LANGUAGE CONTACT AND LANGUAGE CHANGE

ANDREI DANCHEV

1. INTRODUCTORY NOTES

A recent pubücation dealing with language contact and change

ends with the statement that "the field remains chaotic in that
it combines concepts from different descriptions. There is no hope
for unification, but perhaps the possibüity of greater awareness of
what are the common themes and issues" (Muysken 1984: 72).
But although this assessment strikes a rather discouraging note,
linguists endeavouring to reconcile relevant data with diverging
interpretations cannot but continue their search for at least a mod-
icum of uniformity and order.
This paper will concentrate briefly on a few key issues such äs
scholarly attitudes, the discussion of some selective data in the light
of the interlanguage hypothesis, the role of translation in language
contact, and finally some of the possible inferences will be con-
sidered.

2. SCHOLARLY ATTITUDES

It is common knowledge that the question of interlingual influ-

ence has often aroused vehement disputes. The views of scholars
such äs Whitney, Sapir, Meillet, Tesnifcre, Zhirmunskij (to mention
but a few) that the core Systems of language are impervious to
external influence have been opposed by Schuchardt, Martinet,
Shcherba, Weinreich, Haugen and others (in addition to the
references in the senünal works of Haugen and Weinreich cf. also
Bozencvejg 1972, Zhluktenko 1974, Baetens Beardsmore 1982,
Zhuravlyov 1982). The fact that such contradictory views could be
held by numerous eminent scholars is explained by Weinreich äs

0166-4004/88/0022-37 $2,-
© Mouton/de Gruyter, Berlin
Societas Linguistica Europaea
 being due to "lack of agreement ( . . . ) on fundamental terms and
concepts" (Weinreich 1953/1974: 29). This is undoubtedly true,
but the role of what could be referred to äs 'scholarly prejudices'
must be taken into account, too. Curiously, various representatives
of linguistic schools which have diverged widely on important
issues have displayed a united front, so to speak, in their attitude
to the ongoing debates over the internal and external causation of
language change. As has been pointed out, with his strong emphasis
on the distüiction between "internal" and "external" linguistics
Saussure actually continued the point of view of the neogram-
marians (Lehman 1981: 20). Saussure's influence on European
scholarship seems to have been matched by that of Sapir in America.
According to a recent reviewer Sapir managed to convince a genera-
tion of American linguists that there were no really convincing
examples of profound morphological influence by diffusion (Schiff -
man 1982: 186). Internal causation of language change is also fa-
voured by some linguists working within generative-transforma-
tional frameworks (cf. e.g. Lightfoot 1969, Lefebvre 1984).
Despite continuing disputes, however, the 'externalist' cause
seems to have gained ground in recent years. This trend is probably
sustained by the flow of new data from language contact areas all
over the world and also by the emergence of a new generation of
linguists who are less committed to traditionally held beliefs.
Increasingly often it is stated nowadays that contact-induced
change can affect all the levels (or components) of language (beside
the references already mentioned at the beginning of this section
cf. also Bynon 1977, Borodina 1980, Schmidt 1980, Hudson 1980).
But although it has shown signs of fading, the international
scholarly prejudice1 in favour of internal rather than external ex-
planations of language change has persisted for an astonishingly
long time, in some quarters at least. According to Thomason "tradi-
tional historical methodology is so heavily biased in favour of
internal causation that the absence of proof of interference might be
thought to be sufficient evidence for internal causation" (Thomason
1980: 362). As a matter of fact, quite a few historical linguists still
either ignore the language contact factor altogether or at best look
on it with suspicion, the only area where it is accepted unquestion-
ingly being the lexicon. This attitude is reflected in the distinction
 39

