Cover not available
Part of
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 175–204

Multiple roots of innovations in language contact

Evidence from morphological intermingling in contact between Ingrian Finnish and Estonian

| University of Eastern Finland
This article approaches the origin of multilingual innovations in language contact by presenting data from an intensive contact situation between two closely related Finnic languages, Finnish and Estonian. This situation between languages that have complex interconnected morphological systems often leads to the emergence of structures that contain material from both languages. The origin of these structures is discussed in the light of two basic assumptions: that in the mind of the bilingual speaker, the elements of the two languages are connected to each other via phonological and semantic or functional similarities and that both languages of the bilingual speaker always remain active and available during speech processing. The simultaneous activation of synonymous, competing elements or patterns is hypothesised to be the cause for the inevitable presence of both language-internal and cross-linguistic forces at the initial stage of language change.
Keywords: innovation, language contact, morphology, morphophonology, multilingualism
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.07rii
References (81)
References
Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. Finnish. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 149–183. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anepaio, Terje. 1999. The land next to Ingria: Ingrian-Finns in North-East Estonia after world war II. In Markku Teinonen & Timo J. Virtanen (eds.), Ingrians and neighbours: Focus on the eastern Baltic Sea region (Studia Fennica Ethnologica 5), 155–181. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1999. From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. The International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4). 309–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertram, Raymond. 2000. Morphology in the mind: Word processing in Finnish and Dutch. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Ser. B 235. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Phonology and language use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J.K. & Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael. 1987. Constraints on code switching: How universal are they? Linguistics 25. 739–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Geer, Eric. 1996. Ingermanländarna i Estland [The Ingrians in Estonia]. Siirtolaisuus — Migration 1. 3–11.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 2009. Linguistic strategies and markedness in Estonian morphology. Language Typology and Universals 62. 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 2003. The quest for the most ‘parsimonious’ explanations: Endogeny vs. contact revisited. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 161–173. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, Uli H. & Robert Schroeder. 1992. Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 165–183. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2000. Typological characteristics of the Finnic languages: A reappraisal. In Johanna Laakso (ed.), Facing Finnic: Some challenges to historical and contact linguistics (Castrenianumin toimitteita 59), 31–63. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society & Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies of the University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Gürel, Ayşe. 1999. Decomposition: To what extent? The case of Turkish. Brain and Language 68. 218–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1989. Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In William Marslen-Wilson (ed.), Lexical representation and process, 392–408. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31. 279–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassinen, Sirje. 2002. Simultaaninen kaksikielisyys: Läheiset sukukielet viro ja suomi rinnakkain [Simultaneous bilingualism: Closely related languages Estonian and Finnish side by side] (Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Humaniora B 43). Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Contact and grammaticalization. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 86–105. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, Tapio. 2001. Slips of the tongue: Errors, repairs, and a model (Studia Fennica Linguistica 10). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, Juhani & Jussi Niemi. 2002. Allomorphs as paradigm indices: On-line experiments with Finnish free and bound stems. SKY Journal of Linguistics 15. 119–143.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, Juhani. 2003. Allomorphy and morphological salience in the mental lexicon (University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 32). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Aneta Pavlenko. 2007. Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin. 2005. Lähdekieli kohdekielen oppimisen apuna [Contribution of L1 to foreign language acquisition] (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 44). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne [Finnish phonology and morphology]. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
. 1999. Finnish: An essential grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Dorit & Mark Aronoff. 1989. Morphological interaction between L1 and L2 in language attrition. In Susan Gass, Carolyn Madden, Dennis Preston & Larry Selinker (eds.), Variation in second language acquisition, vol. 2, Psycholinguistic issues (Multilingual Matters 50), 202–215. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Kokko, Ossi. 2007. Inkerinsuomen pirstaleisuus: Eräiden sijojen kehitys murteen yksilöllistymisen kuvastajana [Scattered Ingrian Finnish: The development of selected cases as reflectors of the invidualisation of a dialect] (University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 48). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Kokko, Ossi, Ilkka Savijärvi & Muusa Savijärvi (eds.). 2003. Ennev vanhasii: Pohjois ja Keski-Inkerin kieltä ja kohtaloita [Ennev vanhasii: Language and destinies from North and Middle Ingria] (Studia Carelica Humanistica 18). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Kurs, Ott. 1990. Ingeri põliselanike saatus [The fate of indigenous Ingrian people]. Akadeemia 7. 1484–1499.Google Scholar
Laakso, Johanna. 2010. Contact and the Finno-Ugric languages. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 598–617. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2006. Pleonasm and hypercharacterization. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 119–154. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Tapani. 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet: Suomen kielen kehitys kantauralista varhaissuo meen [The millennia of a language: The development of Finnish from Proto-Uralic to Early Finnish] (Tietolipas 215). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Lehto, Manja. 1996. Ingrian Finnish: Dialect preservation and change (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 23). Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Anna-Riitta. 1993. Miten muodot muuttuvat? Ruijan murteen verbintaivutus Raisin, Pyssyjoen ja Annijoen kveeniyhteisöissä [How do the forms change? Ruija dialect verb inflection in the Raisi, Pyssyjoki and Annijoki communities of Finnish origin]. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1976. On the retrieval and lexical structure of verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 15. 169–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Maisa. 1989. Amerikansuomen morfologiaa ja fonologiaa [The morphology and phonology of American Finnish]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä licenciate thesis.Google Scholar
. 1990. Suomi vieraana kielenä: esimerkkejä taivutusmuotojen tuottamises-ta [Finnish as a foreign language: Examples of the production of inflectional forms]. In Jorma Tommola (ed.), Vieraan kielen ymmärtäminen ja tuottaminen [Understanding and producing a foreign language] (AFinLA:n vuosikirja 1990), 89–102. Turku: The Finnish Association of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1993. Muoto-opin seikkoja [Aspects of morphology]. In Pertti Virtaranta, Hannele Jönsson-Korhola, Maisa Martin & Maija Kainulainen. Amerikansuomi [American Finnish] (Tietolipas 125), 97–101. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Contact, convergence, and typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 320–339. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menn, Lise. 1989. Some people who don’t talk right: Universal and particular in child language, aphasia, and language obsolescence. In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death, 335–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol & Janice L. Jake. 2000. Four types of morphemes: Evidence from aphasia, codeswitching and second language acquisition. Linguistics 38(6). 1053–1100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Jussi. 2006. Paradigm competition: An experimental note on Finnish verbs. In Mickael Suominen, Antti Arppe, Anu Airola, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari K. Pitkänen & Kaius Sinnemäki (eds.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday. A special supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19. Available at [URL].Google Scholar
Niemi, Jussi, Matti Laine & Juhani Tuominen. 1994. Cognitive morphology in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language and Cognitive Processes 9. 423–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2004. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism (Studies in Bilingualism 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rätsep, Huno. 1989. Eesti keele tekkimise lugu [The genesis of Estonian]. Akadeemia 7. 1503– 1524. Tartu.Google Scholar
Remes, Hannu. 2009. Muodot kontrastissa: Suomen ja viron vertailevaa taivutustypologiaa [Forms in contrast: A contrastive study of inflectional morphology in Finnish and Estonian] (Acta Universitas Ouluensis B Humaniora 90). Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Riionheimo, Helka. 1999. Morphological attrition and interference in language contact: A processing approach. In Marja Nenonen & Juhani Järvikivi (eds.), Languages, minds, and brains: Papers from A NorFa Summer School, Mekrijärvi, Finland, June 22–29, 1998 (Studies in Languages 34), 178–194. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
. 2000. When sisters meet: Ingrian Finnish in Estonia. In Johanna Laakso (ed.), Facing Finnic: Some challenges to historical and contact linguistics (Castrenianumin toimitteita 59), 168–184. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society & Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies of the University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
. 2002. How to borrow a bound morpheme? The status of structural cross-linguistic influence in a contact situation between closely-related languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 15. 187–217.Google Scholar
. 2007. Muutoksen monet juuret: Oman ja vieraan risteytyminen Viron inker insuomalaisten imperfektinmuodostuksessa [The multiple roots of change: Mixing native and borrowed influence in the past tense formation by Ingrian Finns in Estonia] (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 1107). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
. 2009. Interference and attrition in inflectional morphology: A theoretical perspective. In Esa Penttilä & Heli Paulasto (eds.), Language contacts meet English dialects: Studies in honour of Markku Filppula, 83–104. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2010a. The preservation of morphophonological complexity in first language attrition: The case of Ingrian Finnish dialect in Estonia. In Barry Heselwood &Clive Upton (eds.), Proceedings of Methods XIII: Papers from the Thirteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2008, 270–278. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Yksilöllinen variaatio Viron inkerinsuomalaisten imperfektinmuo-dostuksessa [Individual variation in the past tense formation of Ingrian Finns in Estonia]. Publications of the Võro Institute 23. 51–67.Google Scholar
. 2010c. Morfologinen limittyminen suomen ja viron kontaktissa [Morphological mixing in a contact between Finnish and Estonian]. Lähivõrdlusi/ Lähivertailuja 20. 218–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Complex morphologies in contact: The case of Ingrian Finns in Estonia. In Kelechukwu Ihemere (ed.), Language contact and language shift: Grammatical and sociolinguistic perspectives, 10–36. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Riionheimo, Helka & Krista Kivisalu (eds.). 1994. Inkeriläiskertomuksia [Stories from Ingria] (Studia Carelica Humanistica 4). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism (Language in Society 13), 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sarhimaa, Anneli. 1999. Syntactic transfer, contact-induced change, and the evolution of bilingual mixed codes: Focus on Karelian-Russian language alternation (Studia Fennica Linguistica 9). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1992. Theory of language death. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, 7–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka. 2003. Inkerinsuomi ja suomalaiset Inkerinmaalla. [Ingrian Finnish and Finns in Ingria]. In Hannele Jönsson-Korhola & Anna-Riitta Lindgren (eds.), Monena suomi maailmalla: suomalaisperäisiä kielivähemmistöjä [The various forms of Finnish in the world: Linguistic minorities of Finnish origin] (Tietolipas 190), 272–299. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka & Muusa Savijärvi. 1999. Language contacts in Ingrian-Finnish. In Markku Teinonen & Timo J. Virtanen (eds.), Ingrians and neighbours: Focus on the eastern Baltic Sea region (Studia Fennica Ethnologica 5), 23–47. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka, Muusa Savijärvi & Janne Heikkinen (eds.). 1996. Vot, ihminen tahtoo kotimaalle: Länsi-Inkerin kieltä ja kohtaloita [Vot, ihminen tahtoo kotimaalle: Language and destinies from Western Ingria] (Studia Carelica Humanistica 8). Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Schmid, Monika S. 2004. A new blueprint for language attrition research. In Monika S. Schmid, Barbara Köpke, Merel Keijzer & Lina Weilemar (eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues, 349–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Monika S. & Barbara Köpke. 2009. L1 attrition and the mental lexicon. In Anita Pavlenko (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches, 209–238. Briston: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2008. Language contact: Constraints and common paths of contact-induced language change. In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language contact and contact languages, 3–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smits, Caroline. 1996. Disintegration of inflection: The case of Iowa Dutch. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & Brian MacWhinney. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition 14. 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58. 832–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toivainen, Jorma 1997. The acquisition of Finnish. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 4, 87–182. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1974 [1953]. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Grünthal, Riho
2020. The spread zones and contacts of medieval Finnic in the Northeastern Baltic Sea area: Implications for the rate of language change. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.