Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Replicated inflection? Plot twists behind apparent borrowed plurals

  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Morphology, particularly inflectional morphology, has sometimes been considered among the last features of language to be transferred under conditions of language contact. It has become clear, however, that numerous factors can affect the susceptibility of bound morphology to transfer. One of these involves typological similarities among the languages involved, similarities which might increase over long periods of contact and in turn set the stage for elaboration of particular domains. Here such effects are examined in what is commonly viewed as a prototypical kind of inflection: plural marking on nouns. The languages involved are indigenous to a well-known linguistic area in Northern California, but they represent three unrelated families: Pomoan, Yukian, and Wintun. While shared plural markers often ride into languages in contact on the backs of borrowed nouns, speakers of these languages have a history of avoiding much lexical borrowing. The shared markers apparently entered the languages via a more circuitous route. Throughout the area, inflectional number marking on nouns is rare, but related distinctions on verbs can be elaborate. It appears that what was transferred were verbal distributive and collective suffixes, which then evolved within the individual languages, to varying degrees, into number marking on nouns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakker, D., & Hekking, E. (2012). Constraints on morphological borrowing: Evidence from Latin America. In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (pp. 187–220). Leiden & Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright, E. (1952). Elizabeth Bright papers on the Patwin language, Survey of California and other Indian languages. Berkeley: University of California. https://doi.org/10.7297/X2000010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, S. (2012). On the degree of copiability of derivational and inflectional morphology: Evidence from Basque. In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (pp. 260–296). Leiden & Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F. (2008). Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. European university studies (Vol. 320). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F. (2012). Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (pp. 71–97). Leiden &Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F. (2018). On morphological borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(10), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F., Arkadiev, P., & Amridze, N. (Eds.) (2015). Borrowed morphology. Language contact and bilingualism (Vol. 8). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E. (1926). Californian anthropometry. University of California publications in American archaeology and ethnology (Vol. 22.2, pp. 217–390). Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golla, V. (2011). California Indian languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golovko, E. V. (1996). A case of non-genetic development in the Arctic area: The contribution of Aleut and Russian to the formation of Copper Island Aleut. In E. H. Jahr & I. Broch (Eds.), Language contact in the Arctic. Northern pidgins and contact languages (pp. 63–77). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golovko, E. V. (2003). Language contact and group identity: The role of “folk” linguistic engineering. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), Contact languages (pp. 177–207). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, M. (2008). Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. In T. Stolz, D. Bakker, & R. Salas Palomo (Eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes (pp. 43–62). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, H. (2012). Studies in the history and geography of California languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Heath, J. (1978). Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land. Australian aboriginal studies research and regional studies (Vol. 13). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heizer, R. F. (Ed.) (1978). Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, L., & Robbeets, M. (2012). Bound morphology in common: Copy or cognate? In L. Johanson & M. Robbeets (Eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology (pp. 3–22). Leiden & Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawyer, L. (2015). A description of the Patwin language. Ph.D. dissertation, in Linguistics, University of California, Davis.

  • Lee, D. D. (1944). Categories of the generic and particular in Wintu. American Anthropologist, 45, 435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matras, Y. (2000). Mixed languages: A functional-communicative approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(2), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, S. (1975). A grammar of Eastern Pomo. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 74).

    Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, S. (1978). Coyote and the ground squirrels (Eastern Pomo). In W. Bright (Ed.), Coyote stories. International Journal of American Linguistics–Native American Text Series (Vol. 1, pp. 87–111).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meakins, F. (2011). Borrowing contextual inflection: Evidence from Northern Australia. Morphology, 21(1), 57–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (1988). Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.) Theoretical morphology (pp. 211–234). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2007). Grammar, contact, and time. Journal of Language Contact, 1, 133–155. www.jlc-journal.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2010). Contact and North American languages. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Handbook of language contact (pp. 673–694). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2012). Morphologies in contact: Form, meaning, and use in the grammar of reference. In T. Stolz, M. Vanhove, H. Otsuka, & A. Urdzu (Eds.), Morphologies in contact. Studia typologica (Vol. 10, pp. 15–36). Berlin: Akademia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2016). What cycles when and why? In E. van Gelderen (Ed.) Cyclical change continued (pp. 19–45). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2017). Native North American languages. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics (pp. 878–933). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2018). Shaping typology through grammaticalization: North America. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.) Grammaticalization from a typological perspective (pp. 309–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (in press a). Inside contact-stimulated grammatical development. Journal of Historical Linguistics.

  • Mithun, M. (in press b). Topicality, affectedness, and body-part grammar. In Zariquiey, R. (Ed.), The grammar of body parts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Moratto, M. J. (1984). California archaeology. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, E. (1978). Language contact. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 1: method and theory (pp. 93–120). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moshinsky, J. (1974). A grammar of Southeastern Pomo. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 72). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C. (1992). Topics in Northern Pomo grammar. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, R. (1964). The internal relationships of the Pomo family of languages. In Actas y memorias de XXXV congreso internacional de Americanists (Vol. 2, pp. 413–427).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, R. (1976). Comparative verb morphology of Pomo. In M. Langdon & S. Silver (Eds.), Hokan studies (pp. 13–28). The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, R. (undated ms.). Kashaya dictionary draft. Survey of California and other Indian languages. Berkeley: University of California.

  • Pakendorf, B. (2009). Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: An Ėven dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact: Varia, 2, 87–110. www.jlc-journal.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakendorf, B. (2015). A comparison of copied morphemes in Sakha (Yakut) and Ėven. In F. Gardani, P. Arkadiev, & N. Amridze (Eds.), Borrowed morphology. Language contact and bilingualism (Vol. 8, pp. 157–188). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. (1984). Wintu grammar. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 94). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, P. (1924). Wappo texts. University of California publications in American archaeology and ethnology (Vol. 19). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, P. (1929). A grammar of the Wappo language. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology (Vol. 27, pp. 1–194).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakel, J. (2007). Types of loans: Matter and pattern. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 15–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. (1965). English–Wappo vocabulary. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 43). Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. (1991). Wappo notes. In A. Schlichter Shepherd (Ed.), Wappo studies. Survey of California and other Indian languages (Vol. 7). Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifart, F. (2015a). Does structural-typological similarity affect borrowability? A quantitative study on affix borrowing. Language Dynamics and Change, 5, 92–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifart, F. (2015b). Direct and indirect affix borrowing. Language, 91(3), 511–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifart, F. (2016). AfBo: a worldwide survey of affix borrowing. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://afbo.info.

  • Shepherd, A. (2006). Proto-Wintun. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 137). Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, S. G. (1997). Mednyj Aleut. In S. G. Thomason (Ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective (pp. 449–468). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, S. (2015). When is the diffusion of inflectional morphology not dispreferred? In F. Gardani, P. Arkadiev, & N. Amiridze (Eds.), Borrowed morphology (pp. 27–46). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Los Angeles, Oxford: Berkeley. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S., Sung-Yul, J., & Li, C. (2006). A reference grammar of Wappo. University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 138). Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, D. P. (1996). Morphology. In H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, Z. Starý, & W. Wölck (Eds.), Contact linguistics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 109–117). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

    Marianne Mithun

Authors
  1. Marianne Mithun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Mithun.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mithun, M. Replicated inflection? Plot twists behind apparent borrowed plurals. Morphology 30, 395–421 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09351-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09351-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation