Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:50:09.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Contact and Morphosyntactic Complexity: Evidence from German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2014

Péter Maitz  and
Attila Németh
Péter Maitz*
Affiliation:
University of Augsburg
Attila Németh*
Affiliation:
University of Pannonia
*
Department of German Linguistics, Faculty of Philology and History, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 10, D-86159 Augsburg, Germany, [peter.maitz@phil.uni-augsburg.de]
Department of German Linguistics, Faculty of Modern Philology and Social Sciences, University of Pannonia, Füredi u. 2, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary, [nemeth.attila@btk.uni-pannon.hu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article focuses on the hypothesis that the structural complexity of languages is variable and historically changeable. By means of a quantitative statistical analysis of naturalistic corpus data, the question is raised as to what role language contact and adult second language acquisition play in the simplification and complexification of language varieties. The results confirm that there is a significant correlation between intensity of contact and linguistic complexity, while at the same time showing that there is a need to consider other social factors, and, in particular, the attitude of a speech community toward linguistic norms.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Bidese, Ermenegildo. 2005. Die Zimbern und ihre Sprache: Geographische, historische und sprachwissenschaftlich relevante Aspekte. Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch, ed. by Bidese, Ermenegildo, Dow, James R., & Stolz, Thomas, 3–42. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 2004. Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch im Kontakt mit den skandinavischen Sprachen. Eine Übersicht. Deutsch im Kontakt mit germanischen Sprachen, ed. by Haider Munske, Horst, 1–30. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, & Poser, William. 2008. Language classification: History and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje, & Kürschner, Sebastian. 2008. Complexity in nominal plural allomorphy. A contrastive survey of ten Germanic languages. Miestamo, Sinnemäki, & Karlsson 2008, 243–262.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2003. Markedness and salience in language contact and second-language acquisition: Evidence from a non-canonical contact language. Language Sciences 25. 561-613.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2009. Namibian Kiche Duits: The making (and decline) of a Neo-African language. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21. 349-417.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 1999. Standardsprache in England und Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 27. 285-308.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, & Maitz, Péter. 2012. New language norm authorities in Germany: Ideological roots and social consequences. Codification, canons, and curricula: Prescription and description in language and literature, ed. by Ulrich Busse, Ulrich, Schneider, Ralf, & Schröder, Anne, 171–184. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.Google Scholar
Fiehler, Reinhard. 2009. Gesprochene Sprache. Duden. Die Grammatik, 1165–1244. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Girnth, Heiko. 2000. Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Grammatikalisierung am Beispiel des Westmitteldeutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics 26. 178-194.Google Scholar
Harnisch, Rüdiger. 2004. Morphologie. Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J., & Trudgill, Peter, 522–530. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Uwe. 2004. Kreolisierungstendenzen im Deutschen? Einige Bemerkungen. Muttersprache 114. 348-357.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Uwe. 2009. Sprachwandel oder Sprachverfall? Zur aktuellen Forschungssituation im Deutschen. Muttersprache 119. 47-57.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jahr, Ernst Håkon. 2001. Historical sociolinguistics: The role of Low German language contact in the Scandinavian typological split of the late Middle Ages. Lingua Posnaniensis 43. 95-104.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ulrike. 2004. Jiddisch/Deutsch. Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, ed. by Besch, Werner, Betten, Anne, Reichmann, Oskar, & Sonderegger, Stefan, 3260–3268. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kolmer, Agnes. 2010. Kontaktbedingte Veränderung der Hilfsverbrektion im Cimbro. Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie. Strategien der Integration und Isolation nicht-nativer Einheiten und Strukturen, ed. by Scherer, Carmen, & Holler, Anke, 143–164. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 2, ed. by Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend, & Upton, Clive, 1142–1202. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. World Englishes: Problems—properties—prospects, ed. by Siebers, Lucia, & Hoffmann, Thomas, 265–285. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Language complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. Miestamo, Sinnemäki, & Karlsson 2008, 3–22.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maitz, Péter, & Tronka, Krisztián. 2009. brauchen—Phonologische Aspekte der Auxiliarisierung. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 76. 189-202.Google Scholar
Mattheier, Klaus J. 1991. Standardsprache als Sozialsymbol. Über kommunikative Folgen gesellschaftlichen Wandels. Das 19. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeschichtliche Wurzeln des heutigen Deutsch, ed. by Wimmer, Rainer, 41–72. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2004. What happened to English? Focus on Germanic typology, ed. by Abraham, Werner, 19–60. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic simplicity and complexity: Why do languages undress? Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. Miestamo, Sinnemäki, & Karlsson 2008, 23–41.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, & Karlsson, Fred (eds.). 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Middle English dialectology. The history of the English language II: 1066–1476, ed. by Blake, Norman, 156–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2001. Die deutsche Sprache im Pazifik. Die deutsche Südsee 1884–1914. Ein Handbuch, ed. by Hiery, Hermann J., 239–260. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Polenz, Peter von. 1994. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 2: 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rowley, Anthony R. 1996. Die Sprachinseln der Fersentaler und Zimbern. Handbuch der mitteleuropäischen Sprachminderheiten, ed. by Hinderling, Robert, Eichinger, Ludwig M., & Harnisch, Rüdiger, 265–285. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2009. A linguistic axiom challenged. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Sampson, Gil, & Trudgill 2009, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, & Trudgill, Peter (eds.). 2009. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans Ulrich. 2009. Einführung in die deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Schweizer, Bruno. 1939. Zimbrische Sprachreste. Teil 1: Texte aus Giazza (Dreizehn Gemeinden ob Verona). Nach dem Volksmunde aufgenommen und mit hochdeutscher Übersetzung. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schweizer, Bruno. 2008. Zimbrische Gesamtgrammatik. Vergleichende Darstellung der zimbrischen Dialekte, ed. by Dow, James R.. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10. 1-40.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2012. Accounting for analicity in creoles. Kortmann & Szmrecsanyi 2012, 35–61.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. Sampson, David, & Trudgill 2009, 126–140.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Kortmann, Bernd. 2012. Introduction: Linguistic complexity—Second Language Acquisition, indigenization, contact. Kortmann, & Szmrecsanyi 2012, 6–34.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timm, Erika. 1986. Das Jiddische als Kontrastsprache bei der Erforschung des Frühneuhochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 14. 1-22.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2001. Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change. Linguistic Typology 5. 371-374.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2009. Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. Sampson, Gil, & Trudgill 2009, 98–109.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2010. Contact and sociolinguistic typology. The handbook of language contact, ed. by Hickey, Raymond, 299–319. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011a. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011b. Social structure, language contact and language change. The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. by Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, & Kerswill, Paul, 236–248. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Volker, Craig. 1989. Rabaul Creol German syntax. Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 153-189. Honolulu: University of Havaii at Manoa, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Volker, Craig. 1991. The birth and decline of Rabaul Creole German. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 22. 143-156.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2007. Entwicklungen im heutigen Deutsch—Wird Deutsch einfacher? Deutsche Sprache 35. 35-62.Google Scholar