In search of stability Pieter Muysken Centre for Language Studies Radboud University Nijmegen.

In search of stability Pieter Muysken Centre for Language Studies Radboud University Nijmegen

Contact-induced language change Languages change when their speakers also speak another language However: A.Some languages change faster than others B.Some components of language change faster than others

Stability What factors contribute to the Stability of languages? Stability of components of language?

Why study stability? Links language change to cross-linguistic priming Allows potential insight into deep time relationships

With thanks to the Languages in Contact group (www.ru.nl/linc).www.ru.nl/linc Suzanne AalberseMargot van den Berg Joshua BirchallBob Borges Rik van GijnHarald Hammarstrm Pablo Irizarri v. SuchtelenSimon van de Kerke Gerrit Jan KootstraOlga Krasnoukhova Linda van MeelNeele Mller Loretta OConnorKofi Yakpo Francesca Romana MoroHlya Sahin Ana Vilacy

Sponsors and partners Radboud University Nijmegen European Research Council Netherlands Organization for Research (NWO) Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences (KNAW) Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Museu Goeldi Belem Leiden University Lund University

LevelSpaceTimeSourceDisciplineScenario Locus Person Bilingual individual 0-50 yrsRecordings, tests, experiments Psycho- linguistics Brain connectivity Micro Bilingual community 20-200 yrs Recordings, fieldwork observations Socio- linguistics Specific contact scenarios Meso Geographical region 200- 1000 yrs Comparative data; historical sources Historical linguistics Global contact scenarios Macro Larger areas of the world Deep time Typological dataAreal typology Vague or no contact scenarios STUDIES ON CONTACT: Convergence of disciplines and scenarios?

Scenario the organized fashion in which multilingual speakers, in certain social settings, deal with the various languages in their repertoire Maintenance, shift, creation,... (Thomason & Kaufmann)

Contradictory earlier results shallow/person extensive cross-linguistic priming micro/community very limited convergence meso/language some, but limited convergence macro/deep time extensive areal effects

Sub-projectLevelTime range of contact Multilingual processing, with Turkish/Dutch and Papiamentu/Dutch bilinguals IndividualIndividual biography, 10-30 years Heritage languages in the Netherlands, with a large range of immigrant language communities MicroShallow time, 50-100 years Surinam, with Amerindian, Creole, Asian and European languages MesoMiddle long-term, up to 500 years The Amazonian fringe, with small Amerindian languages on the western border of the Amazon MacroDeep time, at least 5000 years

PapiamentuTurkish TMApre-verbal particlesverbal suffixes Evidentialityweakly grammaticalizedstrongly grammaticalized Arg Realizationzero marking; few prepositionsrich case marking fixed orderfree order bos-nan no a mira nosbiz-i gor-me-di-niz-mi? 2-PL NEG PA see 1PL1PL-AC see-PA-NEG-2PL-QDidnt you see us? - experience with these communities; existing corpora - both show strong internal cohesion and relatively high language maintenance - languages are maximally different Multilingual processing: Papiamentu and Turkish in contact with Dutch

Dative structures in Dutch and Papiamento Dutch: two possibilities Prepositional object (PrepO):De vrouw geeft de bal aan de man The woman gives the ball to the man Double object (DblO):De vrouw geeft de man de bal The woman gives the man the ball Papiamento: one possibility Double object (DblO):E muh ta duna e homber e bala The woman gives the man the ball

Video clip description: Baseline experiment RESPONSE [In Papiamento, using the depicted verb] * [The stimuli are movie clips from Rochester University] DUNA

Priming experiment RESPONSE Match? (Yes / No) 1. PRIME (DblO condition) De jongen geeft het meisje de mand the boy gives the girl the basket (DblO) 2. TARGET DUN A [In Papiamento, using the depicted verb]

Priming experiment RESPONSE Match? (Yes / No) 1. PRIME (PrepO condition) De jongen geeft de mand aan het meisje the boy gives the basket to the girl (PrepO) 2. TARGET DUN A [In Papiamento, using the depicted verb]

Percentage Results: Baseline experiment on Aruba DO structure is almost always used (98.2 %)

p =.006 Percentage (De jongen geeft het meisje de sleutel)(De jongen geeft de sleutel aan het meisje) Results: Priming experiment on Aruba

B ASELINE :D ESCRIBE DITRANSITIVE MOVIE CLIPS IN P APIAMENTO ( WITHOUT PRIMING ) Papiamento speakers on Aruba: 98.2% Double Object used; 1.8% Prepositional Object used.

B ASELINE :D ESCRIBE DITRANSITIVE MOVIE CLIPS IN P APIAMENTO ( WITHOUT PRIMING ) Baseline Papiamento speakers in the Netherlands: 87% Double Object used; 13% Prepositional Object used. Variation between participants about twice as high as Aruba. Variation stimulates / lies at the foundation of change

C ONCLUSIONS P RODUCTION OF DITRANSITIVES IN P APIAMENTO General tendency to use DO-structure But more at Aruba than in NL More variation in NL Cross-linguistic priming influenced syntactic choices Recent exposure to other language changes ones own language behavior Priming as a potential mechanism of contact-induced language change Priming effect in NL influenced by age and length of stay in NL Higher cross-language flexibility in younger people Length of stay onset exposure to Dutch language contact

Next 1: world paradigm, anticipatory eye movements e bala na e mucha muh E mucha homber ta duna e mucha muh e bala When people hear ta duna what object will they look at?

Next 2: studies with other variables Amaa lo mi bay playa Tomorrow FUT I go beach Morgen ga ik naar het strand. Tomorrow go I to the beach.

Ideal results shallow time Clear understanding of the conditions on, and effects of, syntactic priming Grammatical component factors Similarity factors Markedness factors Type of bilingualism factors Directionality factors Priming and change

Methods for finding stability Experiments Meta-analysis of language contact processes in real time Meta-analysis of historical data for individual language families Phylogenetic modeling on large data sets (e.g. WALS)

Heritage language communities Spontaneous & video elicitation paradigms: Chilean SpanishTurkish Moroccan ArabicPapiamentu Chinese languagesSranan Creole MalaySarnami Hindustani

Ideal results micro settings (heritage language communities) Clear understanding of the degree to which and way in which heritage languages in the Netherlands change Different linguistic structures and typological factors, such degree of word complexity Time depth community Age on onset, bilingual competence

Warao Arawakan Cariban Maroon Creole Sarnmi Javanese Sranan Tongo Dutch, Guyanese, Portuguese, Kejia Case study: Language diversity in Surinam: Late colonial period to now (1880 2010)

Functions of multilingualism by domain ETHNIC SRANAN Informal: colleagues Family: same generation Informal: friends DUTCH Symbolic politics TV, Radio Formal politics Contact with institutions Local politics Family:+1/ +2 generation Family:+ 1 generation National politics Informal: friends generation Family:-1/ -2 generation Radio Music: lovers rock Flirting Relationship Music: roots reggae, traditional

Neigbournet analysis So far 81 features So far 10 languages Kikongoearly SrananEnglish Ewegbecont. SrananDutch Gungbecont. SaramaccanPortuguese Fongbe

Ideal results meso settings Clear understanding of the ways in which the various languages of Suriname have influenced each other Respective different roles of Dutch (superstrate) and Sranan (adstrate) Different linguistic structures Typological factors Bilingual competence factors Time depth

External stability factors Strength of transmission between G(i) > (Gj) Number of L2 learners Amount of bilingual usage (strong priming) Register differentiation Focussing versus diffusion Language ideology and emblematic role of differences

Internal stability factors: lexical borrowability Syntactic markers > discourse markers (que that > pues then) Sorphology > lexicon (diminutive > adjective) Core vocabulary > non-core vocabulary > animal and plant names > technical vocabulary (hand > computer) Articles > verbs, adpositions > nouns, adjectives > names Low numbers > high numbers (two > million) First, second person pronouns > third, fourth (inclusive) person pronouns Basic colours > peripheral colours (white > orange) Phonological organization > phonetic realization (/i/ : /e/ contrast > velar r)

Internal stability factors Van Hout and Muysken (1995) Frequency (weak) -Paradigmatic organization in L(recipient) -Inflection L(donor) +Peripherality in L(donor) N name < adv comp conj excl neg P < A aux cop V < num Q wh < dem det p+det poss pron pron-cl

Internal stability factors Frequency + Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., and Meade, A. (2007) Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. - for language contact: donor/recipient Systemic cohesion (?) automatized interlocking processing systems Interface grammar-pragmatics

Lexicon versus syntax? Traditional perspective: Items versus rules New with Word grammar, Construction Grammar, etc. : Languages as inventories of {items}, where {items} are form/meaning mappings discourse markers (que that > pues then) Discursive and perspective-taking patterns, like evidentiali">

The role of discourse 1 Syntactic elements > discourse markers (que that > pues then) Discursive and perspective-taking patterns, like evidentiality Topicalization and focalization orders Personal interaction, such as clusivity distinctions and politeness

The role of discourse 2 Discourse factors in bilingual speech (a)Balkan-type bilingual contacts (b)After shift (e.g. substrate pragmatic bleaching) (c)Bidirectional in code-switching MAT discourse markers PAT pragmatic markers

Initial results Broad areal distribution for many nominal features (Olga Krasnoukhova) Strong broad areal patterns (east-west) for argument marking (Joshua Birchall) No areal patterns (very scattered distribution) for TAME marking (Neele Mueller) Very specific areal patterns for subordination (Rik van Gijn)

Stability Noun Phrase Structure Subordination < < TAME < Discourse patterns Argument marking

Language contact 1 Prestige borrowing. A number of high prestige languages pass on words to neighboring languages with lower prestige. In addition to words, in some cases affixes are passed on this way, and occasionally phonetic properties. The vocabulary may involve political functions, (higher) numbers, cultivated food or animal names, etc.

Language contact 2 Trading partner borrowing. Related to this, and not easy to distinguish from it, may be patterns of long distance borrowing of names for household goods, plants and animals, and possibly words for rituals. Here there need not be a hierarchy, and the eff3ects may be less local.

Language contact 3 Metatypy. In some cases a particular language A is dominated by another one B. Typically, the speakers of A are also fluent in B, but not vice versa, and numerically and economically A is less strong than B. Over time, metatypy may occur: A starts adopting more and mor structural features of B, but not vice versa.

Language contact 4 Substrate. When large numbers of speakers of A shift to language B, they may import all kinds of semantic and pragmatic distinctions into their version of B, without overtly transferring structural features or many words from A into B.

Language contact 5 Bilingual convergence. When many speakers of two adjacent languages A and B are bilingual, there may be frequent code-switching between the languages, and in addition, the languages may start showing structural convergence. Depending on the patterns of multilingual usage in the community, this convergence may be bi-directional or even multi-directional.

Language contact 6 Koineization. When speakers adopt a second language without strong native speaker input, they may simplify and restructure their second language.

Stability 1 Computed on the basis of the WALS database Wichmann Dediu

Stability 2 Family linked Arawakan Tupian Cariban Chibchan

Stability 3 Results from Surinam Heritage languages cross-linguistic priming

The distribution of grammatical properties of the South American Indigenous Languages Joshua BirchallArgument Realization Rik van GijnSubordination Olga KrasnoukhovaNoun Phrase Neele MllerTAME Loretta OConnorThe Chibcha Sphere Simon van de KerkeThe Andes Ana Vilacy GalucioThe Tupian Languages Swintha DanielsenThe Arawakan languages Pieter MuyskenLanguage contact Harald HammarstrmAreal patterns

Original questions Fishing expedition [1] Which properties characterize the SAILs? [2] Can we establish deep time relations? [3] Can we discern patterns of areal distribution and contact? [4] Can we distinguish between different components of grammar with respect to [1]-[3] (in particular TAME versus argument realization)? [5] Can we take into account specific contact scenarios? [6] Use of phylogenetic techniques

Scenario dependence? Historical linguistics: looking at lineages independently of their histories Sociolinguistics: looking at specific processes situated in time Psycholinguistics: looking at individual behavior in experimental settings

Methodological issues The better we understand the scenario, the more precise our results Deep time: little understanding of scenarios Deep time: very low populations, hence little contact

Large historical picture 12K BP initial settlement and dispersal 3K BP expansions Macro-GanArawakan TupianCariban ChibchanQuechuan 2K BP dense settlement 5C BP Iberian invasions decline, restructuring, lingua francas

Spread features Structural SA features general Spurious lexical items Large scale flora, fauna, crop, ritual items Specific areal spread of structural features and sound patterns

Comparative method does not yield satisfactory results when: Time depth is too large Expansion is slow and leads to homogeneous contact zones/continua Other processes lead to rapid lexical replacement and grammar regeneration Subsequent contact processes disturb linear relations

Sharpening our perspective? Mily Crevels/Hein van der Voort: The Guapor- Mamor Sergio Meira: The Tupi-Carib relationship Ana Vilacy Galucio (Belem): The Tupian languages Swintha Danielsen (Leipzig): The Arawak languages Simon van de Kerke (Leiden): The Andes Love Eriksen (Lund): GIS mapping of archeology, culture, history of Amazon

Summary NP 1. Features which are characteristic of the Andes in comparison with other areas: No gender distinctions in personal pronouns No gender distinctions within the NP No classifiers No class of inalienable nouns No nominal tense Adjectives are nouny Modifier head word order for all types of modifiers 2. Features which cannot be assigned to any particular area: Inclusive/exclusive distinction in personal pronouns Number distinction in personal pronouns Occurrence of number marking in the NP Obligatoriness/optionality of number marking in the NP Locus of possession marking in the NP Word order in the NP, with general preference towards the modifier-head order with demonstratives, possessors, and numerals. And head-modifier for adjectives (irrespective of the word class) 3. Features which are more characteristics of Guapore-Mamore, Northwest Amazon, Central Amazon, Chaco: Presence of inalienable nouns (present almost exceptionally in these 4 areas) Presence of classifiers Adjectives are often encoded by stative verbs (exception: Chaco) Nominal tense 4. Some of the languages included in the Pie de Monte areas (Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Bolivian) have the following 2 features, whereas others do not: Classifiers Inalienable nouns

Argument Realization (coded by Joshua Birchall) Areas covered: Constituent order Verbal marking of arguments Core and oblique case marking Valency changing operations

Verb Marking: Split Intransitivity Guaran ( TUPI ; Mithun 1999) Semantic conditioning S a =A (accusative base) a-pu I got up e-rercalhdi. 'It will carry me off.' Inactive stems [-event, +/- control] e-ras I am sick Coded parameters: S alignment (base), semantics, derivational morphology Tiriy( CARIB ; Meira 1999) Morphological conditioning S underived =O, S derived =A (ergative base) manko_ph_taj-arina-ne I grew up not beside my mother j-arimika-ne She raised me Detransitivized stems: t-ti-ri-ja-e I am working (making)

Core Case Marking Hup ( NADAHUP ; Epps 2008) 0-marking Pronoun affixing No inanimate marking Tih=th n-n=mah tih mh-h 3 SG =child.mother- OBJ = REP 3 SG hit- DECL He beat his wife, its said. (p.167) Hd-n ge-tuk-y =mah 3 PL - OBJ bite-want- SEQ = REP Having tried to bite them, its said (p.167) Yikn myhid bi -pd-h over.there house 3 PL make- DIST - DECL There they built a house... (p.177) Coded parameters: S/A/O marking, affixation to free pronouns, inanimate marking

Valency Change: Causatives Emerillon ( TUPI ; Rose 2003) Direct causative bo- : intransitive base zawal o-apg-oseg o-bo-apg dog 3.I-sit- CONTIDEO 3.I- CAUS -sit The dog sitsHe set it down (p.358) (In)direct causative okal : transitive base, causee expressed as object of preposition -pe w-a-kom o-ka al-okal t-apdj ole-pe DEM -a- PL 3.I-break- CAUSNSP -house1 PL. EXCL.II-for He had us break the house (p.362) Sociative causative (e)lo-: intransitive base de-lo-zaug 2 SG.II- CAUS -swim He made you swim (with him) Coded parameters: strategy, transitive base, causee treatment, indirect, sociative

Tense, Aspect, Mood/Modality, Evidentiality (TAME) (coded by Neele Mller) Questionnaire: 4 sections 1.Tense 5 questions 2.Aspect8 questions 3.Mood/ Modality14 questions 4.Evidentiality8 questions Total:35 questions Applicable to: main non-negative, non-interrogative clauses (exceptions include imperative, purposive, irrealis)

TAME Questions are applicable to: morphological/ grammatical marking i.e. affixes, clitics, particles, repetition No: adverbs, periphrasis, time lexemes, stem substitution, verbs,... and independent (main) non-negative, non- interrogative clauses (exceptions include imperative, purposive, irrealis)

TAME Tense: absolute tenses (present, past, future) and remoteness Lexical Aspect, but not Aktionsart, e.g. continuous marking but not durative Mood/Modality: realis/ irrealis, imperative, intention, frustrative etc. Evidentiality: firsthand information, reportative, inference etc.

TAME Sample questions: 1.1 Is present tense marked morphologically? 2.1 Is realis mood marked morphologically? 3.1 Is perfective marked morphologically? 4.1 Is firsthand information marked morphologically?

TAME challenges Interrelations between categories Vagueness e.g. a perfective marker may inherently encode past Fusion Fusion of categories, e.g. Tense and Evidentiality coded in the same paradigm

Subordination strategies (coded by Rik van Gijn) Constructions Learned [i.e. non-predictable] pairings of form [including absract phrasal patterns] with semantic or discourse function (Goldberg 2006: 5) form-meaning pairs Independent variables semantically defined relation types (following Cristofaro 2003) Dependent variables formal aspects of constructions encoding these relation types

Aspects covered in the questionnaire: Word order within the NP Agreement within the NP Nominal number Noun categorization devices Attributive possession Spatial deixis, with a focus on semantic features in adnominal demonstratives Temporal distinctions in the NPs.

Example of a question on nominal number: Question: Do nouns have a morphologically marked singular vs. plural distinction? Answer options: a=[no plural marking], b=[marked by a prefix], c=[marked by a suffix], .. i=[morphological plural with no method primary] Sub-question: What is the occurrence of nominal plural? Answer options: a=[obligatory only on human nouns], b=[obligatory only on animates], c=[optional on all nouns], d=[obligatory on all nouns]

In search of stability Pieter Muysken Centre for Language Studies Radboud University Nijmegen.

Documents

Transcript of In search of stability Pieter Muysken Centre for Language Studies Radboud University Nijmegen.