Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise: Examine any two case studies of language attrition and compare the kinds of changes that occur in each. Which ones are due to L2 influence on the AL? Which are due to “internal” processes of simplification? If there are differences, how can we explain them? [Case studies of L1 attrition can be found in Brenzinger 1992a, Seliger & Vago 1991, and Dorian 1989, among others.]


III.4. Language attrition in relation to other contact phenomena.

There has been some disagreement concerning the extent to which the structural changes that occur in a dying language are unique to such situations or similar to other kinds of contact-induced change. For instance, Sasse (1992b:60) questions the view of Dorian (1981:151) and others that the same kinds of change occur in both dying and healthy languages subjected to contact. Sasse argues that, in principle, borrowing and interference in what he calls “normal language contact situations” are quite different from the process of reduction and loss in a decaying language. On the other hand, researchers like Dimmendaal (1992:130) compare language decay to pidginization. Can these different positions be reconciled?

Part of the problem here is that researchers are not always comparing the right phenomena. Sasse’s comparison of borrowing and interference with later stages of language decay is a case in point. It would be more appropriate to compare the former phenomena with those found in earlier stages of shift, especially that of primary language shift where the AL begins to converge toward the L2. As argued earlier, the types of externally influenced changes that occur in the AL at this stage are in fact quite similar to the convergence phenomena found in many other situations of bilingualism.
On the other hand, as Sasse (1992b:63) in fact suggests, the proper point of comparison for the decaying language of semi-speakers are cases of imperfect acquisition, including pidgin formation. This applies especially to those terminal speakers who experienced “random” acquisition due to inadequate input and/or limited opportunity to use the AL. The systematic reduction and simplification of structural apparatus found in their version of the AL are quite comparable to those found in pidgins (see Chapter 8), or indeed, in very early interlanguage. Maher (1991:81) also suggests that the common element linking semi-speaker varieties and pidgins is “inadequate exposure to the target language.” It also seems reasonable to compare the types of simplification found in the less decayed output of formerly fluent speakers to those found in “simplified” languages (Chapter 8).
While there are no doubt some differences between pidgins and decaying language, these vary depending on the degree to which the decay has progressed. The semi-speaker varieties of Kore described by Dimmendaal retain features such as morphological verb classes, compounds and tone distinctions – features not usually found in “prototypical” pidgins. But some of these can be found in simplified languages and expanded pidgins (Chapter 8). This suggests that both language decay and pidginization vary along a continuum, and attempts to compare them must focus on similar points along each continuum. In general, however, all of these contact phenomena are “manifestations of a universal tendency …from the marked to the unmarked” (Dimmendaal 1992:130).