A UNIFYING PERSPECTIVE FOR

LANGUAGE CONTACT PHENOMENA

LEO LOVEDAY

1.0. Language contact as a field of study

Language contact (henceforth LC) exists in most countries of the

contemporary world1 and is observable throughQut recorded history2 The

term LC, as employed here, covers an extremely broad range of phenomena

all of which relate to the direct and indirect influences of languages on each

other.

These influences of one or more languages on each other may be on any or

all linguistic levels and also extend beyond these to discourse and

interaction.

The terms "LC' and "language transfer' are employed here because they do

not imply any normative judgements concerning the purity or legitimacy of

the linguistic results of contact nor suggest any degree of integration into a

language during or after contact. Furthermore, the term "LC' indicates no

particular source or type of influence and ascribes no volition on the part of

speakers which other terms such as mixing or borrowing might.

The subject of LC has long been considered as peripheral to the discipline

of linguistics which has devoted its attention to the idealization of already

standardized varieties within a prescriptivist and scriptist paradigm3. The

contact varieties of second language learners and bilingual communities

were ignored because of their imputed deviancy until only about two decades

ago. The linguist's neglect of these phenomena is attributable to a negative

folk ideology toward Le. However, these academic attitudes have recently

(111J

112

undergone reVlSlOn III accord with a more liberal Zeitgeist.

Many different processes and types of LC have been studied without their

integration into a single, general theory e.g. areal features, borrowing,

code-switching, pidginization and interlanguage, to name but a few. This

neglect of LC is also the consequence of the domination of a monolingual

orientation that viewed LC as essentailly "aberrant". This article sets out to

present a unifying framework for understanding and analyzing these Le

phenomena from a sociolinguistic position.

The subject of LC has been approached from many diverse and unrelated

perspectives including historical linguistics, language typology, pidgin and

creole studies, second language acquisition, dialectology, sociology, anthro­

pology and psycholinguistics. However, the approach of researchers has

been fragmented with no generally accepted set of terminology employed

and with hardly any attempts to search for universals.

Of course, it is impossible to provide a full review of LC research here; in

fact, various works have recently appeared which offer clear, comprehensive

overviews and reflect a growing concern for the significance of this topic

cf.Apple & Muysken (1987); Lehiste (1988), and making important

innovative theoretical contributions, Nelde (1983); Clyne (1984); Nelde

et.al.(1986) and Thomason & Kaufman (1988).

Ironically enough, it was during the emergence of the discipline of modern

linguistics at the end of the last century that the subject of language contact

received serious attention under the name of "Sprachmischung" (Hermann,

1866) and "Language mixture" (Whitney, 1881). However, it was not until

the publication by U riel Weinreich of "Language in Contact" iri 1953 that

LC was recognized as a disciplinary concern in this centruy. In fact the

theorectical foundations and metalinguistic distinctions established by

Weinreich continue to exert a strong influence in the field. The latter

seminal work offers an exhaustive survey of LC literature up until its

113

publication together with a rigorous structural analysis and discussion of

major sociological factors contributing to LC.

The most traditional paradigm in LC study has been to collect data,

usually restricted to borrowed lexical items in order to portray a particular

episode of cultural history. Most analyses consist of case studies of the

structural consequences of LC on a particular language. It should be pointed

out that hardly any researchers have empirically investigated the sociocultu­

ral context of Le.

There now follows a brief survey of the major concepts and terminology

fundamental to LC, with particular attention paid to the sociolinguistic and

cultural dimensions. This is then synthesized into a unifying framework that

aims at allowing for predictability of LC phenomena according to a

characterization of the social setting in which the LC takes place.

1.1.Areal linguistics

In the fields of comparative and typological linguistics LC has been

investigated under the concept of Sprachbund which was first proposed by

Trubetzkoy (1928). Instead of genetically inheriting components from a

common ancestor tongue, certain languages acquire "areal features' as a

result of contact through physical proximity. Languages sharing such areal

features have been postulated all over the world e.g: tone in Chinese, Thai

and Vietnamese (Henderson, 1965); clicks in Bantu languages (Guthrie,

1967); morpho-syntactic similarities in Modern Greek, Albanian, Romanian

and Bulgarian (Trudgill, 1974). However, according to Hartmann (1980:24)

such studies are deficient due to "their reliance on no more than a handful of

isolated phonological and lexical items ... without considering the whole of

language in its natural context".

114

1.2. Interference

The analysis of areal features generally has to do with the transfer of

elements from one language to another. Transfer is also involved in the

proeess of interference4 but the point here is not the shared nature of feature

due to geographic bordering but the alteration and transformation of a

language adopting features from another. Interference can exist on a

community-wide basis or be simply limited to the individual.

Weinreich defines interference as "those instances of deviation from the

norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result

of their similarity with more than one language"(1953:1). Thus, interference

refers to the transfer of elements from either of the languages in contact

which are marked as "deviant' in contrast to the "purer', source items.

Winreich offers a systematic classification of "phonic", grammatical and

lexical interference pointing to their structural causes deriving from

contrasts between the two languages. Interference is seen as stemming from

cases where certain features are more differentiated in one language than the

other or completely lacking in one of them. When two languages come into

contact, Weinreich claims, there is a dominance relationship where a "lower'

language borrows predominantly from an upper one. Although the possibil­

ity of grammatical interference was long doubted, Weinreich provided

evidence of its existence.

However, the term "interference" does not cover the subsequent integra­

tion, adaption and community acceptance which may take place after initial

transfer. Thus, the term "interference' characteristically applies to unstable,

temporary Le phenomena which, although possibly fixed through habitual

use, have not yet undergone societal institutionalization, even if widespread

among a (minority) bilingual community.

115

1.3. Interlanguage

From the 50's onwards, bilingualism has become a topic of intensive

research and a vast literature now exists on the subject. Weinreich's study

led to the assumption that interference could be associated with all fore~n

language learning and was drawn upon to explain second language

(henceforth L2) learning problems and error cf. Robert Lado in his

"Linguistics Across Cultures" (1957) who established the field of contras­

tive analysis with his assertion that areas of L2 learning difficulty could be

predicted by systematically comparing linguistic features. The study of

interference stimulated intensive interest in L2 error in general, eventually

discrediting the interference hypothesis as the sole explanation of L2

error13.

Many terms have, in fact, vied with each other to describe L2 phenomena

which do not conform to native norms. For example, Nemser (1971) calls

second languages which have not reached the stage of absolute nativeness

and are neither the variety of a social group nor the ideolectof an individual

but which contain the conventions of both an approximative system while

Corder (1971) introduces the term idiosyncratic dialect. On the other hand, both

Richards (1972) and Selinker (1972) employ the term interlanguagewhich has

gained the widest currency cf. Davies et.al. (1984). However, these insights

have been restricted to pedagogically oriented applied linguistics and not

extended to general "contact linguistics', as the field is now coming to be

referred to.

1.4. Borrowing

It is important to understand that borrowing and interference are not

synonymous since borrowing is generally understood as applying only to LC

on the lexical level. Furthermore, borrowing may occur where no community

116

knowledge of an L2 exists, although a minimum of oral, aural or written

contact with a medium of the L2 (not necessarily native) must be ultimately

responsible for the initiation of the loan. The most authoritative account of

the structural aspects. of borrowing so far is that of Haugen (1950,1952) for

whom borro~ing is "the attempted reproduction in one language of patterns

previously found in another"(ibid, 1950:212)5.

The main problem ~ith the misnomer "borrowing' (the "borrowed' items

are never "returned') is that it can refer to both LC process and product.

Borrowing also seems to imply a temporally limited activity but some

languages may be transferring items permanently e.g. Japanese millen­

nia-long contact with Chinese. Additionally, the term also suggests a

consciousness or volition on the part of those involved in the contact which

need not be present in every case.

The term "borrowing' does not usually refer to syntactic and phonological

transfer and is rarely employed for indirect influences such as the transfer of

stylistic features or discourse patterns, nor to innovatory varieties resulting

from contact. N everthless it is a widely adopted and convenient general term

which is most often taken as referring to the transfer and integration of

lexemes from one language into another, including the subsequent modifica­

tion and/or hybridization of the latter.

1.5. Le in sociolinguistic perspective

The majority or LC research has been conducted with hardly any proper

consideration of the sociocultural factors involved in Le. Weinreich, with

exceptionally advanced perception devoted two chapters to the discussion of

matters such as the size and openness of the speech-community involved in

the contact, the number of bilinguals, the duration of LC, the situations in

which the contacting groups interact, the degree of reciprocal proficiency in

each group's language, the method of L2 acquisition, the status and social

117

acceptance of the linguistic groups 1ll relation to each other as well as

attitudes towards Le. Weinreich's comment on the daunting task of

analyzing the interrelations and dynamics of these variables is still valid 30

years later: "To ascertain how the various factors may best be grouped and

studied is a formidable sociolinguistic research problem in itself". For

Weinreich, the ultimate goal of studying Le was "to predict typical forms

of interference from the the sociolinguistic description of a bilingual

community and a structural description of its languages"(ibid., p.86).

However, the theoretical and methodological foundations which would

permit such sociologically based predictions are still to be built cf. Hymes

(1984:44).

Furthermore, Le researchers have wrongly restricted their focus to the

results but not the social behaviour which accounts for the language change

cf. Fishman (1968:fn.30) who has severely attacked the lack of consideration

of social variation in Le: "the laundry lists of examples of phonetic,

grammatical, lexical and semantic interference that have been published are

sociolinguistically quite worthless and misleading." Sjolin (1980:271)

bemoans the definitive status of Haugen's and Weinreich's contributions and

notes that "a perusal of some of the more recent handbooks and works of

reference will reveal that the monolithic "languages-in-contact" model as

criticized by Fishman back in 1968 still prevails and that the notion of

interference is still as undifferentiated and contradictory as 25 years ago".

Thus, although the majority of Le research is still conducted within a

structuralist framework, a sociolinguistic perspective is increasingly recog­

nized as the only meaningful approach to the phenomenon. Below are

presented certain sociolinguistic insights mainly deriving from case-studies

which appear generally valid for many Le situations. However, only a brief

review is possible here.

118

1.5.1. BI-AND MULTILINGUAL COMMUNITIES AS LC SETTINGS

A complete review of the extensive sociolinguistic material on bi-and

multilingual communities is far beyond the scope of this section and neither

are the findings from this field all directly relevant to the present study. (The

term "bilingual' should henceforth be understood as denoting both "biling­

ual' or "multilingual').

Bilingualism should not be confused with LC since it is possible, although

rare outside classroom L2 acquisition, that speakers may employ two

languages without either influencing the other and, of course, LC may refer

to cases where items from a donor language are employed without the user

having any knowledge of that donor language e.g. the Japanese-derived

loans in English such as typhoon and tycoon.

No precise definition of bilingualism is as yet available since there exists

extreme heterogeneity in the level of proficiency, nature of acquisition and

social background of bilinguals. Various classifications have been proposed;

the most common distinction, the validity of which has since been heavily

attacked, is the separation between compound and coordinate bilingualism. The

former type of bilingual has compounded or fused his two language systems

with the result that constant recourse to either is possible while the latter

possesses two completely independent and mutually exclusive language

systems which do not allow for cross-referencing cf. Diller (1970),

Macnamara (1970) and McCormack (1977). To~ay there is a less idealistic

conception of a bilingual as someone who can function with a degree of

efficiency in two language worlds but is not necessarily fluent cf. Segalowitz

and Gatbonton (1977).

Over the last decade many predominantly descriptive studies concentrat­

ing on individual case-studies and applying a sociolinguistic perspective to

119

the study of LC in bilingual communities have been published, beginning

with Fishman's (1978) pioneering "Advances in the Study of Societal

Multilingualism" cf. Meisel (1977), Mackey & Ornstein (1979), Werner

(1980), Caudmont (1982), Coulmas (1984), Nelde (1980,1983,1986), Wolson

and Manes (1985), Dow (1987), Mac Eoin et. al.(1987), Robins & Uhlenbeck

(1991), Fase et.al.(1992) and Jahr (1992). Relevant points from this work

will now be briefly presented.

1.5.1.1. Language shift

The term "language shift' refers to the instability of language in a bilingual

community and the social factors involved in the retention or abandonment

of a community's indigenous language. Language shift is a response to

social change and is most often observed among minority language groups

ceding to dominant speech communities, such as immigrants or displaced

aboriginal communities. Other social causes uncovered include migration,

the rapid expansion of mass education in a non-native language, moderniza­

tion, religion and ingroup ideology but vary considerably depending on the

situation. It seems that the shift can be and often is completed within three

generations as each generation succesively orientates itself to the dominant

linguistic group.

1.5.1.2. Diglossia plus bilingualism and bilingualism mznus diglossia

Diglossia, according to Ferguson's (1959) original definition, referes to

cases where structurally and historically related varieties of the same

language are socially categorized into High and Low due to their

hierarchical, functional allocation. The High (H) variety is associated with

formal and public communication, tending to be a prestigious, codified,

superposed variety used for a respected body of literature, learned through

formal education and with a grammar, phonology and lexicon differentianted

120

from the low (L) variety. Fishman (1971) controversially extended the

concept to any society using two or more varieties, even where these are

separate and even unrelated languages with four binary possibilities of the

relationship between diglossia and bilingualism6. Of interest here are

particularly the setting of (i) diglossia plus bilingualism and (ii) bilingualism

minus diglossia because of the LC phenomena they produce such as

interference, borrowing, code-switching, code-mixing, convergence, pidgi­

nization and decreolization. Thus, when bilingual diglossia begins to break

down, presaging a transition to the "minus diglossia' setting, it is possible for

new varieties which constitute a fusing of the separated Hand L to emerge7

e.g. in Tanzaina, Swahili is taking over functions previously reserved for

English and speakers transfer many lexical items and longer phrasal units

from English into Swahili (Fasold, 1984:56).

Bilingualism minus diglossia refers to "circumstances of rapid social

change, of great social unrest, of widespread abandonment of prior norms

before the consolidation of new ones. Children typically become bilingual at

a very early age, when they are still largely confined to home and

neighborhood, since their elders (both adults and school-aged) carry into the

domains of intimacy a language learned outside its confines. Formal

institutions tend to render individuals increasingly monolingual in a

language other than that of hearth and home. Ultimately the language of

school and government replaces the language of home and neighbourhood

precisely because it provides status in the later domains as well" (ibid.p.83).

Thus, this setting corresponds closely to the early stage of language shift

and tends to be found in immigrant communities but also previously stable

bilingual settings cf. Verdoodt (1972).

1.5.1.3. Code-switching

Sociolinguistic research into bi - and multilingual communities has also

121

led to the study of code-switching which has been identified with:

(i) the employment of different varieties either within the same stretch of

discourse (intersententially and/or intrasententially) known as "metaphoric­

al' (Blom and Gumperz 1972) or "conversational' code-swithing8 cf.

Gumperz (1982).

(ii) the reservation of distinct varieties for separate situations or "domains'

such as home, school or work which sometimes may be diglosslc.

Code-switching in general has been shown to serve multiple functions9

and in seeking to explain its causes, sociolinguists have turned to

sociopsychological notions of speaker strategies and intentions as well as

stylistic and rhetorical concepts. In some cases the motivating factor appears

to be "trigger words" cf. Clyne (1967,1978). However, Sankoff (1971) warns

against a "predictive approach" for, although variables such as participants,

topic, context, channel, message form, mood, tone and intentions may each

motivate switching, certain cases seems to defy explanation. On the other

hand, Gumperz (1982:70) disputes the arbitrariness of code-switching,

declaring th~t "if members can agree on interpretations of switching in

context and on categorizing others on the basis of their switching, there must

be some regularities and shared perceptions on which these judgements can

be based" which are not to be found on a grammatical level but on a stylistic

or metaphorical basis.

The distinction between code-switching and interference seems to lie in the

speaker's ability to control the degree of transfer between the languages in

contact so that interference is seen as resulting from competence and

performance deficiencies in the L21O. Borrowing, on the other hand, is

generally more. stable and systematizable but less idiosyncratic than

code- switchingll , but all these terms are more "squishy" than discrete 12 The

foreignness of the transferred element or its degree of assimilation appears as

the decisive criterion for distringuishing between code-switching and

122

borrowing cf. Pfaff (1979) who claims that borrowing occurs in the speech of

those with only monolingual competence, while code-switching implies

some degree of competence in two languages.

1.5.1.4. Code-mixing

The difference between code-switching and code-mixing IS far from

straightforward, for many linguists apply either or both terms to refer to

similiar phenomena resulting in considerable blurring of these potentially

useful concepts l3. In one of the few detailed discussions on the matter,

Kachru (1978: 1 07 -8) separates the two devices by stating that

"code-switching entails the ability to switch from code A to code B ... it

refers to categorization of one's verbal repertoire in terms of functions and

roles ... for various types of effects", while "code-mixing, on the other hand,

entails transferring linguistic units from one code into another. Such a

transfer (mixing) results in developing a new restricted or not so restricted code of

linguistic variation. One may consider code-switching a process which can

result in code-mixed varieties" (my emphasis).

Thus, code-mixing can be understood as those cases where code-switch­

ing has led to the emergence of a stabilized, institutionalized variety in

which the transferred elements have reached a stage of considerable

linguistic integration and community recognition as a particular speech-­

style-often bearing a specific name usually with a negative connotation;

such varieties are seen as symbolizing special aspects of speaker identity14.

One fundamental problem is whether considerable lexical borowing alone

constitutes code-mixing. For Kachru (1978:115-6) code-mixing is different

from borrowing in that the former involves "extended borrowing' which is

not only the filling of lexical gaps but the transfer on a "higher level" than

s.ingle lexical items. Kachru (1978) assigns four functions to code-mixing as

a communicative strategy with particular reference to Hindi code-mixing

123

with English, Sanskrit and Persian elements: (i) register identification15 (ii)

formal cues for style identification16 (iii) as a device for elucidation and

interpretation where two linguistic sources are used to redefine each other

(especially necessary where terminologies have not yet stablilized) and (iv)

neutralization where attitudinally and contextually neutral lexical items can

conceal social or regional identities and reduce formality.

1.5.1.5. Convergence

The subject of linguistic convergence has received extremely mlllor

attention. In some ways the phenomenon resembles the contact process'

involved in the spread of areal features but the intensity is much greater. The

term refers to the reproduction of the system-related features of another

language on all linguistic levels without necessarily involving lexical

transfer. Borrowing is not the key characteristic of this phenomenon which

ultimately aims at attaining structural parity between the two systems in

contact17.

1.5.1.6. Nativization

Le varieties are rarely invested with status during their crystallization.

Accordingly, considerable controversy surrounds the acceptance of nonna­

tive, ex-colonial English varieties 18 employed in multilingual communities

for internal purposes often diglossically cf. Smith (1981); Kachru

(1982a,1985,1986); Platt, Weber & Lian (1984). Although the term

nativization has been confusingly applied to every type of divergence from

native norms in local varieties 19, it is employed here only in the sense of

creative and innovative (lexical) patterns based on L2 resources different

from native usage.

124

1.5.1.7. Pidginization and decreolization20

Linguistic varieties known as pidgins and creoles owe their very existence

to language contact since pidgins arise when the languages of two groups are

not mutually intelligible and there is some limited need for communication

resulting in a reduced, simplified hybrid variety; they can be observed on

almost every continent21. Pidgins typically take the lexis of a dominant

group and the structure and phonology of a subordinate one, functioning

only as an auxiliary Pledium to facilitate contact between the two groups;

they are characterized by invariance with a heavy reliance on word order cf.

Hymes (1971b:43) and DeCamp (1971). Creoles, on the other hand, elaborate

and expand the vocabulary and syntactic devices of a pidgin, making it

sufficient for all the communication needs of its speakers who now may

employ it as a native language.

Considerable social and temporal instability marks these contact situa­

tions since they tend to be embedded in settings of social upheaval and

involve the temporary or permanent displacement of communities. Pidgi­

nization refers to the first stage in the making of a pidgin as an improvised

compromise for contact and arises when the input model of the dominant

group is not readily accessible to the learners due to social distance. Many

different LC processes can contribute to pidginization e.g. phonological and

syntactic interference, imperfect learning including simplification

strategies, mutual error reinforcement and the absence of linguistic norma­

tivity.

Decreolization refers to the case where a stable creole comes once more

into contact with its original, main lexifier language and converges with it.

Finally, it should be noted that any pidgin and creole variety may experience

subsequent LC, not only as depidginization and decreolization but also

through interference and convergence cf. Herzfield (1980).

125

1.6. Seeking Le universals

Since Weinreich's (1953) contribution there have been few major

developments in Le theory. However, Thomason and Kaufman (1988) offer

an exciting contribution in their attempt to make predictions about the types

and extent of interference under varying social and linguistic conditions. My

framework set out below, nevertheless was conceived independently before

reading their work an~ I share with them the conclusion that "it is the

sociolinguistic history of the speakers, and not the structure of their

language, that is the primary determinant of the linguistic outcome of

language contact" (ibid.p.34).

Apart from being able to explain the reasons for Le, a general theory

should also recognize aspects common to phenomena which have so far been

separately studied and variously labelled. It would, for example, be

theoretically valuable to identify the similarities in the linguistic phenomena

termed "interference' and "convergence' since both may involve the

phonological, syntactic and/or semantic restructuring of an L1 due to the

influence of an L2. Likewise, the process of restructuring-this time of an

L2 on the basis of an L1-in differently termed phenomena such as

"nativization", "interlanguage", "borrowing", "L2 varieties" and "pidginiza­

tion" also deserves recognition.

The degree of assimilation appears to be a significant factor in the

terminological distinctions where unassimilated items are generally treated

under "interference" and "code-switching" while more normatively inte­

grated types of transfer receive attention under "borrowing". Another

distinguishing criterion is the Rarticipants' consciousness of engaging in Le

whereby code-switching is apparently a more conscious process than

"interference" but less conscious than "borrowing" because it rarely involves

phonological adaptions. Not only the shared theoretical aspects of Le

126

terminology but also their co-occurrence and interrelating dynamics require

greater recognition and this is the purpose of the following section.

1.6.1. A SOCIOLINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY OF LC SETTINGS

-In the study of language contact, what has made any sort of comparison or generalization most difficult is the lack of a common system of reference. Before any general theory can be elaborated, the problem of comparability must be solved -(Mackey, 1983:71).

The reason that no general typology for Le processes in relation to their

sociocultural setting exists is probably due to the problems of formulating

empirical and historical universals for Le phenomena which linguists have

assumed to be more or less random and unsystematizable.

Of course, Le situations are dynamic in that they can alter their

characteristics at any moment in response to social change. Le initiation,

maintenance, reduction and termination depend on a host of apparently

heterogeneous factors which, admittedly, are difficult to codify. However, it

is encouraging to observe how recently linguists are increasingly concerning

themselves with producing evolutionary, cross-societal generalizations

about bi-and multilingual situations.

I wish to now propose a practical and simple typology for all situations of

Le which may serve as a convenient method for comparing and contrasting

Le phenomena in relation to their social settings, thereby allowing for a

measure of predictability and providing a unifying framework.

I shall take the minimum level of the local community or a community­

type network as the unit of reference where appropriate22 The communities

involved in Le are categorized according to their degree of bilingualism i.e.

"no, little or widespread" societal bilingualism, levels which obviously

represent different points on a continuum but more precise specification is

127

obviously not possible as the bilingualism may vary considerably across

community members. Furthermore, the degree of societal bilingualism may

increase, decrease or revert over time in the same way as the amount of Le

can. However, only a general profile of a community during a particular

phase of development is taken as the stage of reference here; the duration of

the Le is not indicated23. Likewise, the motivating causes for Le are not

referred to in the typology as these are fortuitous and depend on a very

particular sociohistorical configuration. Among the diverse factors responsi­

ble for Le can be included the social proximity of a group speaking another

language, military occupation, a superposed religious medium, the institu­

tional teaching of an L2, political affiliation, immigration or economic

activity to list but the most general; these may also occur in combination

with each other. Of course, the extent of community acceptance of or

resistance to Le, although not directly shown in the typology, is evident

from the amount of Le phenomena observable in a certain setting as well as

the degree of bilingualism associated with it.

In Table I a sociolinguistic typology of six archetypal Le settings are

proposed. The table presents my interpretation and synthesis of various data

and arguments24 The Le settings presented here constitute general

"profiles' of the language behaviour of a particular speech communiy. The

typology should be understood as a systematization of patterns to be

expected in certain Le situations. The six settings represent an increasing

level of bilingualism in the contact language (when moving from left to

right). However, particularly in the equal, diglossic and language-shifting

settings, the distribution of bilingual competence may be equally high

among

certain community members. The term "bilingual" in the table is understood

as including multilingualism. The concept of bilingualism today is broad

and includes non-fluent interlanguage states varying in native approxima-

128

tion as well as only passive knowledge of the written language so that the

conception of perfect, native-like proficiency in both languages is recog­

nized as an ideal rarely obtained by most bilinguals.

I LANGUAGE CONTACT SETTING

I MINIMAL' DEGREE OF COMMUNITY L2 ORIENTATION/BILINGUALISM 'MAXIMAL c-

L DISTANT/DOMINANT DISTANT BUT BOUNDED AND EQUAL DlGLOSSIC LANGUAGE-NON-BILINGUAL SUBORDINATE SUBORDINATE BILINGUAL BILINGUAL SHIFTING

C PI! bordering AREAL FEATURES

P INTERFERENCE P P P P P

H INTERLANGUAGE P P P PTEMPORARY P

E BORROWING P SMALL -SCALE pVARIABLE pVARIABLE PMA]OR PMASSIVE

N CODE-SWITCHING P P P P

0 CODE-MIXING P P

M CONVERGENCE P P P pFINAL

PHASE

E NATIVIZATION P P

N PIDGINZATION' p2 P P

A DECREOLIZATION P

TABLE l.A SOCIOLINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY OF LANGUAGE CONTACT SETTINGS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING CONTACT PHENOMENA

The :symbol P indicates that the Le phenomenon has only the potential to occur in this setting and is not obligatory. However, 'P' indicates that the phenomenon is a characteristic tendency frequently associated with such a setting.

( 1) Pidginization may occur in any setting in early phases of L2 ac­quistiton/bilingualism and even in certain cases, become a permanent condition cf. Schumann (1978).

( 2 ) Pidginization in the form of 'foreigner talk' may occur in the dominant non-bilingual setting cf. Valdman (1977).

129

The various LC phenomena listed in Table 1 have all been discussed

above. The contact phenomena for each community will vary in the way they

combine and in their intensity at a particular moment so that, borrowing, for

example, may involve the transfer of ten or one thousand words. N everthe­

less, there is a correlation between the number of loans transferred ie. the

intensity of contact, and the degree of community bilingualism so that the

settings to the right-hand side constitute the most fertile ground for Le.

1.6.1.1. The distant or dominant non-bilingual setting

This refers to the case where, among the members of a particular

community, which may be either monolingual or socially bi-or multiling­

ual, the knowledge and use of one (or more) contact language(s) is not widely

distributed. Although there may well be some individuals familiar with the

contact language(s), they are not representative of the community as a whole

e.g. the knowledge of Japanese among the British. The key characteristics of

such a setting are that the community maintains no community-wide

relations with speakers of the donor language and that it does not socially

require the acquisition of the donor language. Contact in this setting is

usually limited to lexical borrowing which may start, increase, decrease or

terminate during certain periods; indirect contact may also be evident in loan

translations or even stylistic influences.

LC in this setting may be initiated through various channels. First of all, it

may start with individual cases of diffusion into the community but is not

introduced directly through bilingual interaction. The initiating agents may

come from within the recipient community or outsiders familiar with the

donor language with sufficient influence may also instigate the LC in the

recipient community. Other agents may be those who venture beyond the

bounds of their community such as travellers, explorers and temporary

emigrants who bring back LC.

130

A second channel of contact is not directly personal but involves the

transmission of the donor language in oral form via radio, film record, casette

or video and in written form via printed and handwritten material. Mediating

agents, again usually within the recipient community, draw on these sources

and initiate Le. In such cases, these agents need not to have been in direct

contact with L2 community but need to have had access to the L2 via

indirect channels and be in a sufficiently influential position to diffuse LC

phenomena into the recipient community. Thus, these agents tend to be

specialists of various kinds such as journalists, translators, religious,

academic, scientific or technical researchers, innovating artists and crafts­

men. The integration of such LC will depend on the general sociocultural

significance of the items designated by the loans to the community at large.

A clear example of this setting is the case of contemporary English LC

with languages such as Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, German, Hungarian,

Icelandic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Romanian, Serbo-Croatian and

Turkish cf. Filipovic (1982). All these communities are located at

considerable physical distance from the donor source (England and the

USA) and the LC observed has been generally limited to small-scale lexical

borrowing with varying degrees of nativization on phonological and

semantic levels. Of course, it must be pointed out that the acquisition of

English in an institutional context (cf. 1.6.1.2. below) is also a feature of

many of these communities, although the L2 is not employed to fulfil any

internal function.

Another type of distant non-bilingval setting is where the donor language

of contact is employed by a subordinate group within the territory of a

socio-economically and ethnolinguistically superior recipient community,

the majority of whose speakers are ignorant of the donor variety. Typically,

there exists considerable social distance between these contact groups so

that the only form of LC in the dominant non-bilingual community, if any,

131

tends to be lexical borrowing on a limited scale, often for place names, terms

for local fauna and flora and cultural items specific to the subordinate group.

This situation is well exemplified by the LC behaviour evident in the

British Dominions in relation to the vocabulary of indigenous groups such as

Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maoris, Native Americans and Eski­

mos cf. Eagleson (1982:431). A different case which also belongs to this

setting is the English-French LC situation in CaMda where English

speakers have been dominant since the 1840's and "it is difficult to identify

many borrowings or significant influences from the French of Canada that

have entered since the mid-19th century" (Bailey, 1982:166). Further back in

history is the case of the extremely few Celtic loans in Old English, due to

the social distance between the conquering Germanic tribes and the enslaved

Romanized Celts. Thus, in a dominant non-bilingual setting, LC phenomena

other than small-scale lexical borrowing are rare. The principal characteris­

tic of the distant non-bilingual setting is the unfamiliarity of the donor

language in the recipient community.

1.6.1.2. The distant but institutional setting

Similar to the previous setting, this kind of LC occurs when the

acquisition of a non-native language is not employed for community

activities, unless in the domain of religion, but is promoted through an

institution such as a school. The reasons for this language learning may be

political dominance e.g. Russian in East German schools, or it may be

culturally for its own sake e.g. Latin in Britain, or religious e.g. Classical

Arabic for African Moslems. The motivation for the L2 instruction varies

according to the particular social history of the community.

It is essential to realize that institutional L2 learning does not lead to the

creation of community bilingualism, for as J akobvits (1971:22) bluntly

states: "second language learning as a classroom subject is one thing, and

132

being a bilingual person another and they often have little to do with each

other"; also cf. Moag's (1982a:38) statement that "the person whose contact

with a.:.(foreign language) is limited to studying it as a school subject is in

no sense bilingual but anyone using it in his professional or private life, even

in very restricted activities, is".

Unlike in natural settings of L2 acquistion, where many informal sources

are available for reinforcement and practice, the institutionally taught

"foreign" L2 tends to be regarded as an end or product in itself rather than as

a vehicle to achieve communicative goals. Among the most significant

variables of this setting are

-the range and depth of L2 acquisition in relation to the skills imparted

-the linguistic varieties (models) selected for acquisition

-the methodology selected e.g. grammar-translation or rote memorization

-the purpose of L2 learning e.g. to pass exams, have access to information

or maintain sacred texts

-the social and psychological characteristics of the learners and their

teachers e.g. age, personality, previous learning habits, amount of training

and experience, attitudes and motivation

-aspects of the learning situation such as class SIze, curriculum and

material, contact hours, teacher-student relations

There are hardly any countries in the contemporary world which do not

provide some of its citizens with the chance of institutionally acquiring an

L2. LC as a direct consequence of this on a societal scale, however, is very

rarely observable25. If community-wide LC does occur, as with English in

West Germany, it is not due to L2 education alone but involves other

motivating factors. In the case of English, of course, contributing causes

such as the international use and status of English, world-power affiliation

and economic, technological and scientific communication must be taken

into account.

133

The LC phenomena typically associated with this setting are interference,

interlanguage, pidginization cf. Schumann (1978), and code-switching in

classroom -talk.

1.6.1.3. The bounded 26 and/or subordinate community

As can be seen from Table 1, the degree of bilingualism in this setting is

higher than the previous two but nevertheless if fends to be of a "restricted"

nature in that it is neither fluent, accurate nor native-like. This "restricted"

bilingualism arises from the restricted social contact maintained by the

recipient or donor community or both towards each other. In section 1.6.l.l.

above, a dominant recipient community's LC behaviour was characterized

by limited borrowing but in a bounded or subordinate community due to the

increased presence of bilingualism, there tends to occur various LC

phenomena such as interference, interlanguage, pidginization and, more

rarely, convergence.

Often, cultural displacement and/or economic disadvantage or differing

ethnicity leads to the social distance between the two communities. The

reason for the term bounded has to do with the "sealed-off' nature of the

recipient community which may be either self-imposed or externally

constructed by the dominant community. This ethnic boundary may vary

between "soft" and "hard", depending on distinctions such as skin coloring,

facial features, dress style, cultural tradition, values and language cf. Giles

(1979). This setting lasts as long as the boundary remains stable; a sign of

the collapse of the ethnolinguistic boundary is language shift.

Lewis (1978) discusses different types of relatively stable bounded

communities such as (i) those existing in geographic isolation (ii) those

which experience urban segregation (iii) ethnic minority enclaves and (iv)

those with their "own tradition of restricted culture contact" (ibid.,p.25).

Contemporary examples of each of these evidencing LC are:

134

( i) the Irish of Gaeltacht; the Scots of the Highlands and Islands; the

Fries of Holland; Romance-speakers of Switzerland

(ii) (first generation) Pakastanis in North England; (first generation)

Turks in West Germany; Hispanics in the USA

(iii) Albanians, Croats and Greeks in Southern Italy; Basques in Southern

France; Doukhobor Russians in Canada

(iv) conservative German-speaking Amish of Pennsylvania; Athapaskan

and Pueblo Indians of the USA

A further category that needs to be added are more mobile linguistic

minorities such as nomads, gypsies, seasonal migrants and involuntary

immigrants such as slaves.

Typical for these communities IS the low level of bilingualism27 and,

particularly, pidginization and fossilized interlanguages due to the lack of

access to the L2 model and/or lack of assimilatory motivation cf. Schumann

(1978), Richards (1974) and Meisel (1980). If the pidgin or interlanguage is

only a temporary phase e.g. associated only with one generation, then the

setting should be re-categorized as one of the following three: "equal-biling­

ual', "language-shift' or "diglossic-bilingual'. However, when the acquisi­

tion of the L2 does not lead to greater mobility or entry into the dominant

community and when few contacts or ties with native-speakers from the

dominant community are available, restricted LC is likely to be more

long-lasting for most members of the subordinate community. Educational

opportunities in the mainstream language mayor may not increase the level

of bilingualism and inaugurate language shift.

Exactly what keeps a community bounded for a stable period is

community-specific and has received hardly any attention from linguists28.

Finally, the resemblance of this setting to Fishman's (1971) category of

"diglossia without bilingualisIh" should not go unnoticed29

135

1. 6.1. 4. The equal, bilingual setting

This setting may entail one community employing two languages or two

communities in the same territory employing two languages but the key

feature is that neither of the languages is subordinate to the other and that

either language may be employed for equal access in almost all social

domains. This situation is infrequent, since communities tend to favour the

employment of one lansuage and there are often historical power relations

involved in the social evaluation of the two languages, even if their equality

is legally guaranteed e.g. Flemish and French in Brussels; English and

French in Quebec; German in Belgium as reported by Verdoodt (1972).

For Pietersen (1978:39) this situation occurs "when two languages in a

territory function for the same people and both can be used officially and at

the dialect level ... there is no high and low status ... Both languages are used

in almost all domains", although not "haphazardly so that in practice there

is probably a division of labor in which one language is used at home as the

main language and not the other. But the point here is that both languages

can be used in every domain".

In communities where two languages are in principle equal to each other,

their separate identities are not necessarily kept apart. The norms of one may

be renounced and interference, borrowing, code-switching, code-mixing and

convergence are likely to appear30 An example of convergence is provided

by Scollon and Scollon (1973) in their study of LC between French,

English, Chipewyan and Cree in a subarctic, multilingual Alaskan commun­

ity where the four languages have syntactically and semantially coalesced

with none of them exclusively symbolizing a separate ethnic identity, as

their speakers in this setting share the same ethnicity. Such convergence has

serious theoretical consequences for the traditional linguist's conception of

language as a clearly distinguishable, self-contained system. In this setting,

136

one mental system called a "language" may be fused on various levels with

another originally separate system. Such radical contact reveals the

environmental dependency and elasticity of phenomena which linguists have

up to now treated as stable and autonomous.

1.6.1.5. The language-shifting community

The term language shift has been briefly introduced above cf. 1.5.1.1. The

initiation, rate and process of language shift vary considerably from case to

case but the ph~nomenon is observable in many contemporary communities

cf. note 1. For example, Batori (1983) describes how Finnougric languages

in the Soviet Union are shifting to Russian resulting in massive lexical

borrowing and syntactic change in these languages. Gal (1979) mentions

code-switching, borrowing and interference occurring in the shift from

Hungarian to German in her study of the Oberwart community. Cf. also the

shift in culturally displaced and disadvantaged indigenous minorities

(Lewis, 1978) and immigrants (Haugen, 1978) for which borrowing,

code-switching, interference, learner pidgins and interlanguage varieties

have been documented.

The language shifting community has frequently been regarded as the LC

setting par excellence and pioneering studies into LC drew much of their

data from this setting e.g. Weinreich's seminal study of LC mentions

numerous examples of interference in American immigrants and Haugen's

analysis of borrowing is based on Norwegian immigrants' shift to American

English.

From Table 1, it can be seen that convergence between the contact

languages involved in language-shifting communities may also occur during

the final stages of the shift. Evidence for this comes from Dressier's (1982)

account of language shift among, for example, Bretons and Austrian

Croatians where a restructuring of morphology, syntax, semantics and

137

pronouns on the basis of the majority language has been noted together with

"lexical fading" i.e. massive borrowing from the language shifted to.

Decreolization may also be regarded as a form of language shift-from the

creole to the standard and thus involving bilingualism and LC31 . Of course,

decreolization results from the diglossic relationship between the creole and

the standard. Actually, language-shifting communities tend to generally

appear in digiossic settings where the donor language belongs to a socially

higher group32 The shift occurs because the subordinate community

renounces its ethnolinguistic separateness in an effort to identify with or

penetrate the dominant community33.

1.6.1.6. The diglossic bilingual setting

As explained in section 1.5.1.2., Fishman (1971) extended Ferguson's

(1959) concept of diglossia to include bi-/multilingual situations where

unrelated varieties also serve High and Low functions in the same

community. A diglossic bilingual community is, therefore, one where

linguistic and role repertoires are compartmentalized but widely accessible

to members of the community, although as Fasold (1984:42) states, only

partial bilingualism in the H variety tends to characterize the majority. In

diglossic bilingual settings the acquisition of the entire community

repertoire is not acquired at home nor in neighbourhood playgroups but

through formal institutions of education, religion, government or the work

sphere34

When it comes to the correlation of this setting with the listed LC

phenomena, considerable data is available from studies of non-native

English varieties employed as H with local languages as L in many African

and Asian states. Thus, Tay (1982) describes interlanguage, pidginization,

prosodic, syntactic and phonological interference as well as borrowing from

both directions in the English -Chinese/Malay continuum of Singapore.

138

Jibril (1982) also observes phonological and syntactic interference, borrow­

ing of local cultural items, nativization and pidginization in the diglossic LC

setting of English in Nigeria; Zwengler (1982) documents code-switching,

nativization and interference in the English of Kenya. Mehrotra (1982)

reports on interference, nativization, interlanguage and pidginization in

Indian English varieties for which Kachru (1977) had also noted code­

switching and code-mixing. Furthermore, Kachru (1978) states that massive

borrowing from English has occurred into many South-East Asian lan­

guages due to the internally High function of the former. Gonzalez (1982)

mentions code-switching and code-mixing in the English of the Philippines

while Gibbons (1983) analyses code-mixing between English and Cantonese

in Hong Kong35.

Finally, the case of areal features marked as potential under this setting

needs to be briefly explained. Although areal features may occur due to the

physical proximity of different and distinct communities speaking different

languages who share a long history of coexistence and some degree of social

contact but do not employ each other's language on a societal basis (as

indicated for the "distant non-bilingual setting"), areal features may also

occur in a diglossic situation through the diffusion of a High variety across

several neighbouring communities. Thus, the often cited Sprachbund in the

Balkan area where Modern Greek, Albanian, Romanian and Bulgarian share

a rich fund of common vocabulary, morph for morph equivalents and various

syntactic devices is due to the unifying force of Byzantine civilization as

represented by the Greek Church so that in many instances Greek can be

recognised as the donor model for the shared LC cf. Trudgill (1974:161)36

Fishman attributes the contemporary proliferation of diglossic bilingual

settings to modernization and growing social complexity. In a classic

diglossic bilingual community each language has its own circumscribed

functions which are well-established, socially accepted and maintained. As

139

seen from Table 1, the contact features potentially occurring here are the

most far-ranging than any of the earlier settings; the two (or more) languages

in contact both reveal greater "permeability" but the High language tends to

be less susceptible to change due to its overriding status and enshrined

norms. The motivation for Le in a diglossic bilingual setting appears to

correspond closely to the classic Weinreichian factor of prestige or social

advance37

2.0. Concluding comments

Social attitudes towards Le have long been characterized by disparage­

ment, scorn and even hostility. This negative reaction often accompanies

and derives from the equally negative, low social evaluation of Le makers,

especially when they are immigrant or deprived indigenous minorities.

However, large-scale Le can find social favor at a certain moment in

community evolution if it is mainly lexical, as can be seen today in the way

Japanese society embraces lexical infusion from English. Sometimes

attitudes are complex and include both positive and hostile elements cf.

Whitely (1967:139) on the ambiguous reactions to Bantu loanwords in

Tanzania. The negativeness may eventually take the form of politically

organized language purification such as has occurred in Israel, the

Philippines and France. On the other hand, Le may be officially promoted

for ideological purposes e.g. Ataturk's expulsion of Arabisms and Persian­

isms from Turkish and the encouragement of importing French and English

loans, or the dehebraization of Soviet Yiddish and its planned submission to

Slavic lexical stock cf. Erlich (1981:704). Acceptance or resistance towards

Le is typically a response to the way language serves to symbolize social

identities and affiliation.

This article has been an attempt to provide a comprehensive, concise and

unifying typological framework for identifying Le phenomena in relation to

140

specific settings. It has demonstrated the world-wide scale of LC today as

well as its historical occurrence. In the search to explain the nature of LC not

only is the necessity of the sociolinguistic approach conclusively validated

but both sociolinguistics and general linguistics extended and enriched.

NOTES

Here is a selection of current research focussing centrally on LC taking place in

the. world today; research which touches on LC only in connection with some

other topic such as second language learning or bilingualism is not included.

Although indisputably LC phenomena, research on particular pidgins and creoles

are not listed below; these contact varieties constitute a special subfield cf.

Hancock (1971) for a survey and list of pidgins and creoles in the world.

Collections of case studies relating to many different regions are not directly

listed cf. Coulmas (1984), Wolfson & Manes (1985), Dow (1987) and Mac Eoin

et.a!' (1987). Below the symbol +-+ indicates that the languages on either side of

it are "in contact" with each other; when the symbol appears in succession

between several languages, contact between all the listed languages is signified,

although the degree & type of contact between each of the particular languages in

question will vary from case to case. The symbol -+ indicates that a language shift

is evident in the speech community in front of the arrow towards the language

following the arrow.

