Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:39:50.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A sparkling apéritif or old wine in new bags?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2013

PIETER MUYSKEN
PIETER MUYSKEN*
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the keynote article “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies” (Muysken, published online May 31, 2013; henceforth KA), I have tried to accomplish three things:

  1. (a) linking a number of fields of language contact research (code-switching, Creole studies, contact-induced language change, bilingual production), by

  2. (b) assuming four roles that the contributing languages may play ((i) first language dominant, (ii) second language dominant, (iii) neither language dominant – patterns common to the two languages, and (iv) neither language dominant – language-neutral communicative strategies), and

  3. (c) modeling these four roles in terms of bilingual optimization strategies, which may be implemented in an Optimality Theoretic (OT) framework.

Bilingual strategies are conditioned by social factors, processing constraints of speakers’ bilingual competence, and perceived language distance. Different language contact outcomes correspond to different interactions of these strategies in bilingual speakers and their communities.

Type
Author's response
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 748 - 750
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amuzu, E. K. (2010). Composite codeswitching in West Africa: The case of Ewe–English codeswitching. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (ed.) (2002). Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, pp. 141–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huttar, G. L., with Velantie, F. J. (1997). Ndjuká–Trio Pidgin. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective (Creole Language Library 17), pp. 99–124. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1986). Lexical restructuring and creole genesis. In Boretzky, N., Enninger, W. & Stolz, T. (eds.), Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10.–10.10.1987 an der Universität Essen, pp. 193–210. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2008). Functional categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P.Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728912000727. Published online May 31, 2013 by Cambridge University Press. [Keynote article]Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1972a). Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems, I. Language, 48, 378–406.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1972b). Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems, II. Language, 48, 596–625.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. M. & Hoff, B. J. (1980). The linguistic repertory of the Island-Carib in the seventeenth century. The men's language – a Carib pidgin? International Journal of American Linguistics, 46, 301–312.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types on language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. (2000). A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: C. Winter Verlag.Google Scholar