Finding
In what follows, I argue that there exist particularly intriguing cases where it is equally likely for features to represent mixed structures or the legacy of a given input variety.
Paper
Dynamism v. Retention: ‘Completive done ’
Abstract
Dialect mixing may operate on distinct levels. On the one hand, speakers may select features as such and combine them into the new koine. Structures are selected from different inputs and then mixed when new norms emerge, resulting in a hitherto unknown combination of individual features. For instance, Trudgill et al. (2000a) show that New Zealand English (NZE) selected distinct phonological properties and came up with alignments that had no equivalent in the British Isles; that is, combinations that were totally unknown in the varieties that served as inputs to NZE. On the other hand, structures themselves may undergo mixing as well, for instance when there is a grammatical merger of features from different varieties. Mixing, then, is a multifaceted process and koineisation studies need to give due consideration to such mechanisms, identifying individual structures/sounds and at the same time offering reasonable explanations of why they should have become mixed in the first place. In what follows, I argue that there exist particularly intriguing cases where it is equally likely for features to represent mixed structures or the legacy of a given input variety. In other words, it is possible that a given structure X resembles both a dynamic innovation and a true archaism, which, needless to say, poses considerable problems for a historical examination. In such scenarios, it is far from clear-cut to pinpoint mixed structures, or to determine whether and why different elements were selected.
Authors
D. Schreier
Journal
Journal name not available for this finding