These two different types of dominance in the region affect the feature pool differently in each community. Many Spanish-related lexical and structural features may be socio-linguistic markers of prestige. However, for this to be the case, they must be significantly represented in the feature pool such that they constitute a presence.
In a speech community with strong Quechua dominance, its lexical and structural features would be substantially better represented in the corresponding feature pool. Thus, in a situation of Spanish acquisition by Quechua speakers, the Quechua features would be highly dominant and would consequently find their way into the variety of Spanish learned by these speakers.
BE THE FIRST TO KNOW
We also need to keep in mind that the input received by such Spanish learners already contains features from Quechua. Whereas contact intensity impacts the lexical and structural make-up of the feature pool, markedness of features and typological fit in borrowing and shift situations involve ease-of-processing concerns for L2 learners. As it is used here, the term markedness refers to the degree of representation in terms of frequency of occurrence a given lexical including function words or structural feature has within the feature pool of a given contact situation. Regarding overall un markedness of a feature in the worlds languages, it is always expressed in a specific language or language contact situation.
The less a feature is found in the worlds languages, the less likely it would be for us to find it represented in the feature pool of a language or language contact situation and the less likely it would be for the feature to be borrowed or learned in L2 acquisition. Such a feature would be, for instance, inflectional infixation, which is exploited much less than inflectional suffixation or prefixation in the worlds languages because, arguably, edges of words are more easily accessible in production and processing than the interior part of words. However, if two languages in contact share the feature of inflectional infixation, it would not be surprising for a contact language emerging from such a situation to display infixation.
Thus, the specific prediction would be that unless infixes are shared by the languages in a contact situation, they would be seldom if ever borrowed and would also be difficult to learn in a. Lexical strength vs lexical connections: Spanish contar tell, count c j c j c j c j c. Thus, one would not expect to find them forming part of a contact language variety such as immigrant speech, a pidgin, or a creole unless, of course, they had an overwhelming presence in the feature pool of the contact situation in question. If a feature is highly unmarked in the worlds languages, it is assumed not only that it is found in all known languages, but also that it is easy to produce and process in language use.
For example, the syllable structure CV is considered the most unmarked as compared to other syllable structures e. Thus, the prediction would be that in a given emerging contact language, if there are two candidates for a given function in a given slot, the candidate with the CV structure would have an advantage over the others.
Meaning of "Kreol" in the German dictionary
But in some cases, the universally unmarked CV structure competes with frequency of occurrence. Above, I noted that frequency plays an important part in determining the form of a language. However, if a frequently used form is not perceptually salient, it might not be as easily processed or produced as other perceptually more salient forms.
A case in point is the syllable structure of the copulas found in Portuguese- and Spanishbased creoles, to be discussed in chapter 3. Bybee calls frequency of occurrence of an item its lexical strength, and refers to its phonological similarity to the other members of its paradigm as its lexical connections. In some cases, the lexical strength of a form and its lexical connections overlap. For example, in the present-tense paradigm of the Spanish stemchanging verb contar tell, count, the most frequent form 3sg-p res is also the one with more lexical connections, as shown in Table 1.
- Lipski 2005.
- Paleo Brownies - 20 Most Delicious Recipes For Paleo Brownies, Learn How to Make the Best Tasting Homemade Paleo Brownies..
- Index of QZIATUPS4 aa141.
The most marked form of the paradigm is contamos. In terms of frequency, in a data-base search of oral Mexican Spanish, the form cuenta is found times, overwhelmingly.
As a verb, it is found 48 times, mostly in the expression contar con count on, depend on. The form cuento is found 7 times, two of which are verb forms; cuentan is found 30 times and contamos 45 times, in both cases only as verb forms; and cuentas is not found at all. In any situation of paradigm levelling, the prediction would be that contamos would either be replaced by another construction, such as la gente cuenta,11 or that contamos would be adapted to fit the paradigm, as with cuentamos or cuentamos.
In fact, in some contact varieties we find cuentamos as a form in formal speech. In English, for instance, we assume is [i z] to be the most frequently occurring of all the present-tense forms. However, are [ar] has the most lexical connections. If we were to predict which of these forms were to be present in English-based creole languages, the prediction might be that [iz] is more likely because the consonant [z] is more frequent and also more consonantal than [r], and thus more perceptually salient. It turns out, however, that in the English-based creoles Jamaican, Guyanese, Gullah, Krio, and Sranan the initial equative copulative verb was not derived from any form shown in Table 1.
The source of these forms is debated, but it seems reasonably safe to say that the periphrastic do of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English as well as forms from African substrate languages are the source of copula da and na. Pargman argues that the West African substrate languages provided a selective advantage for the CV form over the competing variants see also Ihalainen For their part, Holm et al. In the 10 11 As an illustration, in a text found on the website Fundacion por los Ninos del Peru, where Quechua and Spanish are in contact see chapter 7 , we find the form cuentamos Tambien cuentamos con 05 Cunas Jardn centros de cuidado infantil para ninos.
We also boast five Garden Cradles child-care centres. The number of tokens for are is 5,,, that of is 10,, That is, although the lexical connections of are are superior, the lexical strength of is turns out to be twice that of are. The token frequency of am in the corpus is ,, far below that of the other two forms.edforguaqua.tk
Full text of "Afro-Hispanic speech of the municipio of Cuajinicuilapa, Guerrero"
Lexical strength vs lexical connections of present-tense forms of be I am [m]. Although Pargman and Holm et al. I suggest that na or da emerged as the copula due to its CV structure and in the de-creolization process iz replaced it in some registers because of its lexical strength. Here, perceptual salience seems to have been more important than frequency.
As I will discuss in chapter 3, this also seems to be true for reflexes of the equative copula ser in the Spanish- and Portuguese-based creoles. Although the 3s g present-tense forms Spanish es, with variants [es], [eh], and [e], and Portuguese e occur roughly six times as frequently as all the other forms combined, the other forms have the advantage in terms of perceptual salience: they all contain a CV C structure, shown in Table 1.
Lexical strength e[s], e vs lexical connections in the Portuguese and Spanish copula ser be Portuguese. We would expect, then, that if any of these forms came to be part of a creole lexified by Spanish or Portuguese or in rudimentary immigrant varieties, then perceptual salience would trump the lexical strength of the 2s g forms.
If the other varieties display any reflex of ser, the form contains a CV structure. For example, in immigrant Spanish and Makista Creole Portuguese, we find son and sa, respectively. This suggests, then, that markedness involves frequency, as well as the most basic sorts of structures found in the worlds languages, such as CV structure. As for typological fit, the farther the languages in a contact situation are from one another typologically, the more difficult it is for speakers to borrow from one anothers language, or to find common structures in a borrowing or.
Conversely, the closer two languages are to each other typologically, the easier the processing would be in a borrowing or an L2 learning situation. This could be understood as local markedness in that, if two or more languages in contact share a specific feature, it would be unmarked for the speakers of those languages.
Index of QZIATUPS4 aa141
For example, an Italian speaker would find the acquisition of the preteritimperfect distinction in Spanish relatively easy to learn because in this respect Italian and Spanish are typologically very similar and thus share the distinction. By contrast, a monolingual native English speaker would find it more challenging to master the preteritimperfect distinction in Spanish because English and Spanish are typologically more distant from one another and thus do not share the feature.
In a given speech community in which there is substantial language contact, the feature pool contains a host of features both lexical and structural from the languages involved. To the extent that the languages in contact are typologically similar for example, if they share the features of inflectional verb morphology , their respective features may reinforce each other in the feature pool of the speech community, as in the case of the preterit imperfect distinction in Spanish and Italian.
Lack of a clean typological fit among languages in a contact situation as is the case with Quechua and Spanish, which have been in contact around years can lead to the re-analysis of certain particles. A well-known example, discussed in chapter 7, involves possessorpossessum marking in Andean Spanish. An example of this is shown in 1. Of note here are the two obligatory markers of possession, in contrast to standard Spanish, which only has one, as in 1. Also, the possessum itself la casa precedes the possessor Juan. In several varieties of Andean Spanish, a highly common structure in the possessive noun phrase is that shown in 1.
The only structural difference between 1. In chapter 7, I provide demographic and other evidence for two varieties of Andean Spanish in support of the claim that the feature pools in the geographical areas in question have been historically heavily weighted in favour of Quechua structures, to the extent that Spanish undergoes noticeable restructuring. What is intriguing about this particular case is that the Andean Spanish structure in 1. This observation brings up the question of how speakers, independently from one another, arrived at the same structure given similar Spanish input.
Underlying this type of structural change of the Spanish possessive noun phrase would be a contact situation more like the one represented in 1. With Quechua predominance in many areas, at least historically, the presence of Quechua structural features must have been considerably stronger than the corresponding Spanish structural features.
Finally, the mapping was probably aided by the fact that the elements su and de exhibit CV structure and are thus relatively easy to perceive. Thus, perceptual salience and frequency of occurrence seem to have played a role in the creation of a Spanish structure such as 1.
- Ubuy Qatar Online Shopping For creol in Affordable Prices.;
- ISBN 13: 9783638945455;
- cjbvrzl.tk Ebooks and Manuals;
In this chapter, I have sketched out a view of language consonant with a type of Emergent Grammar model in which linguistic structure is created through routinization; and routinization is made possible by frequency of use of certain elements or structures through communication in discourse. In constructing this view, the notion of speech community becomes important. Following Croft and Mufwene , I consider a language to be analogous to a biological species and a speech community as a group of intercommunicating individuals, parallel to an interbreeding population in biology.
Regarding the actual formation and development of linguistic structure, I align myself with Goldbergs view in which grammar emerges primarily during acquisition, affected by a combination of linguistic input, functional demands of communication, and general cognitive abilities and constraints. In acquiring or building a grammar, both in L1 or L2 acquisition, I follow Bates and Goodman in assuming that we use several different types of bootstrapping, building more complex structures upon simpler, more basic ones.
This happens, I argue, not only in parent-to-offspring language transmission, but importantly in adult-to-adult communication, as well. Moreover, I maintain that language use and processing constraints in contact situations interact with universal markedness constraints and the typological fit of the languages in contact to further shape the emerging linguistic system. The more universally unmarked a feature is, the more easily processable it is and thus the more likely it is to be found in an immigrant variety, a pidgin, or a creole see Thomason and Kaufman I discussed the example of CV structure in the choice of the copula in some English-, Spanish- and Portuguese-based contact language varieties and found that CV a universally unmarked structure can play a major role in the emerging syllable structure of a language contact variety.
Typological fit among languages in contact also has an impact on the make-up of an emerging language. It turns out that even relatively marked features such as inflectional morphology can find their way into language contact varieties if they are shared by the languages in contact.