Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics

Sarah Grey Thomason is Professor of Linguistics and Terrence Kaufman is Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh.

• PREFACE1. INTRODUCTION1.1. Boas vs. Sapir on foreign influence vs.genetic inheritance1.2. What "genetic relationship" means2. THE FAILURE OF LINGUISTIC CONSTRAINTS ON INTERFERENCE2.1. Typological constraints2.2. Implicational universal constraints2.3. Constraints based on naturalness2.4. Conclusion3. CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE: AN ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK3.1. Borrowing vs. interference through shift3.2. Predicting extent and kinds of interference3.3. Explaining linguistic changes: when is anexternal explanation appropriate?4. LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE4.1. Intensity of contact and typological distance4.2. Casual to not-so-casual contact: exclusively  lexical to slightstructural borrowing4.2.1. Category (1): lexical borrowing only4.2.2. Categories (2) and (3): slight structural borrowing4.3. Intense contact: moderate to heavy structural borrowing4.3.1. Category (4): moderate structural borrowing4.3.2. Category (5): heavy structural borrowing4.3.3. Sprachbund4.3.4. Typologically favored borrowing4.4. Overwhelming cultural pressure: replacement of large portionsof the inherited grammar5. LANGUAGE SHIFT WITH NORMAL TRANSMISSION5.1. Problems in demonstrating interference through shift5.2. Some linguistic results of shift5.2.1. Preliminary remarks5.2.2. Shift without interference5.2.3. Slight interference5.2.4. Moderate to heavy interference6. SHIFT WITHOUT NORMAL TRANSMISSION: ABRUPT CREOLIZATION7. PIDGINS7.1. Definitions and theories of pidginization7.2. Pidgin genesis as a result of mutual linguistic accommodation7.3. Examples: diversity in pidgin structures7.4. Pidgin genesis and contact-induced language change7.5. Monogenesis and the probability of pidginization8. RETROSPECTION8.1. Genetic relationship and the products of contact-inducedlanguage change8.2. Comparative reconstruction and contactinducedlanguage change8.3. Conclusion9. CASE STUDIES9.1. Asia Minor Greek: a case of heavy borrowing9.2. Ma'a9.3. Michif9.4. Mednyj Aleut9.5. Uralic substratum interference in Slavic and Baltic9.6. Afrikaans9.7. Chinook Jargon9.8. English and other coastal Germanic languages,or why English is not a mixed language9.8.1. Introductory remarks9.8.2. Our position9.8.3. Summary of English sociolinguistic historydown to A.D. 14009.8.4. The ethnolinguistic regions of EnglishspeakingBritain9.8.5. Overview of linguistic developments inthe Middle English period9.8.6. Norse influence on English9.8.6.1. The Norse in England9.8.6.2. Northern English9.8.6.3 Danelaw English9.8.6.4. Norsification9.8.6.5. A model for norsification9.8.6.6. Linguistic events after norsification9.8.6.7. Dialects that we consider not to have been norsified9.8.6.8. The data9.8.6.9. Distribution of the norsification data9.8.6.10. Characterization of the Norse influence onEnglish structure9.8.6.11. How norsification took place9.8.6.12. The origin of Northern Middle English9.8.6.13. On the question of simplification9.8.6.14. Evaluation9.8.7. The beginnings of London Standard English9.8.8. French influence on Middle English and the question ofcreolization9.8.9. Excursus: simplification and foreignization of otherGermanic languages9.8.10. Low Dutch grammatical influence on Middle English9.8.11. On orderliness or the lack of it in the rates of linguisticchange in English9.8.12. ConclusionsMAPS (for chapter 9.8)  NOTESREFERENCESREFERENCES TO MIDDLE ENGLISH TEXTS(sources for chapter 9.8.)INDEXES:Languages and Language GroupsNames of scholarsSubjects