19.05.2014 Views

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

SALIENCE IN LANGUAGE CHANGE<br />

• <strong>The</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic component (level) affected<br />

• Simplification (vs. complication): a loss <strong>of</strong> irregularity <strong>in</strong> morphology and<br />

an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>variable word forms (Mühlhäusler 1977, cited <strong>in</strong> Trudgill<br />

1986:103; Mühlhäusler 1980, cited <strong>in</strong> Siegel 1985)<br />

• Reduction (impoverishment): “those processes that lead to a decrease <strong>in</strong><br />

the referential or non-referential potential <strong>of</strong> a language” (Mühlhäusler<br />

1980:21), <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g, for example, a reduced vocabulary or fewer stylistic<br />

devices<br />

• Admixture: the use <strong>of</strong> items (usually lexical, but also phonological,<br />

morphological or syntactic) from more than one variety<br />

• Levell<strong>in</strong>g: the decrease <strong>in</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> variants <strong>of</strong> a particular<br />

phonological, morphological or lexical unit <strong>in</strong> a given dialect area, usually<br />

result<strong>in</strong>g from the loss <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority or marked forms found <strong>in</strong> the different<br />

varieties spoken<br />

As can be seen, these outcomes refer to a comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal and external<br />

factors: the first four refer to changes <strong>in</strong> the language structure, while the fifth<br />

refers to a purely sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic notion, that <strong>of</strong> the reduction <strong>in</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong><br />

variability <strong>in</strong> a speech community.<br />

4. Trudgill’s notion <strong>of</strong> ‘salience’<br />

However, there is a further set <strong>of</strong> factors which affect the outcomes <strong>of</strong> dialect<br />

contact. Trudgill refers to these collectively as contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the salience <strong>of</strong><br />

particular features. Trudgill’s basic idea is that features which are adopted <strong>in</strong><br />

dialect contact are salient. He takes as his start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t a brief analysis <strong>of</strong><br />

‘markers’, def<strong>in</strong>ed by Labov as l<strong>in</strong>guistic variables to which speakers can pay<br />

more or less conscious attention (as opposed to ‘<strong>in</strong>dicators’, to which<br />

speakers do not pay conscious attention). Trudgill lists the follow<strong>in</strong>g as<br />

factors lead<strong>in</strong>g to variables becom<strong>in</strong>g markers, and therefore salient (adapted<br />

from Trudgill 1986:11):<br />

• <strong>The</strong> variable has at least one variant which is overtly stigmatised<br />

• <strong>The</strong> variable has a high-status prestige variant reflected <strong>in</strong> the orthography<br />

• <strong>The</strong> variable is undergo<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>guistic change<br />

71

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!