Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 387–408

Contact and change in Neo-Aramaic dialects

Aramaic, a Semitic language, has survived down to modern times as a spoken language in a large diversity of Neo-Aramaic dialects. This paper examines various aspects of contact-induced linguistic change in the subgroup of dialects known as North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). These dialects have for many centuries been in contact with various other languages, including Semitic (Arabic) and non-Semitic (Kurdish, Persian, Armenian, Turkic languages). Various motivating factors can be identified for contact-induced change in the NENA dialects. These are sociolinguistic and internal systemic. When change occurs it often involves only partial convergence. Change sometimes results in imitations of the morphology of the contact language using internal morphological elements. Sociolinguistic and internal systemic factors can also inhibit change in a contact situation.
Keywords: Aramaic, Neo-Aramaic, contact-induced change, perfect, copula, word order, homophony, aspiration, ergative, Kurdish, Armenian
Article outline
  • 1.The Neo-Aramaic dialects
  • 2.Constraints on change
    • 2.1Constraint on lexical transfer
    • 2.2Size of community and geographical location
    • 2.3Potential homophony
    • 2.4Change inhibited by contact
  • 3.Systemic motivations for contact-induced change
    • 3.1Elimination of homophony
    • 3.2Enrichment of resources
  • 4.Partial convergence
    • 4.1Perfect construction
    • 4.2Copula
    • 4.3Word order
  • 5.Imitation of morphology
  • 6.Reflection of change in contact language
  • 7.Summary
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.18kha
References (60)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. (2011). Auxiliary verb constructions (and other complex predicate types): A Functional–Constructional overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(11), 795–828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chyet, M. L. (1995). Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish: An interdisciplinary consideration of their influence on each other. Israel Oriental Studies, 15, 219–249.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1967). Transference and triggering. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
(1992). Linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of language contact, maintenance and loss: Towards a multifacet theory. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coghill, E. (2016). The rise and fall of ergativitiy in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, S. M. (2011). The varying role of po- in the grammaticalization of Slavic aspectual systems: Sequences of events, delimitatives, and German language contact. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19(2), 75–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2009). The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of Language Today (pp. 185–207). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enrique-Arias, A. (2010). On language contact as an inhibitor of language change: the Spanish of Catalan bilinguals in Majorca. In A. Breitbarth, C. Lucas, S. Watts, & D. Willis (Eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. (pp. 97–118). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, P. & Stenzel, K. (2013). Introduction. In P. Epps & K. Stenzel (Eds.), Upper Rio Negro: Cultural and linguistic interaction in northwestern Amazonia (pp. 13–52). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional Museu do Índio – Funai.Google Scholar
Farrar, K. & Jones, M. C. (2002). Introduction. In M. C. Jones & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (pp. 1–18). Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S. (2013). Semantic transparency and cultural calquing in the northwest Amazon. In P. Epps & K. Stenzel (Eds.), Upper Rio Negro: cultural and linguistic interaction in northwestern Amazonia (pp. 271–306). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional Museu do Índio – Funai.Google Scholar
Gaunt, D. (2006). Massacres, resistance, protectors: Muslim–Christian relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haig, G. (2011). Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle. On the Ezafe in West Iranian. In F. H. Yap, K. Grunaw-Hårsta, & J. Wrona (Eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (pp. 363–390). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 27, 529–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, O. (1978). Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qəltu-Dialekte (Vol. 1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(1979). Zur arabischen Mundart von Mossul. Zeitschrift Für Arabische Linguistik, 2, 36–75.Google Scholar
(2011). Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô. In S. Weninger, G. Khan, M. Streck, & J. Watson (Eds.), The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (pp. 697–707). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Language contact as reflected in the consonant system of Ṭuroyo. In A. M. Butts (Ed.), Semitic languages in contact. Leiden-Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jügel, T. (2015). Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen − Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, G. (forthcoming). The diachronic development of the copula in Neo-Aramaic dialects.
(2001). Quelques aspects de l’expression d’ “être” en néo-araméen. In A. Donabédian (Ed.), Langues de Diaspora. Langues en Contact (pp. 139–148). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
(2002a). The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Qaraqosh. Boston, MA: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b). The Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Rustaqa. In W. Arnold & H. Bobzin (Eds.), “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik, Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 395–410). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(2007). The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies, 52(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a). The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Urmi. Piscataway: Gorgias. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar (Vols. 1–3). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar
(2011). North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In S. Weninger, G. Khan, M. Streck, & J. Watson (Eds.), The Semitic languages: An internatioanl handbook (pp. 708–724). Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Remarks on the historical development of the copula in Neo-Aramaic. In F. Corriente, G. del Olmo Lete, Á. Vicente, & J.-P. Vita (Eds.), Dialectology of The Semitic Languages Proceedings of the Iv Meeting on Comparative Semitics Zaragoza 11/6–9/2010 (pp. 25–31). Sabadell: AUSA.Google Scholar
(2016). The Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi (Vols. 1–4). Leiden-Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. Travis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 873–899). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Law, D. (2017). Language mixing and genetic similarity. Diachronica, 34, 40–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2008). Information structure and grammaticalization. In E. Seoane & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization (pp. 207–229). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. N. (1961). Kurdish dialect studies. London, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Makaev, E. A. (1977). The origins of the modal particle ke in Armenian. In N.Ya Gabaraev (Ed.), Questions of Iranian and General Philology (pp. 195–200). Tbilisi: Metsniereba.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1968). The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguist (pp. 20–64). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1976). Multi-conditioned sound change and the impact of morphology on phonology. Language, 52, 757–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. & Sakel, J. (2007). Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language, 31(4), 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mutzafi, H. (2008). The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Betanure (province of Dihok). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in code-switching. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (1999). Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1981). The limits of awareness. In Working Papers in Sociolinguistics (Vol. 84). Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Talay, S. (2008a). Die Neuaramaischen Dialekte Der Khabur-Assyrer in Nordostsyrien: Einführung, Phonologie und Morphologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(2008b). The neo-Aramaic dialects of the Tiyari Assyrians in Syria: with special consideration of their phonological characteristics. In G. Khan (Ed.), Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies (pp. 39–63). Piscataway: Gorgias Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thackston, W. M. (2006a). Kurmanji Kurdish. A reference grammar with selected readings. Renas Media. Retrieved from [URL]
(2006b). Sorani Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. Retrieved from [URL]
Traugott, E. C. & König, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. 1, pp. 189–218). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1989). Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change: contributions to the study of its causes (pp. 227–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 98–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Asadpour, Hiwa
2023. Parts of speech and the placement of Targets in the corpus of languages in northwestern Iran. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:3 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
Khan, Geoffrey
2022. The change in the grammatical category of the copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:3 ► pp. 446 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 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.