language incontact
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
1/16
Pragmatics
:4.46548O
International
ragmatics
ssociation
TOWARDS
A PRAGMATIC
APPROACH
TO THE STUDY
OF
LANGUAGES N CONTACT:
EVIDENCE
FROM
LANGUAGE
CONTACT
CASES N SPAIN
Joan
A. Argente
and Lluis
Payrat6
0.
Abs t rac t
The
study of
language
contact has
been traditionally
carried out
from a structural
perspective
(synchronic
or diachronic),
from
a
sociolinguistic
perspective
and/or
from
a rather
psychological perspective,
centered n
the
linguistic
and communicativecompetence
of
the
multilingual
individual.
However, a
great
number
of
linguistic
and sociolinguistic topics
thatappear
n
language ontact situations
may
be
productively
tackled
from
a
pragmatic
iewpoint.
This
pragmatic perspective
akes nto
account
inguistic
use
n
communication
ontexts and
raises,
at a different
level,
questions
hat
deal
with
the structures
and the evolution of the codes
n
contact.
The
main
aim of
this
presentation
s
the analysis of some of the
specific
problems
that arise
in given language contact situations
from
a
pragmatic erspective, onsidering he adaptationprocessesof the speakers,
their
particular interactive
strategies and
the social meaning
generated.
Understanding
ragmatics
in
its
original senss,
i.e.
as
the
study of the
relationship etween
inguistic signs
and
speakers
users
of certain
resources),
these
henomena
hould be understoodas
the
result
of speakers' daptation o
changing
sociocultural circumstances.
This
adaptat ion creates
a new
distribution
f
the
verbal
resources
or
linguistic
economy)
of the community
and,
consequently,
modifies
its varieties
as
far
as form and
function
are
concerned.l
I
An
earlier,
shorter version of
this
paper
was delivered
as
an oral
presentation
t
the
1990 International
Pragmatics
Conference
Barcelona,
9
-
13.VII.1990).
he
authors
hank
Anxo
Lorenzo for
comments on
the
data
presented.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
2/16
466
Joan
A. Argente
and
Llu{s
Pawat1
Introduction and aims
The main
aim
of
this contribution
s
to
show
that:
(a)
the
study of
languages n
contact
may
take advantageof a
pragmatic
approach,and
that
(b)
pragmatics
as a discipline
may benefit in more
than one
way from
the
data obtained
in the
analysis
of language
contact, basically
in
the
following aspects:
(i)
the
multilingual individual
and
his
communicativebehaviour,
(ii)
the
processes
f languagemaintenance
nd
anguage
shift,
and
(iii)
the
processes
f the adoptionand adaptation f
linguistic
elements
originally
foreign
to a code, hat
is to
say,
nterference.
2. The analysis of
language
contact
Languagecontacthas
never
been
considereda central
domain
for
linguistics.Rather, t has been
understood
as a
peripheral
area, rrelevant
o
linguistic
thought,
and sometimeseven
purely
anecdotalor
marginal.
The
reasonswhy this has been so
are
obviously diverse,but the more
important
of
them
have to do with the
prevailing
conception about
the
boundaries
of
linguistics
s
a science.
Nuances
different approaches
issuehave
been:
(a)
the study
from
thirties),
(b) the study from
(c)
the study
from
or changes
in
this conception
have
determined
the
advanced.
The
main
lines developed
n
the study of this
a
historical
point
of
view
(XIX
and
XX
century
up
to the
a structural oint of view (1930'sup to 1953),and
a sociolinguistic
oint
of
view
(1953
onwards).
While
structural ism
prevails
al l along
the
first
half of
our
century,
ater on
sociolinguistics
eplaces
hat
perspective.
Weinreich's
book,
issued in 1953,
surely
the main
work
even
now
in
the study of
language
contact,
represents he
bridge
between both
conceptions.
t starts
from
a
structural
basis but establishes
or
the
first
time the
necessity
of taking into
account he sociocultura l
background
of
contact.
