hellogѸ˥֥               ǿ     helhub (The HEL Hub) 2013-08     ڡ     ɽ    

hellogѸ˥֥ / 2013-08-28

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2013-08-28 Wed

#1584. Ūװȸ쳰ŪװϤɤ餬פ (3) [causation][language_change]

[2010-07-14-1][2013-08-26-1]˰³ѲȤƤ endogeny exogeny (contact-based) 夲롥ϡendogeny ٻݼɤ exogeny ν⤯׿ɤδ֤Ƿ깭Ƥ롥Ԥ Lass ([2013-08-26-1]) Martinet (#1015. ҲѲȸѲΰ̴طɵǤ뤫 [2012-02-06-1]) ʤɤɽŪҤǤꡤԤˤ Milroy ([2013-08-26-1]) Thomason and Kaufman ʤɤҤ롥
exogeny ٻɤ¿ϡѲŪװˤäƤޤȤƤ⡤椨˳ŪװϴͿƤʤȷŤ뤳ȤϤǤʤȼĥ롥ޤ¿ξ硤ŪװȳŪװϰˤʤäƺѤƤȹͤɬפꡤѲ "multiple causation" Ȥ٤⤯ޤϡThomason 3Ѥ褦

Many linguistic changes have two or more causes, both external and internal ones; it often happens that one of the several causes of a linguistic change arises out of a particular contact situation. (62)


It clearly is not justified, for instance, to assume that you can only argue successfully for a contact origin if you fail to find any plausible internal motivation for a particular change. One reason is that the goal is always to find the best historical explanation for a change, and a good solid contact explanation is preferable to a weak internal one; another reason is that the possibility of multiple causation should always be considered and, as we saw above, it often happens that an internal motivation combines with an external motivation to produce a change. (91)


Yet another unjustified assumption is that contact-induced change should not be proposed as an explanation if a similar or identical change happened elsewhere too, without any contact or at least without the same contact situation. (92)


ˡȸαѸؤαƶ Filppula ꡤƱݤΰѤ褦

Disagreements as to what weight each of the proposed methodological principles should be assigned in a given case are bound to remain part of the scholarly discourse, but certain things seem to me uncontroversial. First, as Lass (1997: 200--1) argues, apparent similarity, i.e. a mere formal parallel, cannot serve as proof of contact influence --- neither can it prove something to be of endogenous origin . . . . Before jumping to conclusions it is always necessary to examine the earlier history and the full syntactic, semantic and functional range of the features at issue, and also search for every possible kind of extra-linguistic evidence such as the extent of bilingualism in the speech communities involved, the chronological priority of rival sources, the geographical or areal distribution of the feature(s) at issue, demographic phenomena, etc. Secondly --- again in line with Lass's thinking (see, e.g., Lass 1997: 208) --- it is true to say that, from the point of view of the actual research, there is always a greater amount of homework in store for those who want to find conclusive evidence for contact influence than for those arguing for endogeny. On the other hand, even if endogeny is hard to rule out, as was shown by the examples discussed above, it does not follow that there would be no room for contact-based explanations or for those based on an interaction of factors. (171)


Ǹˡ Weinreich, Labov and Herzog ̾ʸѤ롥

Linguistic and social factors are closely interrelated in the development of language change. Explanations which are confined to one or the other aspect, no matter how well constructed, will fail to account for the rich body of regularities that can be observed in empirical studies of language behavior. (188)


Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2001.
Filppula, Markku. "Endogeny vs. Contact Revisited." Motives for Language Change. Ed. Raymond Hickey. Cambridge: CUP, 2003. 161--73.
Lass, Roger. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change." Directions for Historical Linguistics. Ed. W. P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. U of Texas P, 1968. 95--188.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

ǽ: 2026-06-26 03:46

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow