Two Types of Functional Transfer in Language Contact

The aim of this article is to examine one kind of cross linguistic influence, or transfer, in language contact situations. This is “functional transfer”, defined as applying the grammatical functions of a morpheme from one language to a morpheme in another language that does not normally have these functions. With regard to language contact, most reported instances of this kind of transfer concern the creation of a new grammatical morpheme in an expanded pidgin or creole, resulting from the use of a lexical morpheme of the lexifier (here the recipient language, RL) with semantic and syntactic properties of a grammatical morpheme of the substrate language(s) (here the source language(s), SL). Another kind of functional transfer, however, results in an already existing grammatical morpheme in the RL being used with semantic properties, but not syntactic properties, of a grammatical morpheme in the SL that speakers perceive as equivalent. Thus, the two types of functional transfer differ in that the first entails morphological augmentation while the second involves functional alteration of an existing morpheme. Other differences between the two types of transfer are that certain constraints appear to apply to the first type but not to the second. In addition, the first type of transfer, as opposed to the second, does not commonly occur in the process of second language acquisition. Explanations proposed for these distinctions concern different strategies used for morphological expansion in the development of a contact language. Different contact languages can be placed along a continuum based on the prevalence and type of functional transfer.

[1]  D. Bickerton The language bioprogram hypothesis , 1984, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  Laura Collins,et al.  The Roles of L1 Influence and Lexical Aspect in the Acquisition of Temporal Morphology. , 2002 .

[3]  W. Klein,et al.  The Basic Variety (or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?) , 1997 .

[4]  Frans van Coetsem,et al.  A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact , 2000 .

[5]  Lionel Wee,et al.  Until in Singapore English , 1998 .

[6]  Liliana Sánchez,et al.  Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals , 2004, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[7]  D. Winford Contact-induced changes Classification and processes * , 2005 .

[8]  Terence Odlin,et al.  Cross‐Linguistic Influence , 2008 .

[9]  Tonjes Veenstra,et al.  THE SURVIVAL OF INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY IN FRENCH-RELATED CREOLES , 2003, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[10]  Margarita Kaushanskaya,et al.  Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals , 2007, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[11]  Bernd Heine,et al.  Language Contact and Grammatical Change , 2005 .

[12]  Sarah G. Thomason,et al.  Language Contact: An Introduction , 2001 .

[13]  Agnes Bolonyai,et al.  (In)vulnerable agreement in incomplete bilingual L1 learners , 2007 .

[14]  Barbara Sandeman “On traduit la langue en français”: Substrate influence in the TMA system of Tayo , 2011 .

[15]  Gabriele Kasper,et al.  Perspectives on Language Transfer , 1987 .

[16]  Lubna Alsagoff,et al.  The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English , 1998 .

[17]  Lars Johanson,et al.  Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework , 2002 .

[18]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  SUBSTRATE INFLUENCE IN CREOLES AND THE ROLE OF TRANSFER IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2003, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[19]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  Links between SLA and Creole studies: Past and present , 2006 .

[20]  Anna Maria Escobar,et al.  Contrastive and innovative uses of the present perfect and the preterite in Spanish in contact with Quechua , 1997 .

[21]  Suzanne Schlyter Progression & regression in language: The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children , 1993 .

[22]  Peter Auer,et al.  22. Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale , 2009 .

[23]  S. J. Roberts,et al.  The role of diffusion in the genesis of Hawaiian creole , 1998 .

[24]  Ingo Plag,et al.  ON THE ROLE OF GRAMMATICALIZATION IN CREOLIZATION , 1998 .

[25]  Norbert Corver,et al.  Conservation of grammatical knowledge: on the acquisition of possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch , 2000 .

[26]  H. C. Wekker,et al.  Creolization and the acquisition of English as a second language , 1996 .

[27]  Jock Wong,et al.  “Why you so Singlish one?” A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one , 2005, Language in Society.

[28]  Bao Zhiming,et al.  Already in Singapore English , 1995 .

[29]  Bonnie D. Schwartz,et al.  Now for some facts, with a focus on development and an explicit role for the L1 , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  B. D. Schwartz The second language instinct , 1998 .

[31]  Wouter Kusters Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change , 2008 .

[32]  Terence Odlin,et al.  CONCEPTUAL TRANSFER AND MEANING EXTENSIONS , 2008 .

[33]  Virginia Yip,et al.  Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar , 1994 .

[34]  Angela Terrill Limits of the substrate: Substrate grammatical influence in Solomon Islands Pijin , 2011 .

[35]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model , 1996 .

[36]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar , 1989 .

[37]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  Mixing, leveling, and pidgin/creole development , 1997 .

[38]  N. Smith,et al.  Pernambuco to Surinam 1654-1665? The Jewish slabe controversy. , 1999 .

[39]  Hiroki Nomoto,et al.  Colloquial Singapore English got: functions and substratal influences , 2009 .

[40]  Bernard Comrie On the origin of the Basic Variety , 1997 .

[41]  A. Bruyn,et al.  On identifiyng instances of grammaticalization in creole languages , 1996 .

[42]  Bao Zhiming,et al.  Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English , 2006 .

[43]  Lisa Lim,et al.  English in Singapore and Singapore English: Background and methodology , 2004 .

[44]  Natascha Müller Emerging complementizers: German in contact with French/Italian , 2006 .

[45]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages , 2008 .

[46]  Virginia Yip,et al.  The Bilingual Child: Early Development and Language Contact , 2007 .

[47]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  Pidgin Grammar: An Introduction to the Creole Language of Hawai'i , 2003 .

[48]  Adrienne Bruyn,et al.  Grammaticalization in creoles: Ordinary and not-so-ordinary cases , 2009 .

[49]  Bao Zhiming,et al.  One in Singapore English , 2009 .

[50]  John W. Schwieter Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition , 2011 .

[51]  Bao Zhiming,et al.  The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation , 2005, Journal of Linguistics.

[52]  Eric Kellerman,et al.  Crosslinguistic Influence: Transfer to Nowhere? , 1995, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[53]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  Transfer Constraints and Substrate Influence in Melanesian Pidgin , 1999 .

[54]  Jürgen M. Meisel Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change* , 2010, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[55]  Carol A Klee The expression of past reference in Spanish narratives of Spanish/Quechua bilingual speakers , 1995 .

[56]  Critical Enquiry.,et al.  The Grammatical category of aspect in southern Min : preverbal coding of aspect in Min-Xiamen. , 1989 .

[57]  Irene F. H. Wong,et al.  The use of ever in Singaporean English , 2001 .

[58]  Johanne Paradis,et al.  Syntactic Acquisition in Bilingual Children , 1996, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[59]  Jeff Siegel,et al.  Substrate influence in Hawai‘i Creole English , 2000, Language in Society.

[60]  Donald Winford,et al.  An Introduction to Contact Linguistics , 2003 .

[61]  John Platt,et al.  English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features, functions , 1980 .