Two
complementary
ines
--even
geographically
istinct-- should
still be
pointed
out:
firstly,
anthropological
inguistics n
the
U.S.A.,
which in
part
resul ts
in
the ethnography of communicat ion,
and
secondly
psycholinguist ics in
Europe, mainly
concerned
with
the
problem
of
bilingualism
since
the
mid
twenties of this century.
In
the latter case
the
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
3/16
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
4/16
468
Joan A. Argcnte
nnd Lluis Pnyat1
This notion,
as expounded and analyzed by and
large
by
Verschueren
(1987)
may
be one of the
more
signif icant
theoret ical
contributions of
pragmatics
to the ana lysis of
language
contact.
Leaving
macrosociolinguistic
rocesses
side, his adaptation
s
constantly
produced
by
the subjects'communicativeactivity, basically
n language
choice, n code-
switching and
in interference.
A
pragmatic perspective,
useful and applicable o the analysis of
languagecontact
must necessarily
be broad and
integrative in
such a way
as
to
include
all the
factors
--diverse
in
origin and
nature--
present
in
multilingual situations.CharlesW. Monis (1938:30)worded it precisely n
these errns:
it
is
a
sufficiently accuratecharacterization f
pragmatics
o say
that
i t
deals
with
the
biot ic aspectsof semiosis, hat
is,
with
al l the
psychological,
biological, and sociological
phenomena
which
occur
in
the
functioning
of signs.
Indeed
the biological
parallelism
in many issues
of language
contact
has hardly been explored.
To
give
an example,
which will
be dealt
with further on,
let
us
mention
the
notion of mimetism applied to
interference.
In the same ine the conceptof adaptationbecomesmore significant and may
be understoodas the users'
esponse
o their environment as
well
as
its
effect
on their
languages,
with the
aim
of
improving
and accommodating he verbal
resourcesof the community.
To
paraphrase
a typical ly sociol inguist ic
formulation, the
question
may
be
put
in the following way:
who
adapts what,
who
adapts o
whom,
rvhen,how
and
why?
4.
The
process
of
l inguist ic interference
The
phenomena
alled code-switching
and code-mixinghave been
accounted
for
traditionally,
and even
more
so
lately, from
a
pragmatic
viewpoint
(cf.
Gumperz
1970,, 912, 1982;
Auer 1983, Heller
(ed.)
1988).
Leaving
them
aside,
we may
concentrate
on the domain of
interference,
which,
in
contradistinction
o the
former,
has hardly
ever been approached
n
this
way
(cf.
Auer
1983,Flores
&
Valiflas
1987).
Linguistic
interferencemay be understood,
generally
speaking,
as
an induced language change, hat is to say, as a processby which some
elements,originally
foreign to a
given
language,
are used by
its
speakers
(Payrat6
1985:2.2.).
The
apparent
reason
for
this use
is
in
principle
the
speakers'
nowledge
of other
languages
or else the
fact
that their
linguistic
competencedoes
not refer
to only one code.
However,
the
real
account
for
interference
s not
given
by
this
knowledge
being
mixed
at
random,
as it were,
in linguistic
production.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
5/16
The study
f languagesn contact 469
One must suppose hat certain factors influence the processes f
interference
ecisively.
What
is
more,
avoiding a
purist
and academic
misconception,
o
frequently
held around romance
languages,
one must
suppose hat the
processes
of
interference mply
some kind
of
gain
for
languages
nd
their users, at
least in
terms of the adaptative biological
standpoint
aken
before.
From
a
pragmatic
viewpoint, this verbal
improvement
shows up
in
expressiveness,
unctionality,
explicitness,economy of
resources n
the
processes
f
languageproduction
and understanding,&fld in
mechanisms
of
informationstorage.
After
all,
that
is what
can
explain in a more real and
deeper
way
the appearance f
interference
phenomena
between
anguages n
contact.
Interferencehardly ever
obeys a
single
factor. In
this sense,
t
seemso be an
ideal field
for
the
analysisof
the
central topics in
pragmatics:
the
nterdependencef social and cognitive aspectsof
language
use.
This
can
be
ascertained
ither
for individual interference n
speechor
for
interference
in language s
a social code
(Weinreich
1953:2.14.).These actors
may be
ananged long he following three axes:
(a)
the
sociocultural
value
of
languages n contact,
in
other
words,
the
socioculturalbackground of
languages:
he
specific sociolinguistic
dimension,
(b)
the
particular
raits of subjects,
heir
(in)capacity
o
keep
both
codes
separate
n
use,
and also the
individual
attitudes
owards the
languages,
the specific
psycholinguistic
dimension,and
astly
(c)
the contextual
features, that
is
to say,
the
specific
setting of speech
eventsand the relationshipbetween nterlocutors.
5.
Funct ions of in ter ference
in language maintenance
and
language
shift
If interference
s
analyzed
not
only as a
strictly structural fact,
but
rather
as
a
phenomenonwith a functional capacity,
it
can be shown to
characterize
issimilar
long-term
processes.2
So,
interference
through
borrowing, nitiated mainly in the lexicon, usually characterizes anguage
maintenance
rocesses
nd
s
proper
o
people
who
show
resistanceo
2
The
ideas
n the
present
paragraph
have mainly
been drawn
from
the
analysis
resented
n
Argente
(1989).
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
6/16
470 Joan A. Argente and Llu{s Pnyat6
language
shift.
As a consequence, he direction
of
interference
runs
from
a
dominant o
a
recessive anguage.
Otherwise,
interference
hrough
shift
--or
substratumeffect--,
originated
mainly
in
phonic
and syntactic
structures,usually characterizes
language
shift.
Generally speaking,
t is
proper
to
people
who
move
towards
the adoption
of a
new
language.
Consequently,
t runs from
a
recessive
towards a
dominant
anguage.
Thus,
in
the specific
historical
Catalan
Spanish
anguage
contact
situation,
traditionally borrowing
from
Spanish
nto
Catalan
has
been
proper
to autochthonous
speakers,
while
nowadays interference through shift
characterizes
he speech
of Spanish
allochthonous
speakersadopting the
Catalan
anguage.
Without
considering
the consequences
f this
fact for
the
evolution
of the
Catalan
language, hese two types
of
interference
calry out
very different
functions.
The main function
of
interference
hrough shift
is
to
facilitate the
learning and use of another
anguageby Spanish speakers,and
can result n the emergence f a new language ariety, in this casea Catalanas
second
anguagevariety.
In contrast,borrowing
does
not facilitate
the
learning
of any
new
language.
Rather,
as a
matter of
fact, its
objective
result is
to
functionally
restrict and
in
the end to
formally
disintegrate
he autochthonous
language.
Although these
processes
are evaluated
n
a very different
way
depending
on
the users'
nvolvement, both cases
may
be
qualified
as adaptive
strategies
of these users
to changing
sociocultural
factors. In
this sense
one
might
hold interference o
be one of the
linguistic mechanisms
producing
direct consequences
n
the
macrosociol inguist ic
processes
of
language
maintenance nd anguageshift.
Finally,
interferencealso
has an adaptive
function as far as
it
concerns
he
verbal
repertoireof the community,
and
goes
hand in hand with
sociolinguistic
rocesses
f expansion
r
retraction.So, n the caseof Catalan
Spanishcontact,
borrowing
does
not
imply
an
increase n
the
social basis of
the Catalan
speech
community,
but
fumishes t with someexpressive
esources
that
wil l al low
this community
to accommodate
o
new
circumstances,
although
it will
keep
the
community
in
a sociolinguistically subordinate
posit ion.
Instead,
interference hrough shift contributes
in
principle
to
increasing the
social basis
of the
languagecommunity and to broadening
ts
verbal
repertoire.
Again,
we
see
how
interference
offers
itself
as
an adaptative
strategy
in order
for the community
to
give
a
linguistic response o the
pressure
exerted
by socioecological
and
sociopsychological ircumstances.Or,
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
7/16
The
srudy
of
languages
n
contact
47I
adaptation
ppears
n
both
cases
as
a reciprocal
relationship
betweensubjectsand he environmental
actors
ust
mentioned
--precisely
those
modifying
t1.
system
of
sociocultural
values
and
functions
that
were prevailing
UJfore
contact.
