Kerswill, Paul (2006). Migration and language. In Klaus Mattheier, Ulrich Ammon & Peter Trudgill (eds.) Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and nd society, 2 edn., Vol 3. Berlin: De Gru yter.
Migration and language Paul Kerswill
1. Isolating the linguistic and sociolinguistic consequences of migration
Language change may be thought of as having internal (intra-systemic), external (contact-based) and extra-linguistic (socio-political and economic) motivations (Farrar/Jones 2002, 1). It is reasonable to suppose that the migration of people is a leading cause of contact-induced change; in other words, migration is a ke y extralinguistic factor leading to externally-motivated change. In every case of migration, except where a homogeneous group of people moves to an isolated location, language or dialect contact ensues (Thomason/Kaufman 1988; Trudgill 1986). Migration also has far-reaching consequences for the social fabric of the three communities affected: the society of origin, the society of destination, and the migrants themselves (Lewis 1982, 25, summarising Mangalam (1968)). It follows that migration has profound sociolinguistic consequences, as the demographic balance of the sending and receiving populations is altered (migrants are typically young and economically active), and as the migrants are uprooted from familiar social and sociolinguistic set-ups, perhaps forming an ethnolinguistic minority which has to relate sociolinguistically to a new, ‘host’ speech community – which in i ts turn becomes transformed by their arrival (Kerswill 1994). Until recently, the study of the (socio)linguistic effects of migration has been conceptually separated from that of the spread of linguistic features by means of geographical diffusion, the simplest manifestation of which is the wave-like spread of a linguistic innovation from its point of origin. This is an example of the geographical phenomenon known as expansion diffusion (Britain 2003), and by definition does not implicate population movements. The study of this type of diffusion was central to the concerns of 19th and 20th century dialect geographers, later refined by the application of models from human geography, geography, particularly hierarchical diffusion (Trudgill 1983;
-1-
Britain 2002, 622-627; 2003). The geographical models applied were asocial in character (Britain 2003), while the linguistic focus was on individual features viewed within a mechanistic theory of change (the regularity hypothesis (Hock 1991, 35)). A parallel research tradition, focusing on pidgins and creoles (Schuchardt 1980) but also on language islands (Bohnenberger 1913; Schirmunski 1928), investigated the linguistic consequences of relocation diffusion (Britain 2003), by which cultural elements (including language) are transmitted tra nsmitted to non-contiguous locations by human migration. From the outset, this tradition has taken social conditions into account, particularly in pidgin/creole linguistics: Holm (2000, 30) cites Schuchardt’s 1882 study of São Tomé Creole Portuguese, which opens with a discussion of the social history of the language. It was only recently that the relationship between the two types of diffusion was acknowledged: both involve i nvolve the varied psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic processes resulting from language and dialect contact (Trudgill 1994). At linguistic borders and within “linguistic areas” (Sprachbünde; Chambers/Trudgill Chambers/Trudgill 1998, 168-170), expansion diffusion results in language contact, as do almost all cases of relocation diffusion. In these circumstances, we may find pidginisation, creolisation, second-language acquisition, multilingualism, borrowing and language shift. Dialect contact (Trudgill 1986) is characteristic of expansion diffusion within a dialect area (L. Milroy 2002). It is also characterises relocation diffusion when the migrants move to a place where the majority language varieties are mutually intelligible with their own, or when speakers of different, but related variet ies converge on linguistically ‘virgin’ territory, as in a new t own or in many colonial settlements. Here, the processes involved are second-dialect acquisition (Chambers 1992; Britain 2003; Kerswill 1996), accommodation (Trudgill 1986, 1-38), mixing, simplification, levelling, hyperdialectalisms and reallocation (Trudgill 1986; Britain/Trudgill 1999). The extent and manifestation of each of these processes depends on the nature of the contact and the types of communities involved (Trudgill 2002); however, their manifestations will be more extreme in cases of relocation diffusion than expansion diffusion (Britain 2003). In this chapter, I shall t reat ‘relocation’ as equivalent to ‘migration’. The focus will be on the parameters of migration as identified by human geographers. The linguistic and sociolinguistic consequences of each will be illustrated with examples.
-2-
2. Migration: parameters and consequences
The importance of migration in human affairs is suggested by the observation that: “… variation in migration levels between places [tends] to be much greater than differences in births and deaths” (Lewis 1982, 9). Within a single place, it is possible that the “net migration change [is] generally of much greater importance than natural change in its contribution to population change” (White 1980, cited in King 1993, 29). However, migration is not a single process, and there are “definitional problems once a precise description is attempted” (Boyle/Halfacree/Robinson 1998, 34), though there is usually agreement on the parameters that must be examined in describing and categorising cases of migration. These include:
•
space
•
time
•
motivation
•
socio-cultural factors (Lewis 1982, 9-19; Boyle et al. 1998, 34-38)
We will present each of these separately, along with discussions of their sociolinguistic repercussions.
2.1 Space Boundaries
The concept of space in migration studies relates, primarily, to whether administrative boundaries are crossed. Migration is defined as “movement across the boundary of an areal unit” (Boyle et al. 1998, 34), whereas a move within an areal unit is, simply, a “local move” (Lewis 1982, 10). Obviously, the larger the areal unit c onsidered, the fewer moves will be classified as “migrations”, though this may not reflect the impact of the moves on the communities concerned. A move across a boundary within a country is termed internal migration, the people involved being in-migrants to the -3-
areal unit, those moving out of it (to whatever destination) being out-migrants (Boyle et al. 1998, 34-5). Sociolinguistically, the distinction between moves within and across administrative boundaries within a state is of little c onsequence except insofar as the boundaries reflect, or in some cases shape, differing allegiances. For example, Llamas (2000) reports that younger people in Middlesbrough in northeast England have ceased to identify themselves as being “from Yorkshire”, the county to which it had belonged until boundary changes in 1968. This is reflected in the fact that the local accent has taken on features from the city of Newcastle to the north, even though selfexpressed identities are aligned not with Newcastle but with the t own itself. Whether these changes were caused by the boundary changes or by, say, economic changes is a moot point. Where the boundary separates states, significant differences of culture, economic conditions, education and language may be involved, and the impact of the migration will be greater. Omoniyi (1999) notes that in Idiroko and Igolo, villa ges on either side of the border between Nigeria and Benin, language attitudes differ within the same ethnolinguistic group, the Yoruba. On the Benin side, the population is more positively disposed towards Yoruba than are the Nigerians, while often sending their children across the border to be educated through the medium of English instead of French. At the same time, the twin villages have attracted numerous incomers, such as traders, smugglers and money-launderers, in addition to the presence of border officials.