some authors make between language change "proper" (or "na-

tural") and "improper" (or "unnatural"), the latter due to borrow-
ing, which somehow does not qualify for fully respectable diachronic
research. On the other band, some of the scholars engaged in the
study of language contacts, especially of cultural borrowing, are
not active historical linguists and thus often do not seek to relate
their findings to a broader framework of language change in general.
In addition to the strong influence of various theoretical tenets
and the speculative nature of some substratum hypotheses, scholarly
distrust of the outside influence factor of language change is prob-
ably also fed by the wide-spread populär conviction that unilin-
gualism is normal, while büingualism is not, despite emphatic asser-
tions that "being bilingual is äs normal an occurrence äs being
unilingual" (Baetens Beardsmore 1982: 101).
The necessity of finding a formula allowing the reconciliation
of the view of language äs a closely-knit structure with the more
conspicuous evidence of contact-induced changes has resulted in
the concept that languages can borrow the elements and structures
that fit the tendencies of their internal development. This idea
was gradually elaborated by a number of authors whose opinions
are summed up succinctly by Vachek (1962), who states that lan-
guages can borrow what is "in harmony" with their "wants" and
"needs". The trouble is that (with the exception of patent lexical
gaps) there does not seem to exist any clear-cut criterion äs to what
a language really "wants" and "needs", and what is or is not "in har-
mony" with its structure. The "wants" and "needs" view implies
typological limitations that are difficult to detennine, given the
copious evidence of interaction across different language families.
It will be recalled here that in more up to date linguistic metalan-
guage the "being in harmony" requirement is referred to äs the
"constraints" problem, one of the five problems a theory of language
change should be expected to handle (Weinreich et al. 1968). But no
matter what terminology is used, the fact remains that it is often
rather difficult to distüiguish between the activation of latent struc-
tures in the receptor language (considering, e.g., the freedom with
which deep structures are often postulated) and the importation
of foreign structures. Referring to the influence of Greek on the
syntax of the early literary Slavonic languages Birnbaum remarks
40

that it "is both a rewarding and, in some respects, frustrating field

for inquiry when it comes to establishing the criteria for ascertaining
what is genuinely alien and truly imported" (Birnbaum 1984: 3.
Concerning the influence of Greek on Old Bulgarian cf. also Durida-
now 1959). Difficult äs such distinctions might be indeed, the im-
portant poüit is that contact situations languages are liable to
change faster. This tends to confirm the views of those sociolin-
guistically oriented researchers who regard language äs a rather
loosely-knit structure (with Variation äs an in-built natural feature)
which is open to external influence in all areas (cf. e.g. Hudson 1980).

3. THE INTERLANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS

IN HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS
The introduction of the interlanguage (= IL) notion (in terms
of Selinker 1972) into diachronic linguistics can be said to have
added a new dimension to the traditional distinction between
internal and external factors of language change (cf. also Danchev
1986). But in order to motivate such a methodological move it is
necessary to establish a common frame of reference for the respec-
tive processes studied by historical and applied linguists, that is,
between historical language contacts (in this case) and foreign lan-
guage teaching. The "language-using individual" being "the locus
of contact" (Weinreich 1953/1974:1), it is evidently to bilingualism
we shall turn for possible common ground. The issue at stake is
whether so called 'natural' bilingualism in situations of historical
contacts (this including cultural borrowing) and 'artificiaP bilin-
gualism in classroom situations2 can be treated together. The litera-
ture on bilingualism seems to indicate a trend towards broader
definitions (cf. e.g, the overviews in Vereshchagin 1969, Overbeke
1972, Desheriev 1976, Baetens Beardsmore 1982). Thus, Baetens
Beardsmore winds up his discussion of the various possible defini-
tions by adopting the view of bilingualism äs "a cline with no clear-
cut limits other than those of the pure monoglot at one end and
the perfect ambilingual at the other" (Baetens Beardsmore 1982:
31). Such a definition evidently facilitates the use of the IL notion
in historical linguistics.
Whereas traditional language contact studies have been con-
 41

cerned almost exclusively with interference, the IL notion widens

the view of the investigator äs to the possible interaction between
languages and thus enables him to go farther in ascertaining the
likely impact of language contact on language change. Ever since
it has been recognised explicitly that interference is but one of
several components, and sometimes not even the most important
one (cf. the heated disputes over the relative importance of native
tongue transfer and overgeneralisation, etc., sparked off by Dulay
and Burt, and others), that make up an IL, a lot of new research
has been done on various aspects of language acquisition. In fact,
it is worth noting here that applied linguistics (in this case psycho-
linguistics) has evolved a more elaborate theoretical framework for
dealing with language contact phenomena than most historical
language contact studies, usually conducted in a prevaüingly
empirical manner without a principled theoretical basis (cf. the
references to this effect in Baetens Beardsmore 1982 and Muysken
1984). Paradoxically, then, in this particular instance applied lin-
guistics has turned out to be more theoretical than historical lin-
guistics, traditionally regarded äs a purely theoretical discipline.
The IL evidence from synchronic studies of artificial language
contacts can obviously serve to verify the likelihood of a given
historical change having been caused by language contact. This re-
minds us that "it is a scientific exploration of contemporary bilin-
gual patterns that will enable us to define exactly what shall be
meant by such terms äs substratum, superstratum, and adstratum,
and to what extent we have a right to apply them to a given his-
torical Situation" (Martüiet 1953/1974: IX).
Quite a few authors have mentioned simplification in language
contact situations. Nevertheless, the füll ränge of this notion,
especially äs part of an IL framework, has not been explored yet.

4. SOME SELECTIVE DATA

Although there is no dearth of evidence illustrating the isomor-

phism of natural and artificial contact-induced language change,
I shall dwell briefly on some selective examples in the areas of
segmental phonology, inflectional morphology and syntax which
will enable me to make certain generalisations.
42

4.1. Segmental phonology

Let us consider the various possible transphonemisations3 (in
terms of Filipovic 1981) of the so-called Umlaut vowels'4 which
despite certain obvious differences in quality behave in a conspicu-
ously similar way in various contact situations. The following sim-
plification strategies can be distinguished.

4.1.1. Elimination of distinctive features. In the case of /ü/ and /ö/

either the roundness or the frontness feature and in the case of /ä/
either the lower tongue position or the frontness feature are elimi-
nated, the results being:

'<'',
The interlingual changes of /ü/ to /i/ and /ö/ to /e/ can be seen e.g.
in the Czech pronunciation of German and French names (Trnka
1982: 132), in French based creoles (cf. e.g. Chaudenson 1979,
Tinelli 1981), and in the acquisition of German by various foreign
learners (cf. DFA 1983). The /ä/ to /e/ change is frequent in numer-
ous English loanwords in various languages (cf. e.g. Weinreich 1953,
Filipovio 1982, Danchev forthc.), äs well äs in the acquisition of
English äs a foreign language (cf. e.g. Wode 1980, Danchev forthc.).
The changes of /ü/, /ö/, /ä/ to /u/, /o/, /a/ are well attested, too.
We need not go here into the causes of the differing transphone-
misation types. The important point to note is that the input vowels
of these changes are more marked than the respective Output
vowels, this confonning to a familiär general pattern. In. fact, the
umlaut vowels are reduced to the five 'fundamental' vowels which
are most frequent in the languages of the world (cf. the data in
Maddieson 1984). Beside frequency, the umlaut vowels meet all
the other markedness criteria accepted nowadays (cf. e.g. Lass 1984:
132; in respect of the umlaut vowels cf. also the more detailed dis-
cussion in Danchev 1986).
Proceeding from such considerations, combined with the socio-
historical evidence of Middle English, it is possible to claim that
the change of Old English /ü/, /ö/, /ä/ to /i/, /e/, /a/ in Middle English
 43

(North and East Midlands) may be the result of contact-induced

IL simplification strategies (for details cf. Danchev 1986; the same
opinion in respect of /ü/ > /i/ has been expressed briefly in
Domingue 1977: 93). In the existing literature these changes are
treated äs internally conditioned.
The prediction that the umlaut vowels are not likely to survive
language contact (Danchev 1985) needs some qualification.
Although the language contact filter (or 'sieve', äs Trubetzkoy put
it) does not normally let through the highly marked umlaut vowels
without modifying them, there are some counterexamples. Thus,
for instance, it has been claimed that /ü/ was transferred to Basque
and Low German from French (Martinet 1952: 10—12) and to
Southern Kazakh from Uzbek and Kirghiz (Gadzhieva 1976: 83),
and that /ö/ and /ä/ in a Russian dialect in Estonia were taken over
from Estonian (Xejter 1976: 284). These and some other counter-
examples to the prevailing general simplification pattern (it will
also be recalled that creolisation is usually accompanied by decreoli-
sation, which involves elaboration) obviously reflect strong inter-
lingual influence and remind us that any typology (like most typo-
logies) of contact-induced change will be of a probabilistic nature.

4.1.2. Decomposition and linear realignment of distinctive features.

It has been noted that /ü/, /ö/ and /ä/ can also be transphonemicised
diphthongally äs /ju/, /jo/ and /ja/ in both naturalistic and tutored
foreign language acquisition. Since I have already adduced numer-
ous examples in a previous paper (Danchev 1985) I will mention
a few select instances only:
/ü/ > /ju/: the Middle English transphonemisation of Old French
/ü/ (e.g. in MdE music) and the English, Russian and Bulgarian
pronunciation of some German loanwords and names (e.g. Führer,
München, a.o.).
/ö/ > /jo/: the English5, Russian and Bulgarian pronunciation of
French liqueur, Bulgarian and Russian Petjofi (from Hungarian
Petöfi) and Malmjo (from Swedish Malmo).
/ä/ > /ja/: Russian and Bulgarian sljabink (from English slabb-
ing), /kjan/ 'can* and /kjat/ *cat' in some English creoles (Tinelli
1981: 155) and in the pronunciation of some Bulgarian learners of
English (cf. Danchev forthc.).
44

