Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:49:33.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another icon of language contact shattered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2011

PIETER MUYSKEN
PIETER MUYSKEN*
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ouh que c'est laid! “Oh this is ugly!” is one of the comments among the 11,800 hits on Google for the sequence “la fille que je sors avec” [the girl I go out with]. Often the comments include the idea that the whole expression has been taken from English as a direct calque. The authors of the present keynote article, Poplack, Zentz and Dion (Poplack, Zentz & Dion, 2011, this issue), argue convincingly that this type of preposition stranding in Canadian French cannot be ascribed to language contact with English. Using sound and accountable methodology, derived from the research paradigm of variationist sociolinguistics, they manage to disprove the hypothesis of a direct causal link between the expression in Canadian French and its supposed earlier use in English. Thus, an icon of language contact, both in popular perception and in many not-so-well-informed academic sources, has been shattered.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 237 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Arai, M., van Gompel, R., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1982) Les constructions relatives en français vernaculaire et en français standard: étude d'un paramètre. In Lefebvre, C. (ed.), La syntaxe comparée du français standard et populaire: approches formelles et fonctionelles, pp. 103–134. Quebec: Office de la langue française.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish–English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2001). The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), pp. 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2004). How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics? A review article on [Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2001)]. Studies in Language, 28, 209–223.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (eds.) (2005). The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, F. (1976). Uto-Aztecan and Spanish-type dependent clauses in Nahuatl. In Steever, S., Walker, C. A. & Mufwene, S. S. (eds.), Papers from the Parassession on Diachronic Syntax, pp. 150–158. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G.-J., & Sahin, H. (2011). Cross-linguistic Dutch–Papiamentu priming in indirect object realization. Presented at the Workshop on Frontiers in Linguistics, Acquisition, Multilingualism. Rolduc, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1975). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, M. V. (1975). Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani. Language, 51, 672–683.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poplack, S., & Pousada, A. (1982). No case for convergence: The Puerto Rican Spanish verb system in a language contact situation. In Fishman, J. A. & Keller, G. D. (eds.), Bilingual education for Hispanic students in the United States, pp. 207–237. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Zentz, L., & Dion, N. (2011). Phrase-final prepositions in Quebec French: An empirical study of contact, code-switching and resistance to convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728911000204. Published by Cambridge University Press, 11 August 2011.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. (1971). General aspects of relative clause formation. Working Papers on Language Universals, 6, 173–191. [Stanford University]Google Scholar
Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009) Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, K., & Indefrey, P. (2009). Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46, 1164–1172.Google Scholar