Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

Individual variation in contact effects – stability, convergence, and divergence

ORCID logo | Tilburg University,
| Tilburg University,
| Tilburg University,
In this study, we investigate the contact effects of stability, convergence, and divergence regarding the use of the same linguistic construction in the same contact situation. To do that, we collected experimental production and judgment data by native German speakers living in the Netherlands regarding their usage of the complementizer um ‘to’ in German and compared those data to those of a control group of German speakers not in contact with Dutch. The results show that most speakers show evidence for some contact-induced language change in their German. At the same time, speakers seem to experience different contact effects, demonstrating that it is not the structural properties of the construction that result in one effect over the other, but rather factors that pertain to the individual speakers. In particular, we argue that speakers can either focus on the similarities or on the differences between their languages, to some extent driven by their attitudes towards their languages and language change, and then over-generalize these similarities or differences to new contexts. Overall, this result clearly underlines the importance of focusing on individual speakers as the initiators of language change, which is in line with a usage-based approach.
Keywords: language contact, individual variation, stability, convergence, divergence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Complementizer om/um in Dutch and German
      • 1.1.1Complete overlap
      • 1.1.2Partial overlap
      • 1.1.3No overlap
    • 1.2Research aim
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Design and stimuli
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Stimuli selection
    • 2.5Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Complete overlap
    • 3.2Partial overlap
    • 3.3No overlap
    • 3.4Correlation across sentence types
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Individual variation in contact effects
    • 4.2Individual variation in cross-linguistic generalization
    • 4.3Conclusion
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22067.bar
References (43)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Mechanisms of change in areal diffusion: New morphology and language contact. Journal of Linguistics, 39 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barking, M., Backus, A., & Mos, M. (2022). Similarity in Language Transfer  Investigating Transfer of Light Verb Constructions From Dutch to German. Journal of Language Contact, 151, 198–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barking, M., Mos, M., & Backus, A. (2023). Investigating Language Transfer from a Usage-Based Perspective. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–24.Google Scholar
Brons-Albert, R. (1992). Verlust der Muttersprache in fremdsprachiger Umgebung. Info DaF, 19 (3), 315–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Interferenzfehler in der Muttersprache von in den Niederlanden lebenden Deutschen. In B. Spillner (Ed.), Nachbarsprachen in Europa (pp. 96–104). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19 (2), 225–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Different speakers , different grammars – Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2 (3), 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics, 31 (2), 213–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Pascual, E., Macías-Gómez-Estern, B., & Llompart, M. (2023). Literacy-related differences in morphological knowledge: A nonce-word study, Frontiers in Psychology, 141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2016). Entrenchment effects in language change. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.) Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 75–99). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, C. van, Dijkstra, T., & Unsworth, S. (2022). Cross-linguistic influence during online sentence processing in bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25 1, 691–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franke, K. (2008). “We call it Springbok-German!”: Language Contact in the German Communities in South Africa. Monash University.Google Scholar
Friðriksson, F. (2008). Language change vs. stability in conservative language communities: A case study of Icelandic Academic Dissertation in Linguistics, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Gertken, L. M., Amengual, M., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Assessing language dominance with the Bilingual Language Profile. In P. Leclercq, A. Edmonds, & H. Hilton (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA (1st ed., pp. 208–225). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 219–234. 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Maehlum (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar (pp. 137–152). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms (pp. 39–62). John 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, 37–70.Google Scholar
Hubers, F., Trompenaars, T., Collin, S., Schepper, K. D. E., & De Hoop, H. (2020). Hypercorrection as a By-product of Education. Applied Linguistics, 41 (4), 552–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2013). The scope of usage-based theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 1(MAY), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2002). Japanese learners ’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational / directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18 (1), 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, R. D., & Auger, J. (1992). Quantitative evidence, qualitative hypercorrection, sociolinguistic variables-And French speakers’ ’eadhaches with english h/Ø. Language and Communication, 12 (3–4), 195–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 63 (2), 210–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühl, K., & Braunmüller, K. (2014). Linguistic stability and divergence : an extended perspective on language contact. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms (pp. 1–38). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German – Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (1), 222–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (1st ed.). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Entrenchment in cognitive Grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.) Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 39–56). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Lognostics.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. (2005). Contact-induced linguistic innovations on the continuum of language use: The case of French in Ontario. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8 (2), 99–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition : Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ribbert, A., & Kuiken, F. (2010). L2-induced changes in the L1 of Germans living in the Netherlands. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (1), 41–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage , conventionalization , and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and Its Psychological Foundations. In H. J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (1st ed., pp. 9–36). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. In P. Uhrig & Th. Herbst (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 3–25). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (2012). Grammatical collocations and verb-particle constructions in Brussels French: A corpus-linguistic approach to transfer. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (1), 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Mougeon, R. (2005). The role of transfer in language variation and change: Evidence from contact varieties of French. Bilingualism, 8 (2), 93–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Sakel, J. (2012). Why transfer is a key aspect of language use and processing in bilinguals and L2-users. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (1), 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2023). Shared syntax and cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children. Evidence from between-and within-language priming. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, online first: 10 October 2023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, L., & Yuan, B. (2023). What looks native-like may not necessarily be native-like. Evidence from L2 Chinese covert objects. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, online first: 14 September 2023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, C. (2021). Sprachliche Charakteristika des Deutschen in Namibia – ein korpusbasierter Überblick. Sprachwissenschaft, 46 (2), 227–266.Google Scholar