Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7 (2), 2004, 179–181 

C 2004 Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S1366728904001567 179

A D BAC K U S
Convergence as a mechanism Tilburg University, Faculteit der Letteren,
of language change PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
E-mail: A.M.Backus@uvt.nl

This issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition is asymmetries in demographics and prestige, speakers feel
about convergence, a type of language change that is the need to codeswitch, to borrow words from the more
contact-induced and results in greater similarity between prestigious language, to use that language in many life
two languages that are in contact with each other. In domains, or to resist all of the above. These causal
Backus (forthcoming), I have attempted an overview mechanisms are synchronic phenomena: they pertain to
of contact-induced language change, focusing on causal what speakers do in the act of speaking.
factors, on mechanisms of change, and on the actual Language change, however, is a diachronic phe-
changes. In this conclusion, I will try to give convergence nomenon, so we still need something that links what
its rightful place in this general typology, referencing the speakers do in conversation with what happens to the
contributions to this volume where appropriate. language as a result of it. This link is provided by
The complex process of contact-induced change can be processual mechanisms. One way of representing the
decomposed into various levels. I propose the following diachronic process of language change is as shifts
division: in ‘entrenchment’, a notion taken from usage-based
linguistic theory (Langacker, 1987; Tomasello, 1998;
Leading question Domain of study Croft, 2000). Entrenchment is the degree to which you
Ultimate causes Social factors (dominance, prestige
differential, intensity, etc.)
‘know’ a linguistic element (be it a word, an expression
Proximal causes Causal mechanisms (conversational
or a syntactic pattern), determined in large part by the
reflexes of the social factors, frequency with which you use it. If an idiolect contains
including codeswitching) two ways of expressing the same thing, a native word and a
Mechanisms Processual mechanisms (including loanword, say, or a native construction and a foreign one, it
convergence, reanalysis, stands to reason that their degrees of entrenchment change
grammaticalization, and attrition)  with fluctuations in usage. In cases of contact-induced
shifts in entrenchment
structural change, a native construction is in competition
Targets of change Filter: Attractiveness (borrowability,
differential statuses of morphemes
with a foreign one. The latter receives its degree of
and categories, core syntax versus entrenchment from two sources: its use in utterances
pragmatics) in the native language, and its use in utterances in the
Changes Effect/Results (types of change): other language. Therefore, it is not just the importation of
addition, loss, replacement (e.g.: L2 patterns into L1 speech that affects language change;
loanwords, loan translations, fluctuations in language choice, such as the encroachment
structural change/borrowing,
indirect contact-induced changes)
of the L2 in domains previously reserved for L1, also
determine the differential use of these constructions.
Figure 1. Dimensions of change. This scenario is largely theoretical; few empirical
studies exist that address these issues. If the processual
Ultimate causes of change include a diversity of mechanism outlined above accounts for how grammar
global social factors, such as the demographics of the adjusts to fluctuations in use, it naturally follows that
respective language communities, and the relative prestige speakers who codeswitch extensively and/or are far
they command. Such factors are generally too abstract, advanced in language shift towards L2, should show more
however, one step too far removed as it were, to be of contact-induced structural change. If this is empirically
much use in explaining individual cases of change, beyond confirmed, as in some of the contributions to this volume,
the correct, but coarse-grained, allusions to differences in we have direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence that
prestige and the wish to accommodate to or resist the more codeswitching is indeed a causal mechanism of language
powerful. change.
Linguists tend to be more interested in the mechanisms The bulk of work on contact-induced change addresses
of change, what we could call its proximate causes. the final level in Figure 1: they describe the actual changes
Figure 1 makes a distinction between ‘causal mechanisms’ that result from all these factors and mechanisms. Table 1
(cf. Croft, 2000) and ‘processual mechanisms’. Causal is an attempt at classification using a limited set of types
mechanisms are the effects that social factors exert on of change, based on work by many, but especially on
the decisions people make in conversation. Because of Johanson (2002) and Aikhenvald (2003). Space precludes
180 Ad Backus

Table 1. Types of contact-induced change.

Type of change Likely processual mechanisms

1. Calque Use of L2 expression, with L1 morphemes


2. System-altering changes (addition or loss) Use of L2 patterns, previously unknown in L1, but realized
in the inventory of grammatical with L1 morphemes
morphemes and/or categories
3. System-preserving changes in the Use of L2 patterns, congruent with one of two or more L1
distribution of grammatical categories patterns, realized with L1 morphemes
4. Changes in frequency Use of one of two or more L1 patterns, congruent with
unmarked L2 pattern
5. Stability: No structural change at all Continued use of L1 pattern, possibly congruent with L2
pattern

detailed illustration of these categories, so I limit myself constraints governing the use of specific variants”
to pointing out a few features, of which only the last one (Toribio, this volume, p. 167). Several of the articles
will be picked up in the remainder of this article: collected here point out that contact-induced change
r the difference between calquing and the other
targets the interfaces between syntax and other aspects
of language, most notably pragmatics and lexicon. A
categories is that calquing, here, refers to individual
paradigm case is the change in the Spanish system of
expressions only;
r mere changes in frequency are probably a
subject expression, with its pragmatically conditioned
variation between null and overt subject pronouns, towards
common type of change, but almost impossible to
an English-style system in US varieties of Spanish (see
demonstrate;
r stability of structure, i.e. demonstrating what does
the contributions by Montrul, Toribio, and Otheguy).
Now how does convergence, the topic of this issue,
NOT change, is an overlooked but important topic
relate to the causes and mechanisms of change, and
for any theory of change;
r the difference between system-altering and system-
to the various types of change? I adopt the editors’
definition of convergence as “the enhancement of inherent
preserving change is hard to characterize, and may
structural similarities found between two linguistic
be superfluous.
systems” (Bullock and Toribio, this volume, p. 91). They
System-altering changes are additions of totally new allude to the fact that the term is generally used for both
categories to a language (or the loss of such a category), process (‘convergence leads to change’) and result (‘two
while system-preserving changes merely alter the way languages show convergence’); most authors here limit
in which a category is expressed. The difficulty lies in it, correctly, I think, to the process (see, for instance, the
the definition of what a ‘category’ is. A relatively clear discussion in the contribution by Bullock and Gerfen).
example of category addition would be the appearance Convergence seems best characterized as a processual
of evidentials in a language that did not have them mechanism leading to language change. It is not operative
previously (cf. Aikhenvald, 2003), such as described in all change, since there are changes, even contact-
for the Spanish of Quechua speakers by Sánchez (this induced ones, which are not the result of convergence
volume). The question is: is this an addition to the system (e.g. certain types of grammaticalization and reanalysis).
(‘system-altering’), or is it a restructuring (‘system- In illustrating actual results of convergence, one
preserving’) of an existing subsystem? It could be seen implicitly yields relevant data for the question relating to
as an instance of the former, because distinctions now the ‘Filter’ in Figure 1: what parts of the grammar tend to
play a role in Spanish grammar that didn’t play a role be targeted by change (and what parts remain stable), i.e.
before contact; it could also be seen as ‘merely’ system- what is attractive in language? Most contributors address,
preserving, because evidentiality was already marked in one form or another, what Sánchez (this volume)
optionally through lexical means (with adverbials such formulates as the ‘Functional Convergence Hypothesis’:
as “apparently”, “I heard that”, etc.). areas of the grammatical system that are vulnerable to
Most changes described in the literature are more external influence are those that are similar but not
clearly system-preserving in the sense that they constitute identical across the two languages and that belong to
changes in the use of existing constructions, such as the peripheral part of syntax (interfaces with lexicon
“preferential use of some structures over other options, and pragmatics, in particular), rather than to the core
and in the loss of semantic and discourse-pragmatic grammar. This considerably constrains the predictive
Convergence as mechanism of change 181

power of the hypothesis, and therefore allows more Third, two of the articles present contact-induced
useful predictions (whether they are confirmed or not changes in phonology, an aspect very much under-
is, of course, an empirical matter). The contributions researched in contact linguistics (see McMahon’s contri-
by Montrul and by Toribio show that contact varieties bution). One of the articles concerns changed intonation
of Spanish make increased use of structures that are patterns (Colantoni and Gurlekian) and the other, changed
like English, but that were not impossible in the pre- phonetic realizations (Bullock and Gerfen). My overview
contact variety. Though the claim that core syntax is never in Backus (forthcoming) doesn’t discuss phonology, a
affected by contact is probably too strong (one would result of a regrettable state of affairs probably not limited
have to deal with attested counterexamples, e.g. Fortescue to myself: lack of detailed knowledge of phonology.
(1993), on English influence on Inupiaq possessive As Special Issues often do, the work collected here
constructions), a sharply formulated hypothesis such as points out both gaps in our knowledge and the way to fill
the FCH stimulates more focused research into this issue. them. Clearly needed in the near future is a combination
The reference to partial similarity also helps explain why of case studies and synthesizing work (see Muysken’s
changes seem to be more uninhibited if the languages are contribution). To take one example prominently featured
closely related, or dialects of the same language. That is, here, there is, on the one hand, the need to continue
attractiveness is a relative notion, as much dependent on monitoring pro-drop in US Spanish, to see whether it
typological similarities between the languages involved as moves to an actual change in ‘competence’ (that is, more
on inherent factors such as usefulness, transparency and or less obligatory use of overt subject pronouns), and,
salience. on the other hand, collective efforts to compare similar
In conclusion, I would like to point out three things changes in different languages and compare changes in
that make the present volume especially valuable. First, pro-drop with other cases of structural contact-induced
it brings together studies that show the process of change.
convergence in action, rather than merely presenting the
results of the process after the fact. This entails illustrating References
the variation in bilinguals’ speech between old (‘native’,
‘pre-contact’) and new (‘borrowed’) forms (as Sánchez, Aikhenvald, A. (2003). Mechanisms of change in areal
Montrul, and Toribio do). diffusion: New morphology and language contact. Journal
Second, the present volume contains examples of both of Linguistics, 39, 1–29.
Backus, A. (forthcoming). Codeswitching and language change:
major types of change distinguished by Thomason and
One thing leads to another? To appear in International
Kaufman (1988): borrowing and interference through Journal of Bilingualism.
shift. Most studies I’m familiar with address borrowing Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary
only. One clear example of interference through shift is approach (Longman Linguistics Library). Harlow: Pearson
the use of Quechua evidentiality features in the Spanish Education.
of Quechua speakers (Sánchez); a possible candidate is Fortescue, M. (1993). Eskimo word order variation and its
the appearance of ‘Italian’ intonation patterns in Buenos contact-induced perturbation. Journal of Linguistics, 29,
Aires Spanish (Colantoni and Gurlekian). It may be the 267–289.
case that Italian speakers who shifted to Spanish ‘kept’ Johanson, L. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language
their old intonation pattern, as an identity marker or contact. London: Curzon.
because it was difficult to eradicate, after which it spread to Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar,
vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford
non-Italians, following the usual sociolinguistic pathways
University Press.
(cf. McMahon’s arguments, in her commentary, against Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact,
the idea that monolingual Spanish speakers would have creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA:
borrowed the feature directly from Italian). In addition, University of California Press.
it fits Thomason and Kaufman’s description of this type Tomasello, M. (ed.). (1998). The new psychology of language:
of change, which allegedly mostly affects syntax and Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure.
phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Вам также может понравиться