Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:10:45.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of language contact in semantic change: Ser and estar – a response to Geeslin and Guijarro-Fuentes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

CAROL A. KLEE
CAROL A. KLEE*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 9 Pleasant Street S.E., 51 Folwell Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USAklee@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The role of language contact in linguistic change remains a polemic issue in the field of contact linguistics. Many researchers (Weinreich, 1953; Lefebvre, 1985; Prince, 1988; Silva-Corvalán, 1994; King, 2000; Sankoff, 2002; Labov, 2007) believe that there are limits on the types of linguistic patterns that can be transmitted across languages, while others (Thomason and Kaufman, 1988, p. 14) deem that “any linguistic feature can be transferred from any language to any other language”. Regardless of the differences of opinion on this issue, there is widespread recognition that the social context, including such features as the size and characteristics of the bilingual groups, the attitudes toward the languages spoken, and the intensity and duration of language contact, play an important role in determining the linguistic outcomes of language contact.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 3: LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, BILINGUALISM AND COPULA CHOICE IN SPANISH , November 2008 , pp. 381 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Cameron, R. 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and non-specific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change, 5, 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. & Geeslin, K. 2004. Copula use in the Spanish of Venezuela. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. 2004. Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change, 16, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, M. 1994. Ser y estar en el habla de Michoacán, México. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
King, R. 2000. The lexical basis of gramatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83, 344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 1985. Grammaires en contact: Définition et perspectives de recherche. Revue québécoise de Linguistique, 14, 11–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maandi, K. 1989. Estonian among immigrants in Sweden. In Dorian, N. (ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death, pp. 227–241. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz López, L. 2000. La extensión de estar en contextos de ser en el español de Puerto Rico: ¿Evolución interna o contacto de lenguas? Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española, 98–118.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1988. On pragmatic change: The borrowing of discourse functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, J. R. & Eckert, P. 2001. Introduction. In Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, pp. 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 2002. Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, pp. 638–668. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young people's Dyirbal: An example of language death from Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar