[Puzzles in language change] Nov 18: Holman Tse "Contact-Induced Sound Change: Moving beyond the internal vs. external dichotomy"

[Igor Yanovich]

Dear everyone,

Tomorrow at the reading group Holman Tse (UPitt) will tell us about his
research on contact-induced sound change. Please find the abstract
attached below.

See you tomorrow!
 -Igor


Title: Contact-Induced Sound Change: Moving beyond the internal vs.
external dichotomy

In both historical linguistics and in sociolinguistics, there has
traditionally been a dichotomy between internally-motivated and
externally-motivated change. In my presentation/discussion, I’ll talk
about how my research seeks to move beyond this dichotomy through the
study of sound change in under-researched contact settings. I’ll begin by
discussing Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) framework for the analysis of
contact-induced change. According to this framework, there are two general
mechanisms for change that have implications for the outcome of contact:
language maintenance (borrowing) and interference through shift. In
addition to these two mechanisms, the other important factor is intensity
of contact. I will talk about two different projects on two different
contact settings that illustrate these two mechanisms. Both involve
intensive contact (or widespread bi- and multilingualism) and both involve
results that challenge the traditional internal/external dichotomy. The
first is on the historical development of the Somali Bantu dialect of
Kizigua (Chizigula). This is a variety that developed out of the context
of historic migration and subsequent language shift. I’ll present data
from two time points that show a pattern typical of internally-motivated
change. As I will show, however through a discussion of the social history
of Kizigua speakers, the actual mechanism is interference through shift
and hence a change that can be described as “externally-motivated”. The
second project I'll discuss is on Toronto Heritage Cantonese. In this
ongoing project, I compare the vowel pronunciation patterns of two groups
of speakers in Toronto, Canada: GEN 1 (Hong Kong born and raised) and GEN
2 (Toronto raised). My findings so far suggest that the best way of
characterizing the changes between these two generational groups is
“phonological interference” rather than "phonetic assimilation". While I
am still grappling with whether or not “interference” is the best way of
describing the results, it does seem clear that the internal/external
dichotomy is inadequate for describing what is going on.