skip to main content
10.5555/2390344.2390345dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaclConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Distinguishing contact-induced change from language drift in genetically related languages

Published:24 April 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Languages evolve, undergoing repeated small changes, some with permanent effect and some not. Changes affecting a language may be independent or contact-induced. Independent changes arise internally or, if externally, from non-linguistic causes. En masse, such changes cause isolated languages to drift apart in lexical form and grammatical structure. Contact-induced changes can happen when languages share speakers, or when their speakers are in contact.

Frequently, languages in contact are related, having a common ancestor from which they still retain visible structure. This relatedness makes it difficult to distinguish contact-induced change from inherited similarities.

In this paper, we present a simulation of contact-induced change. We show that it is possible to distinguish contact-induced change from independent change given (a) enough data, and (b) that the contact-induced change is strong enough. For a particular model, we determine how much data is enough to distinguish these two cases at p < 0.05.

References

  1. A. Aikhenvald. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoni Arnal. 2011. Linguistic changes in the catalan spoken in catalonia under new contact conditions. Journal of Language Contact, 4: 5--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. R. Barker Bausell and Yu-Fang Li. 2006. Power Analysis for Experimental Research: A Practical Guide for the Biological, Medical and Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, March.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jaine E. Beswick. 2007. Regional nationalism in Spain: language use and ethnic identity in Galicia. Multilingual Matters.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Karl Brugmann. 1884. Zur frage nach den verwandtschaftverhltnissen der indogermanischen sprachen. Internationale Zeitschrift fr allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 1: 226--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Mark Ellison and Simon Kirby. 2006. Measuring language divergence by intra-lexical comparison. In ACL, pages 273--80, Sydney. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff. 1973. Ordered profusion: studies in dictionaries and the English lexicon. C Winter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexandre François. 2011. Social ecology and language history in the northern vanuatu linkage: a tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1: 175--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Mark Harvey. 2008. Proto-Mirndi: a discontinuous language family in northern Australia. Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sir William Jones. 1786. The third anniversary discourse, delivered 2nd february, 1786: on the hindus. Asiatick Researches, 1: 415--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Donald C. Laycock. 1982. Melanesian linguistic diversity: a melanesian choice? In R. J. May and H. Nelson, editors, Melanesia: beyond diversity, pages 33--38. Australian National University Press, Canberra.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rebecca Posner and John N. Green. 1993. Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance. Walter de Gruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Malcolm D. Ross. 2006. Metatypy. In K. Brown, editor, Encylcopedia of language and linguistics. Elsevier, Oxford, 2nd ed edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Malcolm Ross. 2007. Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact, Thema, 1: 116--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. August Schleicher. 1861. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Hermann Bhlau, Weimar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sarah Grey Thomason and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarah Grey Thomason. 2007. Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact, Thema, 1: 41--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Carrasquer Vidal. 1998. Untitled post in 'Cladistic language concepts' thread, HISTLING mailing list, Oct.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Roger Wright. 1998. Untitled post in 'Cladistic language concepts' thread, HISTLING mailing list, Oct.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Distinguishing contact-induced change from language drift in genetically related languages

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image DL Hosted proceedings
      EACL '12: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Language Acquisition and Loss
      April 2012
      16 pages

      Publisher

      Association for Computational Linguistics

      United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 April 2012

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate100of360submissions,28%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)382
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)43

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader