Sociolinguistic ISSN: 1750-8649 (print)

Studies ISSN: 1750-8657 (online)

Affiliation

Tallinn University, and University of Tartu, Estonia
e-mail: anastassia.zabrodskaja@gmail.com


SOLS VOL 6.3 2012 603607
2013, EQUINOX PUBLISHING
doi : 10.1558/sols.v6i3.603


Review




Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition.
Scott Jarvis and Aneta Pavlenko (2008)

New York and London: Routledge. Pp 287.
ISBN 0805838856


Reviewed by Anastassia Zabrodskaja



Today monolingualism is often perceived as an unmarked phenomenon that
does not require any explanations (see the famous example by Romaine [1995]
2000:1 that a book entitled Monolingualism would appear extremely strange).
Continuing the analogy, one can say that approaches to language that ignore
language contacts are also viewed as natural and do not require any theoreti-
cal or methodological explanations (hence contactlessness of a language is
unmarked and contacts are not). Indeed, most linguistic theory presents
languages as homogenous and clear-cut entities. However, there is no language
that is not affected by contacts, be it to a smaller or greater extent.
The expression language contact is somewhat imprecise because it is
speakers of different varieties who communicate and not merely language
systems. In this respect, Weinreich ([1953] 1966:71) was right in his claim that
the bilingual brain is the locus of language contact. By saying this he stressed the
cognitive dimension of bilingualism and language contact. Still, despite this early
remark, the monolingual native speaker is a default yardstick in many theories
and contact-induced language change is considered to be less relevant. From the
contact linguistics point of view, however, the sameness of linguistic systems in
all speakers in a given speech community is an illusion. As soon as we deal with

604 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

a multilingual speaker, it is not clear what is the mother tongue (see Skutnabb
Kangas, 1988:18, 91; 2000:106, 573). Bilingual speakers cognition and linguistic
intuition (i.e., judgement on what is acceptable/unacceptable) are different from
those of a monolingual speaker.
The question of the relevance of contact-induced language change is not new.
In the second half of the nineteenth century in the so-called SchuchardtMller
controversy Hugo Schuchardt was ahead of his time, claiming Es gibt keine
vllig ungemischte Sprache, There is no completely unmixed language (1884,
quoted from Thomason and Kaufman, [1988] 1991:1). Some scholars discarded
this idea altogether, while some believed that no language has been inuenced by
another language to such an extent that this would make genetic classication
difcult (or even impossible). Yet some went further and claimed that all
languages are creoles. While this claim is not true in its absolute form, certain
languages exist that cannot be traced back to a single proto-language because
their grammatical systems and their lexicons originate from genetically different
sources.
To a great extent, Schuchardt was right. Contact-induced language change is
as important as internal change. What is more, in some situations it is difcult to
distinguish between the two (multiple causation). According to Croft (2000:8),
there is no fundamental difference between internally and externally caused
changes. We have no reasons to believe that this was different in the past.
Another debate concerns the relevance of structural and typological factors
on the one hand and of sociolinguistic factors on the other. Based on empirical
data, various predictions about borrowability have been made and constraints
on contact-induced language change formulated. However, in the light of
abundant counterevidence the universality of constraints should be doubted
(Clyne, 1987).
A look at the history of studies on contact-induced language change so far
makes clear that to date researchers use notions such as interference
(Weinreich, [1953] 1966), code-copying (Johanson, 2002), cross-linguistic
inuence (Jarvis, 2002), transfer (Heine and Kuteva, 2005) and convergence
(Auer, Hinskens and Kerswill, 2005), but still talk about more or less the same
topic how morphosyntactic similarities between the two language systems
increase. Of course, I recognize that the terms compared have different termi-
nological capacity but I speak here only about morphosyntactic interference,
morphosyntactic transfer, etc.
In Weinreichs ([1953] 1966:1) classic book, interference was used meaning:
those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in
the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one
language. Transfer is dened by Odlin (1989: 27) as the inuence resulting
REVIEW: ZABRODSKAJA 605

from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other
language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired. Heine
and Kuteva (2005:4) speak about contact-induced change as transfer of
linguistic material from one language to another that is based on the morpho-
syntactic equivalence between the model and the replica languages whereas
notions of model language and replica language are relative, i.e., a given
language can be associated with both roles.
One of the main problematic issues I would like to emphasize here is that the
linguistically based analysis of the mechanisms of language change is frag-
mentized because of the different terminology involved. As I have shown earlier,
different researchers use various notions claiming that they are more precise. In
this respect, Crosslinguistic inuence in language and cognition is the rst general
and comprehensive analysis of the crosslinguistic inuence (CLI) phenomenon
that offers a rich panorama of studies on language use and change and in doing
so brings some new methodological perspectives that could unify ndings made
in the elds of contact linguistics and second language acquisition. The book is
divided into seven chapters and is preceded by a Preface which explains the
reasons for writing the book, highlights its unique features and situates the main
characters of the book. There are extensive name and subject indices following
the reference section.
Chapter 1, Overview, provides a well-written overview of transfer as a
research topic. The authors discuss various phases of transfer research, starting
with historical scepticism about the phenomenon and ending up with recent
theoretical developments in the eld in question. The chapter provides a
working denition of transfer and CLI, distinguishes different types of CLI
and discusses the similarities and commonalities between them, and why this
phenomenon occurs.
In Chapter 2, Identifying crosslinguistic inuence, the authors begin with
the question about the nature of CLI. Referring to CLI at the level of the
individual as a psycholinguistic phenomenon, and transfer at the level of society
as a societal phenomenon (p. 28), Jarvis and Pavlenko dene the primary scope
of their work. They attempt to cover various (innovative) methodologies in use
today (e.g., the intrasubjective and intersubjective methods). The chapter
provides references for each of the methods mentioned not only indicating the
strengths and weaknesses of each technique but also pointing out some
directions for future investigating methods.
Chapter 3, Linguistic transfer, gives an overview of the different types of
linguistic transfer, i.e., such types of transfer that are examined primarily in
relation to linguistic forms and structures (p. 61). Looking at various stages of
this research, Jarvis and Pavlenko describe how linguistic use of one language
606 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES

may be affected by the other. They subcategorize this dimension into several
types: phonological, orthographic, lexical, semantic, morphological, syntactic,
discursive, pragmatic and sociolinguistic. With these categories in mind they
discuss CLI in the major areas of linguistic and communicative competence.
This part gives not only snapshot comparisons from the present research, but
charts trends over several decades.
Chapter 4, Conceptual transfer, lists commonalities and differences in
conceptual categories corresponding to lexical and grammatical categories of the
source and recipient languages. When talking about concepts and conceptual
categories, the authors follow the tradition in concept research. While the term
concepts is connected to mental representations of classes of things, the term
categories refers to the classes themselves (Murphy, 2002:5).
Chapter 5, Conceptual change, provides a typology of conceptual change in
the bilingual mental lexicon aiming at giving some directions for future research.
Jarvis and Pavlenko claim that conceptual change can be a modication or
transformation in at least one of the three domains: (a) properties, scripts, and
mental imagery associated with a particular category; (b) prototypicality of
particular category members or properties; (c) knowledge and beliefs about the
internal structure of the category (p. 154). The authors discuss such processes as
internalization of new concepts, restructuring, convergence, shift and conceptual
attrition, viewing them as a logical continuum.
What makes Chapters 35 highly accessible to those who have had little
exposure to the topics at hand are numerous references to previous work and
interesting examples.
In Chapter 6, Transferability and factors that interact with transfer, factors
that affect CLI are discussed. All in all, ve categories are represented (p. 175):
(a) linguistic and psycholinguistic factors, (b) cognitive, attentional and devel-
opmental factors, (c) factors related to cumulative language experience and
knowledge, (d) factors related to the learning environment and (e) factors
related to language use. Jarvis and Pavlenko provide coverage of one of the most
intricate stages in the transfer research transferability. A sharply focused
overview of the relevant principles of the nature and occurrence of transfer
provides diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives on forward
transfer from an L1 to an L2.
Chapter 7, Conclusions, is a fundamental summary based on innovative key
ndings that actually serve as an excellent background for new studies on
transfer. The authors also demonstrate how the new knowledge of transfer can
be applied in practice.
REVIEW: ZABRODSKAJA 607

To conclude, the authors take a clear theoretical orientation, one that sees
transfer almost exclusively as a psycholinguistic phenomenon in relation to adult
L2 use. Throughout the description and explanation of transfer and CLI, the
data presented is interpreted in terms of support for this view. The text covers a
vast amount of material in terms of the detail of the research presented and the
breadth of the description of cognitive, linguistic, social and situational factors of
transfer. Each chapter includes tables which summarize the content or list
illustrative examples. A short summary of each chapter also aids in organizing
the main points for the reader. The breadth of topics on transfer covered by the
authors along with the extensive references to literature on transfer and CLI
research makes this volume an essential resource for any level of researcher
working on or student interested in transfer processes.

References
Auer, P., Hinskens, P. and Kerswill, P. (eds) (2005) Dialect change: convergence and divergence in
European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511486623
Clyne, M. (1987) Constraints on code switching: how universal are they? Linguistics 25: 739
764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.4.739
Croft, W. (2000) Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman
Linguistic Library.
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132
Johanson, L. (2002) Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Richmond, Surrey: Cruzon
Press.
Murphy, G. (2002) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Odlin, T. (1989) Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romaine, S. ([1995] 2000) Bilingualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988) Bilingualism or not: the education of minorities. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. ([1988] 1991) Language contact, creolization, and genetic
linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weinreich, U. ([1953] 1966) Languages in contact. London and Paris: Mouton.