Convergence within lg. families 2014

linguae & litterae Publications of the School of Language & Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies

Edited by

Peter Auer · Gesa von Essen · Werner Frick

Editorial Board

Michel Espagne (paris) · Marino Freschi (Rom) Ekkehard König (Berlin) Michael Lackner (Erlangen-Nürnberg) Per Linell (Linkäping) · Angelika Linke (Zürich) Christine Maillard (Strasbourg) · Lorenza Mondada (Basel) Pieter Muysken (Nijmegen) · Wolfgang Raible (Freiburg) Monika Schmitz-Emans (Bochum)

27

,De Gruyter I

I

I

I

I

Congruence in Contact-induced Language Change

Language Families, Typological Resemblance, and Perceived Similarity

Edited by Juliane Besters-Dilger, Cynthia Dermarkar, Stefan Pfänder and Achim Rabus

De Gruyter ::2. 0 -f''f

391

Juliane Besters-Dilger (Freiburg) and Kurt Braunmüller (Hamburg)

Sociolinguistic and areal factars promoting or inhibiting convergence within language families

1. Introduction

1.0. Two language families form the background of this survey: the Scandinavian languages as part of the much larger Germanic language family, and the Slavic languages. Both of them are spoken in a geographic area which is or - in the case of the Slavic languages - at least was historically coherent, though two Scandinavian varieties are spoken on remote islands in the North Atlantic.

1.1. Two terms are the focus of this volume, (a) languagefamilies and (b) language contact. Both concepts are, however, far from being uncontroversial or self-evident.

The concept ofgrouping languages together into (genetically) related language families makes use of a metaphor (family tree) and is therefore not unproblematic: metaphors suggest similarities that in most cases may live up to only one relevant point but give also way to other, misleading interpretations and wrong analogies.

Language contact seems to be a less problematic concept because contact phenomena can be observed anywhere (fhurston 1987: 93), predominantly and most frequently in the lexicon but also in terms of grammatical replication (Heine and Kuteva 2005) or code copying (Johanson 2008, this volume). In our view, language contact starts out in the brains of multilingual individuals who master two (or more) languages/varieties at the same time with sufficiently high proficiency, and use them frequently in alternation (code-switching). Therefore interlingual "short-cuts" occur, such as borrowings, parallel morphosyntactic constructions and congruent lexicalization (Muysken 2000: ch.5)1, grammatical simplifications or, at least, decrease in complexity (cf. Sampson, Gi! and Trudgill2009). In a second step, the innovative contact phenomena can spread throughout a speech community and become elements of the recipient language.

1 "The languages share the grammatical structure of the sentence, fully or in part. The vocabulary comes from two or more different languages." (Muysken 2000: 122).

Sociolinguistic and areal factors promoting

1.2. Convergences between languages can represent two completely different phenomena: on the one hand, the integration (understood as a process, not as a result) of grammatical constructions from one source to a so-called target language (in van Coetsem's terms [2000]: source vs. recipient language activity) , with the result that the differences between them diminish. Moreover, finding grammatical compromises or intermediate language forms2 may, however, occur only in extreme contact situations, such as the emergence of pidgins. (For a more general cliscussion of various convergence phenomena within genetically closely related languages see Braunmüller 2009.)

On the other hand, convergence is part of a complex social phenomenon which says in its most general form that one should accommodate to the addressee's variety in order to gain more social acceptance by the addressee (and, in some cases, the overhearers as weIl). Thus we had best distinguish between (a) individual, i.e. situational and interpersonal aspects of accommodation in a specific face-to-face conversation and (b) the collective political will to maintain (or even establish) mutual understanding between nations for historical, cultural or strategic reasons, which is the case between the speakers of the Scandinavian countries.

Positive accommodation3 (convergence) can be considered a relevant precondition for lexical and grammatical borrowing, thus achieving more congruence across languages. The result of such a development may be a convergence area ("Sprachbund"; cf. sec. 3.2.: Sprachbund in the Balkans), where several neighboring but often genetically unrelated languages now show more common features than before this intense language contact had taken place. On the other hand, divergence seen in terms of the Communication Accommodation Theory (cf. Giles and Coupland 1991) is also rel

2 Whinnom (1971: 105) has argued that pidgins may show proper stable norms of grammar and contain "certain linguistic items" (structures, etc.) which cannot be immediately attributed to the native or target language. One precondition for such a development is that no ciassical target language exists: typically the socially superior and thus linguistically dominant (often "colonial") language and more than one substtatallanguage are involved. Mufwene (2004: 480) argues in an essentially similar way: "Creoles and indigenized varieties are, nonetheless, similar outcomes of the non-native appropriation of a language by populations which have influenced it with features from languages they spoke previously."

3 Cf. Giles and Coupland (1991: 60-71) who define accommodation (in the broadest se~se) as an adjustment of communication actions relative to those of the conversation partn~rs, being aware of others accommodating - or failing to accommodate - to the speaker (p. 60). The framework is face-to-face talking. One of the aims of accommodation is to "index and achieve solidarity with or dissociation from a conversational partner, reciprocally and dynamically" (p. 61).

392 393 Juliane Besters-Dilger and Kurt Braunmüller

evant, both from a social and grammatical point of vie~ Dialects, here defined as locally restricted varieties within a linguistic diasystem (Weinreich 1954), have to be divergent by definition, showing clear differences compared to their neighboring dialects, justifying their existence. Otherwise these local varieties would become superfluous, disappear or get levelled into (less specific) vernaculars.

Trudgill (1996, 2000) has drawn a distinction between language and dialect contact. Language contact is the more general term and can be applied to any form of contact but typically between genetically unrelated varieties, whereas dialect contact presupposes the mutual intelligibility between geneticaily closely related or diffuse/non-focused linguistic varieties (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). This means that dialect contact, seen as contact within language families, can on the one hand promote convergence phenomena between related varieties because they are so similar to each other that borrowings and grammatical replications can occur anywhere and are, in cases of intense contact, almost inevitable. On the other hand, dialect has then to be seen in a much broader perspective: it can no longer be regarded as a distinct local variety with clear idiosyncratic features but rather as an ausbau language (KIoss 1978) and a language in its own right, which has to maintain its social and linguistic identity in order not to become marginalized and absorbed by other closely related (neighboring) varieties. Its characteristic linguistic features thus have to be rughlighted and reinforced.

