Mededeling Van De Redactie
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 But it could not be published as it was.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 organ- ized 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 typi- cal 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 empha- sized 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 lan- guages 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 orig- inates 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 lan- guage of Kjaxta and Majmahina on the Siberian-Chinese border ..