This paper surveys the kinds of contact-induced language change that have so far been observed in the languages of Melanesia, linguistically one of the most diverse areas of the world, if not the most diverse. It then draws on this survey to draw attention to the problems that these pose for the classification and reconstruction of the history of Melanesian languages. In some ways Melanesia is typical of the rest of the Austronesian world, but in other ways it is not.
The topic of language contact and change in Melanesia is a vast one, and one that I cannot possibly do justice to in detail in the space available here. My aim will therefore be merely to give an overview of the types of contact-induced change that have so far been observed in that part of the Pacific that is popularly known as Melanesia (Map 1), with a view to drawing attention to certain problems that these pose for the classification and reconstruction of the history of Melanesian languages. In some ways Melanesia is typical of the rest of the Austronesian world but in other ways it is not.
Let us begin with the, now somewhat well worn, observation that Melanesia is one of the most diverse linguistic areas in the world, if not the most diverse. Here, scattered across New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, the Loyalty Islands and Fiji are to be found over one thousand languages,[1] or approximately one-quarter of those spoken in the world today.[2]
Languages in this area are usually classified into two major types: Austronesian (An) and Non-Austronesian or Papuan (NAn), the latter being a general cover term for all those languages that are not An in origin without necessarily implying genetic relationship. For the most part speakers of An languages occupy the smaller islands and coastal areas of the larger islands. These languages are most closely related genetically to the languages of Polynesia and Micronesia and form with them the Oceanic (Oc) subgroup of An languages (see Pawley and Ross, this volume). Approximately 400 of the Oceanic languages are spoken in Melanesia. They belong to different first order subgroups of Oc although not everyone agrees on just what these subgroups are. Thirteen of them are Polynesian in origin and are known as the Polynesian Outliers.[3]
NAn languages, on the other hand, are genetically unrelated to An languages.[4] They vary widely amongst themselves and do not belong to one large family like the An languages do, although some 75 per cent or so of them are thought to be distantly related to one another and to form a super-family called the Trans-New Guinea Phylum. Even so, no such relationship has yet been firmly demonstrated and the best that linguists are prepared to accept is that there are many families (about 60) which look as if they could group together in a large number of stocks and phyla. Speakers of these languages occupy the area not occupied by speakers of An languages, which for the most part is the interior of some of the larger western Melanesian islands. They are especially concentrated on the mainland of New Guinea. Because of the distributions and internal relationships of An and NAn languages it is thought that NAn languages are the older and that the An languages are intrusive. It is further believed (on the basis of both linguistic and archaeological evidence) that the Austronesian settlement of Melanesia was by descendants of the speakers of a single ancestral language, Proto-Oceanic, who arrived in the area three to four millennia ago.
Given a situation where so many languages are concentrated in such a small area it comes as no surprise to find that speakers of these languages are, and have been, in frequent contact with each other.[5] As a result the languages undergo, and have undergone, what linguists colloquially call “influence” from each other. Strictly speaking, however, languages do not influence each other. They cannot, because languages only exist as entities when spoken or written down. It is speakers who transfer the aspects of one on to another when they make choices about what to say or write in particular circumstances. But for this to happen the speakers must know some or all of the other language. In linguistic terms there must be some level of bi- or multilingualism in communities in contact before the languages used in those communities can come into contact and influence each other.
The effects of language contact are many and varied and can be quite dramatic. The main possibilities include:
- one group giving up its language in favour of another. In linguistic circles this is called language shift. Language shifting is sensitive to social conditions and, although it is not yet a settled issue, cultural pressure in one form or another is generally regarded as the important shift-motivating factor. Some of the most common factors in this context include prestige, cultural superiority, militaristic dominance and demographic superiority.[6] If the dominant group is large it is likely that the shifting group will eventually learn the target language. However, if the relationship changes (as for example, if the dominant group is reduced in size for some reason or loses power) or if the shifting group is able to survive as a homogeneous or close-knit subgroup within the target language community (as happens with some ethnic minorities in Australia), the shifting group’s form of the language may become established as the norm. In this case the norm will show the effects of borrowing, often called language shift interference or substratum influence — the subordinate speakers have influenced the language in the direction of their original language.
- two or more languages existing side by side without any interference. This can only happen in very special circumstances, when, for example, neither group utters a word of the other’s language even though the two groups may come together for certain purposes (such as trading), or when speakers of one language learn to understand the other but never use it. Speakers in this latter situation are said to be passively bilingual (that is understand a language but not speak it) or to be dual lingual (as, for example, when two people speak different languages and converse by doing so, each being passively bilingual in the other’s language).
- borrowing of elements of one language into another. This is the most common
type of influence one language has on another and may involve all aspects of a
language, from sounds to grammar and vocabulary. Theoretically any feature of a
language may be borrowed, although this has only recently been acknowledged. For a
long time it was assumed, for example, that grammatical elements would only be
borrowed between dialects (or variants of a language) or very similarly structured
languages. Nevertheless, in practice we find that given the right social conditions
any aspect of a language can be borrowed. For this to happen, however, special
social circumstances have to be operating. In general, social factors are the most
important determinants for borrowing, although linguistic factors such as the
similarity of the structure of the two languages (or what linguists call typological
distance between them) are not unimportant.[7] Although there is a range of terms used by linguists to talk about
borrowing there are three well-known if somewhat old fashioned terms which cover
most cases. These are what Bloomfield (1933:444-495), the so-called Father of
American Linguistics, called “dialect borrowing”, “cultural borrowing” and “intimate
borrowing”, although in Melanesia it is often difficult to distinguish between the
results of partial language shift, heavy cultural borrowing and intimate borrowing.
- Dialect borrowing. As the name suggests this is the kind of borrowing that occurs between dialects or varieties of a language. It is also applied to that between typologically very similar languages. In this kind of borrowing changes introduced are generally very minute and result mainly from groups of speakers favouring one way of saying something over another, rather than from the adoption of wholly new forms of vocabulary or grammar. Dialect borrowing is perhaps the most difficult problem that linguists have to deal with in trying to classify languages and in reconstructing their histories, because it often goes undetected.[8]
- Cultural borrowing. This is the term used to describe the kind of borrowing that occurs when two or more groups of people come into contact and learn words for things they do not have and are interested in obtaining from each other. This kind of borrowing implies casual contact and is most likely to occur where there are cultural differences. It is ordinarily mutual (as the rather crude definition above suggests), but it does not have to be. It is one-sided only to the extent that one group has more to give than the other. Because it is associated with casual contact the borrowing usually only involves vocabulary. This kind of borrowing is also usually very easy to identify because it is restricted to certain kinds of items and is usually phonologically irregular in some way. Finally the borrowing process does not affect the borrowing language’s sound system. Consider, for example, how little the pronunciation of British citizens in India was affected by the adoption of many words of Indian origin.
- Intimate borrowing. This type of borrowing occurs when a group of speakers attempts to learn the language of its contacts. As a result it implies some degree of second language learning, some kind of bilingualism (or multilingualism) although it does not necessarily imply language shift.[9] That may be an unintended result, however. Thus, as will be pointed out later, where language differences serve group identity (or emblematic) functions, as in Melanesia, a group of speakers may come to regard another language as part of its “pool of linguistic resources” (Grace 1981:264) for various social purposes. That is, speakers keep their mother tongue for group identity purposes but become so familiar with the second language that they may transfer the features of that language to their mother tongue. As a result the structure and vocabulary of their mother tongue may be influenced by that of the second language. The learning of the second (or third or however many) language normally takes place as a result of some “felt need” or perceived social advantage on the part of the learners. Borrowing or linguistic influence in this case implies close or intense contact. Often the first indication that intimate borrowing has taken place is that the language proves difficult to classify or that the original status of the language as An or NAn is not immediately clear. In Melanesia a number of such difficult-to-classify languages have been called “mixed languages” (Capell 1976), although the term is a controversial one and not accepted by everyone.
- the development of a third language not identical to either. This is the case again when special social conditions prevail, such as, for example, when communities come into contact to trade[10] or when one group of people is imprisoned by or forced to work for another (as happened in the Pacific last century for example). In these situations there is a need to communicate before there is time to learn one or the other of the languages spoken by the contacting groups or when there are other barriers to doing so. Such languages are usually restricted in vocabulary and simplified in structure compared with the languages in contact. They are specific purpose languages and are not spoken natively. They are called pidgin languages.[11]
[1] The word “language” is here used in the sense that when two people speak their respective mother tongues they do not understand each other (unless one has learnt the other’s language). That is, it is not the same as “dialect” or varieties of a language like British English and Australian English. These two terms are confusing because until early this century the word “dialect” was often used to mean what we refer to as “language” today.
[2] The claim is based on the following figures.
|
Location |
Area (in km2) |
Number of languages* |
Estimated population* |
|
Irian Jaya |
400,000 (approx) |
700-750† |
3,000,000 |
|
Papua New Guinea |
476,500 |
3,000,000 |
|
|
Solomon Islands |
29,000 |
120 |
200,000 |
|
Vanuatu |
14,763 |
200 |
100,000 |
|
New Caledonia |
19,103 |
27 |
135,000 |
|
Fiji |
18,200 |
2 |
600,000 |
|
Total |
957,566 |
1049-1099 |
7,035,000 |
* Based on figures in Wurm and Hattori (1981).
† The variation here reflects differences of opinion on how “language” should be defined.
[3] These include Nukuria off New Ireland in Papua New Guinea, Nukumanu, Luangiua, Sikaiana, Pileni, Taumako, Tikopia, Anuta, and Rennell-Bellona in the Solomon Islands, Takuu, Mae (or Emae), Futuna-Aniwa in Vanuatu and Fagauvea in the Loyalty Islands off New Caledonia — see Wurm and Hattori (1981).
[4] See Wurm (1982) and Foley (1986) for further details on NAn languages of Oceania.
[5] This is not a necessary result, however. As will be pointed out later some scholars have emphasized the isolation of Melanesians in attempting to explain the diversity of languages found in this part of the world.
[6] This is a large topic and readers are referred to Dorian (ed.) (1989) and references therein for further details.
[7] There is an extensive and growing literature on contact linguistics. See Thomason and Kaufman (ed.) (1988), for example, and references therein for further reading.
[8] This is quite an involved topic and the best I can do is direct readers to Trudgill (1986), for example, for further reading.
[9] See Guy (1990) for a survey of the relationship between social conditions of change and their linguistic outcomes and Ross (1991) for a refinement on Guy’s treatment.
[10] Trading does not always produce new languages. Instances of “silent” trading between different linguistic groups have been reported in Papua New Guinea for example (e.g. Harding 1967:64). In these trading sessions goods were exchanged but no language was spoken.
[11] There is again a vast and ever growing literature on pidgins and pidginization and the reader is directed to Holm (1988), Mühlhäusler (1986), and Valdman (ed.) (1977) and references therein for further details. Pidgin languages are said to become creolized (or to become creole languages) when they are spoken natively by a population although linguists do not yet agree about what the distinguishing features of creoles are.