Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:42:00.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2013

PIETER MUYSKEN
PIETER MUYSKEN*
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University & Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS)
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD, Nijmegen, The Netherlandsp.muysken@let.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sketches a comprehensive framework for modeling and interpreting language contact phenomena, with speakers’ bilingual strategies in specific scenarios of language contact as its point of departure. Bilingual strategies are conditioned by social factors, processing constraints of speakers’ bilingual competence, and perceived language distance. In a number of domains of language contact studies important progress has been made, including Creole studies, code-switching, language development, linguistic borrowing, and areal convergence. Less attention has been paid to the links between these fields, so that results in one domain can be compared with those in another. These links are approached here from the perspective of speaker optimization strategies. Four strategies are proposed: maximize structural coherence of the first language (L1); maximize structural coherence of the second language (L2); match between L1 and L2 patterns where possible; and rely on universal principles of language processing. These strategies can be invoked to explain outcomes of language contact. Different outcomes correspond to different interactions of these strategies in bilingual speakers and their communities.

Keywords

language contactcode-switchingCreolelanguage change
Type
Keynote Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 709 - 730
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper has been a very long time in the making and was first presented at the University of Michigan in April 2002, and subsequently on many occasions. I am grateful for comments from audiences in Ann Arbor (Mich.), Módena (Italy), Berlin, Bangor (Wales), Bayreuth, Barcelona, Stockholm, Groningen, State College (Penn.), Utrecht, Stellenbosch, Tilburg, and of course Nijmegen. Critical comments from Suzanne Aalberse and Gerrit Jan Kootsta, from four very helpful anonymous reviewers, and from Carmen Silva Corvalán on behalf of the journal likewise helped a lot to improve this paper. A much earlier version appeared in the proceedings of the 4th conference of AItLA (Muysken, 2005). I also want to acknowledge the help of Geertje van Bergen, Lotte Hogeweg, and Helen de Hoop regarding the Optimality theoretic formalizations proposed. The paper was written with the support of the Traces of Contact Advanced Grant of the European Research Council (ERC). I am grateful for the hospitality of the Wallenberg Research Centre at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS) for time to work on this paper. This paper is respectfully dedicated to the memory of Michael George Clyne.

References

Adam, L. (1883). Les idiomes négro-aryen et maléo-aryen: essai d'hybridologie linguistique. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Alleyne, M. C. (1980). Comparative Afro-American. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp. 177–201. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Bilingualism and language contact. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Argente, J., & Payrató, L. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to the study of languages in contact. Pragmatics, 1, 465–480.Google Scholar
Backus, A. (1996). Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg. [Studies in Multilingualism 1, Tilburg University Press, 1996.]Google Scholar
Bakker, P. (1997). A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, A., Jäger, G., & van Rooij, R. (2005). An introduction to Game Theory for linguists. In Benz, A., Jäger, G. & van Rooij, R. (eds.), Game Theory and pragmatics, pp. 1–82. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (5), 931–949.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. M., & Bolonyai, A. (2011). Code-switching and the optimal grammar of bilingual language use. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 522–546.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. (2011). Distributional biases in language families. Ms., University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, R. (1992). Des îles, des hommes, des langues. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (1968). Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 35, 130–39.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (ed.) (1981). Foreigner talk: Special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (2003). The dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coelho, F. A. (1880–6). Os dialectos românicos ou neolatinos na África, Ásia e América. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. I. 2a série 3 (1980), 129–196; II. 3a, série 8 (1882), 451–478; III. 6a série 12 (1886), 705–755.Google Scholar
Craats, I. van de, Corver, N., & van Hout, R. (2000). Conservation of grammatical knowledge: On the acquisition of Possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan Arabic learners of Dutch. Linguistics, 38, 221–314.Google Scholar
Craats, I. van de, van Hout, R., & Corver, N. (2002). The acquisition of possessive HAVE-clauses by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & van Rooij, R. (2000). Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An application of Game Theory. Journal of Semantics, 17, 217–242.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Hilberink-Schulpen, B., & Van Heuven, W. B. J. (2010). Repetition and masked form priming within and between languages using word and nonword neighbors Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 341–357.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. B. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of language, pp. 141–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? Linguistics, 2, 67–88.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in intergroup relations. In Giles, H. (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, pp. 307–349. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, I. (1997). Pidgin Delaware. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, pp. 43–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goebl, H., Nelde, P. H., Starý, Z., & Wölck, W. (eds.) (1996, 1997). Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics, Linguistique de Contact (vols. I & II). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1–27.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Hernández Chavez, E. (1971). Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication. In Whiteley, W. H. (ed.), Language use and social change, pp. 111–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Wilson, R. (1971). Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, pp. 151–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hannss, K., & Muysken, P. (in press). Reduplication in Andean languages. In van der Voort, H. & Goodwin Gómez, G. (eds.), Reduplication in South American Indian languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 128, 479–489.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
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heydel, M., & Murray, W. S. (1997). Conceptual form and the basis of sentence priming: Cross-linguistic evidence. Presented at CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, L. (2009). Word in process: On the the interpretation, acquisition, and production of words. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244.Google Scholar
Huttar, G. L., & Velantie, F. J. (1997). Ndyuka-Trio pidgin. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, pp. 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jaeger, G. (2008). Applications of Game Theory in linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahr, E. H. (1996). On the pidgin status of Russenorsk. In Jahr, E. H. & Broch, I. (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic: Northern pidgins and contact languages, pp. 107–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jansen, B., Lalleman, J., & Muysken, P. (1982). The alternation hypothesis: Acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers. Language Learning, 31, 315–336.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (1992). Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten (Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, vol. xxix, no. 5). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. (2002). The word in Modern Greek. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, pp. 243–263. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kihm, A. (1988). Conflation as a directive process in creolization. In Boretzky, N., Enninger, W. & Stolz, Th. (eds.), Beiträge sum 4. Essener Kolloquium “Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod”, pp. 111–138. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2004). Language contact and Spanish aspectual expression: A formal analysis. Lingua, 114, 1291–1330.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 210–231.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, S. (1992). From OV to VO: Linguistic negotiation in the development of Berbice Dutch Creole. Lingua, 88, 263–299.Google Scholar
Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdi, G. (1987). Les marques transcodiques: regards nouveaux sur le bilinguisme. In Lüdi, Georges (ed.), Devenir bilingue-parler bilingue. Actes du 2e colloque sur le bilinguisme, Université de Neuchâtel, 20–22 septembre, 1984, pp. 1–21. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315–327.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meakins, F., & O'Shannessy, C. (2010). Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua, 120, 1693–1713.Google Scholar
