You are on page 1of 5

202 David Pharies: Review of Rini (1999)

Penny, Ralph. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pharies, David. 1987. Blending in Spanish Word-Formation. Romanistische Jahrbuch 38.271289. Rini, Joel. 1991. The Diusion of /-ee-/ > /-e-/ in Ibero-Romance Innitives: creer, leer, veer, preveer, proveer, seer, poseer. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 92.95103. Rini, Joel. 1998a. The Formation of Old Spanish buey(s), bueyes, grey(s), greyes, ley(s), leyes, rey(s), reyes: A Morphophonological Analysis. Hispanic Review 66.119. Rini, Joel. 1998b. The -y of Spanish hay Reexamined. Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics, Volume 3. Proceedings of the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by Javier Gutirrez Rexach & Jos del Valle, 117125. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press. Trask, R. L. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.

Reviewers address
David Pharies Department of Romance Languages and Literatures University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 326117405 U. S. A. e-mail: pharies@rll.u.edu

(c) John Benjamins Delivered by Ingenta on: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:26:45 A General and Unied Theory of the Transmission Process in Language to: Universiteit van Amsterdam Contact. By Frans van Coetsem. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 2000. IP: 145.18.230.82 Pp. 309. (= Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 19).

Reviewed by Peter Bakker (Aarhus University) This book has been written by a scholar with an independent mind. His theory of language contact is unique and original. Van Coetsems originality is reected among others in the fact that he places his list of references in the beginning of the book rather than in the end something I still was not used to when I had nished reading the book, frequently looking for the references in vain in the back. In eight chapters the author deals with dierent ways in which languages in contact can inuence one another, and he presents what he calls a unied theory. of contact-induced change. The author says that the book should be read in conjunction with his 1988 monograph on loan phonology (p. 41). Van Coetsem has departed from his 1988 work in that he deals not only with phonology, but also with other components of language, and that he uses a broader database of languages. Further he has included what he calls formulas. in order to formalize his theory.

Reviews / Comptes rendus / Besprechungen 203

In his work, Van Coetsem focuses mostly on a fairly limited number of languages, mostly Afrikaans, Dutch, English, French, German, Gothic and Romani. Several of these languages reoccur in dierent contact situations. Four of them (not Afrikaans, Gothic and Romani) have in common that they are all spoken in the same area of the world, that they have inuenced each other to some extent. They are all languages with many speakers (on a global scale), a long literary tradition and an established written norm. There is special attention for works by Belgian and Dutch scholars in these domains throughout the book. Principles of contact-induced change that are formulated on the basis of this small set of languages, however, may not be valid for smaller languages in other continents, or for languages that are spoken in socially dierent situations. Only occasionally are some of the smaller contact languages and the more extreme results of language contact discussed, mostly in ch. 8, in which we nd discussions of Russenorsk (a pidgin based lexically on Norwegian and Russian), Michif (a mixed language with Cree verbs and French nouns), Mednyj Aleut (a variety of Aleut thoroughly mixed with Russian, using among (c) John Benjamins other things all of the Russian nite verb inection), Media Lengua (an Delivered by Ingenta intertwined, mixed language with a Quechua grammatical system and Spanish on: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:26:45 lexicon), Angloromani, the intertwined language of English Gypsies, with to: Universiteit van Amsterdam Romani vocabulary and English grammatical system and nally the converged IP: 145.18.230.82 forms of Marathi (South Indic), Urdu (Central Indic) and Kannada (Dravidian) of Kupwar in India. The book deals only with permanent eects on languages. Code-switching and psychological processes in bilingual speakers are hardly mentioned at all. Van Coetsems originality is visible, among others, in a proliferation of personal terminology, which is not always clearly dened, unfortunately. I will list some of his terms, indicated with italics, some of which are in general use in historical linguistics. This is not a full discussion of all the terms used in the book. Contact-induced change can eect the source language, in which case the second language acquired by a group is eected by imposition (push transfer, imitation), or it can eect the recipient language, in which case the rst language of a group that acquired a second language is eected (borrowing, pull transfer, adaptation). In historical linguistics one would speak of substratum inuence in the case of shift, and superstratum or adstratum in the case of maintenance. Both the source language (SL) and the recipient language (RL) can be agents in the process of transfer, i.e., actively involved in the changes, in SL agentivity and RL agentivity respectively. In some cases the distinction between these two types is

204 Peter Bakker: Review of Van Coetsem (2000)

overruled, and then one speaks of neutralization and one nds free transfer in such cases. It also happens that both types of agentivity co-occur and one speaks of co-agentivity. Transfer can be unidirectional or bidirectional. Some components of languages are more stable than others, which means that they are less likely to be changed in contact situations, and this stability is gradient. The process of borrowing can be addition (motivated by need) or substitution (when a word already exists), or a form of osmotic leveling, e.g., calquing or lexical mixing. Changes are spread by diusion, either areal or intergenerational. In a contact-linguistic state or a contact-linguistic action one language may be dominant, and one must distinguish linguistically dominant (in bilingual individuals) from socially dominant (cultural dominance, prestige). Contact situations can be unmarked (roughly, Western Europe) or marked (cases that are hard to t in the general model). Cases of mixing and intertwining are examples of results of markedness in situations of language contact. These and other terms are discussed throughout the book but seldom dened. In the introductory chapter (pp. 49104) most of these terms are introduced, and stability is elaborated upon in ch. 2. RL agentivity is dealt with (c) John Benjamins in more detail in ch. 3, and examples areIngenta given in ch. 4. Subsequently SL Delivered by agentivity is dealt with (ch. 5) and illustrated with case studies in ch. 6. Chapon: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:26:45 ter 7 deals with the transfer of grammatical and phonological material, which to: Universiteit van Amsterdam happens in special circumstances. The eighth and nal chapter deals with IP: 145.18.230.82 neutralization and marked language contact. An epilogue partly summarizes, partly points to some needs for further research, and partly reacts to comments on the manuscript version of the book. A 3-page appendix discusses the inuence of spelling in the process of imitation. There is an index of names and subjects, and four synthesizing diagrams conclude the volume. The unusual terminology used and the lack of denitions are the main problems of the book. Often it seems as if the author believes that merely labeling a phenomenon with a new term is also an explanation of its occurrence. The rarity of examples, which are moreover concentrated in special exemplifying chapters, is another problem. In fact, Van Coetsem uses a very limited set of recurring examples, some of which are found half a dozen times throughout the book. The pronunciation of the French borrowing in Dutch corps for example is discussed ve times (pp. 70, 127, 147, 165, 217). The fact that Latin and Greek words may preserve their original plural markers is illustrated twelve times with either criterion-criteria (pp. 9092, 151, 221, 223, 260, 275) or with focus-foci (pp. 141, 155, 159, 168, 169, 220). Only once the example is fungus-fungi (p. 240), but that does not prevent the reader

Reviews / Comptes rendus / Besprechungen 205

from repeated feelings of dj-vu (pronounced with /y/ or /u/ in English, discussed four times in the book). Even though a unied theory is promised in the title, the content of the book is neither unied nor a theory. The range of facts discussed appears very limited, and the number of case studies is even more restricted. Generalizations are often vague to the point of being vacuous. The author does not make any clear predictions, apart from some trivial ones. His discussion of the more sensational results of language contact in ch. 8 makes the wrong impression that anything goes. in marked situations. There are indeed clear situational, linguistic and functional reasons for the structural compartmentalization in at least some of these cases. For unknown reasons Van Coetsem ignores those formulated by others, e.g., the generalizations given in Bakker (1997, ch. 7). It is all too easy to ascribe some of these results to phenomena like communication,. others to self-identication,. and these in combination with general terms like neutralization. or (un)markedness. or (non)nativeness. for the specic situation. Nowhere does Van Coetsem attempt to explain the(c) dierent compartmentalizations John Benjamins of the unusual cases, such as noun versus verb, borrowed verbal lexicon versus grammar. Delivered by inection, Ingenta See Matras 2000, and the peer commentaries, for a rst courageous attempt. on: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:26:45 The formalizations that Van Coetsem presents do not help either. They are Universiteit van Amsterdam nothing but to: compact reformulations in which words are abbreviated, or IP: 145.18.230.82 replaced by arrows. They are at most convenient summaries. Van Coetsem presents no new facts and hardly any new or insightful solutions for problems in the area of language contact, at least for specialists in this eld. Neither does the book provide a possibility for beginners to gain an overview of language contact phenomena. Historical linguists, who have a traditional aversion against contact as an explanatory force, will probably likewise nd little of interest. Incidentally, Van Coetsems publishing career shows some remarkable parallels with the one of another historical linguist, Sarah Grey Thomason. Both published books distinguishing interference/shift/SL agentivity from borrowing/maintenance/RL agentivity in 1988 (Thomason & Kaufman 1988). Both published another book in 1996 (Thomason on contact languages, Van Coetsem on the typology of lexical accent), and both have just published a more synthesizing book on language contact (Thomason 2001). In my view, Thomasons work is more insightful, precise, thorough and complete. The world needs independent thinkers like Van Coetsem. I wish, however, that he had indeed presented a unied theory. of language contact.

206 Peter Bakker: Review of Van Coetsem (2000)

References
Bakker, Peter. 1997. A Language of our Own: The genesis of Michif The mixed CreeFrench language of the Canadian Mtis. New York: Oxford University Press. Matras, Yaron. 2000. Mixed Languages: A functional-communicative approach. Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 3(2).79129 [with peer commentaries]. Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language Contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris.

Reviewers address
Peter Bakker Institute for Linguistics Aarhus University, Nobelparken Jens Chr. Skous Vej DK8000 Aarhus C

(c) John Benjamins Delivered by Ingenta e-mail: linpb@hum.au.dk on: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:26:45 to: Universiteit van Amsterdam IP: 145.18.230.82

You might also like