6.
Inter ference
as
an
adapt ive
st rategy
of
speakers
in
pragmatically
elevant
contexts
It
is
generally
assumed
hat
while
code-switching
s
either
a
strategy o convey social meaning or a rhetorical
device
employed
in
the
construction
of
discourse,
interference
is
an
automatic,
non-monitored.
structurally
ll-embracing
mechanism.
However,
one
cannot
dismiss
the
possibi l i ty
of
f inding
interference
phenomena
used
to
convey
social
meaning
ind
rhetorical
functions.
Facts
of
this
kind
may
be
observed
in
ethnogiaphic
fieldwork
centered
pon
verbal
nteraction
n
small population
groups.-
6.L.
Presentat ion
f
the
data
As
a matter
of fact,
some
cases
of what
we
have
in
mind
have
been ecorded
y
Lorenzo
(1990)
in
the
course
of ethnographic
ieldwork
in
a
1ma.ll
peech
ommunity
near
Vigo,
a Galician
seaport-in
ne North-West
of
spain,where
Galician
-
Spanish
anguage
ontact
ak^eslace.3
While
searching
for
Galician
inherent
variat ion,
Lorenzo
observedhat in a- anguagecontactsetting nherentvariablesmay come about
as
a result
of the
speakers'
ntentional
reallocation
of veibal
material
originally
proceding
rom
language
contact phenomena,
uch
as
certain
kinds
of
interference
-that
is
to
say,
language
contact
ums
out
to
be
the
source
of
inherent
ariation
n
such
a setting.
Thus,
Lorenzo
notes
that in
spontaneous
anguage
use
certain
systematic
lternances
ake
place
n
some
words
between
uaiianis
that
we
will
characterize,
espectively,
as
an
autochthonous
ariant
and
the
corresponding
3
The
ethnographic
ieldwork
was
carried
out
in
the
parish
of
Coiro,
within
the village
of
Cangas
de Morrazo.
Galician
is
the
autochthonous
language
f
Galicia,
and
is
habitual ly
used
by
a
people
whose
main
socioeconomic
ctivities
are related
to
agriculture,
cattla
raising,
fishing
and
merchant
avy.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
8/16
472
Joan A.
Argente
nnd Lluis Payat6
allochthonous
solution,
for
instancesingle
ower
mid vowel versus
diphthong:
lel
I
[je]
and
Ic
]
/
[we],
or
voiceless
palatal
fricative
versusvoiceless
velar
fricative:
S
/
[x].
As is
shown
n
cases
1)
to
(3)
below:a
(1a)
El
nunca
sufriu
na
sfa
pel
o
m[e
]do
do
mar
e os
desastres
'He
himself
never suffered
he
fear
of the seaand
the
disasters'
(lb)
A
trampa
que
lle est6n acendo5
gobffe]rno
6 tremenda
'The
government
is
about to
fall into
a
tenible
trap'
(2a) Anteshabiamoitosblc
]is
labrando
'In
the
old
days
there were many
oxen to
plough
(2b)
O comercioen
Pontevedra on
est6 an
alto
en
imp[we]stos
omo
en
Vigo
'Taxes
upon
trading are
not as high in Pontevedra
as they are in
Vigo'
(3a) Candoeranova. am6nanduven melS il6n
'When
I was
young,
I
also went to
harvestmussels'
(3b)
ConxuntamenteCoiro e
Tirdn eran
antes
partido
Ix]udicial
'Coiro
and
Tir6n were
once one administrative district'
Traditionally,
these
differences
have
been consideredas lexical
facts, with no more
qualification
than treating
(b)-cases
s
instances
of
lexical
borrowing, i .e. as loanwords, while considering (a)-casesas tradit ional
words.5 Now, Lorenzo's contention
s
that
they must be
analysed
as inherent
4
These
data are
fragments
of
natural
conversations
ecorded
by
Lorenzo,
and
include other casesof
interference
besides
hose studied. The
choice
of examples
and English translationsare our
own,
and they should
not
be taken
for
granted
as the
best. Variables other
than
those
presented
have
been investigated,with similar results. Alternancesare but one of the
structural
results derived from
language
contact.
5
Actually
we
are
in
the
presence
of correspondence
ules
or what was
termed
automatic
conversion
ormulae
by Weinreich
(1953:1.2.),
.e.
rules
that establish
interlinguistic
equivalencesand diminish the
psycholinguistic
burden
of bilinguals.
From Lorenzo's standpoint these rules
would have
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
9/16
The study of languages in contact 473
phonological
ariables,used by local speakers n
order to discriminate socio-
symbolic aluesof legal cunency within the
community.
Indeed,
a case
s
made that the
single
vowel
and
IS
]
variants
appear
redominantly
n
so-called ocal
words,
that
is
to say, words referring
to loca l socioeconomicactivities
and
homely
life. Instead,
the
imported
diphthongand
[x]
variants appear
in
so-cal led
non-local
words,
i .e.,
vocabulary
elative
to
activities, nstitutions
or
facts
originated outside
the
speech
ommunity.
These systematic alternances affect both nominal and verbal
items.Restricting
ourselves o
nominal
elements
and
vowel
variables,
et
us
apply a new seriesof
cases
classified according
to
the
mentioned
distinction
andsubclassified
ollowing several elevant
opics:
( i )
(A )
(B)
[c ]
in local
contexts
Lexical
items
n merchantnavy
or
fishing
contexts:
Candonon
se
via.
usaban
un
cordel e unha
p[e
]dra
'When
they
could no longer see,
hey used a cord and
a
stone'
Lexical
tems
n
peasant
ontexts:
Mifla irm6
Manuela oi
apaflar
a h[e
]rba
6s
h[c
]rtas
do cura
'My
sister
Manuela went to
cut down
some herbage from
the
parson's
orchards'
Lexical
items
n homely
life contexts:
Eu fago
abores
a
casa.
nin n[e
]tos
nin fillos
'I
work
at home,
neither
grandchildren
nor
children'
[we]
in
non-local
contexts
Lexical items n
trade contexts:
Pero
a
maiorfa dos
p[we]stos
son
de toda
a vida.
sempre
veflen
'But
the most of these stalls
have
been
here
forever,
they always
come
'
l eL
(4)
(s)
(c)
(6)
( i
)
Liel,
(D)
(1)
ceasedo be
interlingual.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
10/16
474
Joan A.
Argente
and
Lluis Payat6
(E )
Lexical items n Administrationcontexts:
Estamos
no r6gimen
especial
agrario.
por
c[we]nta
propia.
agraria
'We
are subject
to
the
system
for
self-employed
agricultural
workers'
(F)
Lexical tems
n religious
and
sanitary
ontexts:
(9) A misavou candohai enrffe]rros'I
go
to mass
when
there s
a
funeral'
(10)
Sacdronme
tratamffe]nto
porque
decfan
que
xa
estaba
en
'They
took me
off
the
treatment
because
hey
said
that I
was
no
longer
ill '
6 .2.
Discussion
of the
data
There
are
several points
in Lorenzo's thesis and in our
interpretation
of it.
These
are mainly:
(I)
The
altemance
s
a matter
of
phonological
variation,
not
just
of lexical
borrowing.
(II)
This phonological
variation
has its
source
n
interference
phenomena
-
originally
loanwords.
(III)
This phonological
variation
s
of
a socio-symbolic
ature,
n
the
sense
that it
conveys
socialmeaning.
(IV)
This
socio-symbolic
phonological
variat ion,
originated
in
contact
phenomena,
an be
best described
as
pragmatic
n nature.
Point
(II)
--or
at least
ts predicate
hrase--
would
be accepted
y
anyone. Point
(III)
is
the marrow
of Lorenzo's
contention
and
the
goai
of his
argument.
Point
(I)
is in part
argued
by him
and will
be reinforced
by
us
below
in
the
light
of
some acts.
Point
(IV)
must
be our
main
contention
ere.
Concerning
point
(I),
there
are
several
kinds
of facts
that
mav
be
adduced
in
order
to
argue the phonological
character
of
the
phenorn.na
reported n (1) - (3).These nclude:
(i)
The fact
that
one may
find
these
altemances
n
verbs,
not
only
nouns.
(ii)
The
existence
n
the verbal
repertoire
of the cornmunity
of
paradigmatic
oppositions
between exical
items
differing
only in
the
use of
one
or the
other
variant
and
giving
way
to
semantically
pecialized
oublets,
ike
in
(G):
(8)
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
11/16
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
12/16
476
Joan A. Argente and Lluis Payatf
(13) Estehome6 neto de Paxariflo.Este6 nieto do homemi{isvello da
parroquia
'This
man is Paxariflo's
grandson.
He is
the
grandson
of the
oldest
man
on the
parish'
(14)
Estabamos
dous
homes
solos. coa
m6quina
que
arrea vinteseis
peixes pE
minuto.
e aquf estou.
ee
que?. qu6roche
dicir.
ientendes?.
e
m6taste
a traballar
pa
o do
puente
de
cl6-cl5
a ese
home non
se
lle
paga
nada.
Pdgaselle
6s
artistas. 6 asf ou non 6? E si lle contestas lgo xa che estdndando
o
pase.
xa
te amenazan un
p3rche.
ientiendes?.
...>
Fun
enlace
sindical durantecatro anos.
que
me nombraronno mar
os
marifreirosmisrEgs... non
podes
r
a
ningrin ado.
lentiendes?
'There
were only
two of us,
with
the
machine
uming out
twenty-
six
fishes
per
minute, and
here
am
I
--and
so
what?
I
mean
--do
you
understand?--
nd
you
kill
yourself
with
work
for the one in
the bridge
off
the back
of
another
and they
pay
almost nothing to this man. They
pay
the artists,don't they? And
if
you
try
to
argue
with them, they
get rid
of
you
at once, they
threaten
you
with
the sack
--do
you
understand?
steward
for
four years
seamen
themselves...
and
you
can't
go
anywhere
--do
you
understand?'
Lorenzo
(1990)
remarks
that
the diphthonged variant
always
appears
n
second
place,
and attributes o
it
an expressive
pragmatic)
value
of
emphasis,
artially
independent f the basic
value
we
are
discussinghere.
(iv)
Finally,
perhaps
he
most interesting
cases o be
adduced
or
the
sake
of
the
argument
would
be those where the
fact
can
be
observed
ndependently
of
any
process
of
lexical borrowing, .e.those
where
he variants
e],
[we]
or
Ix]
are used
n
otherwise
Galician traditional
words with no
corresponding
orms
in Spanish,at
the time
that
the original
[E],
[c]
or
[S
1
is kept
and the
purely
phonological
alternance
s
used to convey the same
values as
in
the cases
mentioned ill
now. At
present,
he
lack
of these casesseem to
prove
that
hypothesis
I)
must be
taken
in
a
more coloured sense: he
process
of
phonologizationhas not
yet
finished.
As in the case f a spontaneous
ound hange,hen,some
of
these
facts
probably
originated s
exical
phenomena,
hat
s
to
say, hey affected
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
13/16
The srudy
of languages
n contact
477
somespecific exical items
before
generalizing
o the rest of the contexts
where
hey appearand
before evolving towards
a sound alternance
-and
so, a
phonological
ariable.
What
is
at
stake
here is
the
nature
of
some
facts
of
inherent
variationn
a
language
ontact setting
where
the
languages
n concurrence
are
highly related,
and, as a consequence,
hey share a
great
part
of
their
vocabulary
and structural
features.
It is
under these
circumstances
hat
original
nterference
phenomena
may
turn
into
socio-symbolic
inherent
variation.
