Advertisement

Understanding Linguistic Features of Estonian-Latvian Bilingual Speech

  • Anna VerschikEmail author
  • Elīna Bone
Chapter
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 26)

Abstract

The current paper is a case study of Estonian-Latvian individual bilingualism. Estonian and Latvian belong to different language families (respectively Finnic branch of Uralic and Baltic branch of Indo-European). The case is instructive because it demonstrates that there is no significant differences between impact in imposition (L1 Estonian > L2 Latvian) and in adoption (L2 Latvian > L1 Estonian). This is at odds with Thomason and Kaufman (Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press, Berkley, 1988) who argue that impact of L1 is in phonology and grammar and impact of L2 mostly in lexicon, semantics and non-core morphosyntax. The data are analyzed in Code-Copying Framework (CCF, Johanson L, Code-copying in immigrant Turkish. In Extra G, Verhoeven L (eds) Immigrant languages in Europe. Multilingual matters, Clevedon, pp 197–221, 1993; Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Jones MC, Esch E (eds) Language change: the interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, Contribution to the sociology of language, vol 86. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 285–313, 2002) because it takes into consideration bidirectionality of contact-induced language change and provides a holistic view on lexicon and morphosyntax (they are not separated in CCF). The similar character of adoption and imposition can be explained by (1) cognitive factors (lack of strict boundaries between the systems, also demonstrated by compromise morphosyntax); (2) individual factors (balanced bilingualism, individual linguistic flexibility), (3) structural factors (material similarity in common borrowings and common internationalisms) and (4) certain sociolinguistic factors (two countries with a fairly similar sociolinguistic and political history, roughly equal prestige of both languages, no normative pressure, lack of bilingual community).

Keywords

Language contacts Balanced bilingualism Latvian Estonian Usage based approach Code copying 

Abbreviations

ACC

Accusative

ADES

Adessive

ALL

Allative

DAT

Dative

GEN

Genitive

ILL

Illative

IMPERS

Impersonal

INF

Infinitive

LOC

Locative

NOM

Nominative

PART

Partitive

References

  1. Arkadiev, P., Holvoet, A. & Wiemer, B. (2015). Contemporary approaches to baltic linguistics (Trends in tinguistics. Studies and monographs 276), 1–110. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  2. Auer, P., & Muhamedova, R. (2005). ‘Embedded language’ and ‘matrix language’ in insertional language mixing: Some problematic cases. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di linguista, 17(1.) [special issue Gaetano Berruto (ed.), Commutazione di codice e teoria linguistica), 35–54.Google Scholar
  3. Backus, A. (2001). The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch-Turkish. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II (pp. 125–154). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Backus, A. (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of Language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Backus, A. (2012). A usage-based approach to borrowability. Tilburg papers in culture studies. Paper 27. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/babylon/tpcs/download-tpcs-paper-27.pdf.htm. Accessed on 07.01.2017.Google Scholar
  6. Backus, A. (2015). A usage-based approach to code-switching: A need to reconcile structure and function. In G. Stell & K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 19–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Backus, A., & Dorleijn, M. (2009). Loan translations versus code-switching. In B. Bullock & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 75–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Backus, A., & Verschik, A. (2012). Copiability of (bound) morphology. In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (Vol. 2, pp. 123–149). Boston/Leiden: BRILL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balode, L., & Holvoet, A. (2001). The Latvian language and its dialects. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), The circum-baltic languages: Typology and contact (pp. 3–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Blokland, R. (2012). Borrowability of pronouns: Evidence from Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen, 35, 1–34.Google Scholar
  11. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working papers in Urban Language & Literacies 67.1–26. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/Research-Centres/ldc/publications/workingpapers/the-papers/67.pdf. Accessed on 07.01.2017.
  12. Bušs, O. (2009). Latviešu valodas leksiskie somugrismi: izpētes vēsture un perspektīvas [Loanwords of Finnic origin in Latvian: The history and outlook of the research]. In A. Kalnača (Ed.), Latvian studies and Finno-Ugristics (Scientific papers, University of Latvia. linguistics) (Vol. 746, pp. 27–34). Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Akadēmiskais apgāds http://www.lu.lv/materiali/apgads/raksti/746.pdf#page=27. Accessed on 07.01.2017.
  13. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. Population of Latvia. As of 27.05.2016. http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/notikumi/begging-2016-latvia-population-accounted-171-thousand-persons-less-year-ago-43974.html. Accessed 07.01.2017.
  14. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duyck, W. (2005). Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudohomophones: Evidence for nonselective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1340–1359.Google Scholar
  16. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johanson, L. (1993). Code-copying in immigrant Turkish. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 197–221). Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  18. Johanson, L. (1999). The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In B. Brendemoen, E. Lanza, & E. Ryen (Eds.), Language encounters across time and space (pp. 39–62). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  19. Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, Contribution to the Sociology of Language (Vol. 86, pp. 285–313). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Junttila, S. (2015). Proto-Finnic loanwords in the Baltic languages? An old hypothesis revisited. In S. Junttila (Ed.), Contacts between the Baltic and Finnic languages (pp 12–37). Uralica Helsingiensia 7.Google Scholar
  21. Kask, H. (2016). English-Estonian code-copying in Estonian blogs. In A. Verschik (Ed.), Linguistic, social and cognitive aspects of language contacts and multilingualism [special issue] (pp. 80–101). Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keevallik, L. (2001). Tracing grammaticalization of oota ‘wait’ in Estonian conversation. In I. Tragel (Ed.), Papers in estonian cognitive linguistics (pp. 119–144). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 2.Google Scholar
  23. Laka, I., Santesteban, M., Erdocia, K., & Zawiszewski, A. (2013). The Basque language in the mind of native and non-native bilinguals. In P. Salaburu & X. Alberdi (Eds.), The challenge of a bilingual society in the Basque country, Current Research Series No. 9 (pp. 157–172). Reno: University of Nevada.Google Scholar
  24. Maschler, Y. (1994). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingualconversation. Language in Society, 23(3), 325–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matras, Y. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36(2), 281–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matras, Y. (2012). An activity-oriented approach to contact-induced language change. In C. Chamoreau & I. Léglise (Eds.), Dynamics of contact-induced language change (pp. 17–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Matras, Y. (2013). Languages in contact in a world marked by change and mobility. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée: Langues en contact, 18–2. Liège/Paris: Cairn.info., 7–13.Google Scholar
  30. Muižniece, L., Metslang, H., & Pajusalu, K. (1999). Eesti ja läti keele mineviku partitsiibi finiidistumine [Finitization of Estonian and Latvian past participle]. Keel ja Kirjandus, 8, 522–534.Google Scholar
  31. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of Latvia. Population by ethnic nationality and citizenship. As of 01.07.2016. http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/Iedzivotaju%20re%C4%A3istrs/0107iedzregj/ISVN_Latvija_pec_TTB_VPD.pdf. Accessed on 07.01.2017.
  33. Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Praakli, K. (2009). Esimese põlvkonna Soome eestlaste kakskeelne keelekasutus ja koodikopeerimine [Language use and code-copying among first generation Estonians in Finland]. PhD thesis, Tartu University Press, Tartu.Google Scholar
  35. Salmons, J. (1990). Bilingual discourse marking: Code switching, borrowing and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics, 28, 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Statistics Estonia. Population and housing census of 2011. http://www.stat.ee/sdb-update?db_update_id=13545. Accessed on 07.01.2017.
  37. Stolz, T. (1991). Sprachbund im Balticum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft [Sprachbund in the Baltic region? Estonian and Latvian in the centre of a language convergence area]. Bochum: Universtitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  38. Suhonen, S. (1988). Die baltischen Lehnwörter der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen [Baltic lexical borrowings in Finno-Ugric languages]. In D. Sinor (Ed.), The Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences (pp. 596–615). Leiden/New York/København/Köln: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
  39. Thomason, S. G. (1997). On mechanisms of interference. In S. Eliasson & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language and its ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen (pp. 181–207). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Vaba, L. (1997). Uurimusi Läti-Eesti keelesuhetest [Explorations on Latvian-Estonian linguistic interactions]. Tallinn/Helsinki: Eesti keele instituut, Tampereen Yliopiston suomen kielen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitos.Google Scholar
  43. Vaba, L. (1999). Eesti-läti kakskeelsusest Valgas. Vaade ajalukku. [Estonian-Latvian bilingualism in Valga. A historical view]. Keel ja Kirjandus, 8, 535–541.Google Scholar
  44. Vaba, L. (2010). Kuidas Läti-Eesti keelekontakt on mõjutanud eesti murdekeele grammatikat ja sõnamoodustust [How of Latvian-Estonian language contacts have impacted the grammar and word-formation of Estonian dialects]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 56, 204–246.Google Scholar
  45. Van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verschik, A. (2008). Emerging Bilingual Speech: from monolingualism to code-copying. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  47. Verschik, A. (2014a). Estonian-Russian code-copying in Russian-language blogs: Language change and a new kind of linguistic awareness. In V.-A. Vihman & K. Praakli (Eds.), Negotiating linguistic identity (pp. 59–87). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  48. Verschik, A. (2014b). Conjunctions in early Yiddish-Lithuanian bilingualism: Heritage language and contact linguistic perspectives. In H. Paulasto, L. Meriläinen, H. Riionheimo, & M. Kok (Eds.), Language contacts at the crossroads of disciplines (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Verschik, A. (submitted for publication). English-Estonian code-copying in blogs: Combining contact linguistic and cognitive approach.Google Scholar
  50. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact (p. 1). New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
  51. Wertheim, S. (2003). Linguistic purism, language shift, and contact-induced change in Tatar. PhD thesis. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  52. Zabrodskaja, A., & Verschik, A. (2014). Morphology of Estonian items at the interface of Russian-Estonian language contact data. Sociolinguistic Studies, 8(3), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeps, V. (1962). Latvian and Finnic linguistic convergences. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations