Overview of language contact

According to Thomason (Reference Thomason2001: 1), ‘[nontrivial] language contact is the use of more than one language in the same place at the same time [when] at least some people use more than one language’.Footnote ² It is not possible to touch on every possible linguistic outcome of languages in contact, as they are quite numerous (Thomason, Reference Thomason2001). Rather, the focus is on the aspects of contact that are most relevant to the dialects mentioned above. The following paragraphs explain the phenomenon of language shift, the fact that nearly all features of language can be shared through contact and the assertion that contact has always been an important factor in the development of languages.

When languages are in contact, one possible result is language shift (Thomas, Reference Thomason2001: 12; Hickey, Reference Hickey and Hickey2010a: 151–3). Language shift does not necessarily entail a change in the empirical structure of the language; rather, the prestige associated with one language in a certain area becomes associated with another language. This often leads to the increased use of the now dominant language and the decreased use of the now subordinate language (Hickey, Reference Hickey and Hickey2010a). If the shift is so extreme that the subordinate language ceases to be spoken, language death is said to have occurred (Thomason, Reference Thomason2001: 12).Footnote ³ For example, Norn died out in Shetland and Orkney after a language shift instituted Scots as the new language of prestige (Millar, Reference Millar2008: 240–1; Reference Millar2010: 26). However, this is not always the case. In many instances, the languages in contact merely influence each other (Stalmaszczyk, Reference Stalmaszczyk2005), often exchanging or adapting features by means of borrowing (Danchev, Reference Danchev1988; Hickey, Reference Hickey and Hickey2010b).Footnote ⁴ Irish Gaelic, for example, existed healthily alongside English for centuries, exerting its influence (Edwards, Reference Edwards and Trudgill1984; Stalmaszczyk, Reference Stalmaszczyk2005). In both cases, the English dialect in question has been influenced by the substrate language (Hickey, Reference Hickey and Hickey2010b), though in different ways and to different degrees.

In order to properly vet the examples given below, it is necessary to establish that almost any feature of language can be borrowed; that is, that languages in contact can influence nearly any aspect of each other.Footnote ⁵ Thomason (Reference Thomason2001: 11) makes the assertion outright: ‘All aspects of language structure are subject to transfer from one language to another, given the right mix of social and linguistic circumstances’. She goes on to cite various counterexamples to claims that some linguistic features categorically cannot spread from one language to another, reaching the conclusion that there are no such features (Thomason, Reference Thomason2001: 63–5). This sentiment is echoed by Danchev (Reference Danchev1988: 38). Although Hickey seems to generally agree that most linguistic features are borrowable, he identifies several that he claims tend not to be borrowed (Hickey, Reference Hickey and Hickey2010a: 161; Reference Hickey and Hickey2010b: 13). However, the features he lists are beyond the level of detail of this essay, and it is beyond our scope to weigh in on these claims. Therefore, the majority expert opinion will be accepted, and, for the purposes of this essay, any linguistic feature will be considered eligible for borrowing.

Since any aspect of language can potentially be borrowed, the influence of contacting languages on each other is clearly far-reaching. Indeed, it seems a mistake not to take seriously, if not to downright assume, that almost any given language has at some point been influenced by language contact. As Thomason (Reference Thomason2001: 10) has it, ‘… language contact is the norm, not the exception’. This sentiment is echoed by Robinson (Reference Robinson1992), who begins his book by postulating linguistic contact (which he refers to simply as borrowing) as one of the primary means by which languages develop.Footnote ⁶ And since this is the case now, it is intuitively plausible that it has also been so for much of linguistic history. In other words, it seems likely that language contact has been among the driving forces behind linguistic development ever since communities with different languages first began coming into contact. It is important to bear in mind that this omnipresence of language contact operates equally within English as in other languages. It therefore follows that the examples of contact given below may be extended to other dialects of English where merited by the sociolinguistic situation. To reiterate a portion of the introduction, the nearly omnipresent force of contact continuously acts on languages, but in a highly contextual way; that is, the actual effects are unique to each situation, being dictated by a variety of factors, such as economic and military power, populations of speakers and institutional support for one or more of the languages (Thomason, Reference Thomason2001: 20–22, 79–85).

Lexical borrowing

A number of Norn words have been added to the Shetland Scots lexicon through borrowing. This section, in addition to providing a brief sociolinguistic history of the two languages, outlines two studies that describe this borrowing and explains how the examples given demonstrate the process of contact-induced lexical borrowing.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was probably a high degree of bilingualism between Scots and Norn in Shetland (Barnes, Reference Barnes and Trudgill1984). Norn was essentially moribund there by the beginning of the nineteenth century (by rough consensus) (Knooihuizen, Reference Knooihuizen2008: 102). However, its influence on Scots, which became the only commonly spoken language in Shetland (Barnes, Reference Barnes and Trudgill1984), could still be seen during this period of waning, primarily in the form of lexical borrowing (Millar, Reference Millar2008: 253).

The first study discussed here was conducted in 1774 by Low, whose goal was to collect Norn loanwords from speakers of Shetland Scots (Low, Reference Low1879). Table 1 contains a small sample, consolidated in Knooihuizen (Reference Knooihuizen2008). It should be noted that, because Low apparently collected these words while at sea, the words his speakers produced were likely restricted to the group of ‘noa’, or non-taboo, words. Shetland fishermen and seafarers, like many other nautical cultures, had a set of words known as ‘haaf’ words that would not be spoken at sea for fear of bringing bad luck upon those on board the vessel (Knooihuizen, Reference Knooihuizen2008: 106–7).

Table 1: Norn loanwords in Shetland Scots (Knooihuizen, Reference Knooihuizen2008: 105)

The second study was conducted by Jakobsen, who collected a large number of Norn words that still existed in Shetland Scots in 1893 (Knooihuizen, Reference Knooihuizen2008). Jakobsen (Reference Jakobsen1897: 10) notes that ‘… a great number of them are not actually in daily use and only remembered by old people’. Table 2 contains several of these words, which Jakobsen (Reference Jakobsen1897: 14–31) implies could occur with relative freedom in the speech of those who use them. However, some other Norn loanwords are constrained in where they could occur. One such example is hofuð (meaning head), which at the time ‘only survive[d] in place-names in the derivative form …, applied to a headland’ (Jakobsen, Reference Jakobsen1897: 14–15). Similarly, the Norn word koll-r (meaning the part of the head covered with hair) was still occasionally found in Scots, but only in compound words (Jakobsen, Reference Jakobsen1897: 15).Footnote ⁷

Table 2: Norn loanwords in Shetland Scots that occurred freely among older speakers (Jakobsen, Reference Jakobsen1897: 16, 18, 19, 25, 31)

Shetland Scots provides further evidence that the effects of language contact are unpredictable and highly context-dependent. A common generalization about contact-induced borrowing is that the longer two languages are in contact (assuming non-trivial contact, most likely involving bilingual speakers), the more types of items or categories will be borrowed (Danchev, Reference Danchev1988; Thomason, Reference Thomason2001). However, there is little evidence of substantial borrowing into Shetland Scots from Norn other than lexical items, despite their apparent centuries of contact.Footnote ⁸ This does not mean that this general model of what to expect should be thrown out, but only that it should not be rigidly adhered to. This strengthens my claim that language contact is fluid and can manifest itself in various ways.

We have seen that a number of lexical items found in various stages of Shetland Scots originated in Norn, having been brought into the former via borrowing. Given the close contact of these two languages in Shetland, the best conclusion is that the borrowing was caused by this contact. Shetland Scots therefore serves as a prime example of contact-induced lexical borrowing in bilingual situations, as well as of how contact influences the lexicons of many varieties of English. Once again, it should be emphasized that the borrowing between Norn and Shetland Scots is merely one instantiation of language contact, one that has taken form as sociolinguistic conditions have permitted, and that such borrowing is likely to happen wherever languages are in contact, in conformity with the sociolinguistic factors unique to each contact situation.

Grammatical borrowing

Southern Irish English has borrowed several grammatical features from Irish Gaelic. In addition to providing a brief sociolinguistic history, this section outlines two studies of such features.

English and Irish Gaelic in the south of Ireland existed in more or less a state of bilingualism from the beginning of the twelfth century until the middle of the nineteenth century (Edwards, Reference Edwards and Trudgill1984: 481; Hickey, Reference Hickey and Britain2007: 135), after which point only a very small and dwindling number of monoglot Gaelic speakers remained (Edwards, Reference Edwards and Trudgill1984: 483).Footnote ⁹ Gaelic held prestige status in Ireland until the beginning of the seventeenth century, when it was superseded by English and began to lose ground (Edwards, Reference Edwards and Trudgill1984: 480–1). As we should by now expect, this period of heavy contact resulted in significant borrowing and is largely responsible for the distinctive varieties of English that comprise today's S.I.E. (Stalmaszczyk, Reference Stalmaszczyk2005; Hickey, Reference Hickey and Britain2007; O'Keeffe & Moreno, Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009).

A study conducted in 2009 by O'Keeffe and Moreno examines the pragmatics of the well-documented be + after + V-ing construction in S.I.E. This construction is also known as the immediate perfect by Hickey (Reference Hickey and Britain2007: 144). According to O'Keeffe & Moreno (Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009: 517), it ‘roughly equates to the present perfect aspect in Standard English’. It is most likely derived from a similar form in Gaelic, where the immediate perfect aspect is formed using the preposition after (O'Keeffe & Moreno, Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009). The authors argue that this form was incorporated into and remains in S.I.E. ‘because it has acquired pragmatic specializations which do not have an equivalent in the Standard English form’ (O'Keeffe & Moreno, Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009: 517); that is, the immediacy implied in the Gaelic form cannot be equalled by any form in Standard English, not even by inserting just between have and the past participle in the present perfect aspect (O'Keeffe & Moreno, Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009: 521). Example 1 illustrates the immediate perfect in Gaelic and S.I.E. along with its closest translation in Standard English, the present perfect + just construction.

Example 1: Immediate perfect aspect in Gaelic and S.I.E. (Hickey, Reference Hickey and Britain2007: 144; O'Keeffe & Moreno, Reference O'Keeffe and Moreno2009: 521)

1. a. Tá  mé tar éis an nuachtáin a léamh

   V +  S +  Prep. +  N (O) +    part.-V

   IS-  I  AFTER THE NEWSPAPER            READING

   ‘I've just read the paper’

2. b. She is after spilling the milk

   ‘She has just spilled the milk’

A second study deals with the syntax and semantics of what the author terms the GET constructions of Gaelic and S.I.E. (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012). The GET constructions consist of two polysemic forms of the verb get (faigh in Gaelic) (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012: 1115), one of which indicates that the construction contains a change of state and the other of which indicates that the construction contains a recipient (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012: 1111, 1114). As with the study by O'Keeffe and Moreno, the author argues (among other points) that these constructions in S.I.E. are borrowings from Gaelic based on the existence of nearly identical forms in Gaelic and the prolonged contact of Gaelic and English in Ireland (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012: 1111, 1113). Examples 2 and 3 illustrate the basic forms of these two structurally identical constructions in Gaelic and S.I.E.Footnote ¹⁰

Example 2: Recipient GET construction (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012: 1127)

• Fuair  sé   cupla    scannradh

  Get-PST 3SG.M several:DET frights:N

  ‘He got several frights’.

Example 3: Passive GET construction (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012: 1143)

• Fuair  sé   é      féin fliuch

  Get-PST 3SG.M 3SG.M.ACC RFX wet:Adj

  ‘He got himself wet’.

As with Norn and Shetland Scots, we have seen grammatical features that originated in Gaelic occurring in S.I.E., and given the prolonged contact between the two languages the best explanation for this parallelism is contact-induced borrowing. In the process, we have shown that borrowing is not restricted to lexical items, although there has certainly been much lexical borrowing from Gaelic into S.I.E. (Nolan, Reference Nolan2012). These two grammatical categories serve as examples of how categories may be borrowed between languages. Which particular categories (or words or any other features) actually get borrowed depends on a variety of sociolinguistic factors. In other words, each language contact situation is unique, but some form of borrowing is quite likely.

Summary

This essay has briefly shown the effects of language contact on the lexicon of Shetland Scots and on two grammatical features of S.I.E., the immediate perfect aspect and the GET constructions. Using these examples, it has been demonstrated that the effects of contact depend strongly on the socio-historical context of each contact situation and that no two instances of contact necessarily yield the same outcomes. The author hopes to have supplied reason to view language contact as an important and dynamic component of English today.