Center ing
ourselves
on th is
socio-symbol ic value
of
the
altemancesonsidered,
e
describe
t
as
properly
pragmatic
n nature
-more
thansay
strictly sociolinguistic--, n
so
far
as
the
variablesdo
not
seem
to
identify
a
style
--either
measured n
termesof
a
scale
of
formality
or
qualified
as
a naturalvariety--,
nor to correlatewith
a
stratified
social
group
--men
versus
women,
adults
vs. children,
older
generation
s.
younger generations,
upper
s. middlevs. lower
classes,
easant
workersvs. sea-workers
s.
white-
collars, r
any
other--,
nor
even tc characterizea register tied
to a well-
defined ocio-cultural ituation. nstead, hey seem o mark some opics or key-
words
s,so to speak, n-group
generated
s.
out-group
generated,
nd
so, in
some ense,
utochthonous s.
allochthonous
with regard
o the community.
This
interpretation
does
not
follow
mechanically from
Lorenzo's
data,
or
the
group
he investigateds
a relatively
homogeneous
ne
as to age,
educational
evel,
socio-economic
ctivities and
position,
ethnic
group,
etc.
Anyway,everythingseems o
point
in
the direction of a
generahzed
se of the
phonological
ariables n the
community
--even
children make
use
of
them
(Lorenzo, ersonal ommunication).
So,
as
far
as
Lorenzo's
analysis
holds
true, and
as far
as our
interpretation
f the
facts
fits
it,
we
are
clearly confronted with
a device for
conveying
ocial
meaning.T
On the other
hand,
a strictly correlational nalysis
would
provide
us
with
no adequate nterpretation
or
the variables n
question.
Instead,
nly
an
analysis
rom
the
point
of
view
of the use speakersmake
of
them
n verbal nteractionand from the
point
of
view of the values
speakers
assign
o them
n this
specific
socio-cultural ontext
may
put
us on
the
track
o
7
As
general ly
accepted, code-switching
s
another
mechanism
conveying
ocial
meaningand, n contradistinctiono interference,t is
usually
interpreteds
non-automatic.For
Galician
-
Spanish
code-switching n
the
observedommunity,
ee
Argente
and Lorenzo
1989,
1990).
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
14/16
478
JoanA.
Argente nd Lluts Payat6
discoverwhat type of socio-symbolicmeaning s conveyedby variablesof this
kind.
Not
only
are
we
allowed
to examine these
phenomena
rom
a
pragmatic
standpoint,
but
this is the
only
analysis
hat will turn out
to be the
most
appropriate:
n
so
far
as some
nterferences eem o
be
governed
by
the
speakers'
purposeful
use,
they should
no longer be considered
as automatic,
non-monitored,
general phenomena,
but
should rather be viewed
from
a
perspective
hat
takes
anguage
use
--and
specifically
the
relationship
between
language signs and their users
--
as its main relevant topic of concern.This
viewpoint
is
the one
furnishedby
pragmatics.
Finally, the
adaptive character
of
pragmatic values
and elements
shows up
again.
ndeed,
we
are
entitled to consider
nterference
as adaptation,
in
so
far as
it
implies variation and
choice,
for
any adaptation
consists
n
selecting
a
variable, he one
that
is
the
most suited
o
a
specific
purpose.
We believe
that studies
n
this
line will also show
interference
o
be used
to express
other
pragmatically
relevant values and
functions in
social
interaction
--either
as
a
way of conveying
social
meaning or as a strategy
n
constructing
discourse.
A special
case n
point
should
be expressive
alues ied
to
irony
and
humour.
In short,
the
pragmatic values of
interference
show both
that the
study of
languages
n
contact
may take
advantage
f a
pragmatic
approach
and
that
pragmatics
as a
discipline
may benefit
from
the analysis
of
language
contact.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
15/16
The
study of
languages
in contact
479
References
APPE,L, . ,
MUYSKEN,
P.
(1987)
Language
contact
and
bil ingualism.
London:
Arnold.
ARGENTE,,
.A.
(1989)
Dindmica
social factors
ntervinents
en I'extensi6
de
I'ris
del catalh: a
perspectiva
ingii(stica.
Manuscript.
ARGENTE,
.A.
(1991)
Reflexions
sobre
algunes
conseqtibncies
ingtiistiques
del proc6sde normalitzaci6. In
J.A.
ARGENTE (ed.)
Debat
sobre la
normalitzaci6
inetifstica.
Barcelona:
nstitut
d'Estudis
Catalans
ARGENTE,
.A.,
LORENZO,
A.
(1989)
La
productividad
de
la
alternancia
lingtiistica
en el
contacto
gallego-castellano.
aper
delivered
at the XIX
Simposio de la
Sociedad Espaflola
de Lingiiistica.
An
abstract has
appearedn Revista
Espafrola
e Lingiiistica
20
(1990),148-149.
ARGENTE,
.A.,
LORENZO,
A.
(1991)
A relevancia
social
da
alternancia
lingiiistica. ademos e lingua3:91-109.
ARGENTE,
.A.,
PAYRAT6,
L.
(1990)
Contacte
de
llengi.ies:
nrecedents
constituci6
e
I'dmbit
de
recerca.
imits
8: 81-98.
AUER,
J.C.P.
1983)
Zweisorachige
Konversationen:
Code-Switching
und
Trans fe r
be i i t a l i en i schen
Migran tenk indern
in
Kons tanz .
Sonderforschungsbereich
9, no.
79, University
of
Konstanz.
English
translation: ilingual
conversation.
msterdam:
.
Benjamins,
1984.
FLORES,
.A., VALINIAS,
L.
(1987)
A
pragmatic
approach
o the linguistic
interference
rocess:
defining
a
model.
Paper
delivered
at the l98l
International
Pragmatics
Conference.
Manuscript.
GUMPERZ, .J.
(1970)
Verbal
strategies n multilingual
communication.
n
J.E.
Alatis
(ed.)
Report
of the twenty-first
annual round
table meeting
on
inguistics
and
anguage
tudies.Monograph
Series
on Languages
nd
Linguistics 3:
129-143.
Washington:
Georgetown
University.
GUMPERZ, .J.
(1972)
The
communicative
ompetence
f bilinguals:
Some
hypotheses
nd suggestionsor
research.
anguage
n
Societlz :
I43-
154 .
GUMPERZ, J.J.
(
1982) Discourse
st rategies.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
Universitv
Press.
-
7/24/2019 Language Incontact
16/16
480 Joan A.
Argente
and
Lluis
Poyratf
HELLER,M. (ed.) 1988)Codeswitching.nthropglogicalndsociolinguistic
perspectives.
erlin:
Mouton
de Gruyter.
LEVINSON,
S.C.
(1983)
Pragmatics.
ambridge:
ambridge
niversity
Press.
LEECH,
G.N.
(1983)
Principles
of
pragmatics.
ondon:
Longman.
LORENZO,
A.
(1990)
O
mantemento
ingtiistico:
Proceso
ocial
e resultados
estructurais o contactogalego-castel6n.hird Cycle ResearchProject,
supervised
by
J.A.
Argente.
Bellaterra:
Universitat
Autdnoma
de
Barcelona.
MACKEY,
W.F.
(1976)
Bi l inguisme
et contact
des langues.
Par is:
Klincksieck.
MORRIS,
C.W.
(1938)
Foundat ions
of
the
theor lz
of s igns.
Chicago:
University
of
ChicagoPress.
PAYRAT6,
L.
(1985)
La interferbncia
ingtiistica.
Comentaris
exemples
catald-caste l lh. Barcelona:
Cur ia l -Publ icacions
de I 'Abadia
de
Montserrat.
VERSCHUEREN,
J.
(1987)
Pragmatics
s
a theory
of
l inguist ic
adaptat ion.
IPrA
Working
Document
1.
WEINREICH,
U.
(1953)
Languagesn
contact.
indings
nd
problems.
York.
(Seventh
rinting,
he
Hague:
Mouton,1970).
New