Meeuwis, M. (1991). A pragmatic perspective on contact-induced language change. Pragmatics, 1, 481–516.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2004). The bilingual child. In Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism, pp. 90–113. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & Li Wei (1995). A social network approach to code-switching: The example of the bilingual community in Britain. In Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, pp. 136–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (1974). Pidginization and simplification of languages (Pacific Linguistics, B-26). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (1979). Growth and structure of the lexicon of New Guinea Pidgin (Pacific Linguistics C-52). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. (2009). Linguistic transfer in Andean Spanish: Syntax or pragmatics? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. (2012). On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (1981). Half-way between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In Highfield, A. & Valdman, A. (eds.), Historicity and variation in Creole studies, pp. 52–78. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1982). The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn. In Andersen, R. W. (ed.), Second languages, pp. 101–124. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1997). Media Lengua. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, pp. 365–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1999). Lexical contact phenomena: Schuchardt and beyond. In Brendemoen, B., Lanza, E. & Ryen, E. (eds.), Language encounters in time and space, pp. 29–36. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2005). Modelling language contact (otra vez): Bilingual optimization strategies. In Banti, G., Marra, A. & Vineis, E. (eds.), Atti del 4o. congresso di studi dell'Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Aplicata. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni, pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2010a). Ethnolects as a multidimensional phenomenon. In Norde, M., Hasselblatt, C. & de Jonge, B. (eds.), Language contact: New perspectives, pp. 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2010b). Scenarios for language contact. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Handbook of language contact, pp. 265–281. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2011a). Préstamos morfológicos del español en el quechua. In Adelaar, W., Valenzuela Bismarck, P. & Zariquiey Biondi, R. (eds.), Estudios sobre lenguas andinas y amazónicas. Homenaje a Rodolfo Cerrón Palomino, pp. 425–442. Lima: Prensa de la Universidad Católica.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2011b). Spanish affixes in the Quechua languages: A multidimensional perspective. Lingua, 122, 481–493.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1976). Strategies of neutrality. Language, 53, 919–941.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, M. V. (1975). Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani. Language, 51, 672–683.Google Scholar
Naro, A. J. (1978). A study on the origins of pidginization. Language, 54, 314–347.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (2003). Diversity and stability in language. In Janda, R. D. & Joseph, B. D. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nortier, J. (1990). Dutch–Moroccan Arabic code-switching among young Moroccans in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2005). Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 31–57.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C., & Meakins, F. (2012). Comprehension of competing argument marking systems in two Australian mixed languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 378–396.Google Scholar
Parkvall, M. (2008). Which parts of language are most stable? Language Typology and Universals, 61, 234–250.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL, Linguistics, 18, 581–618.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1985). Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In Warkentyne, H. J. (ed.), Methods V: Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, pp. 363–386. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47–104.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Quist, P. (2000). New Copenhagen ‘multi-ethnolect’: Language use among adolescents in linguistic and culturally heterogeneous settings. Danske Talesprog (vol. 1). Institut for Dansk Dialektforskning, pp. 143–212. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1994). Bilingualism (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rooij, V. de (1996). Cohesion through contrast: Discourse structure in Shaba Swahili/French conversations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2003). Quechua–Spanish bilingualism: Interference and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Discourse analysis and pragmatics. In Goebl et al. (eds.), vol. I, pp. 138–144.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H. (1890). Kreolischen Studien IX. Über das Malaioportugiesische von Batavia und Tugu. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, philologisch-historische Klasse, XII, 122 (9), 1–256.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer, full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1993). On the permeability of grammars: Evidence from Spanish and English contact. In Ashby, W., Mithun, M., Perissinotto, G. & Raposo, E. (eds.), Selected papers from the 21st Symposium on Romance Languages, pp. 19–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2008). The limits of convergence in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 2, 213–224.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1972a, b). Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multilevel generative systems. Language, 48, 378–406, 596–625.Google Scholar
Singh, R. (1995). Rethinking the relationship between phonology and loan phonology. Folia Linguistica, 29, 395–405.Google Scholar
Snow, C., van Eeden, R., & Muysken, P. (1981). The interactional origins of Foreigner Talk: Municipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 81–91.Google Scholar
Specker, E. (2008). The use of bilingual discourse markers: Identity in mediated learning. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 97–120.Google Scholar
Tadmor, U., Haspelmath, M., & Taylor, B. (2010). Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica, 27, 226–246.Google Scholar
Tahitu, B. (1988). The sound system of Melaju Sini: Malay as spoken by younger Moluccans in the Netherlands. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 114, 276–296.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1980). Some influences on the syllable structure in interlanguage phonology. IRAL, 18, 139–152.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (1997). Mednyi Aleut. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, pp. 449–468. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkely & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (1999). Borrowing and shift-induced interference: Contrasting patterns in French–Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
Urioste, J. L. (1966). Transcripciones quechuas. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Instituto de Cultura Indígena.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. (2000). A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: C. Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., Gámez, P. B., Gómez, L. E, Bowers, E., & Shimpi, P. (2010). Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 37, 1047–1064.Google Scholar
Vila i Moreno, X. (1996). When classes are over: Language choice and language contact in bilingual education in Catalonia. Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Weerman, F. (1993). The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: The change from OV to VO. Linguistics, 31, 903–931.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1881). On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 12, 5–26.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S., & Holman, E. W. (2009). Temporal stability for linguistic typological features. Munich: Lincolm.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2005). Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica, 22, 373–427.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2009). On the unity of contact phenomena: The case of borrowing. In De Bot, K., Isurin, L. & Winford, D. (eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on code-switching, pp. 279–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (to appear). On the unity of contact phenomena: The case for imposition. In Féral, C. (ed.), In and out of Africa: Languages in question. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. (1989). Double talk: Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar