・ 「#443. 言語内的な要因と言語外的な要因はどちらが重要か？」 ([2010-07-14-1])
・ 「#1232. 言語変化は雨漏りである」 ([2012-09-10-1])
・ 「#1233. 言語変化は風に倒される木である」 ([2012-09-11-1])
・ 「#1582. 言語内的な要因と言語外的な要因はどちらが重要か？ (2)」 ([2013-08-26-1])
・ 「#1584. 言語内的な要因と言語外的な要因はどちらが重要か？ (3)」 ([2013-08-28-1])
・ 「#1977. 言語変化における言語接触の重要性 (1)」 ([2014-09-25-1])
・ 「#1978. 言語変化における言語接触の重要性 (2)」 ([2014-09-26-1])
・ 「#1986. 言語変化の multiple causation あるいは "synergy"」 ([2014-10-04-1])
・ 「#3152. 言語変化の "multiple causation"」 ([2017-12-13-1])
・ 「#3271. 言語変化の multiple causation 再考」 ([2018-04-11-1])
・ 「#3355. 言語変化の言語内的な要因，言語外的な要因，"multiple causation"」 ([2018-07-04-1])
・ 「#3377. 音韻変化の原因2種と結果3種」 ([2018-07-26-1])
・ 「#3842. 言語変化の原因の複雑性と多様性」 ([2019-11-03-1])
・ 「#3971. 言語変化の multiple causation 再再考」 ([2020-03-11-1])
今回は，もう1つ Hickey (487--88) より議論を追加したい．この問題を巡る近年の様々な立場が，要領よくまとめられている．
2.1 Language-internal versus contact factors
In the current context language-internal change is understood as that which occurs within a speech community, among monolingual speakers, and contact-induced change as that which is induced by interfacing with speakers of a different language.
Opinions are divided on when to assume contact as the source of change. Some authors insist on the primacy of internal factors . . . and so favor these when the scales of probability are not biased in either direction for any instance of change. Other scholars view contact explanations more favorably . . . while still others would like to see a less dichotomous view of internal versus and external factors in change . . . .
The fate of explanations based on language contact has varied in recent linguistic literature. During the 1980s many linguists reacted negatively to apparently superficial contact explanations . . . . Others . . . have been consistently skeptical of contact explanations, stressing the coherent internal structure of languages and assuming by default that this is the locus of new features. This position has also been theoretically contested . . . , as it is unproven that language-internal factors take automatic precedence over contact in language change.
Another point needs to be highlighted: at best contact accounts for a phenomenon but does not explain why this should have arisen in the first place. Contact treatments tend to push sources back a step, but not to explain ultimate origins. Rather contact seeks to account for how features come about. "Account" is a more muted term and does not raise expectations of high degrees of adequacy implied by "explanation" . . . .
It would be blind to neglect the possible language-internal arguments for various features suspected of having a contact source. If internal arguments are considered and then deemed insufficient on their own, this actually strengthens the contact case, as contact is then seen as a necessary contributory factor to account fully for the appearance of features. Ultimately, contact accounts depend for acceptance on whether scholars are convinced by what they know about contact scenarios in general, specific contact in the case being discussed, possible alternative accounts and the crucial balance of internal and external factors.
Given that both language-internal and contact sources are available to speakers, it might be fair to postulate that no matter what the likelihood of transfer though contact, language internal factors can always play a role. It is the nature and rate of change which can be influence by contact, a factor which can vary in intensity.
・ Hickey, Raymond. "Assessing the Role of Contact in the History of English." Chapter 37 of The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Ed. Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. New York: OUP, 2012. 485--96.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow