Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 81–105

Cognitive models of language contact

An integrated perspective of Diasystematic Construction Grammar and Cognitive Language Contact Phenotypes

 | University of Klagenfurt
This paper provides an integrated view of two recent cognitive models of language contact that have been developed on the basis of a usage-based approach to language: Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG; Höder 2012, 2014, 2018, this volume) and Cognitive Language Contact Phenotypes (CLCP; Onysko 2019). The article discusses the models’ premises and predictions and offers concise comparisons with other relevant models in the field. Since DCxG and CLCP explain complementary cognitive aspects of language contact and multilingual speech phenomena, an integration of both models offers a more comprehensive perspective on how features of language contact emerge from multilingual minds.
Keywords: language contact, multilingualism, Cognitive Contact Linguistics, idioconstructions, diaconstructions, language mode, codeswitching, borrowing, transfer, replication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A close up on DCxG and CLCP
    • 2.1Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG)
    • 2.2Cognitive Language Contact Phenotypes (CLCP)
  • 3.Selected further cognitive models of language contact
    • The Dual Language Model (Kecskes, 2006)
    • Muysken’s model of speaker optimization strategies (2013)
    • The Complex Adaptive System Principles (CASP) model for bilingualism (Filipović & Hawkins, 2019)
    • Other models in the emerging framework of Cognitive Contact Linguistics (Verschik, 2019; Winter-Froemel, 2019)
  • 4.Integrating DCxG and CLCP
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.04ony
References (69)
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2008). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, A. (2014). A usage-based approach to borrowability. In E. Zenner, & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing (pp. 19–40). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstensen, B., & Busse, U. (1993/1994/1996). Anglizismen Wörterbuch [Dictionary of Anglicisms]. 3 Vols. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubord, E. M. (2004). Gender assignment to English words in the Spanish of Southern Arizona. Divergencias. Revista de estudios lingüísticos y literarios, 2(2), 27–39.Google Scholar
Dunn, Alexandra L., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). More on language mode. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 605–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eichler, N., Hager, M., & Müller, N. (2012). Code-switching within determiner phrases in bilingual children: French, Italian, Spanish and German. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 122(3), 227–258.Google Scholar
Filipović, L., & Hawkins, J. A. (2019). The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(6), 1223–1248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T. H., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What’s the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 153–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 527–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.), One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (2009). Language and consciousness. In W. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Consciousness (pp. 447–459). Elsevier: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2013). How optimal is the Optimization Model? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 743–745. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Afarli, & B. Mahlum (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact. Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humbley, J. (2015). Allogenisms: The major category of true false loans. In C. Furiassi, & H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Pseudo English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe (pp. 35–58). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, I. (2003). What is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics. Turku: Turku University Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones, & E. Esch (Eds.), Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors (pp. 286–313). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Remodeling grammar: Copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization. In P. Siemund, & N. Kintana (Eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages, (pp. 1–79). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2006). The dual language model to explain code-switching: A cognitive-pragmatic approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 257–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, M. (2012). Executive control over unconscious cognition: attentional sensitization of unconscious information processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knospe, S. (2014). Entlehnung oder Codeswitching? Sprachmischungen mit dem Englischen im deutschen Printjournalismus [Borrowing or Codeswitching? Language mixing with English in German print media]. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Gulliver, J. W., & Rossi, E. (2013). The multilingual lexicon: The cognitive and neural basis of lexical comprehension and production in two or more languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33, 102–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 709–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code-Switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2017). Revisiting the 4-M model: Codeswitching and morpheme election at the abstract level. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), 340–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onysko, A. (2019). Reconceptualizing language contact phenomena as cognitive processes. In E. Zenner, A. Backus, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive Contact Linguistics (pp. 23–50). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlovsky, L., & Ilin, R. (2012). Brain. Conscious and unconscious mechanisms of cognition, emotions, and language. Brain Science, 2, 790–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. (2012). What does the Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis hypothesize? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 644–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasmita, A. O., Kuruvilla, J., & Ling, A. P. K. (2018). Harnessing neuroplasticity: modern approaches and clinical future. The International Journal of Neuroscience, 128(11), 1061–1077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). Modeling Bilingualism: From Structure to Chaos. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, D. (2013). What’s in a grammar? Modeling dominance and optimization in contact. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 731–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., De Groot, A. M. B., Rossmark, B. M. M., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 258–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufmann, T. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. (2000). A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Van Gaal, S., De Lange, F. P., & Cohen, M. (2012). The role of consciousness in cognitive control and decision making. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschik, A. (2019). English-Estonian code-copying in blogs: Combining contact linguistic and cognitive approach. In E. Zenner, A. Backus, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive Contact Linguistics (pp. 51–80). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1881). On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philosophical Association, 12, 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
(2008). Processes of creole formation and related contact-induced language change. Journal of Language Contact, 2, 124–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). In search of a unified model of language contact. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 734–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter-Froemel, E. (2019). Reanalysis in language contact: Perceptive ambiguity, salience, and catachrestic reinterpretation. In E. Zenner, A. Backus, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive Contact Linguistics (pp. 81–126). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yu, Z., & Schwieter, J. W. (2018). Recognizing the effects of language mode on the cognitive advantages of bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(4), 749–792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., & Kristiansen, G. (Eds.). (2014). New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-Froemel, E. (Eds.). (2019). Cognitive Contact Linguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2008). The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(6), 34–62.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Beyer, Klaus
2024. A Diasystematic Approach to Multilingual Ecology: The Case of Mbum Speakers in Ngaoundéré, Cameroon. In Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions [Working Title], DOI logo
De Pascale, Stefano, Dirk Pijpops, Freek Van de Velde & Eline Zenner
2022. Reassembling the Pimped Ride: A Quantitative Look at the Integration of a Borrowed Expression. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.