The following common paradigm of change emerges thus:

IM
IM
ÜL
The palatal element (or frontness feature) of the input umlaut
vowels is extracted äs a common denominator, so to speak, of these
vowels and is shifted forwards äs yod, forming a rising output
diphthong with the respective back vowel. The linear realignment
of distinctive features is part of the decomposition of difficult (or
marked; for a correlation of the 'difficulty' and 'markedness' notions
cf. Eckman 1978) elements in the donor language, described by
Polivanov (1931) and other authors. From a more general point
of view this can be regarded äs another instance of simplification
from synthetic to analytical structure, favoured in situations of
language contact.
Whereas the analytical decomposition of /ü/, /ö/ and /ä/ is typical
above all of language contact, the reverse process, namely the syn-
thesis of the back vowels /u/, /o/ and /a/ with the feature of frontness
occurs mainly äs an internal change (cf. e.g., i-umlaut in the Ger-
manic languages — for details cf. Danchev 1985).

4.2. Morphology
Any discussion of the impact of language contact on language
change would evidently miss the main point if it skirts the contro-
versial issue of inflectional morphology. Although new data have
come to light in recent years, it must be admitted that in comparison
with the other areas of language the evidence of contact-induced
transfer of inflectional morphemes still remains relatively scanty.
On the other hand, it is precisely here that the IL hypothesis can
furnish the most far-reaching explanations of how language contact
can lead to such radical restructurings äs are involved in the tran-
sition from predominantly synthetic to predominantly analytical
structure.
Contact-induced change has usually been associated with the
transfer of inflectional morphemes and only rarely with their loss.
 45

And yet it need hardly be recalled here that the omission of case
endings is one of the most noticeable processes in both natural and
artificial contacts. As regards natural contacts, one could be re-
minded of Jespersen's well-known account of how the interaction
of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian led to the elimination of case
endings in Middle English. A quick look at some other languages
that are known to have passed through prolonged contact periods,
e.g. the Romance and some of the Balkan languages, which have
lost most or all of their one time cases, shows that inflectional noun
morphology can be particularly vulnerable to language contact.
This contradicts the traditional standpoint, but then it ought to be
remembered again that foreign influence has been identified almost
exclusively with transfer, which has been shown to be but one of
the components of any language contact Situation. The application
of the IL notion to such cases makes it possible to treat more con-
sistently a number of existing assumptions still regarded with vary-
ing proportions of scepticism and acceptance.
In addition to the elimination of inflectional morphemes, insuf-
ficient attention has also been given so far to the interlingual
translation of morphemes (usually referred to äs 'grammatical
calquing' — cf. e.g. Zhluktenko 1974). Out of the various examples
one could mention here the post-posited definite article in some of
the Balkan languages.

4.3. Syntax
It is often said that in its permeability syntax is second only to
the lexicon (cf. e.g. the references in Birnbaum 1984, Danchev
1984), and it has even been hypothesised that from a sociolinguistic
point of view syntax is a marker of cohesion (unlike vocabulary
and pronunciation, which are markers of social differences — cf.
Hudson 1980: 48). Worth noting also is the stipulation that per-
meability is characteristic of surface syntax only, whereas deep
syntax is relatively stable (Birnbaum 1984:40—41). However, since
deep structures remain more or less hypothetical, what really counts
after all are the visible surface structures and these will be consid-
ered here.
Contact-induced changes in syntax are usually exemplified with
46

word order and relative clauses, but here I shall dwell briefly on
prepositions. One of the reasons for doing so is that in the various
scales of accessibility to borrowing, set up by Whitney, Haugen,
Singh, Muysken (compared in Lefebvre 1984: 14) prepositions come
after nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Contact-induced change
involving prepositions must therefore be taken äs an indication of
strong foreign influence. This is manifested less often in the direct
transfer of a preposition (cf., however, the occurrence of Spanish
prepositions in Quechua — Muysken 1984) than in changes affecting
the distribution, functions and semantic ränge of receptor language
prepositions. Beside Canadian French au-dela de notre controle from
E. beyond our control (Darbelnet 1980: 35) and Swiss French attendre
sur quelqu'un from G. auf jemanden warten (offered äs an example of
calquing in Marouzeau 1951) and some other examples I have al-
ready discussed elsewhere (Danchev 1982, 1984), one can mention
also occasional instances such äs Bulgarian posochvam na nego
(instead of posochvam nego) from Bussian ukazaf na njevo (Brezinski
1974: 154) and Russian paexat do saseda (widening of the functions
of do under Ukrainian influence in contact areas — cf. Kuz'mina &
Nemchenko 1976: 193). As regards foreign language learning,
the literature abounds in examples of all sorts. The interesting thing
to note here is that whereas the instances of incorrect use in his-
torical contact situations are often explained äs due to calquing,
practically the same examples are referred to äs negative transfer
in the literature on foreign language acquisition. In these and other
cases the same processes are defined in different terms owing to
their analysis by linguists working in different disciplines (cf.
Danchev 1982).
The evidence of rather frequent interlingual influence in the struc-
ture of prepositional phrases tempts one to speculate once again
on various moot issues such äs, e.g., the origin of the Middle English
for to + Infinitive construction. While some authors have explained
it äs an internal development (e.g. Lightfoot 1969: 186—195),
others have suggested that it might be due to French influence
(cf. e.g. Einenkel 1916: 14—17 and also the references in Mustanoja
1960: 514). At first sight this is one of those cases (cf. § 1) where it is
rather difficult to decide whether a latent indigenous structure was
activated or a foreign one was imported. The picture appears in
 47

a somewhat different light, however, if we take into account the

fact that a similar prepositional phrase — für zu dreschen — in the
German dialect of Luxembourg has also been attributed to calquing
from French (for details and references cf. Borodina 1980). The cir-
cumstance that two Germanic dialects, which have had no conneo
tion between each other, but have both had contact with French,
should have developed an identical structure typical of the latter
language (pour + Infinitive), constitutes evidence that a re-
searcher can hardly afford to dismiss lightly. Besides, the spreading
view of Middle English äs a creolised language (Baüey & Maroldt
1977, Domingue 1977, Poussa 1982) lends further credibility to such
an Interpretation. The inference to be drawn from such cases is that
the consideration of data from other contact areas is often useful
äs an additional criterion of what is likely to be borrowed and what
not (thus, e.g., the emergence of the analytical degrees of comparison
in English can also be reconsidered in a similar manner).

4.4. Vocabulary

The borrowing of vocabulary being the most obvious and ex-

tensively researched area of language contact I need not go into
any details here, except to draw again attention to the role of cal-
quing. It has been pointed out, for instance, that "the use of cal-
ques ( . . . ) produced a convergence of the lexical and semantic
Systems of the languages of Europe, helping to create the European
Sprachbund" (Thomas 1975: 35). The reference to calquing and
generally to translation figures prominently also in recent research
on the internationalisation of compound words and set phrases
(cf. e.g. Soloduxo 1982) which, according to Zhuravlyov (1982: 169),
plays a considerable role in linguistic convergence.

5. TRANSLATION AS A CONCOMITANT OF
INTERLANGUAGE PROCESSES

We can take a closer look now at the various instances of trans-

lation, mentioned several times so far in connection with language
contact-induced changes in morphology, syntax and vpcabulary
("phonological translation" has also been envisaged — cf. Catford
48

1965). References to calquing, which is but one particular type of

translation, have been made by numerous authors describing various
instances of language contact. But although some linguists have
spoken of interference äs involving translation (e.g. Ivir 1979: 91),
there do not seem to have been any consistent attempts at sub-
suming all the available evidence to a common model in terms of
translation theory. Therefore I shall reiterate my previous claim
that many instances of transfer in situations of natural and/or
artificial language contact can be viewed in teims of partial or
complete translation and that this is a further elaboration of the
view that bilingualism is a major factor of language change
(Danchev 1984: 47).
When speaking of the role of translation in language change one
must distinguish between conscious and unconscious/hidden/spon-
taneous/uncontrolled translation6 (all of these terms have been
used in the literature — cf. Danchev 1982). While translation äs
a conscious activity has been envisaged in language change before
(cf. the references in Zhuravlyov 1982, Birnbaum 1984, Danchev
1984), the existence of unconscious translation, whose effects seem
to be more far-reaching, has been largely neglected so far.
In order to encompass all the possible types of conscious and
unconscious translation an "expanded translation theory" has been
proposed (Danchev 1984). This is methodologically important,
because when referring to bilüiguals who cannot translate fluently,
some linguists evidently have in mind professionally correct trans-
lation, a skill that undoubtedly requires special training, and not
just any kind of communicatively adequate translation (including,
e.g., literal translation, i.e., calquing). Such a broader approach
obviously reduces significantly the difference between the notions
of transfer and translation and I have already shown that they are
indeed often used in similar contexts with reference to more or less
identical lexical and grammatical processes. Considering all the
main aspects of transfer and translation it can be argued that,
scholarly traditions apart, there is no essential difference between
the broader definitions of these two terms (for a detailed discussion
of this issue cf. Danchev 1982). One may ask then why, if these
two notions can be regarded äs synonymous, it should be necessary
to replace the more customary "transfer" by "translation". The an-
 49

