguistically dominant language, not the primary or native language for any of the informants in the Maastricht corpus discussed in this paper. This means that given our present knowledge of the effects of language contact, the Standard Dutch grammatical transfers in MM are not quite understandable." Smits assumes the transfer of phonological and grammatical material to exclusively take place in the case of SL agentivity, i.e., when the local variety of standard Dutch is the SL and is linguistically dominant. But, since MM is in fact the linguistically dominant language and the RL, she concludes, quite appropriately, that RL agentivity or borrowing must have occurred here. The problem is that she considers RL agentivity only in its typical, unmarked form, i.e., as the regular (restricted) mode of borrowing, in which transfer of lexical material is indeed the rule, while transfer of phonological and grammatical material is more exceptional. However, in specific cases there is also a well documented extended mode of borrowing, in which, next to lexical transfer, transfer of phonological and grammatical material is not an uncommon fact. It reflects a natural extension of the phonological system, as we have seen in chapter 3. I have discussed at length the two modes of borrowing in the completed version of my theory (2000), in chapter 7, and I refer to it for details. Let us here briefly consider these two modes of borrowing.

8.2. THE REGULAR AND THE EXTENDED MODES OF BORROWING The distinction between the two modes of borrowing is a question of grada- tion and is based on sets of prevalences: (i) In the regular mode of borrowing, adaptation of phonological and grammatical SL-material prevails, while need is the primary motivation. This mainly amounts to lexical borrowing. (ii) In the extended mode of borrowing, imitation of phonological

- 87 - F. VAN COETSEM

and grammatical SL material prevails, while prestige of the SL is the primary motivation. This is lexical, phonological and grammatical borrowing. This need of imitation in the extended mode reveals a characteristic, language- cultural concern in the RL speaker.

We can summarize the prevalences described as follows:

(2) regular borrowing (mainly lexical): adaptation, need extended borrowing (lex., phon., gramm.): imitation, prestige

As I discussed in my study of 2000 (chapter 7), languages like English/ French, German/Dutch and the different stages in the development of Latin clearly illustrate the distinction between the two modes of borrowing. While English readily applies adaptation of the flexives in cases like criterion, plural criterions, index, plural indexes, museum, plural museums, Dutch (more specifically the Dutch of the Netherlands) applies imitation and uses the plurals criteria, indices and musea of the SL. Of course, English may apply imitation as well, but does so far more restrictedly, while in turn Dutch may apply adaptation. As stated, this is a question of prevalences. All of this is understandable. As we see in northern Dutch, imitation in borrowing is regularly implemented by an elite in a restricted sociolect, elements of which may pervade the general language. However, in English the general language is usually not influenced by such a sociolectal usage, assuming that such a usage really occurs. While imitating French, Dutch also borrowed nonlexical material and followed a fashion for which French was the trendsetter. Similarly, with its cultural development from the third-second century B.C. on, Latin systematically imitated Greek (see the discussion in Van Coetsem 2000: chapter 7, and compare Fögen 2000). This again was a question of fashion, for which Greek was the trendsetter. With their need of imitation both the speaker of Dutch and the one of Latin indeed revealed a characteristic, language-cultural concern. There is also a certain degree of functional complementarity between Dutch and French, on the one hand, and between Latin and Greek, on the other. This functional complementarity is the stabilizing factor in the relationship between the languages involved. For instance, while Greek was the prestigious model language for the Roman elite, the use of Latin was not really threatened. Each of the two languages had its domain of application, i.e., the two languages were not really in competition.

- 88 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

8.3. STANDARDIZATION In order to understand what happened in the Maastricht dialect, it is useful to remember what I stated about standardization in chapter 4, section 2.2, and in my monograph of 2000, p. 170-3. The acquisition of a standard by a speaker of one of its dialects is normally part of a periodization, a so-called acquisition-initiated staging, phasing or layering, which is usually a two-stage development extending over different generations. In this development, the first stage invariably includes the acquisition of the standard by the dialect speaker; the dialect is the SL and the linguistically dominant language, and the applied transfer type is SL agentivity. In this process, the dialect speaker acquires the standard, but normally imposes his articulatory habits upon his variety of the standard (coagentivity). In this way a local variety of the standard is born. As we already noted, this has also been the case with standard Dutch in the Maastricht area (section 1 above). In the second stage of acquisition-initiated staging there are several developmental possibilities; for example, the dialect may disappear (language attrition, language death, etc., Van Coetsem, p. 191f.), but it may also be preserved, it may thrive and even assume a strong and stable position of its own, as in the case of the Maastricht dialect. How is this to be viewed?

8.4. DIGLOSSIA 8.4.1 In general Above we have found a functional complementarity in the contact between (northern) Dutch and French or between Latin and Greek, i.e., between languages that are genetically not closely related. In the contact between the Limburgic variety of standard Dutch and the Maastricht dialect, we find a comparable functional complementarity, but this time between two varieties of the same language. The case is often referred to as diglossia. Diglossia has been described by Ferguson (1964:429-39). It is a specific form of language contact in which two varieties of the same language occur. These varieties are: (i) a so-called HIGH variety, indicated as H, and (ii) a LOW variety, indicated as L. It should be noted that the H/L-distinction in the language varieties involved is socially determined and is not an evalu- ation of superiority/inferiority of these language varieties as communication tools. Some remarks are necessary. (i) There is a functional H/L-complementarity between the language forms involved based on the formal-informal differentiation. Ferguson (p. 430-1) observes: "One of the most important features of diglossia is the spe- cialization of function for H and L. In one set only H is appropriate and in another only L, with the two sets overlapping only very slightly." This remark about overlapping is important. The differentiation formal-informal as a basis

- 89 - F. VAN COETSEM

for the H/L-complementarity, although basically right, is here indeed not a rigorous one. That is the reason why we cannot simply replace 'H-L' by 'formal-informal'. (ii) For some, the fact that functional complementarity occurs not only in languages that are genetically closely related or varieties of the same language, but also in languages that are genetically not closely related has been a reason for extending the notion of diglossia to contact between genetically not closely related languages (cf. in this respect the remarks in Hudson 1980:55). (iii) Although the notion of diglossia is basically well-defined in Ferguson's conception, two aspects of it quite naturally lack sharpness of distinction: first, the differentiation in geneticness is one of degree, and, second, the formal-informal distinction in relation to the H/L-complementarity is not always a rigorous one, as noted. It is therefore not surprising that some researchers have preferred not to use it. Yet, diglossia can be a useful notion in that it nicely helps to identify a typical form of bilingualism, as in the case that we are presently discussing.

8.4.2 How stable is diglossia? Ferguson (p. 433) observes: "It might be supposed that diglossia is highly unstable, tending to change into a more stable language situation. This is not so. Diglossia typically persists at least several centuries, and evidence in some cases seems to show that it can last well over a thousand years." However, imbalances do occur in certain cases and they prevent the full realization of diglossia or threaten its existence. There are a number of requirements for stable diglossia, which may interfere with one another. One such requirement is, as noted, that the distinction between formal and informal in the functional H/L-complementarity not be equated [by the speakers of both H and L varieties]* with the differentiation between superior and inferior, respectively. Another requirement is that the L-variety not be viewed as a stage or transition in the development to the H-variety or standard. In addition, a balanced diglossia demands that the H- variety be used by a representative group of speakers of the speech community involved. If, for example, the H-variety is only used by academics or intellectuals, and not by the financial elite, the speech community will be underrepresented in that variety, and diglossia will not be de facto realized or it will be imbalanced and unstable.

8.4.3 Diglossia and the extended mode of borrowing in the Maastricht dialect The Maastricht dialect appears to be a case where the requirements of

(*) Editors’ addition

- 90 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

diglossia are optimally realized; in it we have therefore a balanced, stable example of diglossia. We have seen that the Maastricht dialect has two varieties, one used by the middle class (MM), and another by the working class (WM). The question brought up by Smits (1999) is that MM borrows "in an unexplained way" grammatical material from the Limburgic variety of standard Dutch. The straightforward answer to this question is that MM simply applies the extended mode of borrowing (imitation), and thus acts in a similar way as Dutch vs. French and Latin vs. Greek. And this happens because MM occurs in circumstances comparable to those in Dutch and Latin, in which fashion is involved. As we have seen, Dutch and Latin imitated, i.e., borrowed nonlexical material from their prestigious SL's, French and Greek, respectively. Comparably, MM imitates, i.e., borrows nonlexical material from its prestigious SL, the Limburgic variety of standard Dutch. Afunction- al complementarity between Dutch and French, Latin and Greek, MM and the local variety of standard Dutch, is the stabilizing factor. Consequently, taking into account the distinction between the two modes of borrowing, from the viewpoint of our theory as proposed in its completed version (2000), the grammatical transfers from standard Dutch to the MM variety of the Maastricht dialect do not pose any problem and can be readily explained.

8.5. BILINGUALISM Yet, there is a difference between Dutch vs. French and Latin vs. Greek, on the one hand, and the Maastricht (MM) dialect vs. the local variety of standard Dutch, on the other. This difference, one of degree, results from a distinction in the type of bilingualism involved, a restricted (sociolectal) vs. a communal one. (i) The case of Dutch vs. French and Latin vs. Greek concerns a sociolectal extension used by a restricted group or an elite class of RL speakers, an extension that constitutes an area of transition and co-occurrence of RL agentivity, SL agentivity and neutralization. We nonetheless go on speaking of borrowing here, because the contact situation of the entire community is that of borrowing, and the users of the sociolect remain very much part of that community. What prevails here is what we have called sociolectal bilingualism (Van Coetsem 2000:83), which may be to an important degree symmetrical bilingualism, the bilingual showing a comparable fluency in his two languages. To be further noted is that the Limburgic variety of standard Dutch may quite naturally reflect usages of that standard, including sociolectal ones.

- 91 - F. VAN COETSEM

(ii) The case of the Maastricht dialect (MM) vs. the local variety of standard Dutch refers rather to a major section of RL speakers than to an actual restricted sociolect as the language of an elite class of these speakers. In MM dialect vs. the local variety of standard Dutch, there is bilingualism but not necessarily symmetrical bilingualism. It is what we have called communal bilingualism (Van Coetsem, loc. cit.)(20). In this sense the Maastricht dialect displays its own form of the extended mode of borrowing. My Dutch (Flemish) home town idiom, the Geraardsbergen dialect, shows a comparable situation in its contact with French. Here again the extended mode of borrowing is applied and based on a form of communal bilingualism. Indeed, the Geraardsbergen dialect has borrowed some phonemes from French, as I discuss in my monograph of 2000, p. 164-5. (iii) The above suggests that the bilingual is the one who most naturally will apply imitation, and this is certainly the case. But it is not exceptional that monolinguals of the community, being regularly confronted with the other language, follow the imitating example of the bilingual.

9. The regular mode of borrowing in English

We have seen (chapter 8, section 2) that the distinction between the two modes of borrowing is mainly based on the fact that in the regular mode of borrowing the prevailing operation is adaptation, while in the extended mode of borrowing the prevalent operation is imitation; in regular borrowing mainly lexical material is transferred, in extended borrowing lexical material, but also grammatical and phonological material is transferred. We also have found that English generally does not resort to the extended mode of borrowing, and in the main applies adaptation, not imitation (Van Coetsem 2000: 218-22). The question of the mode of borrowing of English can be ap- proached from another angle. In chapter 1, section 3.1, diagram (6c), we argued that the patterning in the syntagmatic dimension, i.e., of elements that exist in the language, have a median stability. On the other hand, the paradigmatic dimension concerns the introduction of new elements into the language; new nonlexical elements offer strong resistance to transfer and are maximally stable. The difference of stability between the syntagmatic and

(20) In my monograph of 2000, p. 217, footnote 1, I state that neutralization prevails "in the contact between the cultivated variety of the Maastricht dialect and the regional variety of standard Dutch". Although neutralization will occur here, it does not seem to be the prevalent transfer type. The problem is that bilingualism in whatever form it occurs refers to gradients.

- 92 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

paradigmatic axes is entirely understandable. Introducing a new element is a primary event, giving it a distribution is a secondary one. This difference is generally recognizable in contact linguistics. In the case of Middle English borrowing from (Norman) French and Latin*, segmental changes do not concern new elements but the redistribution of existing elements. Middle English had v in intervocalic position (e.g., seven), not in anlaut position, but introduced v in that position under influence of French (e.g., virtue). Similarly, Middle English did not modify the paradigmatic nature of its accentuation (dominant accent type), as the ongoing segmental reduction attests to, but changed its syntagmatic patterning, i.e., from initial to various forms of noninitial accent patterning (e.g., pro'claim, procla'ma- tion). The syntagmatic patterning itself is influenced by a number of factors or a combination of such factors, such as frequency, and also correlates with certain forms (e.g., -tion requires the accent prominence to be on the previous syllable). Everything concurs in showing that English generally applies the regular mode of borrowing and in that process does not proceed beyond the syntagmatic level. (i) Let us first consider Middle English. Referring for details to the work of Price (1984), I conclude in my monograph of 2000 (p. 284-5): "If there was at a certain time a class of speakers of Middle English who were symmetrical bilinguals and cultivated the imitation of French, such speakers could have used a sociolect. The ... regression of the knowledge of French and the latter's ultimate demise in Medieval England reveals the decline and loss of the social dominance of that language. With it, a possible French-imitating Middle English sociolect of a select group of speakers would have gone out of style. Where then French and the French-imitating usage of a minority fail- ed, Middle English, as the language of the majority of the English speakers took over, and with it, these speakers' English-adapted forms of the borrowed French material became the regular usage, which represents the regular mode of borrowing." (ii) As far as modern English is concerned, its preference for adaptation can be related to its strong social dominance and international status.

Thus, in both Middle English and modern English we end up with a clear prevalence of adaptation, which, however, may be determined by different causal factors in Middle English and modern English.

(*) The author's text read: "In the borrowing contact of Middle English from (Norman) French and Latin".[Eds.]

- 93 - F. VAN COETSEM

Yet, one wonders whether there could be a common underlying factor to the prevalence of adaptation in both Middle English and modern English. With the extended mode of borrowing the German and Dutch imitation of French, as well as the Latin imitation of Greek respond to a fashion and reflect a language-cultural concern in the RL speaker. For example, a northern Dutch speaker will pronounce [kc:r] in the French way (imitation) in studentencorps 'student union', while in the general language the same word is pronounced [kcrps] (adaptation) in brandweerkorps 'fire brigade'. In the case of German and Dutch, the model language, French, was itself in the 15th and 16th century strongly characterized by a pervasive lexical imitation of Latin. However, Cohen (1947:147) states this: "Le français était de plus en plus répandu en France pour divers usages ...; le français gag- nait diverses positions réservées précédemment au latin. Mais, au même moment, le latin a pris une espèce de revanche sur le français, en envahissant la langue victorieuse." And this lexical imitation was in turn implemented through phonological adaptation, because Latin was, just like now, pronounced in the French way, as Cohen, p. 148 notes: "Le latin ... était ... rapproché du français par le fait que la tradition de la prononciation latine était complè- tement perdue. Ainsi, on prononçait c comme s devant i, e ..." Consequently, in French and English, adaptation was the prevailing operation and both languages applied the regular mode of borrowing (Van Coetsem 2000:218-22). However, the modalities in which adaptation occurred were quite different in each of these languages. While normativeness (pre- scriptiveness) was a strongly guiding principle in French and was supported by the authoritarian stance of the Académie française, it was hardly operative in English. Wardhaugh (1987:143) has rightfully emphasized this important attitudinal distinction between French and English. As far as English is concerned, he states: "There has never been the same concern for purity and cor- rectness (as in French). There has never been an academy looking over the shoulders of those who have taken English to the far reaches of the world. There has never been any feeling that English is a particularly fine language that somehow must be protected at all costs. English is to be used. If it gets changed in use, then that is generally accepted as the price one must pay." Indeed, English in general reflects a more liberal, less normative attitude than French and it does not clearly reveal a language-cultural concern that promotes the occurrence of fashion and imitation. This liberal attitude could be the underlying factor to the prevailing adaptation in both Middle English and modern English.

- 94 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

References

ANTTILA, R. (1972). An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan/London: Collier Macmillan. BACH, A. (19502). Deutsche Mundartforschung. Ihre Wege, Ergebnisse und Aufgaben. Heidelberg: Winter. BAKER, C. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Clevedon / Philadelphia / Adelaide: Multilingual Matters LTD. BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY, J. (1972 ). A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology. The Beginnings of Structural Linguistics. Edited by E. Stankiewicz. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. BEC, P. (1963). La langue occitane. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. BICKERTON, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. BIRNBAUM, H. (1967). "Syntagmatische und paradigmatische Phonologie." In: J. Hamm, O. Back, G. Neweklowsky (eds.). Phonologie der Gegenwart. Vorträge und Diskussionen anläßlich der Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung in Wien 30. VIII. – 3. IX. 1966, 307-52. Graz-Wien- Köln: Böhlau. BLOOMFIELD, L. (1933). Language. New York, etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. BOURCIEZ, E. (19378). Précis historique de phonétique française. Paris: Klincksieck. BOURCIEZ, E. (19464). Éléments de linguistique Romane. Paris: Klincksieck. BRAUNE, W. (198714). Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. BUFFINGTON, A.F. (1939). "Pennsylvania German. Its Relation to other German Dialects." American Speech 14:276-86. BURNEY, P. (1962). Les langues internationales. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. COHEN, M. (1947). Histoire d’une langue: Le français. Paris: Éditions hier et aujourd’hui. COHEN, M. (1971). Matériaux pour une sociologie du langage. I, II. Paris: François Maspero. COLLITZ, H. (1901). "The Home of the Heliand." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 16:123-40. FERGUSON, C.F. (1964). "Diglossia." In: Hymes, D. (ed.). Language in Culture and Society. A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology 429-39. New York: Harper & Row. [First published in 1959 in: Word 15:325-40. Also published in: Giglioli 1979:232-51.] FÖGEN, T. (2000). "Sprachbewußtsein in der römischen Antike: Ciceros Stellungnahme zum Problem der patrii sermonis egestas." In: S. Deminger, T. Fögen, J. Scharloth, S. Zwickl (eds.). Einstellungsforschung in der Soziolinguistik und Nachbardisziplinen. Studies in Language Attitudes 13-39. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang.

- 95 - F. VAN COETSEM

FRINGS, T. (1939). "Germanisch o und e." Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 63:1-116. GIGLIOLI, P.P. (ed.) (1979). Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. GOORHUIS, S.M., A.M. SCHAERLAEKENS (19973). Handboek taal- ontwikkeling, taalpathologie en taaltherapie bij Nederlandssprekende kinderen. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom. GOOSSENS, J. (1969). Strukturelle Sprachgeographie. Eine Einführung in Methodik und Ergebnisse. Heidelberg: Winter. GOOSSENS. J. (1992). "Dialecten in het centrale Zuidnederlandse steden- netwerk." Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 5:29-47. Also in: J. Goossens (2000). Ausgewählte Schriften zur niederländischen und deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 103-21. Edited by H. Eickmans, L. Geeraedts, R. Peters. Münster/New York: Waxmann. GREVISSE, M. (19617). Le bon usage: grammaire française avec des remarques sur la langue française d'aujourd'hui. Gembloux: Duculot / Paris: Geuthner. GROOTAERS, L. (1953). “Het Nederlands substraat van het Brussels-Frans klanksysteem.” De Nieuwe Taalgids (Vooys voor De Vooys) 46:38-41. GUMPERZ, J. (1979). "The Speech Community." In: Giglioli 1979:219-31. Published earlier in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1968:381-6). HBGERSTRAND, T. (1967). Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HALL, R. (1964). Introductory Linguistics. Philadelphia/New York: Chilton Books. HAUGEN, E. (1969 [1953]). The Norwegian Language in America. Vol. I. The Bilingual Community. Vol. II. The American Dialects of Norwegian. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. HAUGEN, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and language planning: Problems and pleasures. Berlin: de Gruyter. HINSKENS, F. (1996). Dialect Levelling in Limburg. Structural and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Tübingen: Niemeyer. HJELMSLEV, L. (1935). La catégorie des cas. Études de grammaire générale. Première partie. Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet, 7. HOCKETT, C.F. (1954). "Two Models of Grammatical Description." Word 10:211-34. HOCKETT, C.F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. HOCKETT, C.F. (1963). "The Problem of Universals in Language." In: J.H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language 1-22. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. HOCKETT, C.F. (1973). Man's Place in Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill.

- 96 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

HORVÁTH JANDA, E. (1976). "English Hungarian and Hungarian English. Language Interference Phenomena in Chicago." In: P.A. Reich (ed.). The Second Lacus Forum 1975 590-95. Columbia, South Carolina: Hornbeam Press. HUDSON, R.A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JAKOBSON, R. (1990). On Language. Edited by L.R. Waugh, M. Monville- Burston. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press JAKOBSON, R., L.R. Waugh (1979). The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. The first part of ch. IV, under the title "The Spell of Speech Sound", also in: Jakobson 1990: 422-47. JESPERSEN, O. (1964 [1921]). Language. Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York: Norton. KLOEKE, G.G. (1927). De Hollandse expansie in de zestiende en zeventien- de eeuw en haar weerspiegeling in de hedendaagsche Nederlandsche dialecten. Proeve eener historisch-dialectgeografische synthese. 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. KLUCKHOHN, C. (1949). Mirror for Man. The Relation of Anthropology to Modern Life. New York, Toronto: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill. LEES, R.L. (1980). "Language and the Genetic Code." In: I. Rauch, G.F. Carr (eds.). The Signifying Animal. The Grammar of Language and Experience 218-26. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. LEGROS, E. (1942). "Le Nord de la Gaule romane." Bulletin de la Commission Royale de Toponymie & Dialectologie 16:161-228. LERCHNER, G. (1992). "Dialekt und Standardsprache: Die historische Entwicklung im ostdeutschen Raum." In: J.A. Van Leuvensteijn, J.B. Berns (eds.). Dialect and Standard Language 204-20. Amsterdam/ Oxford/New York/Tokyo: North-Holland. LEVIN, J.F. (1999). "The Sign is still not Arbirary! Some Semiotic Principles of Language Origin. " In: F.G. Carr, W. Harbert, L. Zhang (eds.). Interdigitations. Essays for Irmengard Rauch 519-28. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang. LÜHR, R. (1982). Studien zur Sprache des Hildebrandliedes. Teil I: Herkunft und Sprache. Teil II: Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main, Bern: Peter Lang. MALKIEL, Y. (1968). "The Inflectional Paradigm as an Occasional Determinant of Sound Change." In: W.P. Lehmann, Y. Malkiel (eds.). Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposion 21-64. Austin/London: University of Texas Press. MARTINET, A. (1949). "La double articulation linguistique." Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague. Vol. V. Recherches structurales 30-7. MARTINET, A. (1960). Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin. MARTINET, A. (1962). A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- 97 - F. VAN COETSEM

MEILLET, A. (1926 [1911]). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. MEILLET, A. (19648 [1937]). Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. MILLER, G.A. (19632). Language and Communication. New York/ Toronto/London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. MUYSKEN, P. (1981). "Halfway between Quechua and Spanish. The Case for Relexification." In: A. Highfield, A. Valdman (eds.). Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies 52-78. Ann Arbor: Karoma. PASCH, H. (1993). "Phonological Similarities between Sango and its Base Language." In: S. Mufwene, L. Moshi (eds.). Topics in African Linguistics 279-92. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. PAUL, H. (19667 [19205]). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer. PEI, M. (19764). The Story of Latin and the Romance Languages. New York: Harper & Row. PINKER, S. (1999). Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group. PRICE, G. (1984). The Languages of Britain. London: Arnold. RAUCH, I. (1967). The Old High German Diphthongization. The Hague/ Paris: Mouton. RÉVÉSZ, G. (1950). Origine et préhistoire du langage. Paris: Payot. SAPIR, E. (1949 [1921]). Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. SAPIR, E. (1961). Culture, Language and Personality. Selected Essays Edited by D.G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. SAUSSURE, F. de. (19555). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. SEBEOK, T.A. (1977). "Zoosemiotic Components of Human Communication." In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.). How Animals Communicate :1055-77.Bloomington/London: Indiana: University Press. SMITS, C. (1996). Disintegration of Inflection. The Case of Iowa Dutch. Ph.D. Dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam (Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics). SMITS, C. (1999). "Working Class Maastricht versus Middle Class Maastricht; in Search for a Theoretical Framework." Leuvense Bijdragen 88:453-76. TRNKA, B. (1964). "On the Linguistic Sign and the Multilevel Organization of Language." Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague. 1. L'école de Prague d'aujourd'hui 22-40. VAN COETSEM, F. (1975). "Generality in Language Change. The Case of the Old High German Vowel Shift." Lingua 35:1-34. VAN COETSEM, F. (1988). Loan Phonology and the two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht, Holland/Providence, RI: Foris.

- 98 - Leuvense Bijdragen 92 (2003)

VAN COETSEM, F. (1990). "Grimm's Law: A Reappraisal of Grimm's Formulation from a Present-Day Perspective." In: E.H. Antonsen, J.W. Marchand, L. Zgusta (eds.). The Grimm Brothers and the Germanic Past 43-59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. VAN COETSEM, F. (1993). "The Old High German Vowel Shift Anew." Leuvense Bijdragen 82:289-304. VAN COETSEM, F. (1994). The Vocalism of the Germanic Parent Language. Systemic Evolution and Sociohistorical Context. Heidelberg: Winter. VAN COETSEM, F. (1996). Towards a Typology of Lexical Accent. 'Stress Accent' and 'Pitch Accent' in a Renewed Perspective. Heidelberg: Winter. VAN COETSEM, F. (2000). A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter. VAN COETSEM, F., A.F. Buccini (1990). "Variation and Reconditioning of Phonological Rules." Lingua 81:169-220. VAN DER KOLK, H. (1967). Das Hildebrandlied. Eine forschungsgeschicht- liche Darstellung. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.) Amsterdam: Scheltema & Hoekema. VENDRYES, J. (1945). Traité d' accentuation grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. VIDOS, B.E. (1959). Manuale di Linguistica Romanza (translated from Dutch by G. Francescato). Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. WATERMAN, J.T. (1966). A History of the German Language. Seattle/London: University of Washington Press. WARDHAUGH, R. (1987). Languages in Competition. Dominance, Diversity and Decline. Oxford: Blackwell, London: Deutsch. WAUGH, L.R., M. MONVILLE-BURSTON. (1990). "Introduction: The Life, Work, and Influence of Roman Jakobson." In: Jakobson 1990:1-45. WEINREICH, U. (1953, photomechanical offprint 1963). Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. WHATMOUGH, J. (1957). Language. A Modern Synthesis. New York: The New American Library.

- 99 -