Before I take a quick look at the seven mechanisms of language change described by Thomason, three preliminary observations must be mentioned. One will never be able to trace the full course of any linguistic change, whether a linguistic change is possible is settled as soon as an innovation appears, and there are no absolute linguistic constraints on interference.
(Thomason 2001:130f) I shortly want to describe the linguistic mechanisms and try to find examples from Australia.
II. 5. 1. Code Switching
This is the most studied mechanism of all and describes the use of material from two (or more) languages by a single speaker in the same conversation. (Thomason 2001:131) There are two broad patterns in code switching: “one involving alternation of structures from two languages, the other insertion of elements from one language into the morphosyntactic frame of the other.” (Winford 2003:165) Scholars argue about the relationship between code switching and contact-induced language change – at one extreme, any connection between the two is denied and it is claimed that code switching never leads to borrowing. The other extreme claims that only through code switching foreign morphemes can become incorporated into a language. Of course, neither position can fit all available data. (Thomason 2001:132)
Kneebone states that fluency in English and German was attested for several members of the Dieri Christian community. Hymns were sung in English, German, and Dieri and it can be assumed that mission members were generally familiar with English pidgin forms. Instances of code-switching in conversations and letters are attested. (Kneebone 2005:66f)
Page 31 of 164 II. 5. 2. Code Alternation
The other common type of behaviour among fluent bilinguals is code alternation. The phenomenon also describes the use of two (or more) languages by the same speaker, but not in the same conversation with the same speaker. (Thomason 2001:136) Examples for this kind of alternation and proof for its relevance to contact-induced change are hard to find. This is mainly due to a lack of available literature, which is again due to difficulties arising in distinguishing code switching and code alternation or describing a mixture of both. The phenomenon has not been thoroughly studied yet and is mainly anecdotal. (Thomason 2001:137)
In Australia, code alternation is probably a very prominent feature of today‟s Aboriginal peoples as well as those of former generations. I have already mentioned several times the usual bilingualism among the Indigenous people prior to European arrival. It is likely that code alternation was rampant there. Today English is very often the language Aboriginal people speak at work, switching to an Indigenous language or Aboriginal English at home.
II. 5. 3. Passive Familiarity
“Contact-induced language change through passive familiarity occurs when a speaker acquires a feature from a language that s/he understands (at least to some extent) but has never spoken actively at all.” Mostly this phenomenon takes place among languages closely related to each other, but it is also possible if this is not the case. (Thomason 2001:139) Using the scarce available data on passive familiarity the mode appears to be borrowing. (Thomason 2001:142)
Once again, the closely related languages and dialects of Aboriginal Australia provide numerous examples as well as English as a source language. It is likely that non-Dieri children at Lake Killalpaninna borrowed some features of Dieri into their own native languages and dialects without actively speaking Dieri.
Page 32 of 164 II. 5. 4. ‘Negotiation’34
This mechanism works when speakers change their language (A) to approximate what they believe to be the patterns of another language or dialect (B) and can involve bilingual as well as monolingual speakers. If speakers of A are fluent in B, both languages will eventually converge, if speakers are not fluent in B, the languages may or may not converge, and if both A and B speakers engage in negotiation, results can be two changed languages A and B or a new language. (Thomason 2001:142)
Pidgins, which I have already looked at in a previous chapter, are a classic example for the latter case.
II. 5. 5. Second-Language Acquisition Strategies
„Negotiation‟ is one way for second-language learners to deal with difficulties in the second language input they receive. Other strategies include what Thomason calls the gap-filling approach. Here, native language material functions to plug knowledge holes while speaking the target language. This involves lexical items as well as structural features. Another tactic is to maintain distinctions and other patterns from the native language into the target language‟s grammar. A final strategy involves ignoring distinctions, especially marked distinctions, that are present in the target language but unclear to learners at early to middle stages of the learning process. These errors are among the most common of shift-induced interference features. (Thomason 2001:146ff)
II. 5. 6. Bilingual First-Language Acquisition
The clearest examples of this mechanism of contact-induced language change are relatively easily borrowed syntactic features such as word order patterns and nonsalient phonological features like intonation patterns. The changes come about in bilingual children learning two languages and are seldom detected by their monolingual parents. Yet, new structures can be created. (Thomason 2001:148)
34 The quotation marks are meant as a warning that the term is not to be taken literally, in the sense of deliberate conscious negotiation between speakers of contact languages. (Thomason 2001:142)
Page 33 of 164 II. 5. 7. Deliberate Decision
Mostly, contact-induced changes made by speakers as deliberate decisions are rather trivial and mainly involve the adoption of loanwords. (Thomason 2001:149) In Australia, the most obvious examples are Aboriginal words for plants, animals, and landscape features that have been taken over by English and from there to many other languages that are themselves influenced by English.35 Only on rare occasions, deliberate decisions have changed more sincere parts of a language‟s lexicon and structure. (Thomason 2001:149) Deliberate changes in languages by mostly small groups of speakers are often, as already mentioned, the result of a wish to differentiate oneself from neighbouring communities.
All of these mechanisms can be distinguished in principle and sometimes one will operate alone, yet, in reality, it will usually be impossible to discover which mechanism has produced a given change. (Thomason 2001:152)