Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:31:53.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In search of a unified model of language contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2013

DONALD WINFORD
DONALD WINFORD*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Universitydwinford@ling.osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much previous research has pointed to the need for a unified framework for language contact phenomena – one that would include social factors and motivations, structural factors and linguistic constraints, and psycholinguistic factors involved in processes of language processing and production. While Contact Linguistics has devoted a great deal of attention to the structural properties of contact phenomena and their sources in the input languages, the field has made much less progress in attending to Weinreich's observation that language contact can best be understood only “in a broad psychological and socio-cultural setting” (Weinreich, 1953, p. 4). There have been some attempts to establish links between the disciplines that investigate language contact, for example, the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic (Walters, 2005), and the linguistic and psycholinguistic (Myers-Scotton 2002, Winford 2009, among others). Yet, so far, no one has come close to achieving the kind of integrative, multi-disciplinary framework that Weinreich envisaged. Muysken's paper is therefore a welcome reminder of the need for such a framework, and the complexity of the task involved in constructing it, if indeed it can be accomplished. The introduction to the paper outlines a very ambitious objective – “to explore the possibility of unifying these fields, all different approaches to language contact, creating a single framework within which it is possible to link results from different subfields” (Section 1.1).

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 734 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bachus, A. (2009). Codeswitching as one piece of the puzzle of language change: The case of Turkish yapmak. In Isurin et al. (eds.), pp. 307–336.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isurin, L., Winford, D., & de Bot, K. (eds.) (2009). Multidisciplinary approaches to code switching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2008). Creoles as interlanguages: Inflectional morphology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 23, 114–135.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. (2008). The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, F. (2000). A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, C. Winter.Google Scholar
Walters, J. (2005). Bilingualism: The sociopragmatic/psycholinguistic interface. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2008). Processes of creole formation and related contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact, THEMA series, Number 2, pp. 124–145.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2009). On the unity of contact phenomena and their underlying mechanisms: The case of borrowing. In Isurin et al. (eds.), pp. 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. (2013). Substrate influence and universals in the emergence of contact Englishes: Re-evaluating the evidence. In Schreier, D. & Hundt, M. (eds.), English as a contact language, pp. 222–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar