Speakers’ attitudes in language change, contact-language genesis and language preservation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v2i2.13Keywords:
speakers' attitudes, language preservation, creoles, contact-language genesisAbstract
Many contact situations around the world show that speakers can, and sometimes do, make deliberate changes in their languages. Although deliberate changes are likely to affect entire languages only in small speech communities, most –or perhaps all– pidgin and creole languages developed, at least at first, within relatively small groups of speakers. In several cases, documentary evidence indicates that speakers´ attitudes significantly affected the process of pidgin / creole genesis, and they may have done so in many more instances as well. Moreover, many or most of the world´s living pidgins and creoles are spoken by so few people that the languages are gravely endangered, and the attitudes of an endangered language´s speakers are the most important factor in determining the success of efforts to preserve the language. The future of Chabacano seems bright precisely because so many of its speakers are eager to engage in preservation activities.
References
Bradley, D. (1999). Review of M. Noonan, with R.P. Bhulanja, J.M. Chhantyal & W. Pagliuca, Chantyal Dictionary and Texts (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999). Anthropological Linguistics 41, 388-91.
Bray, D. de S. (1913). Census of India, 1911. Vol. IV: Baluchistan. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing.
Dorian, N.C. (1999). “Linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork”. In J.A. Fishman (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-41.
Drechsel, E.J. (1984). “Structure and function in Mobilian Jargon: Indications for the pre-European existence of an American Indian pidgin”. Journal of Historical Linguistics and Philology 1, 141-85.
Dutton, T. (1997). “Hiri Motu”. In S.G. Thomason (ed.), Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 9-41.
Goddard, I. (1997). “Pidgin Delaware”. In S.G. Thomason (ed.), Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins, 43-98.
Hall, R.A., Jr. (1966). Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jameson, J.F. (ed.) (1909). Narratives of New Netherland: 1609–1664. New York: Scribner.
Krauss, M. (1992). “The world’s languages in crisis”. Language 68, 4-10.
Kroskrity, P. (1993). Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Laycock, D.C. (1982). “Melanesian linguistic diversity: A Melanesian choice?”. In R.J. May & H. Nelson (eds.), Melanesia: Beyond Diversity. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 33-38.
Lydall, J. (1976). “Hamer”. In M.L. Bender (ed.), Thenon-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing, MI: African Studies Center, 393-438.
Noonan, M., with R.P. Bhulanja, J.M. Chhantyal & W. Pagliuca (1999). Chantyal Dictionary and Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Oksaar, E. (1972). “Bilingualism”. In Th.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 9: Linguistics in Western Europe. The Hague: Mouton, 476-511.
Raymond, J. (1998). “Say what? Preserving endangered languages”. Newsweek, 14 September.
Robertson, S. & F.G. Cassidy (1934). The Development of Modern English, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Saagpakk, P.F. (1982). Estonian-English Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Splawn, A.J. (1944). Ka-Mi-Akin: Last Hero of the Yakimas. 2nd edn. Yakima, WA / Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers [1st edn. 1917].
Sreedhar, M.V. (1974). Naga Pidgin: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interlingual Communication Pattern in Nagaland. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Thomason, S.G. (1980). “On interpreting ‘The Indian Interpreter’”. Language in Society 9, 167-93.
Thomason, S.G. (1999). “Speakers’ choices in language change”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2), 19-43.