Distance
Space is also reflected in distance. Short-distance migration differs from long-distance migration in the degree to which individuals can maintain links with the point of origin, as well as in the amount of personal commitment (resources, motivation) needed to move and maintain links. As with expansion diffusion (Hägerstrand 1952; Trudgill 1983; Britain 2003), gravity models have been applied to migration (Hägerstrand 1957, cited in Lewis 1982, 51-2). The model is the same, and predicts that migration flows will be a function of the size of populations at the points of origin and destination, and the distance between them (Lewis 1982, 53). However, geographers point out that perceived distance is not the same a s Euclidean distance, -4-
with a logarithmic transformation to some extent matching economic and psychological distance. This is in line with the claim that nearby places are seen as strongly differentiated and those further away as more uniform (Lewis 1982, 50). While short-distance moves enable existing social ties to be maintained, intermediatedistance moves are often to a socially similar area and allow new ties to be established. On the other hand, long-distance moves may involve a very different environment (Lewis 1982, 51), and establishing new t ies will prove problematic (though cultural differences are small in the case of Europe and distant former European settler colonies such as those of Australasia, Canada, the USA and parts of Latin America). The factor of distance is relevant sociolinguistically, but is not an explanatory variable because there are a number of intervening variables. Primarily, distance relates to the extent to which social ties can be maintained, as already noted. Weekly face-to-face contacts will serve to maintain dialect and language better than annual “home” visits. However, beyond a certain distance (Lewis rather arbitrarily mentions 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometres)) and a certain level of difficulty of travel to and from the home region, absolute distance is less relevant: direct contact will be relatively rare, and the cultural difference between the migrant and “host” groups will be relatively great. There are, however, a number of intervening variables, including wealth (reflecting ability to pay for travel). Two factors, in particular, are likely to have powerful sociolinguistic consequences, overriding distance per se: motivation and socio-cultural factors (2.3.). Distance seen in isolation from other variables is unlikely to show anything other than a weak association with language behaviour. Long-distance, long-term labour migration from less to more developed countries has been characteristic of the period since c. 1950, and is discussed under “long-term migration”, below (2.2.). Sociolinguistic issues are taken up there as well.
Direction
Finally, space also involves direction. Historically, mass migration in Europe and North America has been from rural to urban areas, starting in Britain in the late 18th century with the Industrial Revolution (Boyle et al. 1998, 5-9). The process was complex, with a good deal of short-stay migration (circulation; see below), as well as -5-
return migration over a lifetime (Boyle et al. 1998, 9; see below). This was followed in the early 20th century by suburbanisation, with commuting made possible by improved transport links and the motor-car. From the 1960s, we find counterurbanisation, with quality-of-life decisions and industrial relocation playing their part. However, recent years have seen an “urban revival”, with strong population growth in US metropolitan areas (Boyle et al. 1998, 14). Sociolinguistically, the critical directional parameter is that of in- vs. outmigration, since these alter the demographic balance of the location under scrutiny in terms of age, socio-economic class, ethnicity, other socio-cultural factors and language. At the same time, social network densities will change, both for the migrants and the destination societies, with the result that language change and language shift may be accelerated. For Europe and North America, the historical picture is one of considerable, mainly citywards movements, followed by more geographical mobility through internal migration and circulation in the shape of commuting. Within present-day western cities, differences have been noted in the pattern of migration among innercity residents (mainly local moves, with no predominant direction) and suburban residents (moves over a greater distance, outwards from the centre within their own geographical “sector”) (Balderson 1981, quoted in Lewis 1982, 52). In inner cities, this pattern allows for the maintenance of close-knit networks as well as non-standard, localised language varieties (L. Milroy 1980), while more mobile outer-city speakers are more levelled in the sense of using fewer strongly local features (J. Milroy 1982; 1992, 100-109; see Kerswill & Williams 2000a on dialect levelling among mobile populations). In Great Britain, the establishment of new towns from the 1950s onwards led to the possibility of koineised (mixed, levelled and simplified – Trudgill 1986, 127) new dialects (Kerswill/Williams 2000b). In Europe, initial urbanisation, the loosening of individuals’ network ties following greater geographical mobility and the formation of new towns are thought to have resulted in regional dialect levelling or dialect supralocalisation, which can be understood as the rise of distinctiveness at the wider, regional level at the expense of local distinctiveness, as well as the emergence of regional versions of the standard (cf. chapters in Foulkes/Docherty, eds., 1999; Milroy/Milroy/Hartley 1994; L. Milroy 2002; Trudgill 1999; Sobrero 1996; Hinskens 1996; Kerswill 2001; 2002; Andersson/Thelander 1994; Thelander 1982; Auer/Hinskens 1996, 4). -6-
In the developing world, rural–urban mass migration is a phenomenon of the latter part of the 20th century, with Sub-Saharan Africa the latest region to be affected (Boyle et al. 1998, 20-23). In West Africa, the dominant sociolinguistic effect appears to be an increase in individual multilingualism and the spread of lingua francas. Accra, the capital of Ghana, has seen massive in-migration. This has led to the indigenous ethnolinguistic group, the Ga, becoming a minority in the city (300,000 out of a population of 2 million (Grimes 2000)), with Akan/Twi now the main lingua franca with considerable numbers of L2 users. However, among northern migrants in Accra, Hausa is increasing its use as a lingua franca, reflecting its existing lingua franca status in the North (Kropp Dakubu 2000). Kropp Dakubu (2001) argues that the influx to Accra of people from the North has led to a conflict of sociolinguistic practices: the Ga share with other southerners (including the Akan) the custom by which visitors and hosts exchange news using spokesmen. This is not practised by northerners, who thereby remain outsiders. In Maiduguri, in northeast Nigeria, mass in-migration has led to Hausa being used as a lingua franca, particularly by L2 users, replacing the indigenous Kanuri. A new form of Hausa, separate from L1 varieties spoken elsewhere, is emerging (Broß forthcoming). Extreme political circumstances lead to directional mass migration. The Spanish occupation of Antwerp in 1585 led to the flight of over half the city’s population to the western provinces of today’s Netherlands, and has had a lasting effect on the dialects there (Auer/Hinskens 1996, 18). The resettlement in Germany of German speakers from the eastern provinces of the former Reich after World War II led to loss of dialect (Auer/Hinskens 1996, 20), while the post-war migration of people from eastern to western Poland led to dialect levelling (Mazur 1996). The relatively short-distance in-migration of rural people to local towns/cities has been the subject of sociolinguistic research. Bortoni-Riccardo (1985) considers the qualitatively different networks of Caipira (rural) speakers in Brasilia, Brazil; Kerswill (1994) considers dialect contact, long-term accommodation, network and integration among rural migrants in Bergen, Norway; Omdal (1994) examines attitudes and long-term accommodation among rural migrants in Kristiansand, Norway. A variation on this sociolinguistic approach is van Langenvelde’s (1993) quantitative migration-based study of the province of Friesland in the Netherlands. Here, there is in-migration of Frisian speakers to the towns, leading to a temporary increase in the number of Frisian speakers there. As these people and their -7-
descendants are urbanised, many will switch to Dutch. At the same time, there is counter-urbanisation led by Dutch-speaking town dwellers; this has t he effect of decreasing the proportion of Frisian speakers in the countryside. The result is the potential for language shift to Dutch both in the country and in the towns.
2.2 Time
“Migration” implies a degree of permanence in the move; migrant groups tend to be “committed to the project of living in other people’s countries”, despite in many cases retaining “diasporic yearnings” for a return to the homeland (Rex 1997, 17). An absolute definition of migration in terms of temporal patterns i s, however, not possible. Four temporal categories have been recognised: daily, periodic, seasonal and long term (Gould/Prothero 1975, cited in Lewis 1982, 17-18). Daily movements include commuting, while the latter three categories involve overnight stays.
Circulation
A further category is usually made cutting across these three: this is the concept of circulation, which includes “a great variety of movements usually short-term
repetitive or cyclical in character, but all having in common the lack of any declared intention of permanent or long-standing change of residence” (Zelinsky 1971, cited in Lewis 1982, 18). Examples of circulation include African nomads and western business people who spend regular periods every year working abroad (Boyle et al. 1998, 35). To these may be added the European Roma (see Réger 1995 and Matras 2000 for approaches integrating circulation and language contact). Students returning to their home towns during university vacations may find themselves with dual allegiances resulting in new dialect-mixing patterns that are not characteristic of the stay-at-homes (Blom/Gumperz 1972). As both insiders and outsiders, such individuals form a potential bridgehead for the introduction of innovations or for dialect levelling (“language missionaries” (Trudgill 1986)).
-8-
Periodic and return migration
The distinction between circulation and migration “proper” is, perhaps, arbitrary; the United Nations suggests a residence of at least one year in the host community as defining migration (Lewis 1982, 18). Turkish “guest workers” working in Germany in the winter but returning to Turkey in the summer are best regarded as temporary (periodic) migrants or seasonal workers (Boyle et al. 1998, 35). Guest workers and their families formed sufficiently large and permanent groups for code-switching norms to emerge (di Luzio 1984). Guest workers took employment in Germany expecting to leave permanently at the end of a work contract; for those who did indeed leave, the “myth of return” (the “failure to complete the intended migration route” (Boyle et al. 1998, 35)) was transformed into an actual return. Many migrants who have moved from a poorer to a richer country return to their place of birth at a later life-stage, either having accumulated enough money, or on reaching retirement; these are known as return migrants (Boyle et al. 1998, 35; Lewis 1982, 18). Others return, having failed to find
work or an improved lifestyle, as was the case for many after the US stock market crash of 1929. The scale of return migration is shown by the fact that one quarter of those who migrated from Norway to the USA after 1880 eventually returned home (Engesæter 2002). Sociolinguistically, periodic and return migrations are significant for the country of origin and for the migrants themselves. Some 20% of the population of Puerto Rico are returnees from mainland USA, and 10% of children are Englishdominant. This has led to a conflict between the attitudes of Puerto Rican educators and commentators, who deplore the mixing of Spanish with English, and the return migrants’ offspring, who believe that it is possible to combine a Puerto Rico identity with English dominance (Zentella 1990). A rather different example is the Norwegian Arctic territory of Svalbard (Spitsbergen), where by law residents must remain registered as domiciled on the mainland and where no one is permitted to remain after retirement. The average duration of stay is 10 years, with the result that stable linguistic norms have not emerged. Families normally spend long summer holidays on the mainland. Children who grow up there speak using often idiosyncratic dialect mixtures, and express dual allegiance to Svalbard and to their official domicile in Norway (Mæhlum 1992). -9-
Long-term migration
The distinction between return and quasi-permanent migration rests on whether the individual actually enacts the myth of return. However, there may be no intention to return. This will be true for religious minorities, such as t he German Mennonite communities in North America (MacMaster 1985; Kraybill 1989) and Russia, which have practised extensive cultural separation over two centuries or more and have formed “language islands” (Sprachinseln). But by far the largest category is that of the migrant with miscellaneous, though mainly economic motivations. The mass migration from Europe to the USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries is the clearest example of the intention to establish a “new life”, with no return envisaged. We can see the circulatory or seasonal migration patterns noted above merging, over time, with long-term migration. Starting in about 1950, western Europe saw large-scale long-distance unskilled labour migration from its former colonies (North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Pakistan, the West Indies), from eastern and southern Europe (Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece) and from Turkey (White 1993). These migrants were mainly men who came without families, and many, particularly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, were on fixed contracts. As Giddens (2001, 260) points out, this reflected not only macro-level economic circumstances, but also micro-level decisions taken by individuals, who used information gained from family and friends and the promise of a support network to inform their decision to migrate to particular countries and towns. Thus, Turks tended to migrate to Germany, in a series of chain migrations (Boyle et al. 1998, 36) by which individual “pioneers” were followed by others who knew them. A well documented case of chain migration is that of the Sylheti-speaking Bangladeshi community in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, where their 17,000 children form over 50% of the school population (Gregory/Williams 2000, 38-9, 154). From about 1970, restrictions began to be placed on immigration, and a second stage of migration followed, that of family reunification (White 1993, 49-50). Initially, agencies such as employers and governments determined the source of the migrant workers and made provision for their housing. The subsequent reduced need for unskilled labour coincided with the obligation to support arriving families. With - 10 -
the encouragement of market-led housing, immigrant communities became more reliant on poor-quality and/or social housing. A third migration wave has followed, that of asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand and highly-trained workers on the other. Combined with the effect of socio-cultural differences between immigrant groups, different times of arrival and widely differing degrees of cultural and economic integration, all these factors have now led t o considerable residential separation of ethnic groups in European cities approaching that already found in the USA (White 1993, 52-59). There has been considerable linguistic and sociolinguistic research on the German “language islands” of North America and elsewhere, much of it summarised in Rosenberg (forthcoming). Burridge/Enninger (eds., 1992) and Enninger/Raith (1988) are treatments of Pennsylvania German. Key issues are: dialect levelling (Schirmunski 1930); language contact with English on the syntactic level (Börjars/Burridge 2003); language contact and maintenance (Fuller 1996); cultural motivations for maintenance (Gal 1995). The mass migration from Europe to the USA spawned much early sociolinguistically-informed bilingualism research, notably that of Haugen (1953). The more recent long-distance labour migration to European (and North American) cities has obvious sociolinguistic consequences for t he recipient communities, which have become increasingly multilingual. Thus, 33% of the primary school children of London (a city with a population of 8 million) do not have English as a first or home language (Baker/Eversley 2000). 10 languages have more than 40,000 speakers in London, and 40 more than 1,000. Sociolinguistic studies of migrant communities in western Europe vary widely in their approaches. Some are linguistic in their aims, with linguistic distance an explicit factor (e.g., Perdue 1993a,b). The Dutch Science Foundation Program on Language and Minorities explicitly combines socio-cultural and linguistic
comparisons, focusing on two languages (Turkish and Moroccan Arabic) in the Netherlands (e.g., Extra/Verhoeven 1999). The project Languages and Cultures in the Utrecht Neighbourhoods Lombok and Transvaal is concerned both with linguistic
aspects (e.g., Boumans/Caubet 2000) and with inter-ethnic contacts within a multilingual neighbourhood (e.g., Jongenburger/Aarssen 2001). Similar projects in Stockholm are Language and Language Use among Adolescents in Multilingual Urban Settings (Bijvoet 2003; Fraurud/Bijvoet 2003) and an earlier study reported in
- 11 -
Kotsinas (1998). In London, more survey-based studies are those of the Linguistic Minorities Project (1985) and Baker/Eversley (eds., 2000). A network study of
language shift and maintenance in Newcastle, England, is Li (1994). Work on the language of the 250,000-strong Finnish immigrant community in Sweden has focused on syntactic change resulting from dialect contact and the development of separate Sweden-Finnish norms (Lainio/Wande 1994; Lainio 1993).
2.3. Motivation and socio-cultural factors Forced migration
The best known case of forced migration is that of the estimated 10-12 million Africans who were sent as slaves to the Caribbean, the West Indies and the Americas in the 16th–19th centuries (Iliffe 1995, 131). There is evidence that slave ship ca ptains deliberately took on board speakers of different languages to reduce the likelihood of insurrection (Dillard 1975, 19). The eventual outcome of this enforced multilingualism was the emergence of pidgins for communication with the masters and related creoles as the L1s of the slaves. In the 20th century, forced migration is again widespread, with an estimated 20 million of 100 million international migrants in 1992 being involuntary, as a result of persecution, war, environmental change and development projects. Africa contains some 47% of all refugees, though many of these migrations are short-lived (Boyle et al. 1998, 32). These movements contribute to the increasing urban multilingualism on that continent.
Economic and cultural factors affecting orientation to migration
However, the distinction between forced and voluntary migration may be hard to draw, because of the complex motivations in an individual case. According to Boyle et al. (1998, 36), “Different sub-groups of the population have different migration propensities, and there is a relatively small group who continue to move frequently (movers) and a larger group who rarely move (stayers)”. This is related to t he idea that some migration is innovative, that is, “exciting and challenging”, while other
- 12 -
instances are conservative, meaning that migrants want to preserve as much as possible of what they had before (Boyle 1998, 37). There are few sociolinguistic studies of migration addressing these largely social psychological parameters. One that does is part of a larger project on eastern German migrants to western Germany in the 1990s (Auer/Barden/Großkopf 1998). In a case study of an individual migrant, it was found that his orientation towards living in western Germany changed drastically over time, as a result of losing his job following an industrial accident (Auer/Barden/Großkopf 2000). His network changed, along with his attitudes. In the first period, before the accident, he had acquired standard variants of a number of phonological variables. As he lost his work-based contacts, he reactivated his eastern German ones, and reverted to many of the Upper Saxon dialect features of his home province. It is possible to distinguish two broad types of relationship with the host society on the part of a minority group, one emphasising segregation, the other participation. Coleman (1997) points out that these two types may be the (automatic) result of socio-economic and demographic “attributes” related to education, income and occupation type. Alternatively (or in addition), they may be to with the minority group’s orientation in terms of their response to the host society. Thus, a segregationist group, “fearing extinction, maximises its reproductive potential and minimises contact with the outside world, through segregation and by limiting outmarriage” (Coleman 1997, 1471), while one that is more participatory attempts to “overcome the disadvantages of life as a new minority and to maximise social mobility and material standing” by delaying marriage and ensuring a l ow birth-rate. The latter orientation does not entail assimilation, though in time it may lead to it. These orientations are related to cultural factors which may be independent of socioeconomic differences, for example, the maintenance of religion, different gender roles, and the practice of arranged marriages (Coleman 1997). Sociolinguistically, the practice of sending young men to visit the country of origin to participate in arranged marriages has the effect of continually refreshing the supply of L1 speakers. A strongly segregationist orientation, supported by external and internal institutions, legislation and a favourable economic climate, can lea d to language maintenance over many centuries, as with some of the Pennsylvania German groups.
- 13 -
Ethnolinguistic vitality and saliency
All the factors discussed above are related to the notion of ethnolinguistic vitality (Allard/Landry 1986; Sachdev/Bourhis 1993; Landweer 2000), measured in terms of a range of indicators such as number of speakers, strength of ethnic identity, strength of economic base and range of domains of use. However, a language’s ethnolinguistic saliency (Fishman 1999) is affected by the context in which a language group exists:
this is to be seen both at the level of the immediate (i.e. conversational) setting and in terms of overall relations between groups. Saliency is increased by the presence of conflict, as well as by a high degree of perceived cultural difference, as a kind of “figure-ground contrast” (Fishman 1999, 154).
3. Migration and new-dialect formation
Apart from pidginisation and creolisation, the most striking purely linguistic effect of migration is the formation of new dialects by the process of koineisation. Through koineisation, new varieties of a language are brought about as a result of contact between speakers of mutually intelligible varieties of that language. Typically, this occurs in new settlements to which people, for whatever reason, have migrated from different parts of a single language area. Examples of what a re known as new dialects (Trudgill 1998) or immigrant koines (Siegel 1985, 364; Kerswill 2002) include the Hindi/Bhojpuri varieties spoken in Fiji, Mauritius and South Africa, New Zealand English, and the speech of ‘new towns’ such as Høyanger, Odda and Tyssedal in Norway and Milton Keynes in England (Trudgill 1986; Mesthrie 1992; 1993; Kerswill 2002; Siegel 1987; Britain 1997; Trudgill/Gordon/Lewis/Maclagan 2000; Kerswill/Trudgill forthcoming; Kerswill/Williams 2000b). Less clear cases are t hose of the Dutch of the reclaimed land of the Polders (Scholtmeijer 1992) and the English of the Fens of eastern England following 17th century land reclamation (Britain 1997). Koineisation is composed of the mixing of elements from different dialects, followed by levelling, which refers to “a process whereby, in a dialect mixture situation, those elements disappear which are marked either universally or in terms of the particular language undergoing koineization” (Trudgill 1986, 143). This leads, eventually, to the reduction in the number of different realisations of the same - 14 -
linguistic element (a phonological variable, a grammatical morpheme or a lexical item) found as a result of prior mixing. Koines are also simplified with regard to the input dialects, usually having smaller phoneme systems, more invariant word forms, and simpler morphophonemics.
3.1 Fiji Hindi One of the major population movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the shipment of people from the Indian subcontinent to work as i ndentured labourers in the European colonies (Mesthrie, 1993). This resulted in new varieties of Indian languages, particularly Bhojpuri, being established across a wide region ranging from the West Indies and the Caribbean to South Africa (Mesthrie, 1992) and Fiji (Siegel, 1987). Table 1 (discussed in Kerswill 2002, 672-3) illustrates the mixed nature of the koine known as Fiji Hindi in one area of its grammar.
Table 1: Indian Hindi dialects and Fiji Hindi definite future suffixes (from Siegel, 1997, 115)
1sg 1pl 2sg (masc.) (fem.) 2pl (masc.) (fem.) 3sg 3pl
Bhojpuri
Avadhi
Braj
bo , ab ab, b , iha be , ba b , bis bâ(h) bu
bu , ab ab be , ihai
ihau , u gau iha , a gai (a)ihai, (a)igau
ega ega ega
bo , bau
(a)ihau, augau
ega
,
ihai, e iha , a
(a)ihau, agau (a)iha , a gai
ih, e , ihen
Fiji Hindi
The form ega clearly comes from Braj; in fact, it appears to be a compromise between
the various forms available in Braj. The form presumably comes from Bhojpuri or Avadhi. The manner in which variants have been selected from t he range of possibilities provided by the input dialects is an example of levelling. At the same time, the table shows extensive simplification, involving the loss of distinct suffixes
- 15 -
for the first and second persons singular and plural, the t hird person singular and plural, and, predictably perhaps, a failure to adopt the gender distinction in the second person found in one of the contributing dialects (Bhojpuri).
3.2 Milton Keynes
The southeast English new town of Milton Keynes was designated in 1967 in a location roughly 80 kilometres from London, Oxford, and Cambridge (see fuller discussions in Kerswill/Williams 2000b; Kerswill 2002; Kerswill/Trudgill forthcoming). From that date to 1991, the population of the a rea rose from 44,000 to 176,000, rising further to 207,000 by the 2001 Census. Recordings were made of children (aged 4, 8 and 12) and their female caregiver in 1991-2, some 24 years, or one generation, after its foundation. Almost all the child speakers in the samples were the offspring of adult migrants to the town. We consider first the degree to which this first native generation has focused (Le Page 1980) its speech by settling on a new norm, in comparison with that of the migrant caregivers. The variable (ou) refers to the realisation of the offset of the vowel / / as in GOAT ,
which is currently being fronted in south-east England. The parents of the
children originate from various parts of Great Britain, and would therefore be expected to show a range of pronunciations for this vowel, from both the southeast and elsewhere. In order to see whether any focusing among the children has occurred, we can compare the fronting scores for the female caregiver (in almost all cases the mother) with those of their children. The variable has t he following values:
(ou) - 0: [o], [o]
score: 0
(Northern and Scottish realization)
(ou) - 1: [ ], []
score: 1
(older Buckinghamshire and London)
(ou) - 2: [ ]
score: 2
(fronting)
(ou) - 3: [ ]
score: 3
(fronting and unrounding)
- 16 -
An index score was calculated for each speaker, on a scale from 0 to 3, in interview style. It was hypothesised that the 4-year-old children would be measurably closer in their speech to their caregiver than are either the 8 or the 12 year olds. Figure 1 shows the correlation of the 4 year olds’ index scores with those of their caregivers. Taking the caregivers’ scores first, we note that they cover a very wide range. Four of the 16 have scores close to 0, indicating high-back rounded pronunciations characteristic of the north of England and Scotland. The remaining twelve are a ll from the south of England, and show different degrees of fronting. Like the adults, the children fall into two groups: those using high-back northern variants, and those favouring southern diphthongs. However, all the children are Milton Keynes-born, so we have here a case of some young children acquiring their parents’ dialect, while others have either not acquired it or have already accommodated to southern speech before the time of the interview. In fact, we have direct evidence of this type of accent mobility in this age group: one of the two boys at bottom left of the figure, the offspring of Scottish parents, was using a mainstream south-eastern accent by the time he was recorded for a second time eighteen months later. 2.5
2 s e c i d n i 1.5 ) u o ( s ' n e 1 r d l i h C
girls age 4 boys age 4
0.5
0 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Caregivers' (ou) indices
Fig. 1. Correlation of 4 year old children's and caregivers' (ou) indices For these four year olds, the choice between a high back variant and a central or fronted diphthong is a binary one. Some follow their parents, others turn away from them. However, there is a further, more subtle pattern in the data. Among the 12 - 17 -
children who have southeastern parents (represented by the large cluster in the centre and top-right of the figure), and therefore do not have a gross binary choice to make, there is a strong positive and significant correlation with the degree of fronting of their caregivers, with an r2 of .355 (Pearson; significant at p<.04). This suggests, of course, that these children match their parents’ quality for this vowel very closely. The two children with non-southern caregivers, at top left, have made the binary choice away from their parents’ pronunciation. Interestingly, they have then actually accentuated the difference by going for quite a fronted vowel. There is a great deal of diversity among the four year olds, reflecting the wider range of dialects spoken by the adults in the new town than would be the case in a longer-established town. In terms of finding out which age group is instrumental in the process of new-dialect formation, we need to look at older c hildren. Figure 2 shows the same information for the remainder of the children, divided by age and sex. This time, once the three children from northern families have been removed, there is an almost complete absence of correlation (r2=.0532 for the combined age groups). By the age of eight, the children are no longer affected at all by their parents’ vowel articulations. 2.5
2 x e d n i ) 1.5 u o ( s ' n e r 1 d l i h C
girls age 12 boys age 12 girls age 8 boys age 8
0.5
0
0
0.5
1 1.5 Caregivers (ou) index
2
2.5
Fig. 2. Correlation of (ou) indices for 8 and 12 year olds and caregivers
- 18 -
Not only is there greater homogeneity, but there is also focusing on a different norm even from that of the southeastern caregivers: the mean fronting is significantly greater than that of the parents, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Index scores for (ou): children and caregivers in Milton Keynes Standard deviation
Significance (paired t-test)
r2
1.47
(ou) index: children with southeastern caregivers 1.52
0.4887
p=.628
.355 (p=.04)
1.44
1.80
0.3545
p=.004
.045 (p=.4)
1.31
1.70
0.3124
p<.001
.23 (p=.08)
Child age group
(ou) index: southeastern caregivers
4 year olds 8 year olds 12 year olds
Range of index: 0–3 Thus, focusing on new norms in new-dialect formation is in the gift of older children, from (approximately) the age at which they begin to form friendship groups outside the home. This study therefore complements those investigating completed cases of new-dialect formation, in that it can shed light on the process itself.
4. Conclusion
Migration and language interact in a complex, yet tra nsparent way. Chiefly, migration leads to language or dialect contact, and is, indeed, the prime cause of such contact. Despite the fact that migration varies greatly in time, distance and motivation, this chapter has been able to show that, given a particular constellation of migration type and language varieties in contact, it is possible to make generalisations, and even realistic predictions, about the sociolinguistic outcomes of the migration.
- 19 -
References
Allard, R./Landry, R (1986) “Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality viewed as a belief system”, in: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7, 1-12. Andersson, Roger/Thelander, Mats (1994) “Internal migration, biography formation and linguistic change”, in: Nordberg, Bengt, ed., The sociolinguistics of urbanization: The case of the Nordic countries, Berlin/New York, 51-86.
Auer, Peter/Barden, Birgit/Großkopf, Beate (1998) “Subjective and objective parameters determining ‘salience’ in long-term dialect accommodation”, in: Journal of Sociolinguistics 2, 163-187.
Auer, Peter/Barden, Birgit/Großkopf , Beate (2000) “Long-term linguistic accommodation and its sociolinguistic interpretation: evidence from the innerGerman migration after the Wende”, in: Mattheier, Klaus, ed., Dialect and migration in a changing Europe, New York (= Variolingua 12), 79-98. Auer, Peter/Hinskens, Frans (1996) “The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area”, in: Sociolinguistica 10, 1-30. Baker, Philip/Eversley, John, eds. (2000) Multilingual capital. The languages of London’s schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies, London.
Balderson, W. A. (1981) Aspects of recent residential mobility in Leicester , PhD thesis, University of Leicester. Bijvoet, Ellen (2003) “Attitudes towards ‘Rinkeby Swedish’, a group variety among adolescents in multilingual suburbs”, in: Fraurud, Kari/Hyltenstam, Kenneth, eds., Multilingualism in global and local perspectives. Papers from the 8th Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, November 1-3, 2001, Stockholm, Rinkeby,
Stockholm. Blom, Jan-Petter/Gumperz, John J. (1972) “Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway”, in: Gumperz, John J./Hymes, Dell, eds., Directions in sociolinguistics, New York, 407-434.
Bohnenberger, Karl (1913) Die Mundart der deutschen Walliser im Heimattal und in den Aussenorten. (= Beiträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Mundart 6), Frauenfeld.
- 20 -
Börjars, Kersti/ Burridge, Kate (2003) “Origins and development of the Pennsylvania German ‘for...to’ construction”, submitted to Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Bortoni-Ricardo, Stella Maris (1985) The urbanization of rural dialect speakers, Cambridge. Boumans, Louis/Caubet, Dominique (2000) “Modelling intrasentential codeswitching: a comparative study Algerian/French in Algeria and Moroccan/Dutch in the Netherlands”, in: Owens, Jonathan, ed., Arabic as a minority language, Berlin, 113-80.
Boyle, Paul/Halfacree, Keith/Robinson, Vaughan (1998) Exploring contemporary migration, London.
Britain, David (1997) “Dialect contact and phonological reallocation: “Canadian Raising” in the English Fens”, in: Language in Society 26, 15-46. Britain, David (2002) “Space and spatial diffusion”, in Chambers, J.K./Trudgill, Peter/Schilling-Estes, Natalie, eds., The handbook of language variation and change, Oxford, 603-637.
Britain, David (2003) “Geolinguistics and linguistic diffusion”, in Mattheier, Klaus/Ammon, Ulrich/Trudgill, Peter, eds., Handbook of sociolinguistics/Handbuch der Soziolinguistik , Berlin.
Britain, David/Trudgill, Peter (1999) “Migration, new-dialect formation and sociolinguistic refunctionalisation: reallocation as an outcome of dialect contact”, Transactions of the Philological Society 97, 245-256. Broß, Michael (forthcoming) “L2 speakers, koineization and the spread of language norms: Hausa in Maiduguri, Nigeria”, in: Linguistics. Burridge, Kate/Enninger, Werner, eds. (1992) Diachronic studies on the languages of the Anabaptists, Bochum.
Chambers, J.K. (1992) “Dialect acquisition”, in: Language 68, 673-705. Chambers, J.K./Trudgill, Peter (1998) Dialectology, 2nd edn., Cambridge. Coleman, David A. (1997) “The origins of multi-cultural societies and the problems of their management under democracy”, in: Proceedings of the 23rd International Population Conference, Beijing 1997 , Volume 3, 1457–1496,
Liège. di Luzio, Aldo (1984) “On the meaning of language choice for the sociocultural identity of bilingual migrant children”, in: Auer, Peter/di Luzio, Aldo, eds., Interpretive sociolinguistics. Tübingen, 55-86.
- 21 -
Dillard, J. L. (1975) “A Sketch of the history of Black English”, in: Stoller, Paul, ed., Black American English: its background and its usage in the schools and in literature. Paul Stoller. New York, 17-48.
Engesæter, Olaug (2002) “Norsk emigrasjon”, http://web.hist.uib.no/digitalskolen/oe/noemi.htm, Historisk institutt, University of Bergen (online resources). Enninger, Werner/Raith, Joachim (1988) “Varieties, variation, and convergence in the linguistic repertoire of the Old Order Amish in Kent County, Delaware”, in: Auer, Peter/Di Luzio, Aldo, eds., Variation and convergence. Studies in social dialectology, Berlin, 259-292.
Extra, Guus/Verhoeven, Ludo (1999) “Processes of change in a migration context: the case of the Netherlands”, in: Extra, Guus/Verhoeven, Ludo, eds., Bilingualism and migration, Berlin/New York, 29-57.
Farrar, Kimberley & Jones, Mari C. (2002) “Introduction”, in: Jones, Mari/Esch, Edith, eds., Contact-induced language change. An examination of internal, external and non-linguistic factors, Berlin, 1-16.
Fishman, Joshua (1999) “Sociolinguistics”, in: Fishman, Joshua, ed., Handbook of language and ethnic identity, Oxford, 152-163.
Foulkes, Paul/Docherty, Gerrard, eds. (1999) Urban voices. Accent studies in the British Isles, London.
Fraurud, Kari/Bijvoet, Ellen (2003) “Multietniska ungdomsspråk och andra varieteter av svenska i flerspråkiga miljöer”, in: Hyltenstam, Kenneth/Lindberg, Inger, eds., Svenska som andraspråk, Lund.
Fuller, Janet (1996) “When cultural maintenance means linguistic convergence: Pennsylvania German evidence for the Matrix Language Turnover Hypothesis”, in: Language in Society 25(4), 493-514. Gal, Susan (1995) “Cultural bases of language use among German-speakers in Hungary”, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 111, 93-102. Also in Cheshire, Jenny/Trudgill, Peter, eds, (1998) The sociolinguistics reader , Vol. 1: Multilingualism and variation, London, 113-121. Giddens, Anthony (2001) Sociology, 4th edition, Cambridge. Gould, William T.S./Prothero, R. Mansell (1975) “Space and time in African population mobility”, in: Kosinski, Leszek A./Prothero, R. Mansell, eds., People on the move: studies on internal migration, London, 39-49. 325.1-KOS
- 22 -
Gregory, Eve/Williams, Ann (2000) City literacies. Learning to read across generations and cultures, London.
Grimes, Barbara F. (2000) Ethnologue, 14th edition, Dallas. Consulted at http://www.ethnologue.com. Hägerstrand, Torsten (1952) The propagation of innovation waves , Lund. Hägerstrand, Torsten (1957) “Migration in Sweden”, in: Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, 13, 27-158. Haugen, Einar (1953) The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior , Oslo/Philadelphia.
Hinskens, Frans (1996) Dialect levelling in Limburg: Structural and sociolinguistic aspects, Tübingen.
Hock, Hans Henrich (1991) Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edition, Berlin. Holm, John (2000) An introduction to pidgins and creoles, Cambridge. Iliffe, John (1995) Africans. The history of a continent , Cambridge. Jongenburger, Willy/Aarssen, Jeroen (2001) “Linguistic and cultural diversity in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood. A survey study”, in: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22(4), 293-308.
Kerswill, Paul (1994) Dialects converging: rural speech in urban Norway, Oxford. Kerswill, Paul (1996) “Children, adolescents and language change”, in: Language Variation and Change 8, 177-202.
Kerswill, Paul (2001) “Mobility, meritocracy and dialect levelling: the fading (and phasing) out of Received Pronunciation”, in: Rajame, Pilvi, ed., British Studies in the new millennium: Challenge of the grassroots. Proceedings of the 3rd Tartu Conference on British Studies, University of Tartu, Estonia. Also at
http://www.shunsley.eril.net/armoore/lang/rp.htm. Kerswill, Paul (2002) “Koineization and accommodation”, in: Chambers, J.K./Trudgill, Peter/Schilling-Estes, Natalie, eds., The handbook of language variation and change, Oxford, 669-702.
Kerswill, Paul/Trudgill, Peter (forthcoming) “The life-cycle of new dialects”, in: Auer, Peter/Hinskens, Frans/Kerswill, Paul, eds., Dialect change: The convergence and divergence of dialects i n contemporary societies, Cambridge.
Kerswill, Paul/Williams, Ann (2000a) “Mobility and social class in dialect levelling: evidence from new and old towns in England”, In: Mattheier, Klaus, ed., Dialect and migration in a changing Europe, Frankfurt, 1-13.
- 23 -
Kerswill, Paul/Williams, Ann (2000b) “Creating a new town koine: children and language change in Milton Keynes”, in: Language in Society 29(1), 65-115. Kerswill, Paul/Williams, Ann (forthcoming) “New towns and koineisation: linguistic and social correlates”, accepted for publication in Linguistics. King, Russell (1993) “Why do we people migrate? The geography of departure”, in: King, Russell, ed., The new geography of European migrations , London, 17-46. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt (1998) “Language contact in Rinkeby, an immigrant suburb”, in: Androutsopoulos, Jannis/Scholz, Arno, eds., Jugendsprache. Langue des jeunes. Youth language, Frankfurt-am-Main, 125-148.
Kraybill, Donald B. (1989) The riddle of Amish culture, Baltimore. Kropp Dakubu, Mary Esther (2000) “Multiple bilingualisms and urban transitions: coming to Accra”, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 141, 926. Kropp Dakubu, Mary Esther (2001) “The Ethnographic Model and the Linguistic Integration of Migrants in Accra”, paper given at the conference on Migration and the City, University of Bayreuth, November. Lainio, Jarmo (1993) “Sweden Finnish”, in: Extra, Guus/Verhoeven, Ludo, eds., Immigrant Languages in Europe , Clevedon, Philadelphia & Adelaide, 21-53.
Lainio, Jarmo/Wande, Erling (1994) “The pronoun minä ‘I’ in urban Sweden Finnish”, in: Nordberg, Bengt, ed., The sociolinguistics of urbanization: The case of the Nordic countries, Berlin/New York, 171-202.
Landweer, M. Lynn (2000) “Indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality”, in: Notes on Sociolinguistics 5.1:5-22. (accessed at http://www.sil.org/sociolx/ndg-lg-
indicators.html) Le Page, Robert B. (1980) “Projection, focusing, diffusion, or, steps towards a sociolinguistic theory of language, illustrated from the Sociolinguistic Survey of Multilingual Communities”, in: York Papers in Linguistics 9, 9-32. University of York. Lewis, Gareth (1982) Human migration: A geographical perspective, London/Canberra. Li, Wei (1994) Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and shift in a Chinese community in Britain , Clevedon.
Linguistic Minorities Project (1985) The other languages of England , London.
- 24 -
Llamas, Carmen (2000) “Middlesbrough English: Convergent and divergent trends in a ‘part of Britain with no identity’”, in: Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 123-148. MacMaster, Richard K. (1985) Land, piety, peoplehood: the establishment of Mennonite communities in America, 1683-1790, Scottdale, Pennsylvania.
Mæhlum, Brit (1992) “Dialect socialization in Longyearbyen, Svalbard (Spitsbergen): A fruitful chaos”, in: Jahr, Ernst Håkon, ed., Language contact and language change, Berlin, 117-130.
Mangalam, J.J. (1968) Human migration: A guide to migration literature in English, Lexington. Matras, Yaron (2000) “Migrations and replacive convergence a s sources of diversity in the dialects of Romani”, in: Mattheier, Klaus, ed., Dialect and migration in a changing Europe, Frankfurt, 173-194.
Mazur, Jan (1996) “Konvergenz und Divergenz in den polnischen Sprachvarietäten”, in: Sociolinguistica 10, 53-74. Mesthrie, Rajend (1992) Language in indenture: a sociolinguistic history of Bhojpuri Hindi in South Africa, London.
Mesthrie, Rajend (1993) “Koineization in the Bhojpuri–Hindi diaspora – with special reference to South Africa”, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 99, 25-44.
Milroy, James (1982) “Probing under the tip of the ice-berg: phonological normalization and the shape of speech communities”, in: Romaine, Suzanne, ed., Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities, London, 35-47.
Milroy, James (1992) Linguistic variation and change, Oxford. Milroy, James/Milroy, Lesley/Hartley, Sue (1994) “Local and supra-local change in British English: the case of glottalisation”, in: English World-Wide 15, 1-33. Milroy, Lesley (1980) Language and social networks, Oxford. Milroy, Lesley (2002) “Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change Working with contemporary speech communities”, in: Journal of Sociolinguistics 6, 3-15. Omdal, Helge (1994) “From the valley to the city: Language modification and language attitudes”, in: Nordberg/Bengt, ed., The sociolinguistics of urbanization: The case of The Nordic countries, Berlin/New York, 116–148.
- 25 -
Omoniyi, Tope (1999) “Afro-Asian rural border areas”, in: Fishman, Joshua, ed., Handbook of language and ethnic identity, Oxford, 369-381.
Perdue, Clive (1993a) Adult language acquisition, Vol. 1: Field methods, Cambridge. Perdue, Clive (1993b) Adult language acquisition, Vol. 2: The results, Cambridge. Réger, Zita (1995) “The language of gypsies in Hungary: an overview of research”, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 111, 79-91. Rex, John (1997) “Multi-culturalism in Europe and North America”, in: Isajiw, Wsevolod, ed., Multiculturalism in North America and Europe: Comparative perspectives on interethnic relations and social incorporation, Toronto, 15-34.
Rosenberg, Peter (forthcoming) “Dialect convergence in the German language islands (Sprachinseln)”, in: Auer, Peter/Hinskens, Frans/Kerswill, Paul, eds., Dialect change: The convergence and divergence of dialects in contemporary societies,
Cambridge. Sachdev, Itesh/Bourhis, R.Y. (1993) “Ethnolinguistic vitality and social identity”, in Abrams, D./Hogg, M., eds., Group motivation: social psychological perspectives , Hemel Hempstead. Schirmunski, Viktor M. (1928), Die deutschen Kolonien in der Ukraine. Geschichte, Mundarten, Volkslied, Volkskunde, Charkow.
Schirmunski, Viktor M. (1930) “Sprachgeschichte und Siedelungsmundarten”, in: Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 18, H. 3/4: 113-122; H. 5/6: 171-188.
Scholtmeijer, Harrie (1992) Het Nederlands van de IJsselmeerpolders, Kampen. Schuchardt, Hugo. (1882) “Kreolische Studien I. Ueber das Negerportugiesische von S. Thomé (Westafrika)”, in: Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien 102(2), 799-816.
Schuchardt, Hugo (1980) Pidgin and creole languages: selected essays , edited and translated by G. G. Gilbert, Cambridge. Siegel, Jeff (1985) “Koines and koineization”, in: Language in Society 14, 357-378. Siegel, Jeff (1987) Language contact in a plantation environment , Cambridge. Sobrero, Alberto A. (1996) “Italianization and variations in the repertoire: the Koinai”, in: Sociolinguistica 10, 105-111. Thelander, Mats (1982) “A qualitative approach to the quantitative data of speech variation”, in: Romaine, Suzanne, ed., Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities, London, 65-83.
- 26 -
Thomason, Sarah/Kaufman, Terrence (1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics, Berkeley.
Trudgill, Peter (1983) On dialect: social and geographical perspectives , Oxford. Trudgill, Peter (1986) Dialects in contact , Oxford. Trudgill, Peter (1994) “Language contact and dialect contact in linguistic change”, i n: Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt/Helgander, John, eds., Dialektkontakt, språkkontakt och språkförändring i Norden. Föredrag från ett forskarsymposium Series: MINS,
No. 40, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 13-22. Trudgill, Peter (1998) “The chaos before the order: New Zealand English and the second stage of new-dialect formation”, in: Jahr, Ernst Håkon, ed., Advances in historical sociolinguistics, Berlin, 1-11.
Trudgill, Peter (1999) The dialects of England , 2nd edition, Oxford. Trudgill, Peter 2002 “Linguistic and social typology”, in: Chambers, J.K./Trudgill, Peter/Schilling-Estes, Natalie, eds., The handbook of language variation and change, Oxford, 707-728.
Trudgill, Peter/Gordon, Elizabeth/Lewis, Gillian/Maclagan, Margaret (2000) “Determinism in new-dialect formation and the genesis of New Zealand English”, in: Journal of Linguistics 36:299-318. van Langenvelde, Ab (1993) “Migration and language in Friesland”, in: Journal of Multilingual and Multilingual Development 14(5), 393-409.
White, Paul (1980) “Migration loss and the residual community: a study in rural France 1962-75”, in: White, Paul/Woods R.I., eds., The geographical impact of migration, London.
White, Paul (1993) “The social geography of immigrants in European cities: the geography of arrival”, in King, Russell, ed., The new geography of European migrations, London, 47-66.
Zelinsky, Wilbur (1971) “The hypothesis of the mobility transition”, in: Geographical Review 61(2), 219-249.
Zentella, Ana Celia (1990) “Returned migration, language, and identity: Puerto Rican bilinguals in dos worlds/two mundos”, in: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 84, 81-100.
- 27 -
