Chapter 7

Macroacquisition: Bilingual Speech Communities and Language

Change
Methodological Considerations in Language Change

1. The focus shifts from tracing English language spread to understanding language change,
particularly the emergence of "New Englishes."

2. Initially, linguistic change may seem disconnected from historical factors, but linguists argue for
considering sociohistorical conditions alongside linguistic analysis.

3. Scholars emphasize the importance of integrating linguistic and extralinguistic factors in studying
language change, asserting that sociocultural contexts are crucial for understanding language
contact phenomena.

4. Creolists, like Mufwene, have highlighted the significance of sociohistorical contexts in explaining
the emergence of creole languages, challenging assumptions about language formation.

5. Integrating linguistic and extralinguistic factors is challenging due to the prevailing assumption
that language contact occurs primarily at the individual level, neglecting broader social and
historical influences.

6. Theoretical limitations arise from the dichotomy between linguistic universals and sociohistorical
contexts, hindering a comprehensive understanding of language change.

Enlistment:

Shift from language spread to language change.

Importance of considering sociohistorical factors alongside linguistic analysis.

Emphasis on integrating linguistic and extralinguistic factors in studying language change.

Creolists' contributions to understanding language formation in sociohistorical contexts.

Challenges in integrating linguistic and extralinguistic factors due to assumptions about language contact
occurring at the individual level.

Theoretical limitations stemming from the dichotomy between linguistic universals and sociohistorical
contexts.

Language contact and explanation of new varieties

1. The explanatory framework of language contact faces challenges due to its assumption that
language emerges from individual speakers.

2. When language is viewed as originating solely from individual speakers, it becomes detached
from its social context.
 3. There's a contradiction in trying to explain the emergence of new languages or language
varieties solely through individually based models of second language acquisition (SLA).

Theories of contact-induced language change in second language acquisition (SLA ) have

traditionally focused on the development of language within the individual learner. Weinreich (1974) and
Thomason and Kaufman (1988) emphasize "linguistic interference" and "imperfect learning" of the
second language, conceptualizing contact-induced change in terms of target language models,
perfect/imperfect learning, and errors in the shifting group. However, this approach denies the
possibility of language change, as all deviations are considered errors. While modern linguistics views
change initiated by native speakers as natural, SLA theories perceive changes introduced by second
language learners as errors

Theoretical models of individual second language acquisition (SLA) are inadequate for explaining the
emergence of New Englishes because they rely on the assumption that all variation introduced by L2
learners constitutes error. Concepts such as imperfect learning and interlanguage, derived from
individual SLA, poorly describe the emergence of variation reflected in the New Englishes. Language
contact-induced change, viewed through the lens of learner error, assumes a fixed target language
incompatible with the dynamic nature of language change. Selinker's theory of interlanguage (IL)
attempts to explain the development of language variety at the microlevel, focusing on the individual as
the unit of analysis, but fails to account for external societal factors influencing language change. The
challenge lies in explaining how individual errors become generalized across an entire speech
community, leading to the emergence of new varieties. The distinction between competence and
performance, often invoked in generative linguistics, is difficult to apply in the context of second
language development, where variation may be perceived as error but is essential for the creation of
new varieties.

1. Difference from pidginization/creolization: The New Englishes have not developed as pidgins or
creoles. Pidgin refers to a minimal L2, while a creole arises as the new native language of a
community.

2. Distinctive characteristics of New Englishes:

 New Englishes are full-fledged languages with a wide linguistic and functional range,
unlike pidgins.

 They remain second languages and do not serve as the mother tongue of speakers, as
creoles do.

 Acquisition primarily occurs in an educational setting after the acquisition of the first
language.

 They exhibit less differentiation from English compared to English-based creoles.

  There is no evidence of an antecedent English pidgin transforming into a creole by
second-generation speakers using it as their first language.

3. Difference in development process:

 Pidginization/creolization involves non-targeted second language learning on the front

end and either first language acquisition by the second generation or gradual expansion
of the pidgin over generations on the back end.

 New Englishes' formation is primarily through second language acquisition (SLA) by a

speech community, making them "nonnative languages."

4. Problematic application of pidginization/creolization theories: The assumptions of

pidginization/creolization theories do not apply to the development of New Englishes due to the
distinct nature of SLA processes involved in their formation.

Defining Macroacquisition and the Emergence of a Bilingual Speech Community

1. Macroacquisition Defined: Macroacquisition refers to the acquisition of a second language by a
speech community. It is a social process of second language acquisition that embodies language
spread and change, particularly in the context of World English.
2. Explanation of Language Appropriation: Macroacquisition provides a framework for
understanding how a language can be "appropriated" by its speakers. It links resistance to
language change by connecting language contact to sociohistorical factors.
3. Contrast with Weinreich's Approach: Unlike Weinreich's focus on the bilingual individual as
the locus of language contact, macroacquisition centers on the bilingual speech community. This
approach eliminates the dichotomy between individual linguistic and extralinguistic social
realms.
4. Focus on Social SLA: Macroacquisition highlights that the impetus for language change lies in
the process of social second language acquisition within the speech community. It emphasizes the
dynamic nature of the community rather than a static condition.
5. Genesis of Bilingual Speech Community: The explanation for language change as a result of its
spread is rooted in the genesis of the bilingual speech community, which is both a sociohistorical
and linguistic process. This community is in a constant state of formation and evolution, driving
language change.

Type A Bilingual Speech Community:

Emerges through a process of macroacquisition concurrent with the development of a new speech
community.

Occurs in multilingual settings where speakers of different mother tongues acquire a common second
language, serving as a unifying linguistic resource.
Examples include nations like Nigeria, South Africa, India, and Singapore where English has spread within
diverse linguistic environments.

Type B Bilingual Speech Community:

Macroacquisition involves the transformation of a previously monolingual mother tongue speech

community (or a section thereof) into a bilingual one.

Typically occurs in formerly predominantly monolingual settings where one mother tongue dominates.

Examples include incipient speech communities in countries like Japan, Mexico, and Jordan where
English has started to play a significant role alongside the dominant mother tongue.

1. Type A vs. Type B Macroacquisition:

 Type A macroacquisition involves the creation of a new speech community concurrent

with the acquisition of a common second language, as seen in Nigeria.

 Type B macroacquisition entails the transformation of an existing monolingual speech

community into a bilingual one, such as in Japan.

2. Implications for Sociohistorical Context:

 Resistance to linguistic imperialism, often associated with language change, is viewed

critically as it assumes a genetic relation between language and speakers.

 The idea of resistance is more about transforming social relations of power rather than
language itself.

 Macroacquisition, especially Type A, is not inherently tied to colonialism or imperialism;

it occurs whenever community formation and social second language acquisition happen
simultaneously.

3. Community Formation and Macroacquisition:

 Macroacquisition coincides with community formation, as seen in the case of South

Africa where the formation of a new national community aligns with the emergence of
an English-speaking speech community.
 Macroacquisition Type B, however, is not necessarily linked to community formation.