Glottopedia - User contributions [en]

User:Corinna Handschuh

2007-10-29T16:36:40Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Corinna Handschuh''' Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig

'''Corinna Handschuh'''

Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig

Morphologization

2007-10-29T15:43:30Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Morphologization''' is the process by which linguistic structures which previously belonged to a different domain of grammar become part of the morphological system of a language. In m...

'''Morphologization''' is the process by which linguistic structures which previously belonged to a different domain of grammar become part of the morphological system of a language.

In morphologization "[P]honological processes and syntactic structures [...] become properly an aspect of morphological, rather than phonological or syntactic, organization" (Fox 1995: 102). As pointed out in the previous quote the two sources morphologizied structures can originate from are the phonological and the syntactic domain of grammar. Those two types of morphologization have also been labeled [[dephonologization]] and [[desyntactization]] respectively (Joseph 2003: 473).

===Examples===

'''Morphologization from phonology''':

An example for morphologization of phonological rules is the German plural-[[ablaut]] (see e.g. Lass 1990: 98f). The Old High German productive system of [[vowel harmony]] changed the underlying back vowels of noun-stems to their front counterparts in a class of nouns taking the plural-suffix ''-i''. Those nouns kept the plural-umlaut after vowel harmony was lost. Morphologization set in when via [[analogy]] the umlaut-formation in plural forms was extended to classes of nouns which never had the '-i' plural-suffix. Thus the phonological rule which changed stem-vowels from back to front in the context of the affixal front-vowel ''i'', changed to a morphological rule which led to umlaut-formation in plural-contexts. This strategy has been described as an instance of exaptation by Lass (1990)

'''Morphologization from syntax''':

Morphologization from syntactic structures is one of the core issues dealt with in [[grammaticalization]] theory. All instances where a previously independent word turns into a bound morphological item exemplify the process of morphologization. One example is the French adverb-forming suffix ''-ment'', which has its origin in the Latin noun stem ''ment-'' 'mind' (Joseph 2003:472f.). This is a clear instance of the path from independent noun (syntactic item) to dependent affix (morphological item).

===References===

*Fox, Anthony. 1995. ''Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to Theory and Method.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Joseph, Brian D. 2003. Morphologization from Syntax. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.) ''The Handbook of Historical Linguistics.'' Oxford: Blackwell, 529--551.
*Lass, Roger. 1990. How to Do Things with Junk: Exaption in Language Evolution. ''Journal of Linguistics'' 26, 79--102.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Syntacticization

2007-10-29T15:42:06Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Syntactization''' is the process by which pragmatic principles are turned into grammatical/syntactic structures. Givón (1979: 208) distinguishes between the following four types of sy...

'''Syntactization''' is the process by which pragmatic principles are turned into grammatical/syntactic structures.

Givón (1979: 208) distinguishes between the following four types of syntactization:

# Diachronic: Loose [[parataxis]] --> Tight syntax
# Ontogenetic: Early pragmatic mode --> Later syntactic mode
# Pidgin-Creoles: Nongrammar --> Grammar
# Register level: Unplanned-informal speech --> Planned-formal speech

According to Givón (ibid.) all of those four domains have in common that "loose, paratactic, 'pragmatic' discourse structures" are turned "into tight, 'grammaticalized' syntactic structures".

===Examples===

Diachronic syntactization can be witnessed e.g. when (discourse) topics turn into (grammatical) subjects in a language.

In the development from a [[pidgin]] to a [[creole language]] the change from massive word-order variation between the individual speakers of a pidgin to a more predictable word-order of the creole language-community has been reported.

===Origin===
The term was coined by [[T. Givón]], and apparently first used in Givón 1979.

===Reference===

*Givón, Talmy. 1979. ''On Understanding Grammar.'' Ch. 5, Syntactization. New York: Academic Press.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Cryptanalysis

2007-10-29T15:40:58Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: In '''cryptanalysis''', a meaning which is already encoded in a form/construction is encoded again, because the original encoding of the meaning is opaque for the listener and/or speaker. ...

In '''cryptanalysis''', a meaning which is already encoded in a form/construction is encoded again, because the original encoding of the meaning is opaque for the listener and/or speaker. Cryptanalysis is one of the four mechanisms of [[form-function reanalysis]] established by Croft (2000).

===Example===

Instances of cryptanalysis are often found with [[acronym]]s, where the original meanings of the individual letters are not clear to the speaker. Many speakers add to the form PIN (personal identification number) an additional 'number' cf. PIN-number, because the literal meaning of this acronym is not clear to them.

===Reference===

*Croft, William. 2000. ''Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective,'' ch. 5. Form-function reanalysis. Harlow: Longman, 117-144.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Hypoanalysis

2007-10-29T15:40:17Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Hypoanalysis''' is a mechanism through which a linguistic unit gains new meaning or function. It takes place in a situation where the hearers interpret some meaning or function which is...

'''Hypoanalysis''' is a mechanism through which a linguistic unit gains new meaning or function. It takes place in a situation where the hearers interpret some meaning or function which is provided by the linguistic context the item occurs in as an inherent semantic or functional property of this item.

Hyperanalysis is one of the four mechanisms of [[form-function reanalysis]] established by Croft (2000). He also refers to this mechanism as "underanalysis". The opposite process is at work in the mechanism of [[hyperanalysis]].

===References===

*Croft, William. 2000. ''Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective,'' ch. 5. Form-function reanalysis. Harlow: Longman, 117--144.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Hyperanalysis

2007-10-29T15:39:33Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: Through '''hyperanalysis''', a linguistic unit loses a part or all of its meaning or function. This process takes place in a situation where the hearers interpret some inherent semanti...

Through '''hyperanalysis''', a [[linguistic unit]] loses a part or all of its meaning or function. This process takes place in a situation where the hearers interpret some inherent semantic or functional property of a linguistic unit as given by the context the item occurs in.

Hyperanalysis is one of the four mechanisms of [[form-function reanalysis]] established by Croft (2000). He also refers to this mechanism as "overanalysis". The opposite process is at work in the mechanism of [[hypoanalysis]].

==References==

*[[Croft, William]]. 2000. ''Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective,'' ch. 5. Form-function reanalysis. Harlow: Longman, 117-144.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Grammatikalisierungskanal

2007-10-29T15:38:40Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: Ein '''Grammatikalisierungskanal''' beschreibt den abstrakten Weg, den eine Form/Konstruktion beim Wandel von Lexem (Inhaltswort) zu Grammem (Funktionswort/Funktionsaffix), im Zuge...

Ein '''Grammatikalisierungskanal''' beschreibt den abstrakten Weg, den eine Form/Konstruktion beim Wandel von [[Lexem]] (Inhaltswort) zu [[Grammem]] (Funktionswort/Funktionsaffix), im Zuge seiner [[Grammatikalisierung]] durchläuft. Die Existenz solcher abstrakten Kanäle der Grammatikalisierung, wird angenommen, da für Elemente mit der selben Bedeutung in ganz unterschiedlichen Sprachen oft die selben Sprachwandelprozesse beobachten lassen.

===Beispiele===

Den folgenden Grammatikalisierungskannat nimmt Lehmann (1987) unter anderem für das Japanische, Türkische, Quetchua und Tamil an:

*relationale Substantive > Adpositionen > Kasusaffixe

Eine abstraktere Darstellung der Form eines Grammatikalisierungskannals ist die von Hopper & Traugott (2003:7):

*Inhaltswort >grammatisches Wort > Klitikon > Inflektionsaffix

===Herkunft===

Der Begriff des Grammatikalisierungskanals wurde von [[Christian Lehmann]] in seinen Arbeiten zur Grammatikalisierung (etwa Lehmann 1982) eingeführt.

:::*''"A grammaticalization channel is a frequently recurring route which signs with a given function may take when they are grammaticalized in language change."'' Lehmann (1982)

===Andere Sprachen===

Im Englischen sind die in analogen Termini [[grammaticalization path]] oder [[grammaticalization cline]] gebräuchlicher. Eine wörtlich Übersetztung von Lehmanns Terminus als [[grammaticalization channel]] wird eher selten verwendet.

===Literatur===

*Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. ''Grammaticalization.'' 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Lehmann, Christian. 1982. ''Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic sketch.'' Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
*Lehmann, Christian. 1987. Sprachwandel und Typologie. In Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner & Stolz, Thomas (Hrsg.) ''Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel un seine Bestimmenden Faktoren.'' Bochum: Brockmeyer, 201-225.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Resumptive pronoun

2007-10-29T15:36:28Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: A '''resumptive pronoun''' is a pronoun that refers back to a previously realized item within the same syntactic structure. Resumptive pronouns are often found in relative clauses, wh...

A '''resumptive pronoun''' is a pronoun that refers back to a previously realized item within the same syntactic structure.

Resumptive pronouns are often found in [[relative clause]]s, where they are realized twice -- once as relative pronoun and once as resumptive pronoun.

In [[generative syntax]], resumptive pronouns are seen as an alternative strategy to movement (Haegeman 1994: 409), they are spell-out forms, where otherwise (i.e. if movement would have applied properly) only invisible [[trace]]s would be left.

===Examples===

The strategy to form relative clauses with resumptive pronouns is applied in non-standard [[French]]:

{|
| Voici || l'homme || que || Marie || '''lui''' || a || parlé

|-
| here_is || the_man || that || Marie || to_him || has || talked
|}

'Here is the man that Marie has talked to' (cited after Haegeman 1994: 409)

===Reference===

*Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. ''Introduction to Government and Binding Theory.'' 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

[[Category:Syntax]]

Metanalysis

2007-10-29T15:34:59Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Metanalysis''' is the reinterpretation of the relation between form and function within an utterance. This is the case when the meaning which was originally associated with a specif...

'''Metanalysis''' is the [[reinterpretation]] of the relation between form and function within an utterance.
This is the case when the meaning which was originally associated with a specific part of a construction (e.g. a morpheme or a phrase) is associated with a different part of that construction by the hearers and/or speakers.

Metanalysis is one of the four mechanisms of form-function reanalysis established by Croft (2000).
It consists of the parallel application of the two mechanisms of [[hyperanalysis]] and [[hypoanalysis]].

===Example===

Examples of metanalysis are the French [[bipartite negation]] constructions ''ne ... pas'', ''ne ... plus'', ''ne ... personne'' and so on. Originally these constructions received their negative meaning from the element ''ne'', while the other constituent added emphatic power to the construction as a whole. Nowadays the formally emphatic elements ''pas'', ''personne'' etc. have received a negating meaning on their own. In colloquial French they often occur as the only negating item in utterances, the use of ''ne'' is no longer obligatory.

===Other meanings===
The term ''metanalysis'' also occurs in [[Otto Jespersen]]'s writings, in the sense of what nowadays is called [[reanalysis]].

===Origin===

The term was invented by Croft (2000) in analogy to the morphophonemic process of ''metathesis''. This process describes the alternation of the linear order on the segmental tier of a word.

===Reference===

*[[Croft, William]]. 2000. ''Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective,'' ch. 5. Form-function reanalysis. Harlow: Longman, 117-144.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Impersonal construction

2007-10-29T15:33:27Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: An '''impersonal construction''' is a clausal construction in which no subject is realized. ===Examples=== The following examples are impersonal constructions from German: {| |...

An '''impersonal construction''' is a clausal construction in which no [[subject]] is realized.

===Examples===

The following examples are impersonal constructions from [[German]]:

{|
|Es ||wird ||getanzt.
|-
|EXPLETIVE ||AUX ||dance.PARTICIPLE
|}

''Dancing is going on.''

{|
|Man ||trägt ||diesen ||Sommer ||weiß.
|-
|one ||wear.3SG ||this ||summer ||white
|}

''One wears white this summer.''

[[Japanese]] does not require an overt/dummy subject, as is demonstrated in this example:

{|
|Nichiyobi ||heiten
|-
|sunday ||close.shop||
|}
''We are closed on Sundays.'' (cited after Yamamoto 2006: 4)

===Comments===

In the recent linguistic literature, a clear distinction has been made between [[passive]]s and impersonal constructions (cf. Blevins 2003, Yamamoto 2006).

:::*''"Whereas passivization detransitivizes a verb by deleting its logical subject, impersonalization preserves transitivity, and merely inhibits the syntactic realization of a surface subject."'' (Blevins 2003).

The non-realized subjects of impersonals are often interpreted as indefinite human agents, thus those constructions are often only possible with verbs which select a human agent. In languages which require an overt subject (i.e. languages not allowing [[pro-drop]]) a [[dummy subject]] is used.

===Synonym===
*''subjectless construction''

===References===

*Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and Impersonals. ''Journal of Linguistics'' 39: 473-520.

*Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 2006. ''Agency and Impersonality. Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestation.'' Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

[[Category:Syntax]]

Grammaticalization path

2007-10-29T15:31:35Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: A '''grammaticalization path''' is the pathway a form or construction takes during grammaticalization. The change from a lexical item to a grammatical form does not take place in o...

A '''grammaticalization path''' is the pathway a form or construction takes during [[grammaticalization]]. The change from a [[lexical item]] to a grammatical form does not take place in one abrupt event. It is rather characterized by a "series of small transmissions, that tend to be similar in type across languagers" (Hopper & Traugott 2003:6). Due to the observation that in grammaticalization, languages tend to take the same route, theoreticians have proposed abstract, supposedly universal pathways of grammaticalization.

===Example===

Hopper & Traugott (2003:7) give the following prototypical form of a grammaticalization path:

*content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

Like all proposed grammaticalization paths, the one cited from Hopper & Traugott is a one-way street, the reverse order is believed to be non-existent. This reflects the [[unidirectionality]] hypothesis of grammaticalization.

===Comment===

Grammaticalization paths are traditionally understood as instantiations of [[drift]] rather than [[external change|contact-induced change]], since they have "usually been viewed as independent, language internal changes" (Heine & Kuteva 2005:14).

===Synonyms===
*[[grammaticalization cline]]
*[[grammaticalization channel]]
*[[grammaticalization chain]]

===References===

*Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. ''Grammaticalization.'' 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2005. ''Language Contact and Grammatical Change.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Cognate

2007-10-29T15:29:40Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: A '''cognate''' is a form in a language which corresponds to a form in another language (or a different variety of the same language, or even to a different form within the same language/v...

A '''cognate''' is a form in a language which corresponds to a form in another language (or a different variety of the same language, or even to a different form within the same language/variety) due to a historical/genealogical relationship between the two forms.

Two cognate forms can be traced back to one common [[proto-form]]. In most cases the two forms will have undergone sound and/or meaning changes and will therefore no longer be identical in their phonetic form and/or meaning.

===Comments===
By comparing a set of cognates in two related languages [[regular sound correspondences]] can be established with the [[comparative method]]. In this way [[sound change]]s like the ones described by [[Grimm's Law]] can be recognized.

Historical continuity between the forms compared is a necessary condition to be considered cognate. Yet, several factors lead to lack in continuity. Fox (1995: 62f.) lists replacement of words and remodeling via [[analogy]] as the main factors for this. He further notes that replacement of a word by a [[loan]] from a related language or dialect as well as similarity of forms due to "universal processes of invention" (such as [[onomatopoeia]]) can often lead to a wrong assumption of continuity and/or relatedness.

===Reference===

*Fox, Anthony. 1995. ''Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to Theory and Method.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[[Category:Cognate]]

Typological consistency

2007-10-29T15:28:14Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: The theory of '''typological consistency''' states that languages can be classified as belonging to a certain type to which they ideally conform in all domains of their morpho-syntax. Ty...

The theory of '''typological consistency''' states that languages can be classified as belonging to a certain type to which they ideally conform in all domains of their morpho-syntax.

Typological consistency does not imply that all languages are consistent in type at all stages in their history. This should be clear from "the fact that few languages are entirely consistent in one type or the other means that these constraints cannot be in any way absolute" (Fox 1995:262). Yet, all languages being inconsistent in type are taken to be in a transition (or [[drift]]) from one type to another.

In the standard work on typological consistency two basic types of language are distinguished, those where (direct) objects precede the verb (OV), and those where they follow the verb (VO).

==History and proponents of the concept==

[[Greenberg's Universals]] of word order typology (1963) have revealed a striking positive correlation between the order of head and modifier in the verb phrase (VP) and the ordering of head noun and the modifiers in the noun phrase (NP). Winfred P. Lehmann generalized over Greenberg’s data and came up with a theory that claimed the existence of to basic types of languages depending on whether the verb precedes the (direct) object (VO) or the object precedes the verb (OV).

"In VO languages, nominal modifiers such as relative, adjectival, and genitival expressions follow nouns; in OV languages they precede nouns." (Lehmann 1973:48). Apart from the tendency to conform to one head-type within different parts of syntax, Lehmann (1973) noted a tendency of OV languages to be agglutinating and VO languages to be inflecting, a property he also believed to be related to the type of the language.

Next to Lehmann, Theo Vennemann is one of the main proponents of the theory of typological consistency. His two types of languages are labeled as VX and XV rather than VO/OV, yet those labels are interchangeable.
He formulates Lehmann's idea as that of "a mechanical correlation of such kind that when a language changes its basic verb position, the correlated phenomena will also change in time" and criticizes that no further explanations are given on the nature of this correlation or its motivation (Vennemann 1974:345).

==Alternate explanations and criticism==

As noted before one important factor within the theory of typological consistency is the impact of the ordering of constituents within the VP. In other words, the order within the VP, namely the order of verb (head) and object (modifier), is treated as the core criterion the rest of the grammar will eventually conform to. A change of head-structure in the VP will eventually lead to a change in the noun phrase. Givón (1975:89) notes that this has generally been assumed to be "the work of analogy", yet he proposes a different explanation for the observed patter. He claims that OV nominal compounds (derived from object initial VPs) are analyzed as NN compounds (Genitive initial NPs), and thus he labels the Genitive as "the spearhead of the invasion of OV syntax into the noun phrase." (Givón 1975:90).

Comrie (1981:204ff) criticizes the concept of typological consistency in two general points. First, since the concept of [[drift]] is introduced, and most actual languages are indeed believed to be in a transitory state from one type to the other, the theory is not able to make "any predictions about the distribution of language types". And secondly, that it gives no account on "why the inconsistency should have arisen" at all.

==References==

*Comrie, Bernard. 1981. ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology''. Oxford: Blackwell.

*Fox, Anthony. 1995. ''Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to Theory and Method.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.

*Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial Verbs and Syntactic Change: Niger-Congo. In Li, Charles N. (ed.) ''Word Order and Word Order Change''

*Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Denning, Keith & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.). 1990. ''On language. Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg.'' Stanford: Stanford University Press, 40--70.

*Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications. ''Language'' 49,1, 47--66.

*Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics Subjects, and Word Order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In: Anderson, J. M. & Jones C. (eds.) ''Historical Linguistics I''. Amsterdam, Oxford: North-Holland, 339--376.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Radical reanalysis

2007-10-29T15:26:58Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Radical reanalysis''' is the reinterpretation of a linguistic unit as belonging to a new grammatical category not present in the respective grammar before. A radical reanal...

'''Radical reanalysis''' is the [[reinterpretation]] of a [[linguistic unit]] as belonging to a new [[grammatical category]] not present in the respective grammar before.

A radical reanalysis is a special form of the more general concept of [[reanalysis]], which is defined "as change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation. Reanalysis may lead to changes at the surface level [...] but these surface changes can be viewed as the natural and expected result of functionally prior modifications in rules and underlying representations" (Langacker 1977: 58).

The same principles hold for a radical reanalysis, yet the changes on the underlying level are more drastic in so far as a new category is introduced to the grammar of the language.

===Example===

In sixteenth century English "a reanalysis of 'cunnan, magan, etc.', as a new category, 'modal' " took place (Lightfoot 1979:101). At this time a number of developments took place which formally distinguished this class of verbs from all other verbs. Among those developments were the development of the new infinitival construction with ''to'' for non-modal verbs, the loss of the subject-verb inversion construction for non-modal verbs, and the inability of modals to appear with the verb to have or in the past-participle form ''-en'' (also the past meaning of some of the forms, which were originally past tense, was lost) among other changes.

From those data Lightfoot concluded that "a radical re-analysis of pre-modals of the kind suggested here accounts naturally for the simultaneity of the seven changes taking place in the sixteenth century" (Lightfoot 1979:113).

===Origin===

The idea that "grammars can undergo radical re-structurings" was proposed by Lightfoot (1979: 81). He argued for this possibility on basis of his "paradigm case" of the English modals.

Other historical linguists remained skeptical towards the idea of radical reanalysis. Most preferred the idea of linguistic change as a gradual process rather than an abrupt switching of parameters (see McMahon 1994 for a summary of the criticism). Lightfoot's theory has been referred to as the "catastrophe theory of historical syntax" (McMahon 1994:116) in reference to his idea that a simple modification in the speakers' internal grammars can cause all the syntactic changes discussed for the case of English (pre-) modals.

===References===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In: Li, Charles N. (ed.) ''Mechanisms of Syntactic Change.'' Austin, London: University of Texas Press, 57--139.
*Lightfoot, David. 1979. ''Principles of Diachronic Syntax.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*McMahon, April. 1994. ''Understanding Language Change.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[[Category:Diachrony]]

Normal transmission

2007-10-29T15:25:19Z

Corinna Handschuh: New page: '''Normal transmission''' is the non-interrupted transmission of a language from one generation of speakers to the next one. In normal transmission the language is passed on to the child g...

'''Normal transmission''' is the non-interrupted transmission of a language from one generation of speakers to the next one. In normal transmission the language is passed on to the child generation from the parent generation and/or the peer group, "with relatively small degrees of change over the short run"(Thomason & Kaufmann 1988: 9f.).

===Example===
A typical example of languages where there has been a break in transmission are [[creole]] languages and all other types of [[mixed language]]s.

===Comments===

Only if a language has undergone normal transmission can it be [[genealogical classification|genealogically classified]], which means there is one and only one direct [[parent]] of that language. To claim genealogical continuity of a language "entails systematic correspondences in all parts of the grammar because that is what results from normal transmission: what is transferred in normal transmission is an entire language---that is, a complex set of interrelated lexicon, phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic structures."(Thomason & Kaufmann 1988: 11).

===Reference===

*Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufmann, Terrence. 1988. ''Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics.'' Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

[[Category:Diachrony]]