1.3. Language contact presupposes not only multilingualism at a high level of proficiency and fluency, frequent code-switching and finally possibly interchange between language systems, but also the favoring of social and often areal factors (such as close vicinity or being subjacent under a dominant roofing language).

When speakers of two different varieties meet, two scenarios can occur: (A) One of the languages is more prestigious, dominant, more widespread or has more speakers, and the other one has only low prestige, is peripheral, locally restricted and has a minority of speakers. (B) Both languages have about the same social status and the same numbers of speakers. Moreover, when a widely acknowledged prestigious language also functions as a lingua franca (such as Latin and Low/High German in northern Europe in the Middle Ages and beyond) or as a language of higher education, science and religion (such as classical Greek or Latin in the Antiquity), its status will increase considerably and it will become a model for almost all vernaculars which become roofed by trus language. Convergences, grammatical replications and parallel word order patterns increase, with the result that the vernaculars as recipient languages expand their grammatical structures and integrate repli-


cations (i.e. copies) of the source language in order to live up to new communicative functions, for example, as an elaborate written and, to a certain extent, standardized language (see Höder 2010 for the roles of Latin and German in late medieval Sweden).

1.4. However, the size of the languages involved can also play an important role in contact situations. Big (and ma.Jor) languages are not only big and often dominant with respect to the number of their speakers; they have also integrated many non-native speakers - with far-reaching consequences for the internal structures of these languages. Trus process may result in a decrease üi structural complexity (grammatical simplification), but may be counterbalanced by the emergence of new forms and constructions. Therefore, these languages show a lesser degree of overspecification, due to a decrease in marking semantic distinctions overtly and obligatorily (McWhorter 2007: 1-21).

On the other hand, small (and minor) languages are typically not learned by (adult) foreigners. These varieties are predominantly spoken in small, tightly networked societies and can thus preserve structural complexity on all grammaticallevels much better than big languages. Moreover, speakers of small and minor linguistic communities have to be bi- or multilingual in order to being able to communicate with their neighbors, who often speak only their own language and do not understand any other small(er) languages in their vicinity. Minoriry languages can be considered a special case: they are typically more conservative, more resistant to language change than majority languages and show stable social structures and tight networks (Braunmüller 2003). Trus does not necessarily preserve them from inserting different loans and/or getting assimilated.

1.5. Some languages came into existence as a direct result of face-to-face contacts in trading situations between mutually unintelligible languages. The most weIl-known cases are pidgin and, seen from an historical point of view, the creole languages as weil. However, creoles mayaiso be the result of imperfect adult language learning, because they show many reductions and simplifications (cf. note 2).

1.6. Witrun the rooftng languages (such as classical and Byzantine Greek, Latin or Church Slavonic but also Low and High German in northern Europe) we distinguish between two types: (a) those which serve as spoken languages and (b) those which do not, but are only read and written. The fltst ones are not only used as koines, linguae francae or transnational trading languages but function also as modellanguages in education or religious affairs. Roofing languages of the second type (e.g. Church Slavonic) have only the last two functions. They form models for the implementation ofnew written


and, later, standard languages in all grammatical domains, from the emergence oE scripts to the establishing oE text norms.

2. The Scandinavian languages

2.1. General background

2.1.1. One of the most well-known facts about the (Mainland) Scandinavian languages is their mutual intelligibility: although Danish, Swedish and Norwegian (in both variants, Dano- and New Norwegian) are nationallanguages they can, strictly speaking, also be regarded as ausbau languages: they still function as mutually comprehensible dialects as they did in the Middle Ages and beyond, when in fact they could be regarded as local varieties/dialects within a common diasystem, known at the time as "dönsk tunga" ('Danish [sc. Nordie] tongue'; Melberg 1949-51). Today, this linguistic community still works very weIl, at least for the standard languages, but this way ofdirect mutual understanding between Danes, Swedes and Norwegians is endangered as far as the youngest generation is concerned, especially in oral communication (Delsing and Lundin Akesson 2005). Inter-Scandinavian communication has never really been unproblematic (Börestarn Uhlmann 1994; Zeevaert 2004; Golinski 2007) but the awareness of belonging to the same pan-Scandinavian community had, in the past, proved to be stronger and had been able to surmount any real (or only alleged) differences between the Mainland Scandinavian languages.

2.1.2. It could for example be the case that people in inter-Scandinavian meetings heavily emphasized the "total incomprehensibility" of spoken Danish but that such debates were conducted in Scandinavian varieties, including Danish - obviously without causing any severe problems! (fhat genetically closely related varieties may also be - or at least be treated as - mutually incomprehensible will be discussed in the Slavic language section 3). This means that one has to distinguish between (a) structural and lexical divergences between the Scandinavian languages that may impede the ease of communication exchange, at least for inexperienced speakers, (b) the inter-Scandinavian image of these languages (Danish: when spoken is almost incomprehensible for anybody outside Denmark; Swedish: pleasant to the ear like e.g. Italian; Norwegian: any dialect mixture seems possible) and (c) the pan-Scandinavian awareness of being part of an old, common culture (which actually includes all inhabitants of Northern Europe) that is strong enough to surmount all differences, at least between the Mainland Scandinavian varieties. Thus even wrong accommodations or overgeneralizations occurring in these


ad hoc created inter-linguistic varieties are well-received. Even widely wellknown language specific words (often erroneously called "false friends", such as roligin Danish/Norwegian meaning 'quiet' but in Swedish 'funny', or totally divergent terms for the same thing, such as for 'window': vindu(e) in Danish/Norwegian vs. fiinster in Swedish), are overtly used as "flagged (i.e. marked) terms" (Braunmüller 2002) in inter-Scandinavian communication in order to highlight that the speaker is very weIl aware of the differences between these languages and knows many or all of them, though s/he does not understand neighboring varieties entirely or without contextual supporting information. However, divergences of this kind do not really impede mutual understanding. Such a message has to be regarded as a political or cultural rather than a well-founded linguistic statement, showing that one is interested in conversing with Scandinavian neighbors directly and without using a linguafranca, notwithstanding some obvious lexical or structural differences, which actually may cause problems. In many of these cases the context will, however, help bridge the gap. This gap has been called "semi-communication" by Haugen (1966), but this term is quite misleading, especially for native speakers of English. It actually means "semi-bilingualism: receptive bilingualism accompanying productive monolingualisrn" (Hockett 1958: 327; cf. Börestam Uhlmann 1997: 241-242).

