The article clarifies the importance of contact linguistics in the Estonian context. It is argued that the current sociolinguistic situation is highly relevant for a general contact linguistic research (small size of the country, different linguistic communities, post-Soviet changes in language policies and, subsequently, bilingualization of Russian-speakers, and arrival of English as a new agent on the contact scene). Two recent contact-induced language change models are introduced and compared: the code-copying framework by L. Johanson and the PAT- and MAT-replication model by J. Matras and J. Sakel. The former has been used in the Estonian situation by several researchers. The models share several common features: a holistic, non-constrained approach to language contact phenomena, the same mechanisms (copying/replication) for all language levels (rather than separate models for code-switching and morhposyntactic changes). The latter model is more concerned with functional and cognitive reasons of replication, placing the major site of change into individual speakers. At a descriptive level, Johanson’s code-copying framework appears more accurate since a category of mixed copying is introduced there. Data from Russian-Estonian and English-Estonian language contacts support the relevance of mixed copying.
References
Backus, Ad 1999. Mixed native languages: a challenge to the monolithic view of language. – Topics in Language Disorders, kd 19, nr 4, lk 11-22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-199908000-00005
Backus, Ad 2001. The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: evidence from Dutch-Turkish. – R. Jacobson (toim), Codeswitching Worldwide II. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 125-154.
Backus, Ad 2010. The role of codeswitching, loan translation and interference in the emergence of an immigrant variety of Turkish. – Working Papers in Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education, nr 5, lk 225-241.
Backus, Ad, Dorlejn, Margreet 2009. Loan translations versus code-switching. – B. Bullock, A. Jaqueline (toim), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, lk 75-93.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576331.006
Backus, Ad, Verschik, Anna 2012. Copiability of (bound) morphology. – L. Johanson, M. Robbeets (toim), Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology. Leiden: Brill, lk 123-149.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230477_007
Clyne, Michael 2003. Dynamics of Language Contacts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, Patricia 2002. Research approaches in applied linguistics. – R. Kaplan (toim), Handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, lk 13- 23.
Dörnyei, Zoltán 2011. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edge, Julian, Richards, Keith 1998. May I see your warrant, please? Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. – Applied Linguistics, kd 19, nr 3, lk 334-356.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.334
Everett, Daniel 2004. Coherent fieldwork. – P. van Sterkenberg (toim), Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, lk 114-162.
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.126.08eve
Field, Frederic 2002. Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.62
Haugen, Einar 1972.The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132
Hlavac, Jim 2006. Bilingual discourse markers: evidence from Croatian-English code-switching. – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 38, nr 11, lk 1870-1900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.005
Johanson, Lars 1993. Code-copying in immigrant Turkish. – G. Extra, L. Verhoeven (toim), Immigrant Languages in Europe. Clevedon, Philadelphia-Adelaide: Multilingual Matters, lk 197-221.
Johanson, Lars 2002a. Contact-induced linguistic change in a code-copying framework. – M. C. Jones, E. Esch (toim), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors. Contributions to the Sociology of Language, kd 86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 285-313.
Johanson, Lars 2002b. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. London: Curzon.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2006a. Keelekontakt ja pragmaatika. – I. Tragel, H. Õim (toim), Teoreetiline keeleteadus Eestis II. (TÜ Üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 7.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 85-96.
Keevallik, Leelo 2006b. Pragmaatiliste partiklite laenutüübid rootsieesti keeles. – Mitmõkeelisüs ja keelevaihtus Õdagumeresoomõ maiõ pääl. Toim H. Koks, J. Rahman. (Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 18.) Võro, lk 116-133.
Maschler, Yael 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. – Language in Society, kd 23, nr 3, lk 325-366.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018017
Matras, Yaron 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. – Linguistics, kd 36, nr 2, lk 281-331.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.281
Matras, Yaron 2005. The full extent of ‘fusion’: a test case for connectivity and language contact. – W. Bisang, T. Bierschenk, D. Kreikenbom, U. Verhoeven (toim), Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte: Prozesse des Wandels in historischen Spannungsfeldern Nordostafrikas/Westasiens. Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, lk 241-255.
Matras, Yaron 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Yaron. 2012. An activity-oriented approach to contact-induced language change. – C. Chamoreau, I. Léglise (toim), Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 17-52.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271430.17
Matras, Yaron, Sakel, Jeanette 2007. Investigating the mechanism of pattern replication in language convergence. – Studies in Language, kd 31, nr 4, lk 829-865.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
Metslang, Helle 2006. Predikaat ajastut kogemas. – Keel ja Kirjandus, nr 9, lk 714-727.
Montrul, Silvina 2010. Current issues in heritage language acquisition. – Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, kd 30, lk 3-23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000103
Muhamedowa, Raihan 2009. The use of Russian conjunction in the speech of bilingual Kazahks. – International Journal of Bilingualism, kd 13, nr 3, lk 331- 356.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909346613
Muysken, Pieter 1995. Code-switching and grammatical theory. – L. Milroy, P. Muysken (toim), One Speaker, Two languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, lk 177-198.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620867.009
Muysken, Pieter 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol 2002.Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001
Paljasma, Veronika 2012. Prantsuse-eesti koodikopeerimine blogides. Magistritöö. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Eesti keele ja kultuuri instituut.
Pavlenko, Aneta 2005. Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584305
Praakli, Kristiina 2009. Esimese põlvkonna Soome eestlaste kakskeelne keelekasutus ja koodikopeerimine. (Dissertationes philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 24.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Salmons, Joseph 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: code switching, borrowing and convergence in some German-American dialects. – Linguistics, kd 28, nr 3, lk 453-480.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1990.28.3.453
Zabrodskaja, Anastassia 2009a. Evaluating the Matrix Language Frame model on the basis of a Russian-Estonian codeswitching corpus. – International Journal of Bilingualism, kd 13, nr 3, lk 357-377.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006908346629
Zabrodskaja, Anastassia 2009b. Russian-Estonian language contacts: grammatical aspects of language use and change. PhD dissertation. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Thomason, Sara Grey 1997. On mechanisms of interference. – S. Eliasson, E. H. Jahr (toim), Language and its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 181-207.
Thomason, Sarah Grey 2003. Contact as a source of language change. – R. D. Janda, B. D. Joseph (toim), A Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, lk 687-712.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch23
Vaba, Marja 2010. Inglise-eesti koodikopeerimisest Skype’i Tallinna kontori kahe vestlusgrupi näitel. Magistritöö. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Eesti keele ja kultuuri instituut.
Vaba, Marja 2011. Inglise-eesti koodikopeerimise kommunikatiivsest aspektist Skype’i Tallinna kontori näitel. – A. Matteus, A. Zabrodskaja (toim), Noored filoloogid kirjanduse ja keele piirimail. Tallinn: TLÜ eesti keele ja kultuuri instituut, lk 386-387.
Verschik, Anna 2004. Estonian compound nouns and their equivalents in the local variety of Russian. – Scando-Slavica, kd 50, lk 93-109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00806760410011132
Verschik, Anna 2007. Keelekontaktid, laenatavus ja verbi kopeerimine eestivene keelevariandis. – Keel ja Kirjandus, nr 5, lk 257-277.
Weinreich, Uriel 1953.Languages in Contacts. The Hague: Mouton.
Wertheim, Suzanne 2003. Linguistic Purism, Language Shift and Contact-Induced Change in Tatar. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
