Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- 1 Calling Englishes As Complex Dynamic Systems: Diffusion and Restructuring
- 2 English as a Lingua Franca in the Context of a Sociolinguistic Typology of Contact Languages
- 3 How Writing Changes Language
- 4 ELF and Translation As Language Contact
- 5 Present-Day Standard English
- 6 Beyond Language Change
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- Index
- References
2 - English as a Lingua Franca in the Context of a Sociolinguistic Typology of Contact Languages
from Part I - Pooling Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2020
Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- 1 Calling Englishes As Complex Dynamic Systems: Diffusion and Restructuring
- 2 English as a Lingua Franca in the Context of a Sociolinguistic Typology of Contact Languages
- 3 How Writing Changes Language
- 4 ELF and Translation As Language Contact
- 5 Present-Day Standard English
- 6 Beyond Language Change
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- Index
- References
Summary
Different types of language evolve in situations of human social contact depending on the nature of the social contact, social structure and the speakers' attitudes towards the societies in contact. Three socially defined language types, each forming a continuum, are useful for classifying contact languages: esoteric languages, used for communication within a speech community; exoteric languages, used for communication between different speech communities; and neogenic languages, used when speech communities merge to form a new society. Lingua francas serve two different types of function in this sociolinguistic typology, and move from one function to the other. On the exoteric language continuum, lingua francas are used in long-distance contact involving at least one large-scale, stratified society. On the neogenic language continuum, the dominant language in the new society (a nation-state or empire) serves as a lingua franca until subpopulations speaking other languages shift to the dominant language.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language ChangeThe Impact of English as a Lingua Franca, pp. 44 - 74Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1996a. Areas of multilingualism in northern South America. In Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler & Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas 1345. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1996b. The Tupí-Guaraní languages of Atlantic South America, and Línguas Gerais. In Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler & Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas, 1333–1334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpher, Barry & Nash, David. 1999. Lexical replacement and cognate equilibrium in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 19, 5–56.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1988. Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion, and spread. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social, 39–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter & Grant, Anthony P.. 1996. Interethnic communication in Canada, Alaska and adjacent areas. In Wurm, et al. (eds.), 1107–1169.Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard A. & Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88, 269–304.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Epps, Patience, Gray, Russell, Hill, Jane, Hunley, Keith, McConvell, Patrick & Zentz, Jason. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PLoS ONE 6, e25195.Google Scholar
Clackson, James & Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2007. The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crawford, James M. 1978. The Mobilian Trade Language. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, Vyvyan & Pourcel, Stéphanie (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2010. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48, 1–48.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity (Studies in Language Companion Series, 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östen Dahl, Viveka Velupillai. 2013. The past tense. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at http://wals.info/chapter/66, accessed on January 28, 2019.)Google Scholar
Donald, Leland. 1984. The slave trade on the Northwest Coast of North America. Research in Economic Anthropology 6, 121–158.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Emanuel J. 1996. Native American contact languages of the contiguous United States. In Wurm, et al. (eds.), 1213–1239.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Emanuel J. 1997. Mobilian Jargon: Linguistic and Sociohistorical Aspects of a Native American Pidgin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, Tom. 1983. Birds of a feather: a pair of rare pidgins from the Gulf of Papua. In Woolford, Ellen & Washabaugh, William (eds.), The Social Context of Creolization, 77–105. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Foley, William. 1988. Language birth: the processes of pidginization and creolization. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. IV, 162–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1997. Pidgin Delaware. In Thomason, Sarah G. (ed.), Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective, 43–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred (ed.). 2001. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Currie, Thomas E. & Gray, Russell D.. 2009. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276, 2299–2307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gumperz, John J. & Wilson, Robert. 1971. Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. In Hymes, Dell (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, 151–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Simon. 1987. Cultural efflorescence and political evolution on the Sepik River. American Ethnologist 14, 491–507.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966a/1972. Semicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36, 280–297. Reprinted in Dil, Anwar S., The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, 215–236. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966b/1972. Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68, 922–935. Reprinted in Dil, Anwar S., The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, 237–254. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1970. Status and Use of African Lingua Francas. München/New York: Weltforum Verlag/Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Holm, John. 1989. Pidgins and Creoles, Vol. II: Reference Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, John. 2004. Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1980. Commentary. In Valdman, A. & Highfield, A. (eds.), Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies, 389–423. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Allen W. & Earle, Timothy. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State, 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulick, Don. 1993. Growing up monolingual in a multilingual community: how language socialization patterns are leading to language shift in Gapun (Papua New Guinea). In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Viberg, Åke (ed.), Progression and Regression in Language, 94–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Peter C. 1979/1980. Dual lingualism: passive bilingualism in action. Te Reo 22/23, 65–72.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary & Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5(1), e8559.Google Scholar
McDowell, Paul. 2017. Political anthropology: a cross-cultural comparison. In Brown, Nina, de González, Luara Tubelle & McIlwraith, Thomas (eds.), Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology. Portland, OR: Lumen Learning. Available at www.perspectives.americananthro.org/Chapters/Political_Anthropology.pdf, accessed August 22, 2018.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2005. Créole, écologie sociale, évolution linguistique. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, Dutton, Tom, Hovdhaugen, Even, Williams, Jerry & Wurm, Stephen A.. 1996. Precolonial patterns of intercultural communication in the Pacific Islands. In Wurm, et al. (eds.), 401–437.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Breivik, Leiv Egil & Jahr, Ernst Håkon (eds.), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of Its Causes, 173–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oram, Nigel. 1982. Pots for sago: the hiri trading network. In Dutton, Tom (ed.), The Hiri in History: Further Aspects of Long Distance Motu Trade in Central Papua, 3–33. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: cases from Papua New Guinea. In Durie, Mark & Ross, Malcolm D. (ed.), The Comparative Method Reviewed: Irregularity and Regularity in Language Change, 180–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1982. Colonization and pidginization on the Ubangi River. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 4, 1–42.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1986. Chinook Jargon and pidgin historiography. Canadian Journal of Anthropology/Revue canadienne d’anthropologie 5, 23–34.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1987. Demythologizing Plains Sign Language history. International Journal of American Linguistics 53, 65–73.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1988. Jargonization before Chinook Jargon. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 22, 219–238.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1990/1991. The origins of Kituba and Lingala. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 12, 47–77.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1996. Dynamics of linguistic contact. In Goddard, Ives (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. XVII: Language, 117–136. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Taylor, Allan R. 1975. Nonverbal communications systems in native North America. Semiotica 4, 329–374.Google Scholar
Taylor, Allan R. 1981. Indian lingua francas. In Ferguson, Charles A. & Heath, Shirley Brice (eds.), Language in the USA, 175–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ten Thije, Jan D. & Zeevaert, Ludger (eds.). 2007. Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1987. Processes of Change in the Languages of North-Eestern New Britain (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 99). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: esoterogeny in West New Britain. In Harlow, R. & Hooper, R. (ed.), VICAL 1, Oceania Languages: Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 555–579. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Tria, Francesca, Sevedio, Vito D. P., Mufwene, Salikoko S. & Loreto, Vittorio. 2015. Modeling the emergence of contact languages. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 1994. International English, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Wurm, Stephen, Mühlhäusler, Peter & Tryon, Darrell T. (eds.). 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar