Sampling for contact

Francesca Di Garbo (on behalf of the GramAdapt’s team)

University of Helsinki

Seminar Series on “Grammatical Adaptation: Methods andStrategies”19.11.2020

Outline

Introduction

Method

Results and discussion

Future steps and concluding remarks

References

Some premises

I The majority of human societies are or have historically beenmultilingual (Evans 2017).

I Language and population contact crucially contribute toshaping typological distributions (Nichols 1992).

→ GramAdapt’s goal: to develop and implement a principledmethodology for world-wide comparisons of contact scenariosand their bearings on language structures.

F. Di Garbo 3 / 23Sampling for contact 3 / 23

Some premises

I The majority of human societies are or have historically beenmultilingual (Evans 2017).

I Language and population contact crucially contribute toshaping typological distributions (Nichols 1992).

→ GramAdapt’s goal: to develop and implement a principledmethodology for world-wide comparisons of contact scenariosand their bearings on language structures.

F. Di Garbo 3 / 23Sampling for contact 3 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

1. General definition: Social interactions between languageusers such that a certain amount of multi-/bilingualism isentailed at the individual level (receptive/active,long-term/short-term, adult/child).

2. Operational definition for sampling purposes: Socialinteractions between pairs of speech communities associatedwith genealogically unrelated languages.

F. Di Garbo 4 / 23Sampling for contact 4 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

1. General definition: Social interactions between languageusers such that a certain amount of multi-/bilingualism isentailed at the individual level (receptive/active,long-term/short-term, adult/child).

2. Operational definition for sampling purposes: Socialinteractions between pairs of speech communities associatedwith genealogically unrelated languages.

F. Di Garbo 4 / 23Sampling for contact 4 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

1. General definition: Social interactions between languageusers such that a certain amount of multi-/bilingualism isentailed at the individual level (receptive/active,long-term/short-term, adult/child).

2. Operational definition for sampling purposes: Socialinteractions between pairs of speech communities associatedwith genealogically unrelated languages.

F. Di Garbo 4 / 23Sampling for contact 4 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

I Why?I We want to establish a baseline for systematic worldwide

comparative studies of linguistic adaptation.I This could later be expanded to more comprehensive accounts

of human language ecologies, including e.g.:I contact between closely related languages; pidgin and

creoles; sign languages

I How?I Step 1: establishing a sampling technique for crosslinguistic

comparisons of contact scenarios (as defined above).

F. Di Garbo 5 / 23Sampling for contact 5 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

I Why?I We want to establish a baseline for systematic worldwide

comparative studies of linguistic adaptation.

I This could later be expanded to more comprehensive accountsof human language ecologies, including e.g.:

I contact between closely related languages; pidgin andcreoles; sign languages

I How?I Step 1: establishing a sampling technique for crosslinguistic

comparisons of contact scenarios (as defined above).

F. Di Garbo 5 / 23Sampling for contact 5 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

I Why?I We want to establish a baseline for systematic worldwide

comparative studies of linguistic adaptation.I This could later be expanded to more comprehensive accounts

of human language ecologies,

including e.g.:I contact between closely related languages; pidgin and

creoles; sign languages

I How?I Step 1: establishing a sampling technique for crosslinguistic

comparisons of contact scenarios (as defined above).

F. Di Garbo 5 / 23Sampling for contact 5 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

I Why?I We want to establish a baseline for systematic worldwide

comparative studies of linguistic adaptation.I This could later be expanded to more comprehensive accounts

of human language ecologies, including e.g.:I contact between closely related languages; pidgin and

creoles; sign languages

I How?I Step 1: establishing a sampling technique for crosslinguistic

comparisons of contact scenarios (as defined above).

F. Di Garbo 5 / 23Sampling for contact 5 / 23

Definitions of contact within GramAdapt

I Why?I We want to establish a baseline for systematic worldwide

comparative studies of linguistic adaptation.I This could later be expanded to more comprehensive accounts

of human language ecologies, including e.g.:I contact between closely related languages; pidgin and

creoles; sign languages

I How?I Step 1: establishing a sampling technique for crosslinguistic

comparisons of contact scenarios (as defined above).

F. Di Garbo 5 / 23Sampling for contact 5 / 23

Areality and contact in typological sampling

Worldwide sampling Areality is a dimension to control for in orderto enhance the independence andrepresentativeness of datapoints in typologicaldatasets (see, among others, Dryer 1989, 1992;Miestamo et al. 2016)

Areal typology Areality is the basis for defining the sampling spaceof a typological study (Dahl 2001;Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011)

→ The sampling technique we propose builds upon these twotraditions.

F. Di Garbo 6 / 23Sampling for contact 6 / 23

Areality and contact in typological sampling

Worldwide sampling Areality is a dimension to control for in orderto enhance the independence andrepresentativeness of datapoints in typologicaldatasets (see, among others, Dryer 1989, 1992;Miestamo et al. 2016)

Areal typology Areality is the basis for defining the sampling spaceof a typological study (Dahl 2001;Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011)

→ The sampling technique we propose builds upon these twotraditions.

F. Di Garbo 6 / 23Sampling for contact 6 / 23

Areality and contact in typological sampling

Worldwide sampling Areality is a dimension to control for in orderto enhance the independence andrepresentativeness of datapoints in typologicaldatasets (see, among others, Dryer 1989, 1992;Miestamo et al. 2016)

Areal typology Areality is the basis for defining the sampling spaceof a typological study (Dahl 2001;Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011)

→ The sampling technique we propose builds upon these twotraditions.

F. Di Garbo 6 / 23Sampling for contact 6 / 23

Areality and contact in typological sampling

Worldwide sampling Areality is a dimension to control for in orderto enhance the independence andrepresentativeness of datapoints in typologicaldatasets (see, among others, Dryer 1989, 1992;Miestamo et al. 2016)

Areal typology Areality is the basis for defining the sampling spaceof a typological study (Dahl 2001;Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011)

→ The sampling technique we propose builds upon these twotraditions.

F. Di Garbo 6 / 23Sampling for contact 6 / 23

The sampling design in a nutshell

The sampling unit consists of three languages

:

The target language (TL) provides the testing ground for investigatingcontact-induced change.

The contact language (CL) represents potential sources ofcontact-induced change in the target language.

The benchmark language (BL) is genealogically related to TL, butspoken outside the TL-CL contact zone. It serves as anexternal parameter to assess the outcomes of contactbetween TL and CL.

Example: East NusantaraI TL = Alorese (Austronesian);

I CL = Adang (Timor-Alor-Pantar);

I BL = Lewoingu Lamaholot (Austronesian, not in contact withAlor-Pantar languages) (Moro 2019)

F. Di Garbo 7 / 23Sampling for contact 7 / 23

The sampling design in a nutshell

The sampling unit consists of three languages:

The target language (TL) provides the testing ground for investigatingcontact-induced change.

The contact language (CL) represents potential sources ofcontact-induced change in the target language.

The benchmark language (BL) is genealogically related to TL, butspoken outside the TL-CL contact zone. It serves as anexternal parameter to assess the outcomes of contactbetween TL and CL.

Example: East NusantaraI TL = Alorese (Austronesian);

I CL = Adang (Timor-Alor-Pantar);

I BL = Lewoingu Lamaholot (Austronesian, not in contact withAlor-Pantar languages) (Moro 2019)

F. Di Garbo 7 / 23Sampling for contact 7 / 23

The sampling design in a nutshell

The sampling unit consists of three languages:

The target language (TL) provides the testing ground for investigatingcontact-induced change.

The contact language (CL) represents potential sources ofcontact-induced change in the target language.

The benchmark language (BL) is genealogically related to TL, butspoken outside the TL-CL contact zone. It serves as anexternal parameter to assess the outcomes of contactbetween TL and CL.

Example: East NusantaraI TL = Alorese (Austronesian);

I CL = Adang (Timor-Alor-Pantar);

I BL = Lewoingu Lamaholot (Austronesian, not in contact withAlor-Pantar languages) (Moro 2019)

F. Di Garbo 7 / 23Sampling for contact 7 / 23

The sampling design in a nutshell

The sampling unit consists of three languages:

The target language (TL) provides the testing ground for investigatingcontact-induced change.

The contact language (CL) represents potential sources ofcontact-induced change in the target language.

The benchmark language (BL) is genealogically related to TL, butspoken outside the TL-CL contact zone. It serves as anexternal parameter to assess the outcomes of contactbetween TL and CL.

Example: East NusantaraI TL = Alorese (Austronesian);

I CL = Adang (Timor-Alor-Pantar);

I BL = Lewoingu Lamaholot (Austronesian, not in contact withAlor-Pantar languages) (Moro 2019)

F. Di Garbo 7 / 23Sampling for contact 7 / 23

The sampling design in a nutshell

The sampling unit consists of three languages:

The target language (TL) provides the testing ground for investigatingcontact-induced change.

The contact language (CL) represents potential sources ofcontact-induced change in the target language.

The benchmark language (BL) is genealogically related to TL, butspoken outside the TL-CL contact zone. It serves as anexternal parameter to assess the outcomes of contactbetween TL and CL.

Example: East NusantaraI TL = Alorese (Austronesian);

I CL = Adang (Timor-Alor-Pantar);

I BL = Lewoingu Lamaholot (Austronesian, not in contact withAlor-Pantar languages) (Moro 2019)

F. Di Garbo 7 / 23Sampling for contact 7 / 23

Outline

Introduction

Method

Results and discussion

Future steps and concluding remarks

References

Criteria for language selection

1. Geography

2. Independently reported contact scenarios

3. Genealogy

4. Living experts to collaborate with

F. Di Garbo 9 / 23Sampling for contact 9 / 23

Geography

I We use the 24 AutoTyp areas (Nichols et al. 2013) for geographicalcontrol.

I These are based on archeological, anthropological, historical,and genetic data. Ex.: 4 AutoTyp areas for Africa: N Africa, SAfrica, Greater Abyssinia, African Savannah.

I Two contact sets from each area, with the exception of NESouth America and S New Guinea, which provide three setseach.

I 50 sets and 150 languages in total.

F. Di Garbo 10 / 23Sampling for contact 10 / 23

Geography

I We use the 24 AutoTyp areas (Nichols et al. 2013) for geographicalcontrol.

I These are based on archeological, anthropological, historical,and genetic data. Ex.: 4 AutoTyp areas for Africa: N Africa, SAfrica, Greater Abyssinia, African Savannah.

I Two contact sets from each area, with the exception of NESouth America and S New Guinea, which provide three setseach.

I 50 sets and 150 languages in total.

F. Di Garbo 10 / 23Sampling for contact 10 / 23

Geography

I We use the 24 AutoTyp areas (Nichols et al. 2013) for geographicalcontrol.

I These are based on archeological, anthropological, historical,and genetic data. Ex.: 4 AutoTyp areas for Africa: N Africa, SAfrica, Greater Abyssinia, African Savannah.

I Two contact sets from each area, with the exception of NESouth America and S New Guinea, which provide three setseach.

I 50 sets and 150 languages in total.

F. Di Garbo 10 / 23Sampling for contact 10 / 23

Geography

I We use the 24 AutoTyp areas (Nichols et al. 2013) for geographicalcontrol.

I These are based on archeological, anthropological, historical,and genetic data. Ex.: 4 AutoTyp areas for Africa: N Africa, SAfrica, Greater Abyssinia, African Savannah.

I Two contact sets from each area, with the exception of NESouth America and S New Guinea, which provide three setseach.

I 50 sets and 150 languages in total.

F. Di Garbo 10 / 23Sampling for contact 10 / 23

Independently reported contact scenarios

I We chose the languages to sample from each of the Autotypareas based on existing literature on language and populationcontact in these areas (e.g. macro-area surveys and/or areallinguistics literature)

I The Casamance is an established contact zone within theAfrican savannah (Cobbinah 2010)

I The Kalahari-Basin is an established contact area withinSouthern Africa (Guldemann & Fehn 2017).

F. Di Garbo 11 / 23Sampling for contact 11 / 23

Independently reported contact scenarios

I We chose the languages to sample from each of the Autotypareas based on existing literature on language and populationcontact in these areas (e.g. macro-area surveys and/or areallinguistics literature)

I The Casamance is an established contact zone within theAfrican savannah (Cobbinah 2010)

I The Kalahari-Basin is an established contact area withinSouthern Africa (Guldemann & Fehn 2017).

F. Di Garbo 11 / 23Sampling for contact 11 / 23

Genealogy

I The Target Language and Contact Language must belong todistinct language families as per Glottolog’s classification(Hammarstrom et al. 2020).

I This helps ensuring that any influence of CL on TL is theresult of diffusion by contact (and not inheritance).

I Relying on Glottolog’s classification also means that weremain neutral to family- and area-specific controversies ongenealogical classification and the time depth of thegenealogical units we work with.

F. Di Garbo 12 / 23Sampling for contact 12 / 23

Genealogy

I The Target Language and Contact Language must belong todistinct language families as per Glottolog’s classification(Hammarstrom et al. 2020).

I This helps ensuring that any influence of CL on TL is theresult of diffusion by contact (and not inheritance).

I Relying on Glottolog’s classification also means that weremain neutral to family- and area-specific controversies ongenealogical classification and the time depth of thegenealogical units we work with.

F. Di Garbo 12 / 23Sampling for contact 12 / 23

Genealogy

I The Target Language and Contact Language must belong todistinct language families as per Glottolog’s classification(Hammarstrom et al. 2020).

I This helps ensuring that any influence of CL on TL is theresult of diffusion by contact (and not inheritance).

I Relying on Glottolog’s classification also means that weremain neutral to family- and area-specific controversies ongenealogical classification and the time depth of thegenealogical units we work with.

F. Di Garbo 12 / 23Sampling for contact 12 / 23

Genealogy and the Benchmark Language

I The Benchmark Language is an external source of control for thespecifics of the contact situation represented by the TL and CL.

I It is a (close) relative of the TL (i.e. from the same Glottologfamily).

I It is NOT part of the contact zone under study, but may of coursebe in contact with other languages.

I The degree of relatedness between TL and BL varies across sets,depending on the genealogy and contact history of languagefamilies.

I As an additional level of control, we will apply the Diversity ValueMethod (Rijkhoff et al. 1993; Bakker 1997) on all TL/BL pairs, andinclude DVs as a variable in our analyses.

F. Di Garbo 13 / 23Sampling for contact 13 / 23

Genealogy and the Benchmark Language

I The Benchmark Language is an external source of control for thespecifics of the contact situation represented by the TL and CL.

I It is a (close) relative of the TL (i.e. from the same Glottologfamily).

I It is NOT part of the contact zone under study, but may of coursebe in contact with other languages.

I The degree of relatedness between TL and BL varies across sets,depending on the genealogy and contact history of languagefamilies.

I As an additional level of control, we will apply the Diversity ValueMethod (Rijkhoff et al. 1993; Bakker 1997) on all TL/BL pairs, andinclude DVs as a variable in our analyses.

F. Di Garbo 13 / 23Sampling for contact 13 / 23

Genealogy and the Benchmark Language

I The Benchmark Language is an external source of control for thespecifics of the contact situation represented by the TL and CL.

I It is a (close) relative of the TL (i.e. from the same Glottologfamily).

I It is NOT part of the contact zone under study, but may of coursebe in contact with other languages.

I The degree of relatedness between TL and BL varies across sets,depending on the genealogy and contact history of languagefamilies.

I As an additional level of control, we will apply the Diversity ValueMethod (Rijkhoff et al. 1993; Bakker 1997) on all TL/BL pairs, andinclude DVs as a variable in our analyses.

F. Di Garbo 13 / 23Sampling for contact 13 / 23

Genealogy and the Benchmark Language

I The Benchmark Language is an external source of control for thespecifics of the contact situation represented by the TL and CL.

I It is a (close) relative of the TL (i.e. from the same Glottologfamily).

I It is NOT part of the contact zone under study, but may of coursebe in contact with other languages.

I The degree of relatedness between TL and BL varies across sets,depending on the genealogy and contact history of languagefamilies.

I As an additional level of control, we will apply the Diversity ValueMethod (Rijkhoff et al. 1993; Bakker 1997) on all TL/BL pairs, andinclude DVs as a variable in our analyses.

F. Di Garbo 13 / 23Sampling for contact 13 / 23

Genealogy and the Benchmark Language

I The Benchmark Language is an external source of control for thespecifics of the contact situation represented by the TL and CL.

I It is a (close) relative of the TL (i.e. from the same Glottologfamily).

I It is NOT part of the contact zone under study, but may of coursebe in contact with other languages.

I The degree of relatedness between TL and BL varies across sets,depending on the genealogy and contact history of languagefamilies.

I As an additional level of control, we will apply the Diversity ValueMethod (Rijkhoff et al. 1993; Bakker 1997) on all TL/BL pairs, andinclude DVs as a variable in our analyses.

F. Di Garbo 13 / 23Sampling for contact 13 / 23

Living experts to collaborate with

I Our choice of TL and CL is affected by the availability ofexperts of these languages/speech communities, who willfill in the sociolinguistic questionnaire.

I This introduces a potential bias towards contact situationsthat have present-day relevance or whose history isknown.

I We tried our best to include researchers from localcommunities in our pool of experts as an attempt todecolonize our project, but we often fell short. We will keepaddressing this issue when collaborating with the experts.

F. Di Garbo 14 / 23Sampling for contact 14 / 23

Living experts to collaborate with

I Our choice of TL and CL is affected by the availability ofexperts of these languages/speech communities, who willfill in the sociolinguistic questionnaire.

I This introduces a potential bias towards contact situationsthat have present-day relevance or whose history isknown.

I We tried our best to include researchers from localcommunities in our pool of experts as an attempt todecolonize our project, but we often fell short. We will keepaddressing this issue when collaborating with the experts.

F. Di Garbo 14 / 23Sampling for contact 14 / 23

Living experts to collaborate with

I Our choice of TL and CL is affected by the availability ofexperts of these languages/speech communities, who willfill in the sociolinguistic questionnaire.

I This introduces a potential bias towards contact situationsthat have present-day relevance or whose history isknown.

I We tried our best to include researchers from localcommunities in our pool of experts as an attempt todecolonize our project, but we often fell short.

We will keepaddressing this issue when collaborating with the experts.

F. Di Garbo 14 / 23Sampling for contact 14 / 23

Living experts to collaborate with

I Our choice of TL and CL is affected by the availability ofexperts of these languages/speech communities, who willfill in the sociolinguistic questionnaire.

I This introduces a potential bias towards contact situationsthat have present-day relevance or whose history isknown.

I We tried our best to include researchers from localcommunities in our pool of experts as an attempt todecolonize our project, but we often fell short. We will keepaddressing this issue when collaborating with the experts.

F. Di Garbo 14 / 23Sampling for contact 14 / 23

Sample composition and linguistic variables

I Language selection is fully independent of the structuralvariables that we use to assess the linguistic outcomes of agiven contact situation.

I The linguistic variables will feature a selection of structuralfeatures in the domains of phonology, morphosyntax andlexicon, and are currently under scrutiny.

F. Di Garbo 15 / 23Sampling for contact 15 / 23

Outline

Introduction

Method

Results and discussion

Future steps and concluding remarks

References

I 50 different contact sets from all parts of the world, andcorresponding benchmarks, were identified.

I The most linguistically diverse areas of the world (the Americas andOceania) account for 60% of the sample.

F. Di Garbo 17 / 23Sampling for contact 17 / 23

Overview of sample composition

I Large language families – e.g. Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic,Indo-European, and Nuclear-Trans-New-Guinea – arerepresented more than once in the sample.

I A few extinct or nearly extinct languages are included in thesample, e.g. the Adelaide set for Southern Australia or theNortheast North America set.

I Contact with major colonial languages avoided as much aspossible.

I 1 exception: contact between Querteraro Otomı(Otomanguean) and Spanish in Mesoamerica (Benchmark:Tilapa Otomı).

F. Di Garbo 18 / 23Sampling for contact 18 / 23

Overview of sample composition

I Large language families – e.g. Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic,Indo-European, and Nuclear-Trans-New-Guinea – arerepresented more than once in the sample.

I A few extinct or nearly extinct languages are included in thesample, e.g. the Adelaide set for Southern Australia or theNortheast North America set.

I Contact with major colonial languages avoided as much aspossible.

I 1 exception: contact between Querteraro Otomı(Otomanguean) and Spanish in Mesoamerica (Benchmark:Tilapa Otomı).

F. Di Garbo 18 / 23Sampling for contact 18 / 23

Overview of sample composition

I Large language families – e.g. Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic,Indo-European, and Nuclear-Trans-New-Guinea – arerepresented more than once in the sample.

I A few extinct or nearly extinct languages are included in thesample, e.g. the Adelaide set for Southern Australia or theNortheast North America set.

I Contact with major colonial languages avoided as much aspossible.

I 1 exception: contact between Querteraro Otomı(Otomanguean) and Spanish in Mesoamerica (Benchmark:Tilapa Otomı).

F. Di Garbo 18 / 23Sampling for contact 18 / 23

Overview of sample composition

I Large language families – e.g. Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic,Indo-European, and Nuclear-Trans-New-Guinea – arerepresented more than once in the sample.

I A few extinct or nearly extinct languages are included in thesample, e.g. the Adelaide set for Southern Australia or theNortheast North America set.

I Contact with major colonial languages avoided as much aspossible.

I 1 exception: contact between Querteraro Otomı(Otomanguean) and Spanish in Mesoamerica (Benchmark:Tilapa Otomı).

F. Di Garbo 18 / 23Sampling for contact 18 / 23

Pairwise representation of contact scenarios

I Straightforward for 39 out of 50 contact sets

I which suggests that using language pairs as the unit ofcross-linguistic comparison can be a valid representation ofcontacts scenarios worldwide.

I The remaining 11 sets will be discussed with the experts,probing questions such as:

I Which of the possible contact groups has been present thelongest in the area?

I Which of the possible CLs has been in contact the longest withthe TL?

F. Di Garbo 19 / 23Sampling for contact 19 / 23

Pairwise representation of contact scenarios

I Straightforward for 39 out of 50 contact setsI which suggests that using language pairs as the unit of

cross-linguistic comparison can be a valid representation ofcontacts scenarios worldwide.

I The remaining 11 sets will be discussed with the experts,probing questions such as:

I Which of the possible contact groups has been present thelongest in the area?

I Which of the possible CLs has been in contact the longest withthe TL?

F. Di Garbo 19 / 23Sampling for contact 19 / 23

Pairwise representation of contact scenarios

I Straightforward for 39 out of 50 contact setsI which suggests that using language pairs as the unit of

cross-linguistic comparison can be a valid representation ofcontacts scenarios worldwide.

I The remaining 11 sets will be discussed with the experts,probing questions such as:

I Which of the possible contact groups has been present thelongest in the area?

I Which of the possible CLs has been in contact the longest withthe TL?

F. Di Garbo 19 / 23Sampling for contact 19 / 23

A snapshot from the sample: the sets from Africa

−10 0 10 20 30 40 50

−3

0−

20

−1

00

10

20

30

0 500 10001500 km

scale approx 1:83,000,000

AUTOTYP areas

African SavannahGreater AbyssiniaNorthern AfricaSouthern Africa

F. Di Garbo 20 / 23Sampling for contact 20 / 23

Outline

Introduction

Method

Results and discussion

Future steps and concluding remarks

References

Future steps

I Writing this up as a paper

I Contacting the experts

I Sending the questionnaire out to them (more on this onDecember 10)

I Collecting data on the linguistic variables of choice.

F. Di Garbo 22 / 23Sampling for contact 22 / 23

Concluding remarks

I To the best of our knowledge, the sampling techniquedeveloped within GramAdapt is the first systematic attemptto develop a typological dataset purposely designed for theworldwide study of linguistic adaptation.

I The method provides a promising tool for investigating theinfluence of language ecology on the worldwide distribution oflinguistic diversity in a principled way.

F. Di Garbo 23 / 23Sampling for contact 23 / 23

Concluding remarks

I To the best of our knowledge, the sampling techniquedeveloped within GramAdapt is the first systematic attemptto develop a typological dataset purposely designed for theworldwide study of linguistic adaptation.

I The method provides a promising tool for investigating theinfluence of language ecology on the worldwide distribution oflinguistic diversity in a principled way.

F. Di Garbo 23 / 23Sampling for contact 23 / 23

Stay tuned..... and thank you for your attention!

This research is funded by the European Research Council (ERC), grant no805371 to Kaius Sinnemaki (PI).

More about GramAdapt

F. Di Garbo 24 / 23Sampling for contact 24 / 23

Outline

Introduction

Method

Results and discussion

Future steps and concluding remarks

References

References IBakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the

Canadian Metis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cobbinah, Alexander. 2010. The casamance as an area of intense language contact: The case of baınounk gubaher.Journal of Language Contact 3(1). 175–202. doi:10.1163/19552629-90000010.

Dahl, Osten. 2001. Principles of areal typology. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekhehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher &Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 2, 1456–1470. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Dryer, Matthew. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13. 257–292.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138.

Evans, Nicholas. 2017. Did language evolve in multilingual settings? Biology & Philosophy 32(6). 905–933.doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9609-3.

Guldemann, Tom & Anne-Maria Fehn. 2017. The kalahari basin area as a ‘sprachbund’ before the bantu expansion.In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 500–526. Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/9781107279872.019.

Hammarstrom, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2020. glottolog/glottolog: Glottologdatabase 4.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3754591.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2011. Language contact. In Jae-Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistictypology, 568–590. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe. 2016. Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology 20(2).doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0006.

Moro, Francesca R. 2019. Loss of morphology in alorese (austronesian): Simplification in adult language contact.Journal of Language Contact 12(2). 378–403. doi:10.1163/19552629-01202005.

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nichols, Johanna, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel. 2013. The AUTOTYP genealogy and geographydatabase: 2013 release. http://www.spw.uzh.ch/autotyp/.

Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel. 1993. A method of language sampling. Studies inLanguage. 17 - 1(1). 169 – 203.

F. Di Garbo 2 / 23Sampling for contact 2 / 23