LANGUAGE CONTACT IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

UNITED KINGDOM: Welsh' English (Lewis, 1978)

Gaelic ---> English shift (MacCauly, 1982)

Minority Language -+ English (Stubbs, 1985)

FRANCE: Flemish -+ French shift (Vanneste, 1982)

French +-+ English lexical contact (Forgue, 1980)

BELGIUM: German -+ French shift; grammatical, semantic lexical, stylistic

aspects (Nelde, 1980)

WEST GERMANY: English +-+ German on lexical, grammatical, semantic,

stylistic levels (Viereck, 1980; Pfitzner, 1978)

SP AIN : French +-+ Basque +-+ Catalan Spanish on syntactic level due to

141

historical coexistence (Haensch, 1982)

IT AL Y : German -+ Italian on morphological, syntactic and phonological level

(Denison, 1980)

MAL TA: Italian +--+ Slavic lexical contact (Kontzi, 1982)

SCANDINAVIA: Finno-Ugric +--+ Slavic +--+ German (Batori, 1983)

Norwegian +--+ Lappish +--+ Finnish (Jahr, 1983)

RUMANIA: German -+ Rumanian (Rein, 1980)

Rumanian +--+ Slavic (Rolshoven, 1980)

SOVIET UNION: Finnougric languages, particularly Finnish and Hungarian

-+ Russian resulting in massive lexical borrowing and

syntactic change (Batori, 1983)

Various U ral-Altaic, Caucasian & Indo-European minor­

ity languages -+ Russian (Kreindler, 1982; Lewis, 1983)

UNITED STATES: Haugen (1978) provides an extensive list of research on

contact between English +-+ and immigrant languages

such as Czech, Danish, Armenian, Dutch, Finnish, Greek,

Hungarian, Icelandic, Polish, Slovak, Sorbian, Swedish,

Ukranian, Welsh & Yiddish; Ferguson & Heath (1981)

deal with English +--+ Puerto Rican Spanish, Italian,

Slavic & Phillipine languages; Bright (1973) treats

Amerindian languages from the Arctic to the Rio Grande

+--+ English & Spanish; Hill (1978) on Uto-Aztecan

total language shift to English.

CANADA: Quebec FreElch +--+ English lexically" morphologically, syntactic­

allty & semantically; immigrant language +--+ English (Rudnyck­

yj, 1973)

SOUTH AMERICA: Spanish +--+ Portuguese (Elizaincin, 1983; Hensey,

1982)

Spanish +--+ Guarani in Paraguay (Melia, 1980); Span­

ish +--+ Amerindian languages in Bolivia, Chile, Argen­

tina, Paraguay (di Pietro, 1968)

AFRICA: African languages French (Kwofie, 1980)

African languages +--+ English resulting in code-switching and

142

structural changes (Bokamba, 1982)

Nigerian languages +-----+ English on phonological, syntactic and

semantic level (Jibril, 1982)

Goodman (1971) states that LC occurs all over the African

continent due to extensive multilingualism with over 1,000 indige­

nous languages in addition to extraneous lingua franc as/ ex­

colonial languages such as Arabic, Afrikaans,French, Portuguese

and English.

MIDDLE EAST: Hebrew +-----+ Arabic in Algeria & Morocco (Fishman, 1981)

Arabic ...:-. East, West and Central African languages such

as Hausa, Songhay, Fulani, Tigre & Havaru (Blanc, 1971):

Modern Arabic +-+ French & English (Abdulaziz, 1986)

INDIA: Indo-Aryan languages in contact with each other resulting in

borrowing, pidginization and creolization (Shapiro & Schiffmann,

1983: Mehrotra, 1985)

English +-> Indian languages on phonetic, lexical, syntactic &

stylistic levels (Kachru, 1978)

Hindi +-+ English borrowing (Singh, 1980)

MALA YSIA : English .+-----+ local languages such as Malay & Hokkien on

phonological, lexical and syntactic levels (Platt. 1980)

SINGAPORE: English +-----+ Chinese, Tamil & Malay (Crewe, 1977)

HONG KONG: English +-+ Cantonese (Gibbons, 1983)

PHILIPPINES: Spanish +-----+ Tagalog (Kelz, 1980): local languages +--+

Pilipino & English (Gonzalez, 1985)

EAST ASIA: Sebeok (1967) includes various articles mentioning Chinese

+-----+ E.& S.E.Asian languages such as Tibetan, Lao, Korean,

Thai, Cambodian & Vietnamese: Burmese +-> Pali (Okell,

1965): Korean +-----+ Japanese (Tanaka and Lee, 1986)

CHINA: English +-----+ Chinese (Yongquan, 1986)

AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal languages +-----+ English (Sandefur, 1983)

English +--+ European languages (Clyne, 1982: Pauwels,

1986)

2 The vocabulary of the oldest recorded Indo-European language, Hittite, dating

143

from the third millennium B.C., reveals a strong influence from other non­

Indo-European languages, particularly Hattic cf. Diringer (1968:55).

3 Kuhn (1970) explains how "scientists work from models acquired through

education and through subsequent exposure to the literature often without quite

knowing or needing to know what characteristics have given these models the

status of community paradigms" (p.46). These paradigms refer to the constellation

of beliefs values and techniques "which ... can replace explicit rules as a basis for

the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science" (p.l71). Paradigms may

become ideological frames for formulating linguistic knowledge, assuming

sometimes a doctrinal status. According to Harris (1980) modern linguistics

derives much from the orthographic representation of language resulting in what

he calls scriptism which is "the assumption that writing is a more ideal form of

linguistic representation than speech" (p.6).

4 Interference is a term originally from behaviorist psychology and may be viewed

as a form of "negative transfer' i.e. the application of acquired behavior to a

situation which required a completely new behavior pattern cf. Carrol (1968).

5 In Haugen's (1952) classification of the integration of English elements into

Norwegian by immigrants to the USA, a basic distinction is made between

importation and substitution. The former applies to a loan similar enough to the

model so that a native speaker would accept it as his own but represents an

innovation in the language that adopts it, while the latter is only a partial

reproduction of the model based on patterns in the borrower's language. Haugen

included the following additional categories: (i) loanworaSwhich show morphemic

importation without substitution (ii) loanblenaS which show morphemic substitu­

tion and importation (iii) loanshifts which show morphemic substitution without

importation (iv) hybrzd creations, mostly of the type in which loan morphemes have

been substituted in the nucleus while the marginal components are native and (v)

completely native creations made by L2 speakers. Haugen also discusses

important aspects such as the grammatical integration of loan words (their

assignment by the borrower to various classes and their inflectional treatment),

the structural effects of borrowing (particularly on the phonological level where

phonemic redistribution or phonemic importation may occur), the social variabil­

ity of the sources for loan word transmission and the phonological consequences

144

of different stages of bilingualism in the borrowing process e.g. a pre-bilingual

period in which loans are made by a relatively small group of bilinguals and

spread widely among the monolingual majority (with almost completely systema­

tic native substitution) and a phase of growing adult bilingualism (with possible

phonemic redistribution) and childhood bilingualism (with phonemic importa­

tion).

6 Fishman (1971) presents four binary possibilities of the relationship between

bilingualism and diglossia: (i) both diglossia and bilingualism (ii) bilingualism

without. diglossia (iii) diglossia without bilingualism and (iv) neither diglossia

nor bilingualism. However, Fasold (1984:44-52) argues that the relationship

between diglossia and bilingualism need not be binary and offers examples of

"double overlapping" and "double-nested" diglossia together with "linear

polyglossia".

7 There are other evolutionary possibilities: diglossia remams stable or it is

eventually replaced by the Low variety due to democraticizing or nationalistic

pressures or, less likely, it is replaced by the High variety.

8 Cf. Gumperz (1982:59): "Conversational code-switching can be defined as the

juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging

to two different grammatical systems or subsystems. Most frequently the

alternation takes the form of two subsequent sentences, as when a speaker uses a

second language either to reiterate his message or to reply to someone else's

statement" .

9 E.g. to mark a particular identity, to symbolize solidarity or social distance, to

show other role relations or status, to redefine the situation, as a rhetorical device

softening, emphasizing or intensifying communication, to quote, to make asides,

to reiterate or summarize something, to express or assert expertise, to cater for

affection, humour, swearing, as a strategy to block the number of message

decoders or identify a particular addressee, as an avoidance strategy for

unfamiliar or tabooed linguistic forms or as a repair strategy cf. Hatch (1976);

Scotton and Dry (1977); Gal (1979); Brown and Levinson (1979); Saville-Troike

(1982); Breitborde (1983) and Fasold (1984:200-9). It has also been noted that

code-switching can reduce "the language distance between codes" where

intergroup contact is desirable ... as a signal of willingness to cooperate and

145

socialize cf. Gumperz (1964).

10 Beardsmore (1980:111) differentiates between code-switching and interference

by claiming that the latter operates on a sub-conscious level so that the speaker is

unaware that he is producing features alien to monoglot norms while code-switch­

ing operates "nearer the surface of consciousness". When talking to any

interlocutor, if a bilingual is unable to avoid revealing a substratum feature from

the L1 while using the L2 this constitutes interference. The similarity between

code-switching and interference lies in the fact that the formar" consists of using

elements of second language in contexts where a monoglot speaker would not do

so. However, since bilingual code-switching may range minimally from the

introduction of a simple sound not normally present in monoglot speech to a

complete change of language over large chunks of speech it is not always evident

where the difference lies" (Beardsmore, 1980:110).

11 For Saville-Troike (1982:66) borrowing is different from code-switching

because it refers to cases where "lexical items from one language are adapted

phonologically to the sound system of the other, and are subject to its

morphological inflections "while this is not the case with code-switching.

However, this is not an absolute distinction and ultimately speakers' attitudes

about how 'native' a word is must be taken into accunt as well. "It is possible that

a word which is a borrowing for the person speaking may be perceived as

code-switching by t~e listener, or vice versa, depending on subgroup membership

within the speech community" (ibid.p.67)

12 Cf. Haugen's (1978:21) proposal that code-switching should be restricted to the

alternate use of two languages, "including everything from the introduction of a

single, unassimilated word up to a complete sentence or more' in the context of

another language".

13 Hatch (1976), for instance, maintains that code-switching and code-mixing

represent extreme points on a continuum and that they cannot be clearly

distinguished from each other.

14 Ure (1982:14) argues that linguists should consider mixed language as "a third

option for bilingual speakers, forming a register in the register range of bilingual

speakers" and correlating with situations of transition. Thus, with reference to

English code-mixing in Cantonese, Gibbons (1983) concludes that it is connected

146

with marking group membership (among university students), implying status

since this is an elite group, and, somewhat similar to Kachru's notion of

neutralization, employed as a "strategy of neutrality" for speakers to avoid the

explicit assertion of a totally Chinese or totally Western orientation; Wurm and

Mulhausler (1982:79) observe how "Papua New Guineans who have had an

advanced education tend to use a special register of New Guinea pidgin in

situations in which they wish to stress their membership in the class of educated

people, enhance their prestige, and simply "show off" their knowledge. This

special register is characterized by very heavy random anglicization in both

lexicon and structure, with whole English phrases thrown in"; Gonzalez

(1982:216) relates the employment of a mixed Pilipino-English code to

"establishing one's credentials as a nationalist, albeit Westernized"; similarly,

Kachru (1978:109) states that one kind of mixing "is now a socially accepted

marker of education and what may be termed "Westernization' in India. It also

identifies membership in a particular social class." Cf. "Singlish" referring to

Sinhala and English code-mixing in Sri Linka (Fernando, 1977); "Spanglish'

referring to Spanish and English code-mixing in Puerto Rico (Nash, 1977);

"Mix-Mix' or "Taglish' applying to mixing Tagalog and Pilipino in the

Philippines (Gonzales, 1982); "Tex Mex" for Spanish and English mixing in

California (Gumperz, 1970) and "Mix" for Chinese and English in Hong Kong

(Gibbons, 1983). Moreover, Kahane and Kahane (1979) regard most educated

varieties of modern European languages as vernaculars infused and refined by the

survival of former prestige languages such as Greek in Rome, Latin in Byzantum,

A la mode in Germany and Puristic in Modern Greece.

15 This refers to' cases where, for example, "in administrative, political, and

technological registers, Englishization takes place. On the other hand, in the legal

register, especially that of the lower courts, the main lexical source is Persian. In

literary criticism or philosophical writing in Hindi, Sanskritization usually takes

place" (Kachru, 1978:111).

16 Cf. "In India, there are three distinct styles which may be termed Sanskritized,

Persianized, and Englishized" (Kachru, 1978:111).

17 A typical case is that of English creole speakers in Costa Rica who are

converging to Spanish and adjusting their Ll grammar to incorporae L2 features

147

(Herzfield, 1980:88). Among these speakers "semantic segregations do not show

any structural break between" the two languages (p.88). Other studies include that

of Scollon and Scollon (1979) who discuss the convergence of four languages in

an Alaskancommunity which had come to match each other closely in form and

meaning with little wholesale borrowing. Gumperz and Wilson (1971) find a

similar situation in an Indian multilingual community on the Matharashtra- My­

sore border whose varieties of Kannada, Marathi and Urdu have converged into a

phonetically and syntactically identical code with separate lexicons and

morphophonemic rules. In many such case-studies the maintenance of a separate

ethnic identity within the multilingual community was considered important and

consciously symbolized by a separate variety which was fundamentally only

different on the lexical level from the other community varieties.

18 These L2 varieties have been noted in Brunei, Dominica, Hong Kong, India,

Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sierra

Leone, Sri Linka, Singapore, St. Lucia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and

Zimbabwe. These varieties have come to serve an "extended range of uses in the

sociolinguistic contexts" of the repective communities, possess "an extended

register and style range" and a body of localized English literature (Kachru,

1982c:38). Such local varieties of English are characterized by their institutiona­

lization which involves their community acceptance and linguistic elaboration

together with the establishment of internal, nonnative norms cf. Kachru (1985).

19 E.g. from a formal point of view, nativization may involve any or all of the

following: a restructuring of the L2 on the basis of Ll phonetics, phonology,

semantics and syntax (cf. 1.2. Interference) even to the point of a merging of the

two systems (cf. 1.5.1.5. Convergence) together with certain independently

motivated innovations such as hybridization and semantic extension, the effects

of incomplete or ineffective L2 acquisition (cf. 1.1.3. Interlanguage) resulting in

deviations from standard norms in addition to considerable borrowing of Ll

words to express a local context. These various processes in different stages of

stabilization and institutionalization have all been called nativization. Furth­

ermore, code-switching and code-mixing have been frequently noted in these

communities.

20 The only stages of development of pidgins and creoles to be discussed here will

148

be pidginization (the making of a contact variety) and decreolization (a creole in

contact with another variety) since these are the only phases which directly relate

to LC. As can be seen from Muhlhausler's (1982a) suggestion of five qualitatively

and quantatively different stages in the development of pidgins and creoles, not

all these phases are closely connected with LC but have more to do with internal,

evolutionary processes.

21 Cf. Hancock (1971) who lists 80 varieties scattered over N. and S, America,

Africa, Asia and Australia not to mention Atlantic and Pacific islands which

dominate the field. Historic cases of pidginization have also been posited for

Middle English (Domingue, 1977) and the Arayan contact with Dravidian in India

3,000 years ago (Southworth, 1971).

22 This has already begun to happen with certain LC phenomena e.g. the shared

characteristics of pidgins and the early stages of non-native language learning

have been recognised so that they are now both placed on the same "cline of

acquisition' cf. Platt (1977:84) on the speech continuum in the sub-varieties of

Singapore English and Schumann (1978) who sees the persistence of a simplified

L2 sytem initially resulting from cognitive constraints and resembling a pidgin.

22 Of course, the speech community does not necessarily apply to a national entity . .

since there may be various speech-communities within one country or terrItory

which do not employ similar languages for similar purposes. In defining a

speech-community for purposes of comparison, the following variables should be

considered: size, stability, geographic location, indigenousness, length of

. residence cf. Lewis (1978). However, Lewis goes onto state that this would be

extremely time-consuming and uneconomical for someone attempting a general,

serviceable typology. I discovered Mackey's (1983) proposal for "comparing

cases of language contact" after producing my typology. Mackey's model is

totally different in that his analysis involves a thorough-going measurement of

bilingual variables (individual, com'munity and institutional) with no mention or

prediction of what LC phenomena may be expected for each type.

23 It should be obvious that no LC setting is necessarily stable and the LC may

cease at any particular moment, depending on particular sociohistorical circumst­

ances. Transitional phases are not indicated in the framework (as this would

overcomplicate the patterns) but it should be clear from it that such phases will

149

involve either the expansion or reduction of contact phenomena e.g. the degree of

interference, code-switching and convergence in one setting may be restricted as

the community becomes increasingly monolingual.

24 I wish to acknowledge my debt to the arguments and concepts of Fishman

(1971), Schumann (1976), Lewis (1978), Pietersen (1978), Richards (1979) and

undoubtedly many others less consciously identifiable.

25 Although rare, community-wide LC stemming from an institutional L2 appears

limited to lexical borrowing. One such case is the transfer of a number of German

words into Japanese during the late 19th and 20th centuries diffused by an

academic elite studying German cf. Umegaki (1963). However, German also

functioned as the technical language of medical doctors at that time and,

therefore, held a limited H function.

26 The term "bounded" derives from Lewis (2978:25) who takes it from Dozier

(1976).

27 Cf. Lewis (1978:25): "One characteristic which distinguished the bilingualism

of communities which are isolated for whatever reason-geographic, enclavic

restrictedness, boundedness or urban segregation-is its peripheral or local

character. Bilingualism exists either in very small pockets or on the boundaries of

contact".

28 Linguists have been fascinated more by the question of shift than maintenance

so there is a lack of information in this area. The problem is related to the

ethnolinguistic vitality of the community cf. Giles (1979) which involves factors

relating to the economic, social and historical status of the community language,

its institutional representation in official and media domains, the degree of

interaction with speakers of the dominant language and community demog­

raphics.

29 Cf. Fishman (1971:81) "Here we find two or more speech communities united

politically, religiously, and/or economically into a single functioning unit

notwithstanding the sociocultural cleavages that separate them. At the level of

this larger (but not always voluntary) unity, two or more languages or varieties

must be recognized as obtaining. However, one (or both) of the speech

communities involved is (are) marked by such relatively impermeable group

boundaries that for "outsiders' ... role access and linguistic access are severely

150

restricted, At the same time linguistic repertoires iEt one or both groups are limited

to role specialization". As examples, Fishman (1971) cites the case of pre-World

War I elites (Danish, Provencal, Russian among others link) who spoke French or

some other fashinable High tongue for their intragroup purposes while the masses

spoke another language for their intragroup purposes.

30 e.g. Thomas (1982) mentions borrowing into Welsh from English on the written

level as well as code-mixing which is a consequence of an earlier diglossic

situation between the two languages; Lewis (1978:329) also mentions code­

switching between English and Welsh.

Fasold (1984:56) cites extended borrowing of long phrases (code-mixing?)

from English into Swahili in Tanzania. Interference on all linguistic levels is also

to be expected with the increase in community bilingualism.

31 In some Carribean communities such as Jamaica and Guyana, there exists a

post-creole continuum with a range of varieties from a close approximation to the

standard to the deepest creole. Here it is speakers with an intermediate

proficiency in the standard variety (termed the mesolect) who seek upward social

mobility that are attempting decreolization, and, in the process, evidence

phonological and syntactic interference, relexification (borrowing from the

standard) and code-swithcing "up' or "down' cf. Craig (1978) and Edwards (1983).

32 Fishrnan (1971), however, confusingly categorizes the situation of dislocated

immigrants and their children as "bilingualism without diglossia': "without

separate though complementary norms and values to establish and maintain

functional separation of the speech varieties, that language or variety which is

fortunate enough to be associated with the predominant shift of social forces tends

to displace the other" with the result that second-generation immigrant children

are "particularly inclined to use their mother tongue and other tongue for

intragroup communication in seemingly random fashion" (ibid.p.87). Neverthe­

less, the dominant donor language is the only viable one for High, official

domains in immigrant communities so that, although internally there may be no

diglossia during language shift, there certainly exists external diglossia in

relation to the mainstream monolingual society. Fasold (1984:41) interprets

situations of "bilingualism without diglossia' as the result of "leaky diglossia"

where the formerly distinct functions of the H intermingle or leak into the L.

151

33 As an example of a case where language shift to the majority language is not

occurring because social access into mainstream society is blocked is provided by

Sandefm (1982:10): "Social mobility among Aborigines is not primarily in the

direction of English-speaking white Australian society. Rather, it is in the

direciton of broader ... Aboriginal social contacts ... White Australians in general

... do not accept black Australians on equal ground. This has reinforced today's

resurgence of Aboriginal identity". The result is that English is not the

"dominant langauge of Aboriginal communities. English is so little used in most

everyday contexts and has so little instrumental value that it exerts little

decerolization influence".

34 The situation in Paraguay, according to Rubin (1968) and Fishman (1971), is

diglossic-bilingual with more than half the population speaking both Spanish and

Guarani but where the former language is employed in the domains of education,

religion, government and high culture i.e. as the High variety with Guarani for

ordinary, informal, Low communication. However, it should be noted that if the

elite in a society is monolingual in the H variety such as in Czarist Russia (where

the aristocracy was only French-speaking) or in the European colonization of

Africa and Asia, the setting is classified as "diglossia without bilingualism'

because it involves two separate communities who do not empoly each other's

languages and corresponds to my "bounded or subordinate setting'.

35 Additionally, when bounded groups lose their ethnolinguistic vitality and shift

languages, they may become diglossic bilingual for a certain period cf. the case of

contemporary Scottish Gaelic as described by MacAulay (1982) where interfer­

ence, borrowing and code-switching is observable. It is, however, important to

recognize that diglossic bilingualism does not necessarily lead to language shift

e.g. in Europe, Latin persisted for centuries as a High Medium in religious,

academic, scientific and some literary domains but the vernacular languages

survived.

36 Similarly, Ureland (1983:1279) also mentions the creation of "a common pool

of semantic structures and adaptions between all European languages· by means of

loan translation, loan creation etc. from Latin and Greek as the learned

superstratum models which give rise to a huge Euro-Atlantic linguistic area".

37 Weinreich (1953:79 note 34) mentions that "the term "prestige' is often used

152

indiscriminately to cover ... the 'usefulness of a language as a means of

communication, its literary-cultural worth, possibly even its emotional signifi­

cance, or the t~tal dominance configuration. As a technical term, however,

"prestige' ha<.l better be restricted to a language's value in social advance, or

dispensed with altogether as too imprecise".

153

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdulaziz, Mohamed H. 1986. "Factors in the development of modern

Arabic usage". International Journal of the Sociology of Lan­

guage No. 62. 11-24.

Alatis, James E. (ed.) 1970. Bilingualism and Language Contact. Washing­

ton, DC: Georgetown U Press.

(ed.) 1978. International Dimensions of Bilingual Education. Washington,

DC: Georgetown U Press.

Appel, Rene Muysken, Pieter 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism.

London: Edward Arnold.

Bailey, RW. 1982. "English in Canada", In RW. Bailey & M. Gorlach (eds.)

1982. 134-176.

Bailey, RW. & Gorlach, M. (eds.) 1982; English as a World Language. Ann

Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.

Batori,1. 1983. "Finno-Ugric languages and their contacts with Slavic and

Germanic universals of language contact". In S.Hattori &

K.Inoue (eds.) 1983. p.1282.

Beardsmore, Hugo B. 1980. "On the similarities between bilingualism and

unilingualism". In P.H. Nelde (ed.) 1980 11-17.

(ed.) 1981. Elements of Bilingual Theory. Brussel, Vrije Universiteit

Brussel.

Blanc, Haim 1971 "Arabic". In T.Sebeok (ed.) 1971. Current Trends in

Liguistics. vol. 7. The Hague: Mouton. 501-509.

Blom, J,P. & Gumperz, J,J, 1972. "Social meaning in linguistic structure:

code-switching in Norway." In J,J,Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.)

1972. 407-434.

Bokamba, E.G. 1982. "The africanization of English". In B.B.Kachru (ed.)

1982. 77-98.

154

Breitborde, L.E. 1983. "Levels of analysis in sociolinguistic explanation".

International Journal of the Sociology of Language. No.39. 5-43.

Bright, William (ed.) 1966. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.

1973. "North American Indian Language Contact". In T.A. Sebeok. (ed.)

1973. Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol.lO. 713-726.

Brown, P.& Levinson, S.1979. "Social structure, groups and interaction". In

K.P.Scherer and H.Giles (eds.) 1979. 291-341.

Carrol, lB. 1968. "Contrastive analysis and interference theory". Mono­

graph Series on Language and Linguistics 21, 113-122.

Caudmont, l (ed.) 1980. Sprachen in Kontakt-Langues en contact. Tlibingen

: Gunter N arr.

Clyne, Michael G. 1967. Transference and Triggering. The Hague: Mouton.

1978. "Some (German-English) language contact phenomena at the dis­

course level". In l Fishman (ed.) 1978. 113-128.

1982. Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine.

1984. "The decade past, the decade to come: some thoughts on language

contact research". International Journal of the Sociology of

Language. No. 45. 9-20.

Corder, S.P. 1967. "The significance of learners' errors". IRAL, 5, 161-170.

1971. "Describing the language learner's language". In CIL T Reports and

Papers No.6. 57-64. London: Centre for Information on Lan­

guage Teaching Publications.

Coulmas, Florian (ed.) 1984. Linguistic Minoritie;; and Literacy. Berlin:

Mouton.

Craig, Dennis, R. 1978. "Creole and standard". In lames E. Alatis (ed.) 1978.

602-620.

Crewe, W. (ed.) 1977. The English Language in Singapore. Singapore:

Eastern Universities Press.

Davies, Alan et. al. (eds.) 1984. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

155

University Press.

De Camp, David 1Q.71. "Introduction: the study of pidgin and creole

languages". In D.Hymes (ed.) 1971b. 13-39.

Denison, N. 1977. "Sauris : a case study of language shift in progress". In

P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1980. 335-342.

Diller, K.c. 1970. "'Compound' and 'coordinate' bilingualism: a conceptual

artifact". Word, 1970. 254-261.

Di Pietro, Robert]. 1968. "Bilingualism". In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.) 1968.

Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol.4. Ibero-American & Carri­

bean Linguistics. Mouton: The Hague. 399-414.

Diringer, David 1968. The Alphabet. VoU. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.

Domingue, N.Z. 1977. "Middle English: another creole". Journal of Creole

Studies, 1: 1, 89-100.

Dow, James R. (ed.) 1987. New Perspectives on Language Maintenance and

Language Shift: 1. (International Journal of the Sociology of

Language. No.68) Berlin: Mouton.

Dozier, E.P. 1976. The Pueblo Indians of North America. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

DressIer, Wolfgang E. 1982. "Acceleration, retardation and reversal 1ll

language decay" .. In Robert, Cooper (ed.) 1982.321-335.

Eagleson, Robert D. 1982. "English in Australia and New Zealand". In R.

Bailey and M. Gorlach (eds.) 1982.415-438.

Edwards, WaIter F. 1983. "Code selection and shifting in Guyana".

Language in Society, 12, 295-311.

Elizaincin, A. 1983. "Spanish/Portuguese contact in Uruguay, S. America".

In S.Hattori and K.Inoue (eds.) 1983.p.1272.

Ellis, Jeffrey & Ure, Jean (eds.) 1982. Register Range and Change.

(International Journal of the Sociology of Language, N 0.35).

Mouton: The Hague.

1~6

Erlich, Rachel, 1981. "Politics and linguistics in the standardization of

Soviet Yiddish". In ].A.Fishman (ed.) 1981. Never Say Die! -A

Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and letters. The Hague

: Mouton. 699-708.

Fase, Willem et. al. (eds.) 1992. Maintenance and Loss of Minority

Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fasold, R. 1984. The SocioliI\guistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. "Diglossia". Word. 15. 325-340.

Ferguson, C.A. & Heath, Shirley Brice (eds). 1981. Language in the USA.

London: Cambridge University Press.

Fernando, C. 1977. "English and Sinhala bilingualism in Sri Linka".

Language in Society. 6. 341-360.

Filipovic, Rudolf (ed.) 1982. The English Element in European Languages.

Vol.2. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics.

Fishman, ].A.1967. "Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia

with and without bilingualism". Journal of Social Issues, 2,

29-38.

(ed.) 1968a. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton.

1971. Sociolinguistics: a brief introduction. Rowey, Mass.: Newbury

House'.

(ed.) 1978. Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism. The Hague:

Mouton.

(ed.) 1981. The Sociology of Jewish Languages. (International Journal of

the Sociology of Language N 0.30) The Hague: Mouton.

Forgue, Guy Jean 1980. "Le 'franglais' dans le monde". In P.H. Nelde (ed.)

1980.69-74.

Gal, Susan 1979. Language Shift. New York: Academic Press.

Gibbons, John P. 1983. "Attitudes towards languages and code-mixing in

Hong Kong". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-

157

ment 4: 2& 3, 129-147.

Giles, Howard (ed.) 1977. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations.

London: Academic Press.

1979. "Ethnicity markers in speech". In K.R.Scherer and H.Giles (eds.) 1979.

251-289.

Gonzalez, Andrew 1982. "English in the Philippines". In lB.Pride (ed.)

1982a. 211-226.

1985. "Language use surveys 1ll the Philippines (1968-1983)". In

R.R.Mehrotra (ed.) Sociolinguistic Surveys in South, East and

Southeast Asia. (International Journal of the Sociology of

Language No.55) Berlin: Mouton. 55-77.

Gumperz, John l 1964. "Hindi-Punjabi code-switching 1ll Delhi". In

Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists

edited by H. Lunt. The Hague: Mouton. 1115-1124.

1970. "Verbal strategies in multilingual communication". In R.D. Abrahams

& R.C.Troike (eds.) 1970. Language and Cultural Diversity in

American Education. Englewood, Cliffs; N.l: Prentice-Hall.

1982. Discourse Strategies. London: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, John l & Wilson, R.1971. "Convergence and creolization: a case

from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India". In Dell Hymes

(ed.) 1971,. 151-167.

Gumperz, John l & Hymes, D. (eds.) 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics:

the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Guthrie, M. 1969-7l. Comparative Bantu. Farnborough, Hants.: Gregg

Press.

Haensch, Glinther 1982. "Die spanischen Zentral Pyrenaen als sprachliches

Kontaktgebiet. In Jean Caudmont (ed.) 1982. 181-229.

Hancock, I.F. 1971. "A map and list of pidgins and creole languages". In D.

158

Hymes (ed.) 1971a. 509-523.

Harris, Roy. 1980. The Language Makers. Oxford: Duckworth.

Hartmann, R.R.K. 1980. Contrastive T_~xtology. Heidelberg : J ulivs Groos.

Hatch, E. 1976. "Studies in language switching and mixing". In W.C.McCor-

mack & S.A.Wurm (eds.) 1976. Language and Man: Anthropolo­

gical Issues. The Hague: Mouton. 201-213.

Hattori, Shiro & Inoue, K. (eds.) 1983. Proceedings of the 13th International

Congress of Linguists. Tokyo: Proceedings Publishing Com­

mittee. , Haugen, Einar 1950. "The analysis of linguistic borrowing". Language. 26:

2. 210-231.

1952. The Norwegian Language in America. Bloomington : "Indiana Uni­

versity Press.

1978. "Bilingualism, language contact and immigrant languages in the

United States: a research report 1956-1970". In JA.Fishman

(ed.) 1978. 1-111.

Henderson, E.JA. 1965. "The topography of certain phonetic and morpholo­

gical characteristics of South East Asian languages". Lingua. 15.

400-34.

Hensey, F. 1982. "Spanish, Portuguese, and Fronteirico: languages in

contact in northern Uruguay". In E.C.Polome (ed.) 1982. 9-23.

Hermann, Pavl1866. (repr. 1970). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tlibing­

en: Niemeyer.

Herzfeld, Anita 1980. "Creole and standard languages: contact and conflict".

In P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1980. 83-90.

Hill, Jane H. 1978. "Language death, language contact and language

. evolution". In W.C.McCormack & S.A.Wurm (eds.) 1980.45-78.

Hymes, Dell (ed.) 1971a. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

159

1971b. "Preface". In D. Hymes (ed.) 1971a. 3-11.

1984. "Sociolinguistics: stability and consolidation". In JFishman (ed.)

1981. The Decade Past, the Decade to Come. (International

Journal of the Sociology of Language N 0.45). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter. 39-45.

Jahr, E.H. 1983. "Language contact in Northern Scandinavia". In S.Hattori

& K.Inoue (eds.) 1983. 1275-6.

(ed.) 1992 Language Contact. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jakobovits, L.A. 1971. "The psychological bases of second-language

learning". Language Sciences. 14.22-28.

Jernudd, Bjorn (ed.) 1986. Chinese Language Planning: Perspectives from

China and abroad. (International Journal of the Sociology of

Language, No.59). Berlin: Mouton Gruyter.

Jibril, Munzali 1982. "Nigerian English: an introduction". In John B. Pride

(ed.) 1988. 73-84.

Kachru, Braj B. 1977. "The Englishization of Hindi : language rivalry and

language change". In 1. Rauch et. al. (eds.) 1977. Linguistic

Method: Papers in honor of Herbert Penzl. The Hague: de

Ridder Press.

1978. "Code-mixing as a communicative strategy in India". In JA.Alatis

(ed.) 1978. International Dimensions of Bilingual Education.

Washington, D.e.: Georgetown University Press. 107-124.

(ed.) 1982a. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

1982b. "Introduction: the other side of English". In B.B.Kachru (ed.) 1982a.

1-12.

1982c. "Models for non-native Englishes". In B.B.Kachru (ed.) 1982a. 31-57.

1985. Institutionalized Second-language Varieties. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

160

1986. The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kahane, H.& Kahane, R.1979. "Decline and survival of Western prestige

languages". Language. 55: 1. 183-198.

Kelz, H.P. 1982."Spanischeslehngut im tagalischen Wortschatz". In J

Caudmont (ed.) 1982. 243-257.

Kontzi, Reinhold 1980. "Italienisches im Maltesischen, gezeigt an vers­

chiedenen Textsorten". In J Caudmont (ed.) 1982. 321-337.

Kreindler, Isabelle 1982. "The changing status of Russian in the Soviet

Union". International Journal of the Sociology of Language,

No.33. 7-39. The Hague: Mouton.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:

U Chicago Press.

Kwofie, E.N. 1980. "Le bilinguisme franco-africain: quelques aspects

socioculturels". In J Caudmont (ed.) 1980. 97-112.

Lado, Robert 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press.

Lehiste, Ilse 1988. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT

Press.

Lewis, Glyn E. 1978. "Types of bilingual communities". In JE.Alatis. (ed.)

1978. 19-34.

1981. Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

1983. "Implementation of language planning in the Soviet Union". In J

Cobarrubias & JA. Fishman (eds.) 1983. 309-326. Progress in

Language Planning Berlin: Mouton.

Macaulay, Donald 1982a. "Borrow, calque and switch: the law of the

English frontier". In J Anderson (ed.) 1982. 203-237. Language

Form and Linguistic Variation Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

1982b. "Register range and choice in Scottish Gaelic". In JEllis and JUre

(eds.) 1982. 25-48.

161

MacEoin, Gearoid et.al. 1987. Third International Conferene on Minority

Languages: General Papers. Journal of Multilingual and Multi­

cultural Development. 8: 1 & 2.

Mackey, William F. 1983. "Models for comparing cases of language

contact". In P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1983. 71-94.

Mackey, W.F. & Ornstein, J acob (eds.) 1979. Sociolinguistic Studies in

Language Contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Macnamara, ]. 1970. "Bilingualism and thought". In ].Alatis (ed.) 1970.

Report on the 20th Annual Round Table Meetings on Linguistics

and Language Studies. Washington, D.e. : Georgetown Universi­

ty Press.

McCormack, P.D. 1977. "Bilingual linguistic memory: the independence­

interdependence issue revisited". In P.A. Hornby (ed.) 1977.

57 -66. Bilingualism: Psychological, Social, Educational Im­

plications. New York: Academic Press.

McCormack, William C. & Wurm, A. (eds.) 1978. Approaches to Language:

Anthropological Issues. The Hague: Mouton.

Mehrotra, Raja Ram 1982. "Indian English: a sociolinguistic profile". In

].Pride (ed.) 1982a. 150-173.

(ed.) 1985. Sociolinguistic survey in South, East and Southeast Asia.

(International Journal of the Sociology of Language, No.55)

Berlin: Mouton.

Meisel, Jiirgen M. 1977. "Linguistic simplification: a study of immigrant

workers' speech and foreigner talk". In S.P.Corder & E. Roulet

(eds.) 1977. The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and

Pidgins and the Relations to Second Language Pedagogy.

Geneva: Droz. 88-1113.

1980. "Linguistic simplification". In Sascha W.Felix (ed.) 1980. Second

Language Development. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.13-40.

162

Melia, Bartomeu 1980. "La entrada del castellano en el guram del

Paraguay". In RWerner (ed.) 1980. 151-160.

Moag, Rodney F. 1982a. "English as a foreign, second, native and basal

language: a new taxonomy of English-using societies". In

lB.Pride (ed.) 1982a. 11-50.

Mulhausler, Peter 1982. "Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea". In R Bailey &

M. Gorlach (eds.) 1982. 439-466.

Nash, R 1977. "Aspects of Spanish-English bilingualism and language

mixture in Puerto Rico." In A.Makkai (ed.) 1977. Linguistics at

the Crossroads. Lake Bluff, Ill. : Jupiter Press. 205-225.

Nelde, Peter Hans (ed.) 1980. Sprachkontakt u. Sprachkonflikt. (Zeitschrift

ftir Dialektologie u. Linguistik Beihefte N 0.32) Wiesbaden:

F ranz Steiner.

1983a. "Pladoyer ftir eine Linguistik von Sprachen in Kontakt". In

P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1983b. 3-13.

(ed.) 1983. Theorie, Methoden u. Modelle der Kontaktlinguistik. Bonn:

Dtimmler.

Nelde, P.H., Ureland, P.Sture & Clarkson, Ian (eds.) 1986. Language

Contact in Europe. Ttibingen: Max Niemeyer.

Nemser, W. 1971. "Approximative systems of foreign language learners".

International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9. 115-123.

Okell, John 1985. Nissaya Burmese (lndo-Pacific Linguistic Studies.

Lingua 15) Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.

Pauwels, Anne 1986. Immigrant Dialects and Language Maintenance in

Australia. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.

Pfaff, Carol W. 1979. "Constraints on language mixing". Language. 55: 2.

291-3l8.

Pfitzner, Jtirgen 1978. Der Anglizismus im Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metz­

lersche.

163

Pietersen, Lieuwe 1978. "Issues and trends III Frisian bilingualism". In

lA.Fishman (ed.) 1978. 353-399.

Platt, John Weber 1977. "Code selection III a multilingual polyglossic

society". Talanya. 4. 64-75.

1980. "Varieties and functions of English III Singapore and Malaysia".

English World Wide. 1: l. 97-12l.

Platt, lW.& Ho, Mian Lian 1982. "A case of language indigenisation: some

features of colloquial Singapore English". Journal of Multiling­

ual and Multicultural Development. 3: 4. 267-276.

Polome, E.C. (ed.) 1982. Rural and Urban Multilingualism. (International

Journal of the Sociology of Language No.34) The Hague:

Mouton.

Pride, lE. 1979. "A transactional view of speech functions and code­

switching". In W.C. McCormack & S.A. Wurm (eds.) 1979.

27-553.

(ed.) 1982. New Englishes. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Rein, K. 1980. "Diglossie und Bilingualismus bei den Deutschen Ruma­

niens" . .In P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1980. 263-269.

Richards, Jack C. 1971. "A non-contrastive approach to error analysis".

English Language Teaching Journal. 25. 204-219.

1972. "Social factors. interlanguage, and language learning". Language

Learning. 22. 159-188.

1974. Error Analysis-perspectives on second language acquisition. London:

Longman.

1979. Rhetorical and communicative styles in the new varieties of English."

Language learning 29 (1): 1-26.

Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) 1991. Endangered Languages.

Oxford: Berg.

Rolshoven, ]iirgen 1980. "Ttirkisch-aromunische Lehnsbeziehungen". In R.

164

Werner (ed.) 29-41.

Rubin, Joan 1968. "Bilingual usage 1ll Paraguay". In lA.Fishman (ed.)

1968. 512-530.

Rudnyckyj, lE. 1973. "Immigrant languages, language contact, and biling­

ualism in Canada". In T.A.Sebeok (ed.) 1973. Linguistics in

North America. (Current Trends 1ll Linguistics Vo1.10). The

Hague: Mouton. 592-652.

Sandefur, John R. 1982. "Kriol and the question of decreolization". In

Graham R. Mckay (ed.) 1982. Australian Aborigines: Socioling­

uistic Studies. (International Journal of the Sociology of Lan­

guage No.36.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 5-13.

1983. "Modern Australian languages: the present state of Knowledge".

English World Wide. 4: 1. 43-68.

Sankoff, G. 1971. "Language use in multilingual societies: some alternative

approaches". In lE.Pride & lHolmes 1971. (eds.) 33-51.

Sociolinguistics. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1982. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Scherer, K.R. & Giles, H. (eds.) 1979. Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge

: Cambridge University Press.

Schumann, John H. 1976. "Social distance as a factor in second language

acquisition". Language learning. 26. 135-143.

1978. The Pidginization Process: a model for second language acquisition.

Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Scollon, Ronald & Scollon, Suzanne 1979, Linguistic Convergence: An

Ethnography of Speaking at Fort Chipewyan Alberta. New York

: Academic Press.

Scotton, C.M. & Ury, W. 1977. "Bilingual strategies: the social functions of

code-switching". International Journal of the Sociology of

165

Language No.13. 5-20.

Sebeok, Thomas A (ed.) 1967. Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol.2.

Linguistics in East Asia & South East Asia. Mouton: The

Hague.

Segalowitz, N.& Gatbonton, E. 1977. Studies of a non-fluent bilingual. In

P.A. Hornby (ed.) 1977. 77-89. Bilingualism: Psychological,

Social and Educational Implications. New York: Academic

Press.

Selinker, Larry 1972. "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied

Linguistics. 10. 209-33l.

Shapiro, Michael C. et. al. 1983. Language and Society in South Asia.

Dordrecht, Holland: Foris ..

Singh, R. 1980. "Aspects of language borrowing-English loans in Hindi". In

P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1980. 113-116.

Sjolin, Bo. 1980. "On the modalities of alternation in intra-group bilingual

speech". In P.H.Nelde (ed.) 1980. 271-28l.

Smith, Larry E. (ed.) 1981. English for Cross-cultural Communication~

London: MacMillan Press.

Sornig, Karl 1981. Lexical Innovation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Southworth, Franklin C. 1971. 'Detecting prior creolization'. Hymes, D. (ed.)

1971a. 255-76.

Stubbs, Michael (ed.) 1985. The Other Languages of England. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Tanaka, Katsuhiko & Lee, Yeonsuk 1986. "Aspekte der japanisch­

koreanischen Sprachkontake und Lehnbeziehungen". In H. Haar­

man & F.C.C.Peng (ed.) 1986. Sociolinguistics in Japan. (Int. ].

of the Sociology of Language. No.58).Berlin: Mouton de Gruter.

123-128.

Tay. M. 1982. 'The uses, users and features of English in Singapore' In:

166

Pride, J.B.(ed.) 1982. 51-70.

Thomas, Ceinwen H. 1982. "Registers in Welsh". International Journal of

the Sociology Language No.35. 87-115.

Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Terence 1988. Language Contact,

Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berk~ly : U of California

Press.

Trudgill, Pete'r 1974. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Umegaki, Minoru 1963 (re pr. 1978). Nippon Gairaigo no kenkyu (The study

of Japanese foreignisms). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Ure, Jean 1982. "Introduction: approaches to the study of register range". In

J. Ellis & J. Ure (eds.) 1982. (Int.J.of the Sociology of Language.

No.35).Register Range and Change. Berlin: Mouton. 5-23.

Ureland, P.Sture 1983. "Language contact in Europe". In S. Hattori & K.

Inoue (eds.) 1983. 1277-1285.

Uribe-Villegas, Oscar (ed.) 1977. Issues in Sociolinguistics. The Hague:

Mouton.

Valdman, A. (ed.) 1977a. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Vanneste, Alex M.S. 1982. "Le francais et le flamand en Flandre francaise".

In J. Gaudmont (ed.) 1982. 17-35.

Verdoodt, Albert 1972. "The differential impact of immigrant French

speakers on indigenous German speakers: a ca:se study in the

light of two theories". In J.A.Fishman (ed.) 1972c. 377-385.

Viereck, Wolfgang (ed.) 1980. Studien zum Einfluss der englischen Sprache

auf das Deutsche. Ttibingen: Gunter N arr.

Wernet, Reinhold (ed.) 1980. Sprachkontake. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Whiteley, W.H. 1967. "Loanwords in linguistic description: a case study

from Tanzania, East Africa". In LRauch & c.T.Scott (eds.) 1967.

Approaches in Linguistic Methodology. Madison: University of

167

Wisconsin Press. 125-143.

Wolfson, Nessa & Manes, Joan'1985. (eds.) Language 6f Inequality. Berlin:

Mouton.

Wurm, S.A.& Mulhausler, P. 1982. "Registers in New Guinea Pidgin". In

JEllis & Dre (zeds.) 1982. 69-86.

Yongquan, Lin 1986. "Terminological development and organization in

China". In B.H.]ernudd (ed.) 1986. 33-46.

Zwengler, Jane 1982. "Kenyan English". In B.B.Kachru (ed.) 1982.112-124.