2.1.3. Icelandic and Faroese, the two Insular Scandinavian varieties 10cated and isolated in the North Atlantic, are internally mutually comprehensible, but not with the Mainland Scandinavian languages. However, all speakers ofFaroese also master Danish with very high proficiency, since the Faroe Islands are still part of Denmark. Moreover, their pronunciation shows signs of foreign language learning which makes their phonetics more "Scandinavian", more like some sort of spelling pronunciation, and thus better understandable for Swedes and Norwegians. Danish as spoken by Icelanders shows similar features (see Hannesd6ttir 2000).

Generally speaking, Danish outside Denmark diverges in several aspects from the Danish language in Denmark and its norms due to intense language contact, emerging predominantly as congruent lexicalizations, grammatical replications and, of course, overt or covert lexicalloans (see Petersen 2010 and Kühl 2011 for the Faroe Islands and Kühl 2008 and Westergaard 2008 for the vernacular spoken by the Danish/German minority in the GermanDanish border region). Though all Icelanders learn another Scandinavian language at school- in former times it was only Danish - they, especially the younger generations, clearly prefer to converse outside their horne country only in English, no matter whether they master any other Scandinavian variety with fluency or not.


Differences between the Insular Scandinavian and especially the Western Norwegian dialects also playa role when considering the internal divergences in (here) the western Scandinavian dialects (cf. Bandie 1973/2011: 98-100) but these are mostly due to phonological and lexical differences and can, strictly speaking, also be found anywhere else in Scandinavia, e.g. between (central) Sweden and the eastern Swedish dialects, as spoken in Finland.

2.1.4. In the Middle Ages and beyond, this area of direct, non-intermediated communication was much larger. As has been summarized elsewhere (Braunmüller 2004) a transnational diasystem developed in the Baltic during the era of the Hanseatic League (and continued during the Reformation in the 16th century), which extended from Jutland and Norway (Bergen) in the west to the borders of Russia in the east and the littoral areas of the Baltic Sea in the south (from Lübeck to Reval/Tallin). In oral face-to-face communication, people largely made use of their mother tongue for mutual understanding, like in Scandinavia today. In other words, Middle Low German and the older Scandinavian dialects were so genetically and typologically similar that tradesmen (and later craftsmen) saw no insurmountable hindrances in directly understanding even more distantly related Germanie dialects. Since (written) standardized languages were largely unknown and not available, people had learned to be very flexible in communication and tried to accommodate as much as possible. This linguistic flexibility resulted, however, not only in lexical and grammatical convergences but also, as far as Hansa trade is concerned, in considerable economic success, which reinforced receptive/ passive multilingualism, based on positive accommodation at any price. Only when writing letters or proceedings, and particularly in the publication of legal documents and treaties or even book-keeping, were Latin and later Low German used as linguae franc.ae. They functioned in these cases as languages for specific purposes as weIl.

2.2. Areal dimensions

As both the unimpeded communication in the Baltic during the era of the Hanseatic League and the direct inter-Scandinavian communication of today show, areal dimensions, combined with genetic relatedness, play the most important role in direct mutual understanding of the (Germanic/Scandinavian) languages in northern Europe. On top of that, the areal factor had been a vital precondition for what has been called "Scandinavism" in the beginning of the 19th century, when people, after the final defeat of Napoleon in 1813/14, joined together in order to form a new nation, which was not restricted to a single territory but covered a much broader historieal, geo-


graphical and cultural unit, "Scandinavia". This area also included linguistically very distant countries like Finland, which had been lost to Russia in 1809 but had been part ofSweden, its culture and history for many centuries. The same applies, in principle, to the former Danish territories: Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and, partly, the duchy of Schleswig. People there also feel Scandinavian, still seeing themselves as being part of a supra-national cultural unit based on a common historieal, more homogenous linguistic background which can be dated back to the Viking Age/the early Middle Ages. The Scandinavian vernaculars can thus be regarded as the modern descendants of the dialects that once were roofed by the so-called "dönsk tunga" (sc. the common Ancient Nordic/Old Norse diasystem).

2.3. Social dimensions

Social dimensions play a less important role for the coherence of the people(s) living in Scandinavia. Due to the closely intertwined history of northern Europe - though characterized by many mostly internal wars striving for local supremacy or territorial expansion - all Scandinavian countries are quite homogenous in the sociology of their population and their culture(s).

We observe tight rural networks, which helped to preserve many of the idiosyncratic features of the local dialects, but we also meet, though only in Mainland Scandinavia, a great openness towards foreign loans, predominantly in vocabulary and word formation (Diercks 1993) but also in word order and grammatical constructions (Braunmüller 2006, 2008: 136-141). These languages have been subjected to many forms of adult language learning and have thus undergone grammatical simplification in their grammatical structures, which makes them typologically more alike, even if their national phonological and phonetic developments have been diverging significantly for centuries, as has been the case between the eastern Scandinavian languages Danish and Swedish since the High Middle Ages. Anyway, when two more or less related languages, based on similar social structures, come into contact with each other, the result will be less complex than the structures of the languages were before the contact had taken place (see McWhorter 2007: 15-17, also mentioning the contact between English and Old Norse).

Another important factor both for typologieal and social change is the size of the population. Small populations, if not living isolated on remote islands (like Ieeland or the Faroes), tend to get assimilated, such as the Swedish minority in Finland, though they live in close proximity with their linguistic home base Sweden. Unbalanced bilingualism and mixed marriages will


sooner or later lead to the loss of the Swedish varieties there (cf. Tandefelt 1988), though they could have remained under the roof of the (neighboring) Swedish language. In this case, it is not linguistic factors that play the decisive role: Political factors and the mere size of the majority population (ca. 950/0 are Pinns) override theoreticallinguistic options, genetic and historical ties.

A similar development can be observed in South Schleswig where the Danish minority living south of the German-Danish border keeps their (local) Danish phonology but more or less accommodates to the majority language, German, by widely using overt and covert structural loans and trans-linguistic wordings. This form of convergence (mostly due to congruent lexicalization) facilitates not only frequent code-switching but makes everyday life easier as being a member of a minority within a region, where the majority language and another minority language, Low German, are linguistically related and determine all socia! relations. This dose genetic relationship often makes it very difficult both to keep all related vernaculars spoken in the same area apart and, in the case of the minority language Danish, to stick to the linguistic and socia! norms of the language as it is used in Denmark (cf. Braunmüller 1996).

3. The Slavic language family

3.1. General background

The picture of the Slavic language family seems quite different from that of the Scandinavian languages. Apart from some neighboring languages, there is no mutual intelligibility between most of the 12-17 modern Slavic languages - whose number depends on the willingness to take into account the "new" languages which emerged since the 1990s -, although they have basic vocabulary (e.g., severa! body parts and domestic animals) and some grammatical features (e.g., the category of animacy and lexicalized verbal aspect) in common. Today, there is no shared identity of the kind "we are all Slavs". Receptive or semi-bilingualism between native speakers of most standard languages, e.g. between Polish and Russian or Polish and Serbian, is not customary at all: people rarely know other Slavic languages in addition to their own and in general cannot understand thema A major problem is also the research situation: contrary to Scandinavian languages, intercomprehension4,

4 Intercomprehension is a cover-term for receptive ("passive") bi/multilingualism, which has predominantly been used in connection wirh genetically relared languages. Two popular approaches for achieving a reading knowledge, based on one


i.e. the ability of Slavs to understand other Slavic languages without being able to speak them, has seldom been tested, and the few existing results show that understanding is in fact very limited (Besters-Dilger 2002; Heinz 2009). Therefore, for the Slavic language family we will not only focus on semicommunication but also on convergence between languages.

Nevertheless, there are cases where semi-bilingualism in the sense of the Scandinavian languages - i.e. between Slavic languages whose specific development and status as independent languages was already recognized by scholars in the 19th century - is possible and occurs or used ,to occur quite often (e.g, Slovene-Croatian in the Yugoslavian state [Stabej 2007], SlovakCzech, Ukrainian-Russian; see below). But as we will see, in contrast to the Scandinavian languages, in these cases one can hardly speak of a "symmetrieal" semi-bilingualism.

If we include the newly emerging and/or only recently recognized Slavic languages such as Kashubian (officially acknowledged as a regionallanguage by Poland since 2005), Montenegrin (an officiallanguage since 2006), Rusyn (in some countries acknowledged since the 1990s, recognized in Ukraine since July 2012), the triad Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (in 1850 in the "Vienna Literary Agreement" united as one single written language using two alphabets, with tendencies to revoke the agreement since the 1960s, and officially separated since the 1990s) and the pair Macedonian-Bulgarian (officially separated since 1934; however, the Macedonian language was first acknowledged by Bulgaria as late as 1999), there are, of course, many more possibilities of communication without any difficulty (Montenegrin-Serbian, Rusyn-Ukrainian, Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, Macedonian-Bulgarian). But since the~e

languages (mostly ausbau languages in the terminology of Kloss 1978) are so similar to each other and easily mutually comprehensible, the native speakers do not require any effort or special knowledge to understand each other. This is not a semi-, but more or less a full communication, and therefore the term semi-bilingualism does not fit very weIl. The similarity of the Slavic languages and therefore the possibility to practice semi-bilingualism is probably best described as a continuum, reaching from distance and incomprehensibility to near-perfect mutual intelligibility and extensive homogeneity.

Additional interesting features in the Slavic-speaking world are (a) two East-Slavic mixed speeches (in the terminology of Hentschel, this volume),

of rhe related languages (conceived as a pivotal "bridge language"), are Klein and Stegmann (2000) for the Romance and Hufeisen and Marx (2007) for the Germanie language family. A corresponding volume for the Slavic languages has, however, not been published yet (see WW\\T.eurocomslav:de).

401 4UU Juliane Besters-Dilger and Kurt Braunmüller

often named "Surzhyk" (in Ukraine) and "Trasyanka" (in Belarus) (see below). The question as to whether they can be classified as "mixed languages" or not is rather complicated because the "crude lexical:grammar split" (Matras and Bakker 2003: 16) as the main criterion has been abandoned and the definitions are now much more flexible (see also Auer, this volume). The term '''fused lect' (coined by Auer 1999) in statu nascendi" (Hentschel, this volume) or the definition as something "between language mixing and fused lects" (Kent 2010: 51) may probably fit better. There are (b) large areas of transitional dialects in the Northern (polish-BelarusianUkrainian-Russian) and the Southern (Slovenian-Croatian-Serbian-Macedonian-Bulgarian) parts of the Slavic-speaking world.

Around 1000 years ago Hungarians and Germans drove a wedge between the Northern and Southern Slavs, so that there are no transitional dialects between the North and South. Due to this long-Iasting separation, one would expect a considerably differing grammatical and lexical development of the (more numerous) Northern and the Southern language groups. However, the intense cultural contact between Russian and Serbian and Russian and Bulgarian, especially in the 18th/19th century, which was based on shared religion, script, and religious roofing language (Church Slavonic) was the reason for the lexical differences being less strong than assumed. The difference in grammar between the South and the North consists of the preservation of a more complex verbal system (with more tense forms) in the South (except in Slovenian).

The 19th century is of utmost importance for the Slavic languages, because it is responsible for a lot of lexical convergence: during the so-called "Völkerfrühling" ('spring of peoples'), the elites of all those Slavic peoples who lived under the rule of a multiethnic empire (i.e. all apart from the Russians) feIt the necessity to purify their languages from foreign, non-Slavic elements and to fill the gaps with Slavic words (slovanska vzdjemnost 'Slavic reciprocity', Kollar 1837). They took these words from other Slavic languages: the Bulgarians from Russian, the Slovenians from Czech and Croatian, the Sorbs from Czech, etc. (fhomas 1989). This was the last time that the Slavic elites feIt like members of a common nation which had to defend its language(s) against the non-Slavs. It was only after WWI that the Slavs reached their goal of building several independent states. Some of them remained multiethnic and were finally dissolved at the end of the 20th century, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the decline of communism, when, just twenty years ago, a second process of nation-building took place.

During the second half of the 20th century, due to political reasons, Russian served as the linguafranca between Slavs, but is now in the process of losing this status to English, especially among the younger generation.


In the following, we concentrate on some of the most promising cases mentioned above which are potential candidates for grammatical convergence: the Slovak-Czech (cf. Nabelkova, this volume) and the Ukrainan-Russian semi-bilingualism on the one hand, and the mixed speech Surzhyk on the other. We will discuss the importance of the areal and the social factors for convergence, understood as a process, for which, in our opinion, semibilingualism and incomplete learning are at least as important prerequisites

as code-switching.

3.2. Areal dimension

It is not by chance that all three cases (Slovak-Czech and Russian-Ukrainian semi-bilingualism and the mixed speech Surzhyk) concern neighboring lan

guages. (1) Czech and Slovak are part of the North-Western group of Slavic lan

guages and therefore not only neighbors, but also genetically and structurally similar. Until WWI, their speakers belonged to the two different halves of the Habsburg Empire: the Czechs to the Austrian and the Slovaks to the Hungarian part. When Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918, both peoples were unified in one state for the first time since 895 AD. However, Czech had served as the literary language for Slovaks since at least the 15th century, and their mutual relations were renewed several times (Nabelkova 2007: 54-55). Under the influence of contemporary ideas, a common Czechosloyak language was propagated. But even after the proclamation of a federal state in 1968 and fulliegal equality of both languages, Czech played a more important state role, and the Czech-Slovak bilingualism on the state level remained asymmetrical (Lipowski 2005). Semi-bilingualism in communication, however, was very common. Although the standardization process in the 19th century aimed to reinforce the differences between the two languages (one could say: to create more abstand in Kloss' terminology), in colloquial speech these efforts did not bear fruit. Nevertheless, convergence is quite limited: nearly all examples in literature concern vocabulary and word formation (Nabelkova, this volume) and not grammar, and as a matter of fact Slovak has adapted itself more to Czech than vice-versa. Following the political separation of the two languages in 1993, Slovak has now become increasingly less comprehensible for Czech children, compared with their par

ents (Nabelkova 2007: 56). (2) The Ukrainian-Russian semi-bilingualism in Ukraine is different:

When Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians are addressed in Russian, they tend to answer in Russian, but not vice-versa. Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Rus

403 4U2 Juliane Besters-Dilger and Kurt Braunmüller

sians often claim not to understand Ukrainian, whereas Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians admit that they have no problem understanding Russian. Although Ukrainian has been the only state language since 1996, there is still a certain share of the population who say that they can neither understand nor read it (let alone that they are actively competent in it). In eastern and southern Ukraine, Russian is the main language in all communication spheres. Therefore we can ascertain that there is no symmetrical bilingualism on the state level and also that semi-bilingualism is in this case not symmetrical (as in the case of Czech and Slovak, at least until 1993), since only one of the communication partners admits being able to understand the other and only one speaks his own language. That means: convergence will consist of a transfer of Russian language structures into Ukrainian but not vice-versa.

(3) The Ukrainian mixed speech Surzhyk (as the Belarusian Trasyanka, see Hentschel, this volume), was initially probably a result of intense asymmetrical semi-bilingualism and was formed by two neighboring North-Eastern Slavic languages: Russian and Ukrainian (Trasyanka: Russian and Belarusian). Both are spoken on a territory which was originally not Russian-speaking but was affected by Russian rule, and in the 20th century by intense Russian immigration, industrialization and urbanization. When the rural population moved to the cities, they tried to accommodate (individual convergence, see above) and learned Russian, albeit incompletely. This is seen as a major reason for the emergence of these two mixed varieties. Today, they are also widespread in rural areas, whereas cities now tend to be Russian-speaking (apart from cities in West Ukraine). The phonetics/phonology of Surzhyk is predominantly Ukrainian; the vocabulary is mixed and contains, besides "pure" Ukrainian and Russian elements, many words which apply Ukrainian phonological rules to Russian words. (e.g., Surzhyk vidnofennja 'relations', compared to Ukrainian stosunki and Russian otnofenija, with the typical replacement of otby vid- [v- before word-initial 0- and 0 > i in a closed syllable] and the doubling of the consonant -n-); the grammar shows, e.g., Ukrainian inflection for the personal pronoun but predominantly Russian degrees of adjectives and in other domains a mix of both grammars. Similar to the mixed speech in Belarus, there is an ongoing debate as to whether Surzhyk is mixed spontaneously (Masenko 2011) or begins to develop functional specializations (Flier 1998; DeI Gaudio 2010), i.e. is on the way to become a "fused lect". However, it is difficult to state that the areal dimension is more important than others because Ukrainian and Belarusian are structurally and genetically very similar to Russian, and certain social factors also come into play (see below).

It becomes clear from all three examples that if the areal dimension, i.e. the neighborhood of two languages or even their coexistence in one state,


were the only or the most important trigger for convergence, both affected languages would show it to the same degree and there would probably be no asymmetry in semi-bilingualism. In fact, trus is not the case.

So far, all examples concerned neighboring languages which were genetically and structurally similar. If we look for a convincing example of areal contact leading to convergence without genetic similarity, the best example is the famous Balkan Sprachbund (convergence area) wruch includes, among others, the following Slavic languages: as central members Macedonian and Bulgarian, as a more peripheral member Serbian (especially the Torlak dialects) and, as some claim, as marginal members Croatian and even Slovenian. Here it is explicitly the geographical proximity or, more precisely, the existence of migrant herdsmen in the past which promoted convergence, and not genetic or structural proximity (see Miseska Tomic and Lindstedt, this volurne). There must have been numerous cases of accommodation to the communication partner and receptive bilingualism wruch then promoted convergence between languages in such fundamental categories as loss of infinitive, analytical inflection of nouns, development of a postposed article and a possessive perfect, circumscription of the future by using the verb 'to want' etc. (cf. the idea of Hinrichs 1990 that most "Balkanisms" can be explained as linguistic elements facilitating listening comprehension). Additionally, the social factor of incomplete (second/adult) language learning by the Romance population, already living in the Balkans, has to be taken into account. Furthermore, convergence between genetically non-related languages took place; therefore this case does not fulfil the conditions for being investigated in this contribution.

So the overall picture is: Areal contact can be an important factor promoting convergence but it is intertwined with others like genetic and structural similarity - as weil as social factors.

