Separating layers of information
The anatomy of contact zones
Linguistic areas, or Sprachbünde, can be described very broadly as geographical areas where a group of languages have become similar to each other because of prolonged contact between the speakers of the different languages. Numerous linguistic areas have been proposed over the years and all over the globe, and the study of linguistic areas has become an integral part of the more general study of contact linguistics and contact-induced change. Nevertheless, linguistic areas are notoriously hard to define in a consistent and meaningful way, and some scholars have even suggested abandoning the notion altogether. In this paper, I argue against abandoning the notion of linguistic area as such, but I am in favor of changing the approach or the procedure we follow in detecting or confirming linguistic areas. I would like to introduce a conceptual change, moving away from the idea of a linguistic area as a well-circumscribed geographical area towards an idea of contact zones as windows on the past. The procedure I propose is based on what may be called the anatomy of linguistic areas, consisting of a geographical, cultural-historical, communicative, and (structural-)linguistic layer. An approach to a linguistic area can start in any of these layers, but crucially refers to the others as well. One research set-up that is made possible by this approach is to set up a hypothesis-test procedure whereby one or more layers predict the others.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Problems with linguistic areas
- 2.1Geography-related problems
- 2.2Language-related problems
- 2.3Problems related to features
- 2.4Making the case for contact
- 3.The layers of a potential contact zone
- 4.Information layers
- 4.1Geography
- 4.2Socio-cultural history
- 4.3Communicative practices
- 4.4Structural features
- 4.5Non-isomorphism, bottom-up, and top-down
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (47)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: OUP.
Arias, L., Barbieri, C., Barreto, G., Pakendorf, B. & Stoneking, M. 2018. High-resolution mitochondrial DNA analysis sheds light on human diversity, cultural interactions, and population mobility in northwestern Amazonia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 165(2): 238–255. 

Bickel, B. 2011. Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, P. K. Austin, O. Bond, D. Nathan, & L. Marten (eds), 3–13. London: SOAS.
Bickel, B. 2020. Large and ancient linguistic areas. In Language Dispersal, Diversification, and Contact: A Global Perspective, E. I. Crevels, J.-M. Hombert & P. C. Muysken (eds), Oxford: OUP.
Bickel, B. & Nichols, J. 2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on the Languages and Linguistics of Oceania, Z. Antić, C. B. Chang, C. S. Sandy & M. Toosarvandani (eds), 3–15. Berkeley CA: BLS.
Bowern, C. 2013. Relatedness as a factor in language ontact. Journal of Language Contact. 6(2): 411–432. 

Campbell, L. 2006. Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny. In Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, Y. Matras, A. McMahon & N. Vincent (eds), 1–31. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.. 

Collard, I. F. & Foley, R. A. 2002. Latitudinal patterns and environmental determinants of recent human cultural diversity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 371–383.
Dahl, Ö. 2001. Principles of areal typology. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1456–1470. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Diller, A. 2008. Mountains, rivers or seas? Ecology and language history in Southeast Asia. In SEALSXIV: Papers from the 14th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2004), Vol. 1, W. Khanittanan & P. Sidwell (eds), 93–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP. 

Dixon, R. M. W. 2001. The Australian linguistic area. In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics, A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 64–104. Oxford: OUP.
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds). 1999. The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: CUP.
Emeneau, M. B. 1980. Language and Linguistic Area: Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, Selected and Introduced by Anwar S. Dil [Language Science and National Development 14]. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Enfield, N. J. 2005. Areal linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:181–206. 

Eriksen, L. 2011. Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia: Using G.I.S. to Reconstruct Ancient Ethnogenetic Processes from Archaeology, Linguistics, Geography, and Ethnohistory. PhD dissertation, Lund University.
Greenhill, S. 2014. Demographic correlates of language diversity. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 557–578. London: Routledge.
Güldemann, T. & Hammarström, H. 2020. Geographical axis effects in large-scale linguistic distributions. In Language Dispersal, Diversification, and Contact: A Global Perspective, E. I. Crevels, J.-M. Hombert & P. C. Muysken (eds). Oxford: OUP.
Gumperz, J. J. & R. Wilson. 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (ed.), 151–167. Cambridge: CUP.
Haspelmath, M. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. 

Heine, B. & Leyew, Z. 2008. Is Africa a linguistic area? In A Linguistic Geography of Africa, B. Heine & D. Nurse (eds), 15–35. Cambridge: CUP.
Joseph, B. 2010. Language contact in the Balkans. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 618–633. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Lindstedt, J. 2000. Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In Languages in Contact, D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne & J. Schaeken (eds), 231–261. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Mace, R. & Pagel, M. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 261(1360): 117–121. 

Masica, C. 2001. The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods, pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic area). In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001. Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages: Contact, Convergence and Typology, R. Singh, P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (eds), 205–267. New Delhi: Sage.
Matras, Y. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Y. Matras & J. Sakel (eds), 31–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: CUP.
Muysken, P. C. 2010. Scenarios for language contact. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 265–281. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Muysken, P. C. 2012. Modelling the Quechua-Aymara relationship: Sociolinguistic scenarios and possible archaeological evidence. In Archaeology and Language in the Andes, P. Heggarty & D. G. Beresford-Jones (eds), 83–107, Oxford: OUP. 

Muysken, P. C., Hammarström, H., Birchall, J. T. R., van Gijn, R., Krasnoukhova, O. V. & Müller, N. J. 2015. Linguistic areas, bottom-up or top-down? The case of the Guaporé-Mamoré. In Language Contact and Documentation, B. Comrie & L. Golluscio (eds), 205–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: OUP.
Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: OUP.
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Pakendorf, B. 2014. Historical linguistics and molecular anthropology. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, C. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), 627–641. London: Routledge.
Parkvall, M. 2008. Which parts of language are the most stable? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61: 234–250.
Sandfeld, K. 1930. Linguistique balkanique: Problemes et resultats. Paris: E. Champion.
Stolz, T. 2002. No Sprachbund beyond this line. On the age-old discussion of how to define a linguistic area. In Mediterranean Languages. Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000, P. Ramat & T. Stolz (eds.), 259–281. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
Stolz, T. 2006. All or nothing. In Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, Y. Matras, A. McMahon & N. Vincent (eds), 1–31. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. 

Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Trubetskoj, N. S. 1928. Proposition 16. In Actes de 1er Congrès international de linguistes, 17–18. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.
Wichmann, S. & Holman, E. W. 2009. Assessing Temporal Stability for Linguistic Typological Features. Munich: Lincom.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ranacher, Peter, Nico Neureiter, Rik van Gijn, Barbara Sonnenhauser, Anastasia Escher, Robert Weibel, Pieter Muysken & Balthasar Bickel
2021.
Contact-tracing in cultural evolution: a Bayesian mixture model to detect geographic areas of language contact.
Journal of The Royal Society Interface 18:181
► pp. 20201031 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 january 2025. 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.