Language Change in a Contact Situation: The Case of Slovene in North America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3986/SLS.2.1.02Keywords:
Slovene language, English language, Language contact, diaspora languages, Sociolinguistics, code-switchingAbstract
The article discusses the linguistic situation among immigrants of Slovene descent in the United States of America and Canada. Owing to the geographic distance between Slovenia and the host country and particularly to the very strong influence of the pragmatically dominant English, Slovene there is undergoing a very specific kind of development.
Data collected through empirical research (interview excerpts) are analyzed in order to identify contact-motivated changes of Slovene. These are encountered in all types of bilingual discourse (borrowing, code switching, English-influenced monolingual Slovene) and on different linguistic levels from phonology to semantics and pragmatics. The most salient areas of English linguistic impact, however, are morphology with its simplification, regularization and/or even deletion of Slovene inflectional system, and syntax with its gradual adoption of English-like SVO word order patterns.
On a sentence level these kinds of structures constitute what could be termed a composite matrix language, made up from the features of both languages. Development, though, stops short of the so-called matrix language turnover (MLT), because it is interrupted by a very rapid process of language shift from Slovene to English. This has been accomplished in the course of three generations in the case of pre-war immigrants and even faster in the case of post-war ones. The variety of Slovene in this particular context is therefore of a very temporary and unstable nature and defies the postulation of rigid structural constraints on it. It nevertheless represents a distinct contact variety of Slovene well worth further research because of the likely insights into the language change mechanisms that it may provide.
Downloads
References
Fuller, M. J. 1996. When cultural maintenance means linguistic convergence: Pennsylvania German evidence for the Matrix Language Turnover hypothesis. Language in Society 25: 493–514.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36/2: 281–331.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Duelling Languages. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1996. One way to dusty death: The matrix language turnover hypothesis. In L. Grenoble and L. Whaley (eds.) Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Milroy, L. 1987. Observing and Analyzing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pfaff, C. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish English. Language 55: 291–318.
Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espafiol: toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581–618.
Savić, J. M. 1995. Structural convergence and language change: evidence from Serbian-English code-switching. Language in Society 24: 475–492.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Šabec, N. 1995. Half pa pu: The Language of Slovene Americans. Ljubljana: SKUC, Studia humanitatis.
Šabec, N. 1996. Slovenščina v diaspori: primer ameriških Slovencev. In A. Vidovič-Muha (ed.) Jezik in Čas (= Razprave Filozofske fakultete). Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete: 107–123.
Šabec, N. 1997. Slovene-English language contact in the USA. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 124: Sociolinguistics of Slovene (M. L. Greenberg, ed.): 129–183.
Van Tassel, D., and Grabowski, J. J. (eds.) 1987. The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press in association with the Case Western Reserve University.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
More in: Submission chapter