Attractiveness: empirical and theoretical perspectives

Ad Backus, Anna Verschik

Tilburg University, The Netherlands Tallinn University, Estonia

Themed-panel

Attractiveness of L2 pragmatic particles Anastassia Zabrodskaja
Introducing the Code-Copying Model Ad Backus, Anna Verschik
Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change in Dutch Turkish Seza Dogruoz
When Tension Is Strong, How Strong Is Attractiveness? Janice L. Jake, Carol Myers-Scotton

Participants: Lars Johanson (Johannes Guttenberg Universität Mainz) / Eva Csato (University of Uppsala) ,Yaron Matras (Univesrity of Manchester) , Seza Do?ruöz (Tillburg University) , Bernd Heine (Universität Köln) /Tania Kuteva (Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf) , Anastassia Zabrodskaja (Tallinn University) , Carol Myers-Scotton (Prof. Emeritus) / Janice Jake (Midlands Technical College)

In 1993, Lars Johanson launched the concept of attractiveness in language contacts, as part of his code-copying model of bilingual speech. Some language items and structures are more susceptible to copying (borrowing, calquing), and therefore more attractive, than others. Similarly, some aspects of language are better at resisting influence from another language than others. Attractiveness should not be seen as an absolute concept, but rather in relative terms. Within one particular language pair, things can turn out to be attractive that are unattractive in another language pair (e.g. a particular word order). In this workshop, we have two goals. First, the way attractiveness works in different language contact situations (different language pairs and different sociolinguistic settings) will be explored. Second, the workshop will deal with the possibilities of attractiveness as an explanatory notion in the code copying model and in other approaches. Throughout the workshop, we will be interested in the question how apparently attractive structures are conventionalized and become regular structures in the copying language.

Because of the variation in sociolinguistic settings and in typological profiles of the language pairs, we will look at the influence of both micro and macro dimensions on the outcomes of contact. One empirical question will be whether attractiveness is purely a linguistic factor (it determines a borrowability/copiability list of language elements and the more intense a contact situation gets, the further down the list things will get copied or borrowed), or whether characteristics of the sociolinguistic setting have an influence on what will turn out to be attractive.

Discussion questions:
- Is attractiveness dependent on purely structural characteristics or does it have sociolinguistic dimensions as well?
- Are there linguistic characteristics that seem to be attractive across the board?
- It is claimed that analytic constructions tend to be attractive. Is this confirmed by empirical data?
- Can the notion of attractiveness be used outside the theoretical framework it was developed in?
- Alongside with attractiveness, the concept of salience was introduced in 2002. It is claimed that salient items/structures are cognitively prominent and thus prone to copying. Whether and how attractiveness is related to salience?

Format

The workshop consists of two parts, each centered around three 20 minute lectures. The first part will focus on contact situations in which Turkic languages are involved, the language family that has provided the original input for the code copying model. The second part will broaden the typological scope. The contributors will be asked to address the points mentioned above, and the conveners will select one discussion point beforehand per paper, in order to give the 10 minute discussion that follows every lecture a certain degree of focusedness.

References

Backus, Ad (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another? In: International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (3/4): 307-340.

Do?ruöz, Seza and Ad Backus (forthc.). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-going contact-induced change. To appear in: Bilingualism: Language & Cognition

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva (2003). On contact-induced grammaticalization. In: Studies of Language, 27 (3): 529-572.

Johanson, Lars (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contact. London: Curzon.

Matras, Yaron (2000). How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar? In: C. Renfrew, A. McMahon & L. Trask (eds.). Time depth in historical linguistics. Cambridge: McDonald Institute: 563-583.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Toribio, A.J. (2004). Convergence as an optimatization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 165-173.

Verschik, Anna (2007). Multiple language contact in Tallinn: Transfer B2 > A1 or B1 > A2? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (1): 80-103.