3.3. Social dimension

Regarding the Slavic languages, the social factors, both on the accommodational and politicallevel, are clearly the dominant trigger which facilitates or inhibits convergence between languages, and decides in wruch direction convergence goes. It is most probable that convergence between languages starts with multiple convergences between speakers (in the sense of "accommodation to the addressee's variety"). Thomason (2001: 66) enumerated several social vectors such as cultural pressure, socio-economic dominance, duration of the contact, number of speakers, and imperfect learning. Is it possible to weigh these factors for the Slavic languages?

405 4U4 Juliane Besters-Dilger and Kurt Braunmüller

Convergence in the first sense, i.e. as integration of grammar from one language (source language) to another (target or recipient language) is mostly promoted by the social factor supremacy or simplypower. Historically, political power was probably more important, today it is combined with socioeconomic power. Until WWI, Russian and Polish (until the three partitions at the end of the 18th century) were the only Slavic languages which, since premodern times, had astate of their own. All the others had belonged to multiethnic empires (the Holy Roman, the Polish-Lithuanian, the Habsburg, the Üttoman and the Russian empires) since the Middle Ages and were not spoken by the politically dominant nation. Those Slavic languages which belonged to the Polish state (Belarusian and Ukrainian until 1772/1795) or to the Russian state (Belarusian and Ukrainian after the three partitions of Poland, partly even from 1667 until 1991), were heavily influenced by the two successively dominating languages. After WWI, new bi- or multiethnic states appeared: the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Whereas in the first, Russian became more and more important and dominated, apart from Slavic languages, around 100 non-Slavic languages, in both the other states one Slavic language dominated the other(s): Czech was the leading language of politics in Czechoslovakia, and Serbo-Croatian (with a slight preponderance of Serbian) in Yugoslavia.

Therefore it is not surprising that in the 20th century a russification of Belarusian and Ukrainian and a bohemization of Slovak took place. The influenee of Serbo-Croatian on other Yugoslavian languages was apparently weaker: Slovenians spoke two languages (Slovenian and Croatian) but did not mix them (Stabej 2007); the structure of Macedonian was, however, affected on the syntactic level (Miseska Tomic, this volume).

At the end of the last century, a second nation-building process (which we consider an additional social factor) took place: closely related peoples and languages developed in different directions, linguistic standardization (including orthographie reforms) highlighted the distanee to the formerly dominant language. These processes led to linguistic divergence, at least on the level of the standard language (e.g., Slovak vs. Czech, Croatian vs. Serbian, and Ukrainian vs. Russian). Those languages whieh had always defended their independence continued to do so, what we could call nationpreservation (e.g., Slovenian vs. Croatian). Also important was the group of newly emerging languages (Montenegrin [Nikcevic 2001] with its own state, Rusyn [Magocsi 2004] spread over at least five states, Kashubian [Breza 2001] within Poland), which before had been regarded as dialects. In no other European area is the linguistic development currently as lively as it is in the Slavic region.


Today, a difference exists in the fact that Russian is still the economically and partly also politically and culturally - dominating power in Ukraine (as in Belarus), whereas Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia have undergone an emancipation process. Russians constitute a large minority in Ukraine, and many national Ukrainians consider Russian their mother tongue. The myth of "East-Slavic brotherhood" successfully aims to create a shared identity. The mixed speech Surzhyk is for a large portion of the population the main code of communication. It is not uncommon for people to switch to Surzhyk, stigmatized from the point of view of the "language cultivators", when they come horne after work or school (where they had had to speak Russian or Ukrainian) and talk with familyand friends (DeI Gaudio 2010: 256). Its use is a signal of social proximity.

Besides power and nation-building and -preservation, the demographie size of the two interacting language communities can also play an important role. In all three cases the dominant language possesses more speakers than the dominated. However, the Slovenian example makes clear that this feature, which is often called one of the decisive factors in language contact (fhomason 2001: 66; Nibelkovi 2007: 53-54), is less important than thought. In addition, the length ofinteraetion only has a relative influence. This can be shown when comparing different historical copying processes within Slavic languages (BestersDilger 2012). Impeifeet learning is, however, an important issue, relevant for insertions Slovaks living in the Czech environment have made into Czech, for the mixed speech Surzhyk and also for the Balkan Sprachbund.

4. Conclusions

Research into areal and sociolinguistic factors promoting or inhibiting convergence between languages of the same family is more difficult than research into convergence between genetically non- or less closely related languages belonging to different language families.

The results of our study concerning "convergence between languages" show that neighboring languages - and neighborhood is the precondition for the influence of areal factors - of the same language family are in general genetically and structurally similar, and often we do not know enough about their prehistory in order to decide if convergence is acquired or has "always" existed. Additionally, since convergence can also mean that just the frequenry ofuse of certain structures is adapted to that of a closely related language, this kind of research would require an enormous diachronic text corpus in order to prove that areal and/or sociolinguistic factors lead to an increased congruence between languages.


The conditions to find out if areal factors have a decisive influence on convergence within language families are more favorable within the Scandinavian languages, because one can compare isolated languages on islands with those which always have been in close contact with neighboring members of the same language family. Moreover, there is apparently an areal factor promoting convergence in those languages which were in permanent contact, whereas isolated languages show other forms of convergence: Contact with other, genetically more distant languages, such as Danish as spoken on the Faroe Islands (and formerly in Iceland as weH) or German and South Jutish in the German-Danish border region, will in the long run always result in at least cover! convergence and cover! replication. In short: more or less intense code mixing seems to be inevitable between bilinguals speaking genetically closely related languages (Braunmüller 2009).

For the Slavic languages, the case is, on the one hand, similar, on the other more complicated. Firstly, one could claim that the two Sorbian languages in eastern Germany also constitute an island, because they have been surrounded by German-speaking regions since the second half of the 17th century (earlier they were direct neighbors ofPoles in the East and Czechs in the South). They show, in fact, some archaic grammatical features which have been given up in most Slavic languages: the dual, in Upper Sorbian the tenses aorist and imperfect (which existed in Lower Sorbian until the 20th century), in Lower Sorbian the supine after verbs of motion. This seems to prove that language contact between two related languages always leads to less complex structures than those of an isolated language (cf. the Scandinavian languages). But secondly, the Slavs settled in already inhabited areas, and these different substrates and neighboring non-Slavic languages have influenced their language development. In other words: if there is a lack of convergence between two Slavic languages which are separated by mountains, it is difficult to decide if the mountains, the substrate or the non-Slavic (e.g., Germanic, Finnic, Baltic, Turkic) neighbor is the reason. Moreover, if there is a convergent linguistic feature in a contiguous area like the loss of the category of dual in Czech, Slovak, Polish, Belarusian and Ukrainian (Breu 1994: 42-44), the reason can be due to the areal factor or the parallel abandonment of an archaic category, either because of language-internal development or because of the influence of substrate(s). As for the Slavic languages, we might say that there is no indisputable case where the areal dimension is the most important factor for convergence - with the possible exception of the Balkan Sprachbund which does not reaHy belong to our research question because of several influential non-Slavic members (central: Romanian, Albanian, Aromunian, peripheral: Greek, marginal: Turkish). The areal dimen-


sion can probably never be the only factor promoting convergence since human volition and linguistic awareness are always involved.

As far as sociolinguistic factors are concerned, the Scandinavian languages profit from the awareness of their speakers that they have always belonged to an old, common culture and have had much of their history in common for centuries (Kalmar Union 1397-1523, the Danish-Norwegian Union 1380-1814 and the Norwegian-Swedish Union 1814-1905). Therefore, sociolinguistic factors are less important. The Slavic languages are witness to a thousand year old schism, a strong power imbalance that has led to unsymmetrical semi-bilingualism and a late nation building process, which is in fact not yet finished for some languages and their speakers' communities. The latter prornotes divergence rather than convergence.

Convergence in the second meaning, i.e. as a deliberate accommodation to the addressee's variety, is widespread between speakers of Scandinavian languages, but not between Slavs, apart from some cases mentioned above.

Thus the picture appears very inhomogeneous. We are confronted with manifold different situations. Nevertheless, one general conclusion can be drawn: Convergence, realized by deliberate accommodation and symmetrical semi- or receptive bilingualism, as practiced in the Scandinavian countries, presupposes political harmony, the will to understand each other without a mediating (foreign) language and a certain feeling of belonging together (cultural awareness). There is, however, no such social or political harmony between the Slavic-speaking countries at the beginning of the 21 st century. As the Slovenian case shows, finally it is the strength of the ethnic and/or social identity, linguistic consciousness and the will of the speech community which influence convergence (in both meanings) in relation to other languages.

References

Auer, Peter 1999From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. The International Journal of Bilingualism 3: 309-332.

Bandie, Oskar 2011Die Gliederung des Nordgermanischen. 2nd. ed.; (1 st edition, Basel, Stuttgart: Helbing and Lichtenhahn 1973). Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke.

Besters-Dilger, ]uliane 2002 Spontane Interkomprehension in den slawischen Sprachen. In: Gerhard Kischel (ed.), EuroCom. Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Interkomprehension in Sprachfamilien, 341-349. Aachen: Shaker.

Besters-Dilger,]uliane 2012 Konvergencija i divergencija slavjanskix jazyko\T. Vlijanie sociolingvisticeskix faktorov v istorii i sovremennosti [Convergence and divergence of the Slavic languages. The influence of sociolinguistic factors in past and present]. In: Halina Kurek (ed.),J~iYki siowiarJSkie w uj~ciu soqolingwistycznym, 9-22. Krak6w: Ksi~arnia Akademicka.


Börestam Uhlmann, Ulla 1994 Skandinaver samtalar. Sprakliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar. [Scandinavians converse. Linguistic and interactional strategies between Danes, Norwegians and Swedes]. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska spräk.

Braunmüller, Kurt 1996 Sydslesvigdansk - et regionalsprog? [South-Schleswig Danish - a regionallanguage?]. In: Institut for dansk Dialektforskning (ed.), Studier i talesprogsvariation og sprogkontakt. Til Inger EjskjtErpa halvjerdsarsdagen den 20. maj 1996,33-44. Copenhagen: Reitzel.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2002 Semicommunication and accommodation: observations from the linguistic situation in Scandinavia. Internationaljournal ofAppliedLinguistics 12: 1-23.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2003 Language, typology and society: possible correlations. In: Thomas Stolz andJoel Sherzer (eds.), Minor Languages. Approaches, definitions, controversies, 89-101. Bochum: Brockmeyer.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2004 Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch im Kontakt mit den skandinavischen Sprachen. Eine Übersicht. In: Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Deutsch im Kontakt mitgermanischen Sprachen, 1-30. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2006 Wortstellung und Sprachkontakt: Untersuchungen zum Vorfeld und Nebensatz im älteren Dänischen und Schwedischen. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 62: 207-241.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2008 Zu den sprachlichen Verhältnissen und Kommunikationsformen in Nordeuropa im späten Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. In: Geir Ade Ersland and Marco Trebbi (eds.), Neue Studien zum Archiv und zur Sprache der Hanseaten, 127-141. Bergen: Museum Vest and Det Hanseatiske Museum.

Braunmüller, Kurt 2009 Converging genetically related languages: Endstation code mixing? In: Kurt Braunmüller and Juliane House (eds.), Convergence and divergence in language contact situations, 53-69. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Breu, Walter 1994 Der Faktor Sprachkontakt in einer dynamischen Typologie des Slavischen. In: Hans R. Mehlig (ed.), Slavistische Linguistik 1993,41-64. München: Sagner.

Breza, Edward (ed.) 2001 KasZubszcryzna - Kasze'bizna [Kashubian]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski.

DeI Gaudio, Salvatore 2010 On the Nature ofSurzhyk. A Double Perspective. Munich, Berlin, Vienna: Sagner.

Delsing, Lars-Olof and Katarina Lundin Akesson 2005 Haller spraket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars fiirstaelse av danska, svenska och norska. [Does language tie the Nordic countries together? A research report on the comprehension of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian among young peopleJ. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Diercks, Willy 1993 Zur Verwendung prä- und postmodifizierender Morpheme im Mittelniederdeutschen und in den skandinavischen Sprachen. In: Kurt Braunmüller and Willy Diercks (eds.), Niederdeutsch und die skandinavischen Sprachen I, 161-194. Heidelberg: Winter.

Flier, Michael S. 1998 Surzhyk: The Rules ofEngagement. Harvard Ukrainian Studies XXII: 113-136.

Giles, Howard and Nikolas Coupland 1991 Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.


Golinski, Bernadette 2007 Kommunikationsstrategien in interskandinavischen Diskursen. Hamburg: Kovac.

Hannesd6ttir, Anna Helga 2000 Skandinavisk - a language or what? In: Gudrun Th6rhallsd6ttir (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 10, 35-44. Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.

Haugen, Einar 1966 Semicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia. Sociologicallnquiry 36: 280-297.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva 2005 Language Contact and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heinz, Christof 2009 Understanding what you've never learned? - Chances and limitations of spontaneous auditive transfer between Slavic languages. WU Online Papers in International Business Communication / Series One: Intercultural Communication and Language Learning 5. (http://epub.wu.ac.at/696).

Hinrichs, Uwe 1990 Das Slavische und die sogenannten Balkanismen. Zeitschriftftr Balkanologie 26: 43-61.

Hockett, Charles F. 1958A Course in Modern Linguistics. 9th printing. New York: Macmillan.

Höder, Steffen 2010 Sprachausbau im Sprachkontakt. .$yntaktischer Wandel im Altschwedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.

Hufeisen, Britta and Nicole Marx (eds.) 2007 EuroComGerm - Die sieben Siebe: Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen. Aachen: Shaker (with a CD).

Johanson, Lars 2008 Remodeling grammar. Copying, Conventionalization, Grammaticalization. In: Peter Siemund and Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages, 61-79. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Kent, Kateryna 2010 Language Contact: Morphosyntactic analysis of Surzhyk spoken in Central Ukraine. LSO WOrking papers in Linguistics 8: 33-53 (http:// vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/ling/sites/vanhise/lss.wisc.edu.ling/flies/ LSOWPL8_Kent_l.pdf).

Klein, Horst and Tilbert Stegmann 2000 EuroComRom - Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können. 2nd ed., Aachen: Shaker.

Kloss, Heinz 1978 Die Entwicklung neuergermanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. 2nd. ed. Düsseldorf: Schwann.

Kollar, Jan 1837 Über die literarische Wechselseitigkeit iJVischen den verschiedenen Stämmen undMundarten der slawischen Nation. (Aus dem Slawischen, in der Zeitschrift Hronka gedruckt, ins Deutsche übertragen und vermehrt vom Verfasser). Pesth: Typ. Trattner-Karolyi.

Kühl, Karoline 2008 Bilingualer Sprachgebrauch bei Jugendlichen im deutsch-dänischen Grenifand Hamburg: Kovac.

Kühl, Karoline 2011 Features of writtenness transferred: Faroe-Danish language of distance. In: Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder and Juliane House (eds.), Multilingual discourse production. Diachronic and !)nchronic perspectives, 183-205. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Le Page, Robert Brock and Andree Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of Identty. CreoleBased Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipowski, Jaroslav 2005 Konvergence a divergence ceftiny a siovenJtiny v ceskoslovenskem sttitl [Convergence and divergence between the Czech and the Slovak languages in the Czechoslovakian state]. Wroclaw: Wyd. Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego.

410 Juliane Besters-Dilger and Kurt Braunmüller

Magocsi, Paul R. (ed.) 2004 Rusyn'skjjjaiYk [fhe Rusyn language]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski.

Masenko, Larysa 2011 Surfyk: miz movrju ijai}kom [Surzhyk: between the Ukrainian and the Russian languages]. Kyjiv: Kyjevo-Mohyljans'ka Akademija.

Matras, Yaron and Peter Bakker 2003 The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and EmpiricaiAdvances. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

McWhorter, John 2007 Language Interrupted. Signs ofNon-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Melberg, Häkon 1949-1951 Origin ofthe Scandinavian Nations and Languages. An Introduction, in Two Parts. Halden: Author's Press.

Mufwene, Salikoko 2004 Multilingualism in linguistic history: creolization and indignization. In: Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie (eds.), The handbook ofbilingualism, 460-488. MaIden, Mass., Oxford: Blackweli Publishing 2007.

Muysken, Peter 2000 Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nabelkova, Mira 2007 Closely-related languages in contact: Czech, Slovak, "Czechoslovak". Internationaljournal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage 183: 53-73.

Nikcevic, Vojislav ~ 2001 Gramatika Crnogorskogjezika [Grammar of the Montenegrin language]. Podgorica: Dukljanska Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti.

Petersen, Hjalmar P[ali] 2010 The Dynamics ofFaroese-Danish Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.

Sampson, Geoffrey, Gi!, David and Peter Trudgill (eds.) 2009 Language Complexiry as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stabej, Marko 2007 Size isn't everything: the relation between Slovenian and SerboCroatian in Slovenia. Internationaljournal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage 183: 13-30.

Tandefelt, Marika 1988 Mellan tva sprak: Enfallstudie om sprakbevarande och sprakbyte i Finland. [Between two languages: A case study about language preservation and language shift in Finland]. Uppsala (ph.D. dissertation).

Thomas, George 1989 The relationship between Slavic nationalism and linguistic purism. Canadian Review ofStudies in Nationalism XVI (1-2): 5-13.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001 Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Thurston, William R. 1987 Processes ofchange in the languages ofnorth-western New Britain. Canberra: Australian NU.

Trudgili, Peter 1996 Introducing Language and Sociery. London: Penguin. Trudgill, Peter 2000 On locating the boundary between language contact and dia

lect contact - Low German and continental Scandinavian. In: Ernst Häkon Jahr (ed.), Sprakkontakt - Innverknaden fra nedertysk pa andre nordeuropeiske sprak, 71-85. Copenhagen: Nordic Council ofMinisters.

Van Coetsem, Frans 2000 A General and Unifted Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.

Weinreich, Uriel 1954 Is a sttuctural dialectology possible? Word 10: 388-400. Whinnom, Keith 1971 Linguistic hybridization and the 'special case' of pidgins and

creoles. In: Deli Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization oflanguages, 91-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeevaert, Ludger 2004 Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von verständigung iJVischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs. Hamburg: Kovac.

Convergence within lg. families 2014

Documents

Transcript of Convergence within lg. families 2014