Cover not available
Part of
Variation Rolls the Dice: A worldwide collage in honour of Salikoko S. Mufwene
Edited by Enoch O. Aboh and Cécile B. Vigouroux
[Contact Language Library 59] 2021
► pp. 23–56

A sociolinguistic typology for languages in contact

| University of New Mexico
Different types of languages evolve in situations of human social contact, depending on the nature of the contact and the attitudes on the part of the speakers towards the societies in contact. Three socially-defined language types are useful for classifying contact languages. One may distinguish between an esoteric language, used for communication within a speech community, and an exoteric language used for communication between different speech communities. The third language type, a neogenic language, results when speech communities merge (e.g., in colonisation). Each language type involves a continuum depending on the degree and asymmetry of the social contact between speech communities. This chapter describes these continua, the “contact” or “mixed” languages that they account for, and their structural linguistic correlates.
Keywords: contact languages, esoteric language, exoteric language, neogenic language, pidgin, creole, mixed language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Linguistic features, or linguemes
    • 1.2Evolutionary linguistics and language contact
  • 2.Towards a sociolinguistic typology of languages with respect to intersocietal contact
  • 3.The exoteric language continuum and its relation to social organization
    • 3.1Pidgins and the exoteric language continuum
    • 3.2Exoteric languages and social organization
    • 3.3African lingua francas before, or in apparent absence of, European contact
    • 3.4African lingua francas in the context of European contact
    • 3.5North American lingua francas and trade pidgins
    • 3.6Pidgins in Papua New Guinea before European contact
    • 3.7Social changes and changes in the type of exoteric language
  • 4.The neogenic language continuum
    • 4.1Language shift and lingua francas
    • 4.2Neogeny from closely related varieties: Koiné and standard
    • 4.3Neogeny involving speakers of sharply distinct varieties: Restructured varieties and creoles
  • 5.“Mixed languages” and the esoteric language continuum
    • 5.1Neogeny and “mixed languages”: Mixed-marriage languages and semi-shift
    • 5.2Increasing esotericism and “mixed languages”: Death by borrowing
    • 5.3Sources of linguemes in “mixed languages”
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.59.02cro
References (79)
References
Adelaar, W. F. H. 1996a. Areas of multilingualism in Northern South America. In Wurm et al.. (eds), 1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. The Tupí-Guaraní languages of Atlantic South America, and Línguas Gerais. In Wurm et al.. (eds), 1333–1334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alpher, B. & Nash, D. 1999. Lexical replacement and cognate equilibrium in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 19: 5–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 1988. Center and periphery: Adoption, diffusion, and spread. In Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social, J. Fisiak (ed.), 39–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. 1997. A Language of Our Own: The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. & Grant, A. P. 1996. Interethnic communication in Canada, Alaska and adjacent areas. In Wurm et al.. (eds), 1107–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P. & Papen, R. A. 1997. Michif: A mixed language based on Cree and French. In Thomason (ed.), 295–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blythe, R. A. & Croft, W. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88: 269–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C., Epps, P., Gray, R., Hill, J., Hunley, K., McConvell, P. & Zentz, J. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PLoS One 6 (9): e25195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. & Horrocks, G. 2007. The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. M. 1978. The Mobilian Trade Language. Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2003. Mixed languages and acts of identity: An evolutionary approach. In The Mixed Language Debate, Y. Matras & P. Bakker (eds), 41–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010. Review of Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change by Salikoko S. Mufwene. World Englishes 29: 306–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Velupillai, V. 2013. The past tense. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (28 January 2019).Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A Study of the Dialects of Silli, Cappadocia and Pháras with Grammars, Texts, Translations, and Glossary. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Donald, L. 1984. The slave trade on the Northwest Coast of North America. Research in Economic Anthropology 6: 121–158.Google Scholar
Drechsel, E. J. 1996. Native American contact languages of the contiguous United States. In Wurm, et al.. (eds), 1213–1239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Mobilian Jargon: Linguistic and Sociohistorical Aspects of a Native American Pidgin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dutton, T. 1983. Birds of a feather: A pair of rare pidgins from the Gulf of Papua. In The Social Context of Creolization, E. Woolford & W. Washabaugh (eds), 77–105. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
1996. Hiri trading languages. In Wurm, et al.. (eds), 233–236.Google Scholar
Foley, W. 1988. Language birth: The processes of pidginization and creolization. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. 4, F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), 162–183. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, I. 1997. Pidgin Delaware. In Thomason (ed.), 43–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. (ed.). 2001. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1999. Are there mixed languages? In Essays in Poetics, Literary History and Linguistics presented to Viacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, L. Fleishman, M. Gasparov, T. Nikolaeva, A. Ospovat, V. Toporov, A Vigasin, R. Vroon & A. Zalizniak (eds), 626–633. Moscow: OGI.Google Scholar
Greenhill, S. J., Currie, T. E. & Gray, R. D. 2009. Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 2299–2307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Wilson, R. 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (ed.), 151–167. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. 1987. Cultural efflorescence and political evolution on the Sepik River. American Ethnologist 14: 491–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. 1966a/1972. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36: 280–297. Reprinted in The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, A. S. Dil (ed.), 215–236. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966b/1972. Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68: 922–935. Reprinted in The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen, A. S. Dil (ed.), 237–254. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 1970. Status and Use of African Lingua Francas. Munich: Weltforum Verlag/New York NY: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 1989. Pidgins and Creoles, Vol. 2: Reference Survey. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004. Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. 1980. Commentary. In Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies, A. Valdman & A. Highfield (eds), 389–423. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. W. & Earle, T. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State, 2nd edn. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulick, D. 1993. Growing up monolingual in a multilingual community: How language socialization patterns are leading to language shift in Gapun (Papua New Guinea). In Progression and Regression in Language, K. Hyltenstam & Å. Viberg (eds), 94–121. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lee-Smith, M. W. 1996. The Ejnu language. In Wurm, et al.. (eds), 851–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Smith, M. W. & Wurm, S. A. 1996. The Wutun language. In Wurm et al. (eds), 883–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, P. C. 1979/80. Dual lingualism: Passive bilingualism in action. Te Reo (22/23): 65–72.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. 1993. French: From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Dale, R. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS One 5(1): e8559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. 2000. Mixed languages: A functional-communicative approach. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 3: 79–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDowell, P. 2017. Political anthropology: A cross-cultural comparison. In Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology, N. Brown, L. Tubelle de González & T. McIlwraith (eds). <[URL]> (22 August 2018).Google Scholar
Menovščikov, G. A. 1969. O nekotoryx social’nyx aspektax èvoljucii jazyka. In Voprosy Social’noj Lingvistki, 110–134. Leningrad: Nauka. Google Scholar
Mous, M. 1994. Ma’a or Mbugu. In Mixed Languages, P. Bakker & M. Mous (eds), 175–200. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT), University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Créole, Écologie Sociale, Évolution Linguistique. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2017a. Language vitality: The weak theoretical underpinnings of what can be an exciting research area. Language 93: e202–e223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. It’s still worth theorizing on LEL, despite the heterogeneity and complexity of the processes (Response to commentators). Language 93: e306–e316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 2013. Norf’k. In The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Vol. 1: English-Based and Dutch-Based Languages, S. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath & M. Huber (eds), 232–240. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P., Dutton, T., Hovdhaugen, E., Williams, J. & Wurm, S. A. 1996. Precolonial patterns of intercultural communication in the Pacific Islands. In Wurm et al. (eds), 401–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1997. Media Lengua. In Thomason (ed.), 365–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. & Smith, N. (eds). 2015. Surviving the Middle Passage: The West Africa-Surinam Sprachbund. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newton, B. 1964. An Arabic-Greek dialect. Papers in Memory of George C. Pappageotes (supplement to) Word 20: 43–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oram, N. 1982. Pots for sago: The hiri trading network. In The Hiri in History: ?Further Aspects of Long Distance Motu Trade in Central Papua, T. Dutton (ed.), 3–33. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, A. S. C. & Moverley, A. W. 1964. The Pitcairnese Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ross, M. D. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Irregularity and Regularity in Language Change, M. Durie & M. D. Ross (eds), 180–217. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Samarin, W. J. 1982. Colonization and pidginization on the Ubangi River. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 4: 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Chinook Jargon and pidgin historiography. Canadian Journal of Anthropology/Revue Canadienne d’Anthropologie 5: 23–34.Google Scholar
1987. Demythologizing Plains Sign Language history. International Journal of American Linguistics 53: 65–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Jargonization before Chinook Jargon. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 22: 219–238.Google Scholar
1990/1991. The origins of Kituba and Lingala. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 12: 47–77.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1996. Dynamics of linguistic contact. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Language, I. Goddard (ed.), 117–136. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. R. 1975. Nonverbal communications systems in native North America. Semiotica 4: 329–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. Indian lingua francas. In Language in the USA, C. A. Ferguson & S. Brice Heath (eds), 175–195. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. & Zeevaert, L. (eds). 2007. Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. 1997. Ma’a (Mbugu). In Thomason (ed.), 469–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1997. Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective [Creole Language Library 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurston, W. R. 1987. Processes of Change in the Languages of North-Western New Britain [Pacific Linguistics, Series B. 99]. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: Esoterogeny in West New Britain. In VICAL 1, Oceania Languages: Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, R. Harlow & R. Hooper (eds), 555–579. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Tria, F., Sevedio, V. D. P., Mufwene, S. S. & Loreto, V. 2015. Modeling the emergence of contact languages. PLoS One 10(4): e0120771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. & Hannah, J. 1994. International English, 3rd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon, D. T. (eds). 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Sinnemäki, Kaius, Francesca Di Garbo, Ricardo Napoleão de Souza & T. Mark Ellison
2024. A typological approach to language change in contact situations. Diachronica DOI logo
Di Garbo, Francesca & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza
2023. A sampling technique for worldwide comparisons of language contact scenarios. Linguistic Typology 27:3 ► pp. 553 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.