Transcript Language Drift.ppt

Language Drift
Gabriel Schubiner
Seminar on Endangered Languages, 2010
Types of Change
Lexical: Early Modern English, bewrayeth
Grammatical
came unto him they (EME) > they came to him
thou > you
giveth > gives
Phonetic: Great Vowel Shift, /u:/ > /au/
Borrowing: “accent” from French
Orthographic: Latin ‘v’, French ‘ou’ in ‘thou’
Phonetic Change
Conditioned or unconditioned
Non-phonemic (allophonic) change
does not change # of phonemes in language
Phonemic
Merger (A,B > B or A,B > C)
irreversible
Split (A > B,C)
follows merger (loss of context)
/mu:s/ > /mu:s/ > /mu:s/> /mu:s/>/maus/
/mu:si/> /my:si/> /my:s/ >/mi:s/>/mais/
Chain shifts
Latin > Spanish
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Latin
Spanish
Latin
Spanish
Latin
Spanish
pp cuppa
p copa
p sapere
b saber
b
b
tt gutta
t gota
t vita
d vida
d cadere
∅ caer
kk bucca [bukka]
k boca [boka]
k amika
g amiga
g regina
∅ reina
Borrowing
To varying extents depending on contact and
social situation
Distinguished by:
Phonological evidence
Cognates
Morphemes
Geographic & Ecological
Analogical Change
Large category
Example: Leveling of strong verbs
strive/strove/striven
strive/strived/strived
Back formation (cherise [fr.] > cherry)
Meta/Re-analysis (a nǣddre [OE] > an adder)
Semantic Shift
Usually through methods such as metaphor,
metonymy, taboo avoidance, hyperbole
In contact:
Myan kye:x, deer > horse
deer becomes k’iče’ kye:x (forest horse)
Comparative Linguistics
Reconstruction of dead languages through
comparison of ‘child’ languages
Should be able to write all changes in rule of form:
X > Y | Context
Phonetic drift should be consistent across
language given context
Genetic Lineage
Wave Model
Cultural history or linguistic tendency?
Theorized that nature of language determined the
types of change likely to occur
More recently, attention has been turned to
cultural issues
Sociocultural issues condition linguistic factors Thomson & Kaufman
Language Contact
Borrowing vs. substratum interference
bilingualism
greater than lexical borrowing
syntactic interference usually accompanies
phonological interference
Language Contact: Intensity
Little or no interference if shifting group is small or
bilingual
Abrupt creolization is the extreme case
Change from imperfect learning
somewhat dependent on native language
Markedness
In language shift, markedness likely to decrease in transfer
For a bilingual population, typological differences may be
more important
Interchange of morphological and syntactic structures for
similar purpose
Native language typology affects outcome of contact
Clearly segmentable features more likely to be borrowed
Discussion
Holistic view of influences in change
No change occurs alone
What does this mean for language conservation?
What about the role of the researcher?
Modern Irish
Every generation has a different language
Linguistic integrity
cultural integrity/maintenance of cultural
knowledge
Unnatural versus natural change
Teaching materials
Contrast with Okinawan where phrases have
gained cachet
Milroy
Impact considerations:
linguistic
language attitudes and ideologies
cognitive constraints
Martha’s Vineyard
English, Portuguese, Native American, other
Centralization of /ai/ and /au/ correlated with
degree of resistance to vacationers (identification
with island)
Dialect Leveling
Disappearance of dialects in response to social
movement or change
Dialect supported by strong community
What strategies could we invoke to preserving
dialogue differences?
Death vs. Change
bilingual vs semi-speaker
total bilingualism leads towards isomorphic
languages
semi-speakers due to interruption of
transmission
Thought: teaching non-native speakers (even
within the community) could accelerate language
decay
Example: Asia Minor Greek
Entire syntax remodeled after Turkish
Flexional to agglutinative morphology
Grew to absorb entire declension pattern
Yet, AMG not endangered language
Actualization of Change
Discussion