Contact Explanations in Linguistics

Sarah Thomason
{"title":"Contact Explanations in Linguistics","authors":"Sarah Thomason","doi":"10.1002/9781444318159.CH1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Language contact has been invoked with increasing frequency over the past two or three decades as a, or the, cause of a wide range of linguistic changes. Historical linguists have (of course) mainly addressed these changes from a diachronic perspective ‐ that is, analyzing ways in which language contact has influenced lexical and/or structural developments over time. But sociolinguists, and many or most of the scholars who would characterize their specialty as contact linguistics, have focused on processes involving contact in analyzing synchronic variation. A few scholars have even argued that contact is the sole source of language variation and change; this extreme position is a neat counterpoint to an older position in historical linguistics, namely, that language contact is responsible only for lexical changes and quite minor structural changes. In this chapter I will argue that neither extreme position is viable. This argument will be developed through a survey of general types of contact explanations, especially explanations for changes over time, juxtaposed with a comparative survey of major causal factors in internally motivated language change. My goal is to show that both internal and external motivations are needed in any full account of language history and, by implication, of synchronic variation. Progress in contact linguistics depends, in my opinion, on recognizing the complexity of change processes ‐ on resisting the urge to offer a single simple explanation for all types of structural change. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 provides some background concepts and definitions, and sections 2 and 3 compare and contrast contact explanations with internal explanations of change. Section 4 is a brief conclusion that includes a warning about the need to be cautious in making claims about the causes of change ‐ both because in most cases no cause can be firmly established and because of the real possibility that multiple causes are responsible for a particular change.","PeriodicalId":443921,"journal":{"name":"The Handbook of Language Contact","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Handbook of Language Contact","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.CH1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

Abstract

Language contact has been invoked with increasing frequency over the past two or three decades as a, or the, cause of a wide range of linguistic changes. Historical linguists have (of course) mainly addressed these changes from a diachronic perspective ‐ that is, analyzing ways in which language contact has influenced lexical and/or structural developments over time. But sociolinguists, and many or most of the scholars who would characterize their specialty as contact linguistics, have focused on processes involving contact in analyzing synchronic variation. A few scholars have even argued that contact is the sole source of language variation and change; this extreme position is a neat counterpoint to an older position in historical linguistics, namely, that language contact is responsible only for lexical changes and quite minor structural changes. In this chapter I will argue that neither extreme position is viable. This argument will be developed through a survey of general types of contact explanations, especially explanations for changes over time, juxtaposed with a comparative survey of major causal factors in internally motivated language change. My goal is to show that both internal and external motivations are needed in any full account of language history and, by implication, of synchronic variation. Progress in contact linguistics depends, in my opinion, on recognizing the complexity of change processes ‐ on resisting the urge to offer a single simple explanation for all types of structural change. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 provides some background concepts and definitions, and sections 2 and 3 compare and contrast contact explanations with internal explanations of change. Section 4 is a brief conclusion that includes a warning about the need to be cautious in making claims about the causes of change ‐ both because in most cases no cause can be firmly established and because of the real possibility that multiple causes are responsible for a particular change.
语言学中的接触解释
在过去的二三十年里,语言接触被越来越频繁地引用为语言变化的原因。历史语言学家(当然)主要是从历时的角度来研究这些变化——也就是说,分析语言接触对词汇和/或结构发展的影响。但是,社会语言学家,以及许多或大多数将自己的专业定义为接触语言学的学者,在分析共时变异时,关注的是涉及接触的过程。一些学者甚至认为,接触是语言变异和变化的唯一来源;这种极端的观点与历史语言学中一个更老的观点正好相反,即语言接触只对词汇变化和相当小的结构变化负责。在本章中,我将论证两种极端立场都是不可行的。这一论点将通过对一般类型的接触解释的调查,特别是对随时间变化的解释,并与对内部动机语言变化的主要因果因素的比较调查相结合来发展。我的目标是表明,在语言历史和共时变化的任何完整描述中,都需要内部和外部动机。在我看来,接触语言学的进步取决于认识到变化过程的复杂性——取决于抵制为所有类型的结构变化提供单一简单解释的冲动。本章的结构如下。第1节提供了一些背景概念和定义,第2节和第3节比较和对比了接触解释和内部解释的变化。第4部分是一个简短的结论,其中包括一个警告,即在断言变化的原因时需要谨慎——因为在大多数情况下,没有一个原因可以确定,也因为一个特定的变化可能是由多个原因引起的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信