Äike
09-20-2009, 10:39 AM
Full PDF here (http://www.kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2008/issue_2/ling-2008-2-81-96.pdf)
Abstract
Kalevi Wiik has suggested that certain changes in Germanic were actuated by shifting Finno-Ugric speakers. One of the crucial problems of such explanations is how to estimate the impact of any possible contact in the past to the grammars of the languages involved in this contact. According to the principles of the theory of communication accommodation the substrate features are unlikely to be brought to L1 as there is little motivation for monolingual L1 speakers to accommodate to low prestige L2 speakers. The paper suggests that accommodation is possible in such contact situation if there is a common identity for L1 and shifting L2 group. To test this hypothesis, an inter-group communication situation was experimentally created and the rate of accommodation evaluated in the conversations between Estonian and Russian speakers. The result confirmed that there is a perceived phonetic accommodation of Estonians towards non-native pronunciation and the signs are the stronger the stronger is the interpersonal relationship between the speakers. The paper also discusses the implications of these results to the understanding of contact induced change.
1. Introduction
Research on language contact (Thomason, Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2001;
Mufwene 2001; Schneider 2003) has shown that contrary to common
beliefs, almost any structural feature can be borrowed from one language
to the other, provided that there has been a contact situation between the
languages concerned. Perhaps this has motivated historical linguists to
propose contact explanations to changes that were previously believed to
be independent developments.
The problem with these explanations is that there is no precise method
to assess whether a substrate influence that is linguistically possible, could actually have initiated the corresponding change in the contact language
(see Laakso 1999). It is well known that contacts of different intensity lead
to different outcomes from purely lexical borrowing to extensive grammatical
convergence. No less important are also the status factors between
the languages in contact. Different power relations lead to different patterns
of bilingualism and different extent of changes that the languages witness.
And last but not least, also the speakers’ ”attitudes can be either barriers
to change or promoters of change” (Thomason 2001 : 85).
In this paper we will assess the hypothesis about several contact induced
changes in Proto-Germanic, proposed by Kalevi Wiik (1997a; 2002). According
to S. G. Thomason, a solid contact explanation should be able to show the
effect of the contact to the whole language, not just explain the particular
features; and it should be able to show that the contact between languages
was ”intimate enough to make structural inference possible” (2001 : 93).
This means that contact explanations to historical changes need not only
be substantiated by arguments on the structural plausibility of the particular
change, but also by a socio-historic reconstruction of the particular
contact situation with the assessment of the totality of the impact it could
have had.
Such a reconstruction should be based on evidence obtained from
contemporary contact situations and its validity should be checked against available archaeological, genetic and cultural evidence known about this
historical setting. Thus, to assess K. Wiik’s hypothesis we will model the
possible types of contact situations that might give causes to changes
proposed. Then we compare the model with what is known about the
socio-historic conditions at the time of the proposed substrate influence
by K. Wiik to see whether his explanation is viable or not.
2. Hypothesis: Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic
According to K. Wiik (1997a; 1997b; 2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2002) the language
boundary between the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages was
initially located in the Central Europe and coincided with the boundary
of agricultural and hunting subsistence systems. During the last 7500 years,
this language boundary has moved to its present location in the East coast
of the Baltic Sea. This happened, according to K. Wiik, as the Finno-Ugric
speakers first adopted agriculture and later shifted to Indo-European
languages. Thus, according to K. Wiik, we have a vast area of language
shift that has left behind significant substratal influences in Germanic, Slavic
and Baltic languages.
For example, K. Wiik proposes that the cause of the consonant shifts
in Proto-Germanic described by Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law was
incomplete learning of Proto Germanic by shifting Finno-Ugric speakers
(Wiik 1997a; 2002). Indo-European protolanguage is assumed to have had
a complex plosive system with voice and aspiration oppositions. The Finno-
Ugric protolanguage plosive system, on the contrary was very simple,
consisting of only three voiceless stops: p, t, k. Thus, as K. Wiik (1997a)
argues, the Finno-Ugric speakers substituted the voiced stops with the
corresponding voiceless ones in a similar manner as the Finno-Ugric
learners often do today while speaking English. This accounts for the devoicing part of Grimm’s Law (see 1a). As for the changes involving
aspiration, K. Wiik (1997a) assumes that the aspirated plosives (traditionally
symbolised as ph, th, kh, bh, dh, gh) were actually pronounced with
friction in the place of articulation. Finno-Ugric speakers identified only
the friction part and omitted the occlusion part. This learning error is
common for Finno-Ugric speakers also today (for example German Pferd
is heard as Ferd etc). Thus, the shifting Finno-Ugric speakers replaced the
aspirated stops by homorganic fricatives, and later replaced the marked ƒ
and › with the unmarked f and v:
(1) (a) devoicing
b > p, d > t, g > k
(b) omission of occlusion
/ph/ pƒ > ƒ > f /th/ tθ > θ /kh/ kx > x
/bh/ b› > › > v /dh/ d∂ > ∂ /gh/ g¸ > ¸
Kalevi Wiik (1997a; 2002) has proposed similar explanations to a
number of other changes such as the Proto-Germanic stress shift, stress
centralisation (which caused apocopy and syncopy, shortening of long
unstressed vowels and reduction of the inventory of possible unstressed
vowels), palatalisation and a number of vowel changes. The idea of Finno-Ugric and Germanic contact influences is not a new
one. Already in 1953, Lauri Posti put forward a hypothesis that Proto-
Germanic superstrate has caused a large number of consonant changes in
Proto-Finnic (Posti 1953). Although his contact explanations are largely
rejected (see Kallio 2000, 2002), a considerable number of Germanic loan
words in Proto-Finnic, as well as some toponyms of Germanic origin in
Finno-Ugric area (Koivulehto 1987) imply that a contact existed, indeed.
Petri Kallio (2000 : 96) suggest that it could have been similar to the contact
of French and English after the Norman Conquest, thus an influx of a
small number of culturally advanced superstrate speakers to the territory
of substrate. Lauri Posti’s (1953 : 90) original proposal would rather suggest
an adstrate relationship.
Kalevi Wiik’s hypotheses (1997a; 2002) give language contacts much
more central role: basically, the Proto-Germanic is the outcome of the large
scale language shift form Finno-Ugric languages to Indo-European. His
hypothesis was supported and elaborated in several works of other linguists
(Künnap 1997; 1998; 2000; Pusztay 1998) and historians (Julku 1997; 2000).
However, K. Wiik’s proposals about Finno-Ugric substratum in Proto-
Germanic have been also heavily criticised (Kallio, Koivulehto, Parpola 1997;
1998; Anttila 2000; Palviainen 2001; Kallio 2002). For example, P. Kallio (2002
: 168—169) argues that there is a lack of Finno-Ugric loanwords in Proto-
Germanic that one would expect if it had a Finno-Ugric substratum. On
the other hand, there are a number of other non-Finno-Ugric substrate words in Proto-Germanic. Thus, there has been some other substrate rather
than Finno-Ugric. Yet K. Wiik (2002) does not see this as a problem:
numerous lexical borrowings point to a superstrate influence whereas
substrate influence manifests itself mostly in phonology and syntax. As the
Finno-Ugric influence in Germanic is substratal, loanwords are not expected.
The actual substratum explanations proposed by K. Wiik are even more
strongly criticized. For example, the changes in (1b) could not have been caused by imperfect learning by Finno-Ugric speakers as they ”would
naturally have replaced aspirates by stops instead of fricatives” (Kallio 2002
: 174). K. Wiik’s (2000b) experimental counterevidence that Finnish subjects
recognised heavily aspirated ph as f in a perception tests he conducted
was opposed by S. Palviainen (2001) who pointed that whereas f is a
phoneme in contemporary Finnish and could therefore easily recognised,
the Proto Finno-Ugric did not have this phoneme and ph could not have
recognised as f, but p instead.
Although the accent shift is perhaps the most likely candidate for a
Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic (see Salmons 1992 : 168—174), K. Wiik
dates this change far too early (Stone Age) for the majority of Germanists
to accept it: generally it is believed not to take place until the Iron Age.
Palatalisation as a substrate influence has also been criticised for faulty
dating: it could not be correct as the Finno-Ugric i has become a neutral
vowel long before i-umlaut took place in Germanic (Kallio 2002 : 177).
However, dating is one of the most controversial questions in historical
linguistics: there are no sure methods of dating historical changes (unless
written texts are available) and most of datings are just consensual.
Perhaps most convincing of the counterarguments presented so far is
the apparent lack of Finno-Ugric toponymes in Proto-Germanic speech area
(Kallio 2002 : 169), at the same time as there is a rich Finno-Ugric
toponymical layer in Northen Russia (Saarikivi 2000). As toponyms are
the most likely traces of a disappeared substratum, one would except to find them if there is other substratal influence present. K. Wiik (1998)
acknowledges this, but his arguments for apparent Finno-Ugric toponyms
in Central Europe remain dubious.
Thus, from the perspective of comparative-historical linguistics, K. Wiik’s
hypotheses are falsified. The problem is that the proponents of K. Wiik’s
approach argue that the comparative-historical method is outdated and far
more reliable results can be obtained by combining the methods of
linguistics, population genetics and archaeology. This paper takes the challenge
and tries to assess K. Wiik’s hypotheses in the light of the general
processes of second language learning and intercultural communication
that are in operation in the processes of language shift.
Abstract
Kalevi Wiik has suggested that certain changes in Germanic were actuated by shifting Finno-Ugric speakers. One of the crucial problems of such explanations is how to estimate the impact of any possible contact in the past to the grammars of the languages involved in this contact. According to the principles of the theory of communication accommodation the substrate features are unlikely to be brought to L1 as there is little motivation for monolingual L1 speakers to accommodate to low prestige L2 speakers. The paper suggests that accommodation is possible in such contact situation if there is a common identity for L1 and shifting L2 group. To test this hypothesis, an inter-group communication situation was experimentally created and the rate of accommodation evaluated in the conversations between Estonian and Russian speakers. The result confirmed that there is a perceived phonetic accommodation of Estonians towards non-native pronunciation and the signs are the stronger the stronger is the interpersonal relationship between the speakers. The paper also discusses the implications of these results to the understanding of contact induced change.
1. Introduction
Research on language contact (Thomason, Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2001;
Mufwene 2001; Schneider 2003) has shown that contrary to common
beliefs, almost any structural feature can be borrowed from one language
to the other, provided that there has been a contact situation between the
languages concerned. Perhaps this has motivated historical linguists to
propose contact explanations to changes that were previously believed to
be independent developments.
The problem with these explanations is that there is no precise method
to assess whether a substrate influence that is linguistically possible, could actually have initiated the corresponding change in the contact language
(see Laakso 1999). It is well known that contacts of different intensity lead
to different outcomes from purely lexical borrowing to extensive grammatical
convergence. No less important are also the status factors between
the languages in contact. Different power relations lead to different patterns
of bilingualism and different extent of changes that the languages witness.
And last but not least, also the speakers’ ”attitudes can be either barriers
to change or promoters of change” (Thomason 2001 : 85).
In this paper we will assess the hypothesis about several contact induced
changes in Proto-Germanic, proposed by Kalevi Wiik (1997a; 2002). According
to S. G. Thomason, a solid contact explanation should be able to show the
effect of the contact to the whole language, not just explain the particular
features; and it should be able to show that the contact between languages
was ”intimate enough to make structural inference possible” (2001 : 93).
This means that contact explanations to historical changes need not only
be substantiated by arguments on the structural plausibility of the particular
change, but also by a socio-historic reconstruction of the particular
contact situation with the assessment of the totality of the impact it could
have had.
Such a reconstruction should be based on evidence obtained from
contemporary contact situations and its validity should be checked against available archaeological, genetic and cultural evidence known about this
historical setting. Thus, to assess K. Wiik’s hypothesis we will model the
possible types of contact situations that might give causes to changes
proposed. Then we compare the model with what is known about the
socio-historic conditions at the time of the proposed substrate influence
by K. Wiik to see whether his explanation is viable or not.
2. Hypothesis: Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic
According to K. Wiik (1997a; 1997b; 2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2002) the language
boundary between the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages was
initially located in the Central Europe and coincided with the boundary
of agricultural and hunting subsistence systems. During the last 7500 years,
this language boundary has moved to its present location in the East coast
of the Baltic Sea. This happened, according to K. Wiik, as the Finno-Ugric
speakers first adopted agriculture and later shifted to Indo-European
languages. Thus, according to K. Wiik, we have a vast area of language
shift that has left behind significant substratal influences in Germanic, Slavic
and Baltic languages.
For example, K. Wiik proposes that the cause of the consonant shifts
in Proto-Germanic described by Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law was
incomplete learning of Proto Germanic by shifting Finno-Ugric speakers
(Wiik 1997a; 2002). Indo-European protolanguage is assumed to have had
a complex plosive system with voice and aspiration oppositions. The Finno-
Ugric protolanguage plosive system, on the contrary was very simple,
consisting of only three voiceless stops: p, t, k. Thus, as K. Wiik (1997a)
argues, the Finno-Ugric speakers substituted the voiced stops with the
corresponding voiceless ones in a similar manner as the Finno-Ugric
learners often do today while speaking English. This accounts for the devoicing part of Grimm’s Law (see 1a). As for the changes involving
aspiration, K. Wiik (1997a) assumes that the aspirated plosives (traditionally
symbolised as ph, th, kh, bh, dh, gh) were actually pronounced with
friction in the place of articulation. Finno-Ugric speakers identified only
the friction part and omitted the occlusion part. This learning error is
common for Finno-Ugric speakers also today (for example German Pferd
is heard as Ferd etc). Thus, the shifting Finno-Ugric speakers replaced the
aspirated stops by homorganic fricatives, and later replaced the marked ƒ
and › with the unmarked f and v:
(1) (a) devoicing
b > p, d > t, g > k
(b) omission of occlusion
/ph/ pƒ > ƒ > f /th/ tθ > θ /kh/ kx > x
/bh/ b› > › > v /dh/ d∂ > ∂ /gh/ g¸ > ¸
Kalevi Wiik (1997a; 2002) has proposed similar explanations to a
number of other changes such as the Proto-Germanic stress shift, stress
centralisation (which caused apocopy and syncopy, shortening of long
unstressed vowels and reduction of the inventory of possible unstressed
vowels), palatalisation and a number of vowel changes. The idea of Finno-Ugric and Germanic contact influences is not a new
one. Already in 1953, Lauri Posti put forward a hypothesis that Proto-
Germanic superstrate has caused a large number of consonant changes in
Proto-Finnic (Posti 1953). Although his contact explanations are largely
rejected (see Kallio 2000, 2002), a considerable number of Germanic loan
words in Proto-Finnic, as well as some toponyms of Germanic origin in
Finno-Ugric area (Koivulehto 1987) imply that a contact existed, indeed.
Petri Kallio (2000 : 96) suggest that it could have been similar to the contact
of French and English after the Norman Conquest, thus an influx of a
small number of culturally advanced superstrate speakers to the territory
of substrate. Lauri Posti’s (1953 : 90) original proposal would rather suggest
an adstrate relationship.
Kalevi Wiik’s hypotheses (1997a; 2002) give language contacts much
more central role: basically, the Proto-Germanic is the outcome of the large
scale language shift form Finno-Ugric languages to Indo-European. His
hypothesis was supported and elaborated in several works of other linguists
(Künnap 1997; 1998; 2000; Pusztay 1998) and historians (Julku 1997; 2000).
However, K. Wiik’s proposals about Finno-Ugric substratum in Proto-
Germanic have been also heavily criticised (Kallio, Koivulehto, Parpola 1997;
1998; Anttila 2000; Palviainen 2001; Kallio 2002). For example, P. Kallio (2002
: 168—169) argues that there is a lack of Finno-Ugric loanwords in Proto-
Germanic that one would expect if it had a Finno-Ugric substratum. On
the other hand, there are a number of other non-Finno-Ugric substrate words in Proto-Germanic. Thus, there has been some other substrate rather
than Finno-Ugric. Yet K. Wiik (2002) does not see this as a problem:
numerous lexical borrowings point to a superstrate influence whereas
substrate influence manifests itself mostly in phonology and syntax. As the
Finno-Ugric influence in Germanic is substratal, loanwords are not expected.
The actual substratum explanations proposed by K. Wiik are even more
strongly criticized. For example, the changes in (1b) could not have been caused by imperfect learning by Finno-Ugric speakers as they ”would
naturally have replaced aspirates by stops instead of fricatives” (Kallio 2002
: 174). K. Wiik’s (2000b) experimental counterevidence that Finnish subjects
recognised heavily aspirated ph as f in a perception tests he conducted
was opposed by S. Palviainen (2001) who pointed that whereas f is a
phoneme in contemporary Finnish and could therefore easily recognised,
the Proto Finno-Ugric did not have this phoneme and ph could not have
recognised as f, but p instead.
Although the accent shift is perhaps the most likely candidate for a
Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic (see Salmons 1992 : 168—174), K. Wiik
dates this change far too early (Stone Age) for the majority of Germanists
to accept it: generally it is believed not to take place until the Iron Age.
Palatalisation as a substrate influence has also been criticised for faulty
dating: it could not be correct as the Finno-Ugric i has become a neutral
vowel long before i-umlaut took place in Germanic (Kallio 2002 : 177).
However, dating is one of the most controversial questions in historical
linguistics: there are no sure methods of dating historical changes (unless
written texts are available) and most of datings are just consensual.
Perhaps most convincing of the counterarguments presented so far is
the apparent lack of Finno-Ugric toponymes in Proto-Germanic speech area
(Kallio 2002 : 169), at the same time as there is a rich Finno-Ugric
toponymical layer in Northen Russia (Saarikivi 2000). As toponyms are
the most likely traces of a disappeared substratum, one would except to find them if there is other substratal influence present. K. Wiik (1998)
acknowledges this, but his arguments for apparent Finno-Ugric toponyms
in Central Europe remain dubious.
Thus, from the perspective of comparative-historical linguistics, K. Wiik’s
hypotheses are falsified. The problem is that the proponents of K. Wiik’s
approach argue that the comparative-historical method is outdated and far
more reliable results can be obtained by combining the methods of
linguistics, population genetics and archaeology. This paper takes the challenge
and tries to assess K. Wiik’s hypotheses in the light of the general
processes of second language learning and intercultural communication
that are in operation in the processes of language shift.