Substratum


Free Web Hosting with Website Builder
Main article: Creole language
For the philosophical concept, see Hypokeimenon.
Not to be confused with Substrata (gardening).

In contact linguistics, a substratum (lat. sub: under + stratum: layer → lower layer) is a language that influences another one while that second, intrusive, language supplants it. Similarly, a superstratum is an intrusive language that exerts influence on another language. An adstratum refers to a language that is in contact with another language in a neighbour population without either identifiably having higher or lower prestige.

Thus, both terms refer to a situation where an intrusive language establishes itself in the territory of another, typically as the result of migration. Whether the superstratum (the local language persists and the intrusive language disappears) or the substratum (the local language disappears and the intrusive language persists) case applies will normally only be evident after several generations , during which the intrusive language exists within a diaspora culture. In order for the intrusive language to persist (substratum case), the immigrant population will either need to take the position of a political elite or immigrate in significant numbers relative to the local population. (i.e. the intrusion qualifies as an invasion or colonisation, an example would be the Roman Empire giving rise to Romance languages outside of Italy, displacing Gaulish)

The superstratum case refers to elite populations which eventually adopt the local language (an example would be the Burgundians and Franks in France, who eventually abandoned their Germanic dialects in favor of Romance).

Contents

Substratum

The term is also used of substrate interference, i.e. the influence the substratum language exerts on the supplanting language. According to some classifications, this is one of three main types of linguistic interference: substratum interference differs from both adstratum, which involves no language replacement but rather mutual borrowing between languages of roughly equal prestige, and superstratum, which refers to the influence a socially dominating language has on another, receding language that might eventually be relegated to the status of a substratum language.

In a typical case of substrate interference, a language A occupies a given territory and another language B arrives in the same territory (brought, for example, with migrations of population). Language B then begins to supplant language A: the speakers of language A abandon their own language in favour of B, generally because they believe that it is in their best (e.g. economic, political, cultural, social) interests to do so. During the language shift, however, the receding language A still influences language B (for example, through the transfer of loanwords, place names, or grammatical patterns from A to B).

For example, Gaulish is a substratum of French. The Gauls, a Celtic people, lived in the current French-speaking territory before the arrival of the Romans. Given the cultural, economic and political prestige which Latin enjoyed, the Gauls eventually abandoned their language in favour of Latin, which evolved in this region until eventually it took the form of Modern French. The Gaulish speech disappeared, but it remains detectable in some French words (approximately ninety) as well as place-names of Gaulish origin.

Another example is the influence of the now extinct North Germanic Norn language on the Scots dialects of the Shetland and Orkney islands.

Linguistic substrata may be difficult to detect, especially if the substrate language and its nearest relatives are extinct. For example, the earliest form of the Germanic languages may have been influenced by a non-Indo-European language, purportedly the source of about one quarter of the most ancient Germanic word-stock. There are similar arguments for a Sanskrit subtstrate, and a Greek one.

Typically, Creole languages have multiple substrata, with the actual influence of such languages being indeterminate.

Superstratum

In linguistics, a superstratum or superstrate is the counterpart to a substratum. When one language succeeds another, the former is termed the superstratum and the latter the substratum. In the case of French, for example, Vulgar Latin is the superstrate and Gaulic is the substrate.

It is also used to describe an imposed linguistic element, akin to what English underwent after 1066 with Norman. The Neo-Latin and Neo-Greek coinages adopted by European languages (and now, languages worldwide) to describe scientific topics (anatomy, medicine, botany, zoology, all the '-ology' words, etc.) can also be termed a superstratum, although for this last, adstratum would be a better choice. The term adstratum refers to a language which is equal in prestige to another. Generally the term is used only when speaking about languages in a particular country or geopolitical region. For example, early in England's history, English and Norse had an adstratal relationship.

The phenomenon is relatively rare today, since modern nations generally have only one dominant language (often corresponding to the dialect of the capital). In India, where dozens of languages are widespread, many could be said to share an adstratal relationship, although Hindi is certainly dominant in North India. A more accurate example would be the situation in Belgium, where the French and Dutch languages have roughly the same status, and could justifiably be called adstrates.

Several theories infer an Altaic superstratum in the phylogenetic make-up of the languages of South-East Asia. For instance, a prevailing view among linguists contend that Japanese consists of a Altaic superstratum projected onto an Austronesian substratum.[1] Similarly, the Chinese language of Northern China is alleged to have undergone Altaicization to different degrees.[2]

Adstratum

The term adstratum is also used to identify systematic influences or a layer of borrowings in a given language from another language where the two languages coexist as separate entities. Many modern languages have an appreciable adstratum from English. The Neo-Latin and Neo-Greek coinages adopted by European languages (and now, languages worldwide) to describe scientific topics (anatomy, medicine, botany, zoology, all the '-ology' words, etc.) can also justifiably be called adstrata.

Notable examples of substrate inference

Modern language Introduced by Substrate language
Lebanese Arabic Arabians during the Muslim conquests Aramaic language
Syrian Arabic Arabians during the Muslim conquests Aramaic language
Palestinian Arabic Arabians during the Muslim conquests Aramaic and possibly ancient Hebrew
Egyptian Arabic Arabians during the Muslim conquests Coptic language
Moroccan Arabic Arabians during the Muslim conquests Berber language
Irish English the English during the Plantations of Ireland in the 16th century Gaelic language
Spanish Romans as Vulgar Latin during the Roman Empire Paleohispanic languages
Latin American Spanish varieties Spaniards during the Spanish Conquest of the 15th century depending on individual country; Nahuatl, Mayan, Quechua, Guaraní, Mapudungun, etc.
Jamaican English the English during the British Empire African languages of transported African slaves
French the Romans as Vulgar Latin during the Roman Empire Gaulish language[citation needed]
Indian English the English during the British Empire various language substrates from Indian languages, especially Hindi
Standard Modern Israeli (non-Oriental) Hebrew revived then re-introduced by European Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries various European languages of European Jewish immigrants to Israel, especially the Yiddish language
Austrian German Adoption of Gottsched's Standard German in the late 18th century under Empress Maria Theresa Austro-Bavarian
Swiss Standard German Adoption of Standard German by the reforms of the Zürich Bible in 1665 and 1755 Alemannic

References

  • Benedict, Paul K. (1990). Japanese/Austro-Tai. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
  • Hashimoto, Mantaro J. (1986). ""The Altaicization of Northern Chinese." Contributions to Sino-Tibetan studies, eds John McCoy & Timoty Light, 76-97. Leiden: Brill.
  • Janhunen, Juha (1996). Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
  • Jungemann, Frédéric H. (1955). La teoría del substrato y los dialectos hispano-romances y gascones. Madrid.
  • Lewin, Bruno (1976). "Japanese and Korean: The Problems and History of a Linguistic Comparison." Journal of Japanese Studies 2:2.389-412
  • Matsumoto, Katsumi (1975). "Kodai nihongoboin soshikikõ: naiteki saiken no kokoromi." Bulletin of the Faculty of Law and Letters (Kanazawa University) 22.83-152.
  • Miller, Roy Andrew (1967). The Japanese language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Murayama, Shichiro (1976). "The Malayo-Polynesian Component in the Japanese Language." Journal of Japanese Studies 2:2.413-436
  • Shibatani, Masayoshi (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Singler, John Victor (19830. "The influence of African languages on pidgins and creoles." Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol.2), ed. by J. Kaye et al., 65-77. Dordrecht.
  • Singler, John Victor (1988). "The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis." Language 64.27-51.
  • Voivin, Alexander (1994). "Long-distance relationships, recontruction methodology and the origins of Japanese." Diachronica 11:1.95-114.
  • Wartburg, Walter von (1939). Réponses au Questionnaire du Ve Congrès international des Linguistes. 
  • Weinreich, Uriel [1953] (1979). Languages in contact: findings and problems. New York: Mouton Publishers. ISBN 9789027926890. 

See also







Why are we here?
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
This page is cache of Wikipedia. History