Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise: Bentahila & Davies (1992) describe differences in code-switching patterns between older and younger Arabic/French bilinguals. The former typically use French as the ML, while the latter use Arabic. To what extent are these differences analogous to those between Anglo-Romani and Media Lengua?


7. The strange case of Copper Island Aleut.

The last of the intertwined languages we examine closely in this chapter is Mednyj (Copper) Island Aleut, once widely spoken on Copper Island, one of the two Russian-owned Commander Islands in the Aleutian Islands chain. The language is spoken by only a few older persons today, most of whom reside on Bering Island. Like Aleut, it has all but given way to Russian on these islands. This contact language is characterized by a blending of Russian and Aleut (primarily Attu) elements in most components of the grammar, but most profoundly in the verbal morphology. Golovko & Vakhtin (1990:111) summarize the mixture thus:

…[The Aleut component] comprises the majority of the vocabulary, all the derivational morphology, part of the simple sentence syntax, nominal inflexion and certain other grammatical means. The [Russian component] comprises verbal inflexion, negation, infinitive forms, part of the simple sentence syntax, and all of the compound sentence syntax.

This summary should not be interpreted to mean that the Russian and Aleut contributions to CIA are equal. As we shall see, this is not entirely accurate. At any rate, the pattern of mixture is quite unlike any that have been recorded for other intertwined languages, though it bears some resemblance to the latter. Before we examine the structural details more closely, let us consider the sociohistorical context in which the language arose.

7.1. Sociohistorical background.

Trading between Russia and the Aleutian Islands began in 1741 and continued through the 19^th century. But closer contact between the groups began in 1826 when the Russian-American company established permanent settlements on the two previously uninhabited Commander Islands, Copper Island and Bering Island (Golovko & Vakhtin 1990:98). Dozens of Aleut and creole families were brought in from the Aleutian, Kurch and Pribylof Islands, and Kamchatka. They supplied the labor for processing of skins and other activities associated with the trade in seal furs. There was also a minority of Russian employees of the company, mostly men, who settled on the islands.

By 1860, there were 90 people on Copper Island, including Russian traders, Aleuts from various islands, creoles and a few persons of other ethnic background (op. cit. 114). By 1879, the Copper Island population is said to have comprised an equal number of Aleuts and creoles and by 1897 the creoles outnumbered the Aleuts (op. cit. 116). It was this creole population that played the major role in creating Copper Island Aleut, which eventually became a badge of their distinct social identity. Thomason (1997b:461) suggests that the language arose sometime between 1826 and 1900. Let us now examine its structural characteristics in some detail.
7.2. Structural characteristis of Copper Island Aleut.


7.2.1. The lexicon and phonology.

The vocabulary of Copper Island Aleut (henceforth CIA) is overwhelmingly Aleut. According to Sekerina (1994:29), 94% of the verbs and 61.5% of the nouns in her corpus were Aleut. A significant percentage of the nouns are Russian, though these loanwords are not more numerous than those found in some Aleut varieties such as that on Bering Island (Golovko 1996:64). Russian loans include some verbs denoting activities new to Aleut speakers, e.g., kraasil (< krasit’) “paint” and muuc&il (< muc&it’) “torture” (ibid.). Several adverbs and function words (conjunctions and prepositions) as well as most pronouns also come from Russian (Golovko & Vakhtin 1990:104, 110).

Given the nature of the vocabulary, it is not surprising that CIA phonology is very similar to that of Aleut. In fact, their phonological inventories are identical except for a few changes introduced into CIA under Russian influence. These include sounds like /p, b, f, g/, mostly restricted to Russian loanwords, and not found in Aleut (Thomason 1997b:455). According to Golovko (1996:65), Aleut /v/ has been split into /p/ and /b/ in CIA. Three Aleut phonemes (/D, hN, hw/) are absent from CIA, while the velar versus uvular distinction in the stop and fricative series has also been lost. The latter may be a recent change (Thomason 1997b:456).


7.2.2. Syntax.

Only a brief overview of key aspects of CIA syntax and morphology is possible here. With regard to the former, the rigid SOV order of Aleut has been abandoned in favor of variable word order, with Russian-like patterns predominating. In complex sentence constructions, Aleut structures are often replaced by more Russian-like ones in which Russian complementizers or subordinating conjunctions appear. Some examples will illustrate some of the complex patterns of intertwining that characterize the syntax of the language. The following two CIA sentences are synonymous and equally acceptable to CIA speakers (Golovko 1996:72-73). Russian elements are in bold type.

(19) a. ja segodnja c&x¡uuP¡i-n inka-c&a-l qaka-c&a-anga

I today linen-PL hang-CAUS-3sgPAST dry-CAUS-INT

b. ja segodnja c&x¡uuP¡i-n inka-c&a-l c&toby ego quaka-c&a-t’

I today linen-PL hang-CAUS-3sgPAST in order it dry-CAUS-INF
“Today I hung linen in order to dry it.”

These sentences may be compared with their Aleut (Bering Island) and Russian equivalents;

(20) a. RUS ja segodnja bel’e povesi-l-a (c&toby ego) vyusus&i-t’

I today linen hang-PAST-FEM (in order it) dry-INF
b. BIA wan angalix¡ c&x¡uuP¡is qaka-t-iingan inka-t-na-x¡
this day linen dry-CAUS-INTR hang-CAUS-PAST-3sg
“Today I hung linen in order to dry it”

We and note first that the CIA word order is more Russian-like. There is also alternation between the Aleut intentional form qaka-c&a-anga and the Russian-like purpose construction. The latter contains a Russian complementizer and an infinitival form of the verb, marked by Russian suffix –t’. Another interesting instance of Russian influence is the use of the Russian subject pronoun ja. CIA uses the full range of Russian subject pronouns (ti ‘you-sg’, on ‘he’, mi ‘we’, vi ‘you-pl’ oni ‘they’). Aleut has no subject pronouns. The Russian pronouns are used to convey differences in person particularly in the past tense, for reasons we shall see below. CIA also employs Russian object pronouns (e.g., ego in example (1b). Aleut object pronouns survive in the language (e.g. ti ‘me’, tin ‘you’, txin ‘(s)he’) but they are used only as objects of reflexive verbs (Golovko & Vakhtin 1990:104).

A few other (morpho-)syntactic features in CIA also derive from Russian. These include the negative prefix ni-, rather than the two Aleut negative suffixes -lakaP¡ (“negation of actual action”) and (-P¡)ula-(x) (negation of nonactual event) (Golovko 1996:72). The difference between CIA and Bering Island Aleut is shown in the following examples.

(21) a. CIA iglu-N n’i tuta-qaP¡i-it

grandson-1sgPOSS NEG hear-DETRAN-3sgPRES

b. BIA iglu-N tutu-qaP¡i-laka-x¡

grandson-1sgPOSS listen-DETRAN-NEG-3sg.PRES

In addition, CIA, like Russian and unlike Aleut, lacks a copula in the present tense (Thomason 1997b:460). The language has also adopted some Russian modal verbs like nado “ought to”, dolz&en “must” etc., which have replaced Aleut suffixes. Finally, CIA has introduced several Russian conjunctions in compound sentences, replacing the conjunctive suffixes of Aleut. The general pattern in CIA morpho-syntax is to replace the bound suffixal morphology of Aleut with analytic strategies derived from Russian.

Despite these changes, CIA has preserved certain aspects of Aleut syntax. Among them is the rather unusual pattern of topic-number agreement illustrated in the following example (Golovko 1996:69):

(22) kaju-Ni huzu- Ni nana-it

muscle-3plPOSS each-3plPOSS ache-3sg.PRES
“All his muscles ache.”

Notice how the verb inflection –it agrees, not with the subject “muscles” but with the singular possessor (the “topic”). But Golovko & Vakhtin (1990:107) note that Russian-type agreement also occurs in these types of CIA structure.

7.2.3. Morphology.

CIA has preserved practically all of the nominal, and most of the verbal morphology of Aleut. For instance, the whole system of derivational suffixes, both nominal and verbal, remains intact. The most striking change has occurred in the verb forms, where Russian tense suffixes have entirely replaced their Aleut counterparts. The paradigm for the verb “to stand” in (23) illustrate this (Golovko 1996:70).

(23) Copper Island Aleut Russian

Verb stem anqax¡ta- sto-
1 sg anqax¡ta-ju sto-ju
2 sg anqax¡ta-is& sto-is&
3 sg anqax¡ta-it sto-it
1 pl anqax¡ta-im sto-im
2 pl anqax¡ta-iti sto-ite
3 pl anqax¡ta-jut (-jat) sto-jat

Examples (19), (21a) and (22) above illustrate the unusual blend of bound morphology from the two sources. They show that CIA preserves the Aleut verbal suffixes that change the valency (argument structure) of the verb. These include the marker of factitive causation -c&a- (19), detransitivizer -qaP¡i- (21a), and several others (Golovko 1996:66-68). In addition, CIA has retained those Aleut suffixes that convey aspectual and similar notions, such as “want, begin, stop” etc.

In general, then, the basic verbal morphology is Aleut, but Russian has made a significant contribution to it as well.

Table 5 summarizes (most of) the contributions from Aleut and Russian to the nominal and verbal morphology of Copper Island Aleut. (Sources: Golovko & Vakhtin 1990: Golovko 1996)

Table 5 Aleut and Russian features in CIA verbal and nominal morphology.


Aleut Russian
Nominal Morph. All None
Verbal Morphology Valency-changing suffixes Tense suffixes
Aspectual suffixes Analytic Future
Some dependent forms Negative prefix
Topic-number agreement Infinitival suffix.
Person agreement (pronouns)


Function words Reflexive obj. pronouns Subject & Object pronouns
Postpositions Modal verbs and words.
Demonstratives Several complementizers
The somewhat detailed overview of CIA presented above helps us place the Russian contribution to its grammar in perspective. Though striking, this influence was by no means overwhelming, and the basically Aleut character of CIA remains predominant. How then did this unusual mixture come about?


7.3. Processes and constraints in CIA origins.

The pattern of mixture in CIA is obviously different from those we found in Media Lengua and Michif. Yet there are several respects in which CIA resembles these other intertwined languages. In the first place, it consists of a basically Aleut Matrix Language (ML) frame into which Russian elements have been incorporated. Furthermore, the adoption of Russian lexical items as well as pronouns, complementizers, etc., is not unlike what we find in other intertwined languages. Nor for that matter is the substitution of Russian constructions such as purpose clauses for their Aleut counterparts – which seems somewhat similar to EL island insertion. But clearly the intrusion of Russian morpho-syntactic apparatus into the Aleut ML frame of CIA is much more pervasive than in other intertwined languages.

This kind of convergence could have been accomplished only by bilinguals who were highly proficient in both Aleut and Russian. Children in particular may have played a key role in this creation. The pattern of mixture itself conforms to certain principles that we have seen operating in other cases of convergence.
To take the most striking feature first, the intrusion of Russian tense suffixes into CIA must have been facilitated by a certain typological similarity between Aleut and Russian tense inflections. Both occupy a slot at the end of the inflected verb, as illustrated in the following examples from Golovko (1996:71):

(24) a. Russian: ty menja spras&iva-es&

you me ask-2sg.PRES
b. BI Aleut: tiN ahmayaax¡ta-ku-x¡t
me ask-REAL-2sg.PRES
c. CIA ty menja hamayaax¡ta-ku-is&
you me ask-2sg.PRES
“You are asking me.”

The substitution here is similar to the morphological adoptions from Ritharngu into Ngandi in Arnem Land, Australia, which we discussed in Chapter 3, section 6.1.