s wer is that while transfer is traditionally regarded äö a meöhanic

activity, translatiön i? communicatively oriented and äs such can be
viewed äs pari of the (un)conscious language acquisition strategies
in contact situations. Translation thus emerges äs an important
component of the communicative competence of bilinguals. Such a
broader view of translatiön can provide new insights into the mecha-
nisms of language contacts because it makes possible the use of
translatiön theory äs developed in recent years (cf. the references
in Danchev 1984).
x
6. CONCLUSION

The foregoing discussion of scholarly attitudes äs well äs of some

language data together with their possible interpretations seems to
warrant the following conclusions.
At this stage in the development of language contact studies
a certain measure of unification can be achieved by adopting a more
broadly based approach. Historical linguistics and language contact
studies can profit considerably from the findings of psycholinguistic
research in language acquisition and from translatiön theory in the
description of interlingual transformations and communicative
strategies. Such a theoretical Integration of various disciplines
ought to be accompanied by informational Integration äs well.
All too often similar or even identical language contact processes
in various languages and contact situations are analysed in Isolation
without taking into account the existence of global patterns.
The establishment of a language contact typology is thus an im-
portant prerequisite for the further successful development of
language contact studies (in the same manner in which typology
has contributed to the development of traditional historical lin-
guistics). The informational Integration must include the work
on language contacts carried out in different countries, especially
the extensive research in the Soviet Union, of which many authors
do not seeni to be aware. A broader interdisciplinary approach
naturally implies the adoption of more broadly based definitiöns
of such basic notions äs bUingualism, translatiön and even of con-
tact-induced change äs including any change triggered off by oüt-
side influence. This would include the "internal reanalysis" of
50

foreign language elements postulated by linguists working within

generative-transformational frameworks (e.g. Lightfoot 1969,
Lefebvre 1984).
The possibility of achieving a certain degree of uniformity in the
methodology of language contact studies does not imply that the
field is likely to be reduced to any kind of linguistic orthodoxy
in the foreseeable future and this is just äs well. For the time being
model diversification (though not "chaos", of course — cf. § 1)
is needed rather than model unification, the overall framework
remaining broad and flexible enough to accomodate a number of
different disciplines. The dominant attitude will therefore probably
remain one of scholarly pragmatism, the data informing the theory
rather than the other way about. The data itself must be analysed
synchronically/diachronically, diatopically anddiastratically (cf. e.g.
also Hudson 1980, Schmidt 1980, Neide 1984), without any pre-
conceived notions of what effect language contact can or cannot
have on language change.
In any case, the increasingly available old and new language
contact data, analysed within the interdisciplinary framework äs
outlined above, suggest that language contacts play a far greater
role in language change than is commonly assumed.

Address of the author: Andrei Danchev

Institute for Foreign Students
Laboratory of Applied Linguistics
Äsen Velchev 27
BG-1111 Sofia (Bulgaria)

NOTES
1
Worth noting also is the existence of varying degrees of the said pre-
judice. Thus, for instance, it has been observed that scholars working in
Romance linguisties are more inclined to accept language contact evidence
than those working in Germanic linguisties, Slavicists being the staunchest
supporters
2
of internal causation (cf. Zhuravlyov 1982: 170).
It has been pointed out that there is no hard and fast line between
natural and artificial bilingualism. When a foreign language teacher who is
a target language nionoglot communicates with his students, the contact
Situation
3
is natural (Zhluktenko 1974).
The convenient ternis transphonemisation and transmorphemisation
Introduced by Filipovio (1980, 1981) seem to imply the possibility of trans-
 51

lexemification (?) äs an analogical 'emic' extension (distinct from trans-

lexification
4
äs used, e.g. in Lefebvre 1984).
This is a convenient umbrella term for /ü/ and /ö/ on the one band, and
/ä/ on the other. Besides, in this blanket notation no distinctions of quantity
and quality are made. Therefore, /ü/ = /y(:)/ and /Y(:)/, /ö/ = /oe(:)/ and
/0(:)/,
6
/a/ = /&(:)/ (cf. also Danchev 1985, 1986).
6
This is not, of course, the only pronunciation of liqueur in English.
As used here, the term translation includes Interpretation äs well.

REFERENCES
Baetens Beardsmore, Hugo. 1982. Bilingualism. Basic principles. Clevedon
(Avon): Tieto Ltd.
Baüey, Charles-James N., Karl Maroldt. 1977. "The French lineage of
English." In: J. M. Meisel (ed.) Langues en contact — pidgins — creoles —
languages in contact. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 21 — 53.
Birnbaum, Henrik. 1984. "Notes on syntactic change: Cooccurrence vs.
Substitution, stability vs. permeability." In: J. Fisiak (ed.) Trends in
linguistics: Historical syntax. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton,
25-46.
Borodina, M. A. (ed.) 1980. Vzaimodejstvie lingvisticeskix arealov. Leningrad:
Nauka.
Brezinski, Stefan. 1974. "Kolebanija pri upptrebata na predlozi v publi-
cistikata." In: L. Andrejcin (ed.) Problemi na bälgarskata knizovna reö.
Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 149—161.
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Catford, John C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation: London: OUP.
Chaudenson, Robert. 1979. Les creOles frangais. Paris: Fernand Nathan.
Danchev, Andrei. 1982. "Transfer and translation." FINLANCE (The Fin-
nish Journal of language learning and language teaching) 2, 39 — 61.
Danchev, Andrei. 1984. "Translation and syntactic change." In: J. Fisiak
(ed.), Trends in linguistics: Historical syntax. Berlin, New York, Amster-
dam: Mouton, 47 — 60.
Danchev, Andrei. 1985. "On analysis and synthesis in sound change." In:
J. Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics. Ainsterdam/Poznan: John Benjamins/Adam Mickiewicz Uni-
versity, 83—104.
Danchev, Andrei. 1986. "Interlanguage simplification in Middle English
vowel phonology?" In: D. Kastovsky, A. Szwedek (eds), Linguistics
across Historical and Geographical Boundaries — In Honour of Jacek
Fisiak on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday. Vol. 1. Berlin, New York,
Amsterdam: Mouton/de Gruyter, 239—252.
Danchev, Andrei, (forthc.). "English /ae/ in Bulgarian." In: Proceedings of the
SecondBulgarian-British Symposium (16 — 19 October, 1985, Blagoevgrad).
Darbelnet, Jean. 1980. "Bilinguisme et traduction." Le francais moderne:
Revue de linguistique frangaise 4, 319—326.
Desheriev, Ju. D. (ed.). 1976. Razvitie nacional'no-russkogo dvujazychija.
Moskva: Nauka.
DFA. 1983. Deutsch für Anfänger. Theoretische Grundlagen für phonetische
Übungen. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität, Herder-Institut (collection of
papers by various authors, no editor is indicated).
Domingue, Nicole Z. 1977. "Middle English: Another creole?" Journal of
creole studies, 89—100.
Duridanow, Ivan. 1959. "Bemerkungen zur altbulgarischen Evangelien-
übersetzung mit Rücksicht auf den Einfluß der griechischen Syntax."
Bibliotheca classica orientalis 6, Berlin, 339—340.
52

Eckman, Fred R. 1978. "Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypo-

thesis." Language Learning 27, 315—330.
Einenkel, Eugen, 1916. Geschichte der englischen Sprache, II, Historische
Syntax. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Filipovic, Rudolf. 1980. "Transmorphemization: Substitution on the mor-
phological level reinterpreted." Studia romanica et anglica zagrabiensia
25. 1-2, 1-8.
Filipovic, Rudolf. 1981. "Transphonemization: Substitution on the phono-
logical level reinterpreted." In: Wolf gang Pöckl (ed.), Europäische Mehr-
sprachigkeit. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Mario Wandruszka.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 125—133.
Filipovic, Rudolf (ed.). 1982. The English element in European languages.
Volume 2, Zagreb.
Gadzhieva, H. Z. 1977. "Javlenija jazykovoj interferencii v pogranichnyx
zonax tjurkskix jazykov srednej Azii." In: Borodina (ed.) 1977, 76 — 83.
Hudson, Richard A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Ivir, Vladimir. 1979. "Remarks on contrastive analysis and translation."
In: H. Raabe (ed.), Trends in kontrastiver Linguistik I. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr, 93—104.
Kuz'mina, I. B., E. B. Nemchenko. 1976. "K voprosu o pronicaemosti
sintakticheskoj sistemy govorov pri vozmozhnosti inojazychnogp vlija-
nija." In: R. I. Avanesov (ed.), Lingvisticheskaja geografija, dialektologija
i istorija jazyka. Erevan: Izdatel'stvo AN Armjanskoj SSR, 191 — 201.
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology. An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge:
CUP.
Lefebvre, Ciaire. 1984. "Grammaires en contact. Definition et perspectives
de recherche." Revue quebecoise de linguistique 14. l, 11 — 47.
Lehman, Winfred. 1981. "Historical linguistics and Sociolinguistics." Inter-
national Journal of the sociology of language 31, 11 —27.
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge:
CUP.
Maddieson, lan. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: CUP.
Marouzeau, Jean. 1951. Lexique de la terminologie linguistique. Paris.
Martinet, Andre. 1952. "Diffusion of language and structural linguistics."
Romance philology 6, 5 —13.
Martinet, Andre. 1953/1974. Preface to Weinreich 1953/1974, vii—ix.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Memoires
de la societe neophilologique de Helsinki, XXIII.
Muysken, Pieter. 1984. "Linguistic dimensions of language contact. The
state of the art in interlinguistics." Revue quebecoise de linguistique 14.
l, 49-76.
Neide, P. H. 1984. "Three issues in languages in contact." Studia anglica
posnaniensia XVII, 147 — 156.
Polivanov, Evgenij. 1931. "La perception des sons d'une langue etrangere."
Travaux du cercle Hnguistique de Prague 4, 79 —96.
Poussa, Patricia. 1982. "The evolution of early Standard English. The creoli-
zation hypothesis." Studia anglica posnaniensia XIV, 69 — 85.
Rozencvejg, V. J. 1972. Jazykoyye kontakty. Leningrad: Nauka.
Schiff man, Harold F. 1982. Review of Language and linguistic area, Essays
by Murray B. Emeneau. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1980 in Language 58,
185-193.
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 19 . "Typologie und Sprachwandel." In: H. Lüdtke
(ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Ber-
lin: Walter de Gruyter, 20—36.
Selinker, Larry. 1972. ''Interlanguage." IRAL 10/3, 219-231.
Soloduxo, Eduard Mojs^vich. 1982. Problemy internacionalizacii frazeo-
logii. Kazan: Izdatel'stvo kazanskogo universiteta.
 53
Thomas, George. 1975. "The calque — an international trend in the lexical
development of the literary languages of eighteenth-century Europe."
Germano-Slavica 6, 21—41.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 1978. "Morphological instability, with and without
language contact." In: J. Fisiak (ed.) Trends in linguistics, Historical
morphology. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 359 — 373.
Tinelli, Henri. 1981. Creole phonology. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Todd, Loreto, 1984. Modern Englishes. Pidgins & creoles. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, London: Andre Deutsch.
Trnka, Bohumil. 1982. "Phonological foreignisms in Czech." In: V. Fried
(ed.). Selected papers in structural linguistics by B. Trnka. Berlin: Mouton
Publishers, 132-143.
Vachek, Josef. 1962. "On the interplay of external and internal factors in
the development of language." Lingua 11, 433—448.
Van Overbeke, Maurice. 1972. Introduction au probldme du bilinguisme.
Bruxelles: Editions Labor, Paris: Fernand Nathan.
Vereshchagin, E. M. 1969. Psixologicheskaja i metodicheskaja xarakteristika
dvujazychija (bilingvizma), Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universi-
teta.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953/74. Languages in contact. Findings and problems.
The Hague: Mouton Publishers (Orighially: New York 1953).
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, Marvin Herzog. 1968. "Empirical founda-
tions for a theory of language change." In: W. P. Lehman & Y. Malkiel
(eds). Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 95-188.
Wode, Henning. 1980. "Phonology in L2 acquisition." In: S. W. Felix (ed.)
Second language development. Trends and issues. Tübingen: Gunter Narr,
123-136.
Xejter, X. I. 1976. "K xarakteristike interferentnyx javlenij na fonologo-
foneticheskom urovne v odnom iz russkix govorov Estonii." In: R. I.
Avanesov (ed.) Lingvisticheskaja geografija, dialektologija i istorija
jazyka. Erevan: Izdatel'stvo AN Armjanskoj SSR, 283—287.
Zhluktenko, Jurij Alekseevich. 1974. Lingvisticheskie aspekty dvujazychija.
Kiev: IzdatePstvo pri Kievskom gosudarstvennom universitete.
Zhuravlyoy, Vladimir K. 1982. Vnejshnie i vnutrennye faktory jazykovoj
evoljucii. Moskva: Nauka.