Review Article

CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE & GRAMMATICALIZATION FROM A

TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Masahiko Nose
Tohoku University*

Language Contact and Grammatical Change [Cambridge approaches to language

contact], by Heine Bernd & Tanja Kuteva, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2005, Pp. 308. ISBN: 0 521 60828 7 (paperback)

Keywords: language contact, language change, grammaticalization, typology, metatypy

* I would like to thank Kaoru Horie for his helpful comments to earlier version of this paper.
The draft of the present paper was written during my research stay at Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology (Sep. 2005- May. 2006) supported by a grant-in-aid from the
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). I am grateful to the staff of
Department of Linguistics, MPI-EVA, especially to Martin Haspelmath, Kim Schulte, and
Bernhard Wälchli for their valuable comments and discussions.

1
 CONTACT-INDUCED LANGUAGE CHANGE & GRAMMATICALIZATION FROM A
TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Language Contact and Grammatical Change [Cambridge approaches to language

contact], by Heine Bernd & Tanja Kuteva, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2005, Pp. 308. ISBN: 0 521 60828 7 (paperback)

欧州の言語連合とパプアニューギニアの言語状況とは相違が大きすぎ，文法化だけで説明
するのは不可能と思われる．歴史的なデータの重要性が鍵となる．言語的なデータととも
に人類学的，考古学のデータも参照すべき．
A とＢが接触したとき
ＡをＢがまねる・ＢをＡがまねる
ＡとＢが独立して共存
ＡとＢが接触しつつ共存
ＡがＢを支配・ＢがＡを支配
ＡとＢの中間
ＡとＢ以外のＣ

獲得される文法体系と失われる文法体系
衰退する言語，支配する言語，変化する言語：これらすべてを説明はできない

1. Introduction

When we consider evolutionary processes of languages, we need many kinds of

(diachronic and synchronic) data on language phenomena: grammatical and lexical
structures, geneological1 relations of languages, language contact, and language change,
etc (Aikhenvald & Dixon (2001); Johansson (1999); Thomason & Kaufman (1988)). This
book under review here (Heine & Kuteva 2005) is mainly written on language contact and
contact-induced language change in terms of grammaticalization. When we pay attention
to language contact, its sociolinguistic or lexical factors resulting of language contact will
be considered. Heine & Kuteva do not discuss such sociolinguistic, or lexical factors in this
book, as Thomason & Kaufman (1988:4) also claimed that Thomason & Kaufman do not
discuss sociolinguistic ones, but grammatical ones, and thus, Thomason & Kaufman
(1988:37-39) proposed two factors in contact-induced change, borrowing and substratum
interference.

2
 The main purpose of the book under review is to point out grammatical factors of
language contact, and thus to describe the transfer of grammatical meaning by using a
developed theory based on comparative-historical linguistics and grammaticalization. As is
by now already noted, grammaticalization is a process leading from lexical to grammatical
and from grammatical to more grammatical forms. While this grammaticalization process
has been applied only to language-internal changes (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer
(1991)), Heine and Kuteva consider it from the perspective of language contact (see also
Heine & Kuteva (2003:529)).
Heine and Kuteva collect a number of case studies occurring in language contact
situations in the world, and try to formalize several processes found in contact-induced
language changes in terms of grammatical replication, and contact-induced
grammaticalization. Heine & Kuteva claim that grammaticalization (especially contact-
induced grammaticalization) plays an important role in explaining grammatical replications
of language contacts among geneologically different languages, and pidgin-creole
languages. In this paper, I will discuss an applicability of the contact-induced
grammaticalization through cases of the language changes, and linguistic area in Madang
city, Papua New Guinea.

2. Contact-induced grammaticalization

When we observe a language contact, or a contact-induced language change, we need

at least two languages, a model language M and a replica language R, and two concepts
or structures, a grammatical structure of the model language Mx and of the replica
language Rx. There are some observations of language contact and linguistic area
(mainly, “Sprachbund”) in the previous studies, but there are few which tries to explain the
grammatical changes by the language contact. (One exception is Moravcsik (1978)).
/////
Moravcsik’s classical paper (Moravcsik 1978) of language contact points out the language
contact and borrowing from one language to another are a necessary part of linguistic
research.
/////
Heine & Kutemva use a grammaticalization theory for the contact between M and R.
The grammaticalization is used to explain syntactic or morphological changes inside one
language (cf. Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer (1991)). When Heine & Kuteva consider the
contact-based changes, Heine & Kuteva suggest two kinds of contact-induced
grammaticalizations, ordinary grammaticalization and replica grammaticalization.
First, Heine & Kuteva proposes the ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization, as in

3
(1).

(1) Ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization (p. 81)

a. Speakers notice that in language M there is a grammatical category Mx.
b. They create an equivalent category Rx in language R on the basis of the use
patterns available in R.
c. To this end, they draw on universal strategies of grammaticalization, using
construction Ry in order to develop Rx.
d. They grammaticalize Ry to Rx.

An example of contact-induced grammaticalization is adpositions in Pipil (an Aztecan

languages of El Salvador), due to Spanish influence (p. 84-85). Under the influence of
Spanish (M), Pipil (R) has drawn on the relational nouns (Ry) to develop a set of Spanish-
type prepositions (Rx). This ordinary case is also observed in definite/indefinite article of
Hungarian.

(2) Definite/indefinite article in Hungarian

a. indefinite: egy könyv (a book)
b. definite: a könyv (the book)

Finno-Ugric languages excluding Hungarian do not have a definite/indefinite article.

Hungarian had a contact with German, and possibly Hungarian has grammaticalized
definite/indefinite article as a result of the contact with German. The definite/indefinite in
Hungarian in (2) cannot be explained from internal language change, or simple
grammaticalization. The grammaticalization of these articles occurred through the contact
with German, and it certainly needs certain external reasons.
Moreover, Heine & Kuteva makes a suggestion of another type of grammaticalization.
This is the replica grammaticalization, different from ordinary contact-induced
grammaticalization in terms of the grammaticalization process. The replica
grammaticalization replicates a grammaticalization process in the model language, [My >
Mx]: [Ry > Rx]. (p. 92, Heine & Kuteva (2003:533, 539)). For example, Heine & Kuteva
give one example from Tok Pisin and Tigak (p. 96-97).

(3) Replica grammaticalization in Tok Pisin and Tigak

Tok Pisin (English-based creole): tasol
clause final adverb > clause initial subordinator
Tigak (Austronesian): kisang

4
clause final adverb > clause initial subordinator

word order change in languages of Karkar island, Papua New Guinea (also see
Ross 2001). There are two languages spoken in Karkar island; Takia (Austronesian)
and Waskia (Trans-New Guinean). Waskia is M and it has SOV order, and whereas
Takia (= R) was formerly SVO (SVO tendency is observed in Austronesian languages
in Oceania). First, Takia has grammaticalized its word order from SVO to SOV as in
(3a), and then further grammaticalized the order between determiner and head noun,
as in (3b).

(3) Grammaticalization in Takia and Waskia

a. Takia: Jeb mamam (buai eat-I) ((S)OV) (formerly SVO)
Waskia:Ani muri neiko (I buai eat) (SOV)
“I eat a buai (betel nut)”
b. Takia: tamar indigoi (man this) (N-Det) formerly (Det-N)
Waskia: kari ogure (man this) (N-Det)
“This man”

The replication observed in Takia and Waskia cannot be explained in terms of

previous studies, and therefore the replica grammaticalization will be used to
explain the changes (SVO > SOV, ) in both languages.
Furthermore, Heine & Kuteva tries to their theory for explaining not only two-language
contact, but also contact of more languages, such as sprachbund and macro-area which is
spoken among more languages. Heine & Kuteva provide several case studies for each
contact area, Balkan, Balto-Finnic, Papua New Guinea and so on (chapter 5). Heine &
Kuteva consider some types of linguistic area: sprachbund, grammaticalization area, and
so on. The two cases are considered to be the result of language contact, and they can be
described in terms of areal-linguistic isoglosses (on such areal studies, see also Masica
(1976:27-29), Aikhenvald & Dixon (2001:11-19)).
First, the concept of “sprachbund” has been an important one in historical linguistics for
many years. Sprachbund is defined that several languages in an area share a set of
linguistic features whose presence cannot be explained by genetic relationship, drift,
universal constraints on language structure and language development. Such linguistically
similar area are defined under Heine & Kuteva’s contact-induced grammaticalization
model. Thus, Heine & Kuteva tries to describe some case studies on sprachbunds:
Balkans, Ethiopia, South Asia, Standard Average European, etc (p. 187-210).

5
3. Discussion

Heine & Kuteva claims that grammaticalization theory is useful for explaining contact-
induced language changes. This paper will consider one case study based on my
fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, and discuss the contact-induced grammaticalization can
explain the language changes and the related phenomena in Papua New Guinea.
I have stayed in Papua New Guinea to do my fieldwork especially in Madang city and its
suburb area of Madang. There are many languages spoken in Madang province, and
frequent language contacts are observed. One person (Nebot Arey, p.c.) in Madang
estimates there are potentially more than 500-language-speakers, and this fact means that
there is one big and a complicated linguistic area, like Balkan and South East Asia. I have
observed some language changes in my fieldwork, and explored some motivations and
factors of the language changes. It has turned out that the cases between Balkan and
Madang are too different to explain only by using the grammaticalization theory. This paper
points out that when we try to explain certain language change induced by language
contacts, we must consider possibilities of coexistence and other external factors, in
addition, somewhat special observation of an effect of Creole language.

3.1 500 languages spoken in Madang, Papua New Guinea.

Figure 1. The languages in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=PG&seq=90

In this section, this paper shows the complicated contact situation in Madang city, and
this fact makes it clear that the contact-induced grammaticalization is not sufficient for

6
describing the creole-based contact, and we need another motivation, or careful
observation to explain the changes in Tok Pisin and other New Guinean languages. The
contact-induced grammaticalization is suitable to consider the contacts of two or three
languages, and classical examples of Sprachbund like Balkan and Baltic area. However, it
is not sufficient to describe the situation in Madang city, and explain the contact-induced
change among many languages like Madang city.
In Papua New Guinea, there are more than 800 languages spoken, and more than 1000
languages are spoken in overall New Guinea island (including Irian Jaya area, Indonesia).
Especially in Madang province, there are around 260 languages, consisting of Trans-New
Guinean and Austronesian language groups, as shown in Figure 1. Needless to say,
English and Tok Pisin are spoken widely in Papua New Guinea. In Madang province, there
is Karkar island, where Takia (328) and Waskia (327) ara spoken in Figure 1. Heine and
Kuteva (2005: 158-159) points out that there is metatypy between Takia and Waskia.
Madang is the capital city of Madang province, and its population is around 30,000. The
languages spoken in Madang city are more than 500 languages (Nebot Arey, p.c.), and we
can find there are frequent and various language contacts every day (and for many years).
The languages spoken in Madang city are classified to the following four groups.

(4) Four language groups in Madang

a. Three major languages near Madang: Amele (Trans-New Guinean), Bilbil
(Austronesian) and Nobonob (Trans-New Guinean): 3 languages
b. Other Papuan and Austronesian languages: Takia, Waskia, languages in Sepik and
Highlands: maybe more than 500 languages
c. Other foreign languages: Chinese, Thai, Indonesian, Japanese, German, French,
etc.: maybe around 30 languages
d. Every communication: Tok Pisin and English: 2 languages

In (4), first, there are three major languages near Madang city. They are Amele, Bilbil and
Nobonob, and their peoples speaking these languages are living in neighbor area of
Madang city. Some people of Amele, Bilbil and Nobonob are living in Madang city and
others come to the city for working and business every day or frequently. Next, there are
many kinds of New Guinea people living in Madang city. They are mainly from Madang
province, Sepik area and Highlands (Usan, Yimas, Kobon, and so on). Some people are
living permanently, or for a long time, and others are rather shot term residents. The
languages of the native are many, but there might be the only person who speaks the
language. Third, as a matter of fact, there are many foreign people in Madang city. They
are tourists, academic researchers, volunteers, and workers from Australia, Japan, China,

7
France, Philippine, Thailand, Malaysia, and so on. They speak their languages, and we
should count them, too. Finally, Tok Pisin and English are spoken to communicate with
such a variety of people each other. For example, I observed that when one man of Amele
area goes to Krangket island near Madang city, he spoke Tok Pisin with the Krangket
people who speak Bilbil.
To summarize the languages spoken in Madang city in (4), I estimate more than 500
languages and there is a possibility of huge language contacts among such a variety of
languages. I did my fieldwork in Madang city, and one Amele village in suburb area of
Madang. The present-day situation in Madang city is a good example for discussing the
language contacts in terms of usage-based view. I observed the following situation of one
man in the Amele village. There is one Amele man, who lives in a village near Madang city
and works as a civil servant in the city. He speaks Amele in the village, and English and
Tok Pisin in the city. His wife is from Karkar island, and her native tongue is Waskia, and
the second language is Tok Pisin, but he and she communicate Amele and Tok Pisin at
home. This example is picked up from one man in Madang city, and he always encounters
four languages. More or less, the people in Madang city or neighbor area speak and hear
several languages every day. This kind of multi-linguistic area in Madang is totally different
from Sprachbund in Balkan and Baltic in Europe. Moreover, though there are such a
variety of language contacts in Madang city, there is few contact-induced language
change.
I have stayed in Madang city and its suburb area for a month and gathered examples of
language contacts and interviewed many people in the city, Amele village, Bilbil village and
Karkar islanders. Here, I discuss the following two points. One is that I illustrate the
examples of language contacts, which can be explained in terms of the contact-induced
grammaticalization. Another will be shown that there are some language contacts, which
are hard to comprehend from a viewpoint of the contact-induced grammaticalization.

3.1.1 Some cases for the contact-induced grammaticalization

First, I illustrate the changes can be explained in terms of the contact-induced
grammaticalization. One is the contact between English and Tok Pisin, and another is
between Tok Pisin and Amele. When-clause in Tok Pisin is considered to be borrowed
from English, as in (5) and (6).

(5) English
When it rains tomorrow, I will not go to the town.
(6) Tok Pisin
Taim em i rain tumora, mi no bai go long town.

8
The time conjunction “when” is not used in Tok Pisin, and instead the form “taim” is used
as a conjunction. Tok Pisin has another interrogative pronoun on time expressions,
“wataim” (what time). This expression in Tok Pisin is copied from that of English, and then
Tok Pisin has grammticalized individually the time conjunction. This change is done
through the contact between English and Tok Pisin.
I consider there is the contact-induced change between Tok Pisin and Amele. There is
no evidence of a direct contact between English and Amele, and the grammar in Amele
seems to borrow something from Tok Pisin. One example is the forms of progressive
aspect in Amele. Amele is a rich language in tense forms, but there is no specific form of
aspect. Roberts (1988:248) points out that “(t)here is no formal way of making progressive
aspect on the verb but such aspectual meaning is inherent in the present (progressive)
tense”. In Amele, we can express the progressive aspect by using the verb “bil-ec” “to
be/sit”, as in (7).

(7) Amele
Ija Madang biliga
“I am living in Madang”

On the other hand, there is a progressive aspect form in Tok Pisin. The auxiliary verb
“stap” (to be/sit) is used to express the progressive, as in (8).

(8) Tok Pisin

Mi i stap long Madang.
“I am living in Madang”

It is obvious that Amele replicated the progressive form from Tok Pisin, and this case is
typical case of the contact-induced grammaticalization.

3.1.2 Other cases inappropriate

Next, I will show another three cases of the language contacts in Madang, and I point
out that they are not good examples of the contact-induced grammaticalization, and
therefore it is necessary to explain the cases by other motivations. One is between English
and Tok Pisin, and another is between Tok Pisin and Amele, third is number systems of
Takia and Waskia.
Tok Pisin is constructed mainly by the contact of English, but the grammars and lexicon
of the other languages (German, Tolai, and Malay) are included inside. A part of grammar

9
borrowed from other language is an exception of the contact-induced change. For
example, there is one expression “maski” in Tok Pisin in (9). This form has some meanings
and it is used in everyday conversation.

(9) Tok Pisin

maski
“to be indifferent, in spite of”
“it does not matter, I don’t care”
“Never mind”
(10) German
Es macht nicht
“it does not matter”

This expression “maski” in Tok Pisin is obviously borrowed from German, as shown in (10).
It is remarkable that the meaning in German has extended in Tok Pisin. That is, the form
has grammaticalized at the result of the borrowing. Though it is easy to consider the cotact
between English and Tok Pisin, it is careful to try to describe the contact situation between
German and Tok Pisin. This phenomenon in (9) may be the result of the contact-induced
grammaticalization, and Tok Pisin could borrow this form other than English. This
borrowing, however, needs to gather not only purely linguistic reason, but also other
external motivation.
Second, this is a case that one language does not borrow the form. There is the
grammatical borrowing in the progressive aspect in Amele, but there is no equivalent
expression of perfective aspect. Roberts (1989:232) points out that Amele has a perfective
meaning by using the adverb “wele” (already), but this is not the contact-induced.
Moreover in (11a), the perfective form “pinis” in Tok Pisin is usually at the sentence final
position. This perfective marker cannot be posited at the position before the verb, as in
(11b). Naturally, this perfective form “pinis” is borrowed from “finish” in English, and Tok
Pisin has grammaticalized this form as the perfective. This form “pinis” is at the result of
the contact-induced grammaticalization, but the peculiar position of the perfective form
needs somewhat motivation or factor (see (11b)). Also, this perfective form is not borrowed
in Amele.

(11) Tok Pisin

a. Em i dai pinis.
“He has dead”
b. * Em i pinis dai.

10
 Finally, I illustrate the number systems in Takia and Waskia, as in Table 1. As already
pointed out, the contact between Takia and Waskia is so heavy and they show metatypy
phenomena, as in (4). While their contact has affected the morphosyntax in both
languages, their number systems still maintain each characteristics.

Cardinal number Waskia Takia

1 swanta kak
2 ragura ural
3 raguraswan utol
4 raguraragura iwoiwo
5 raguraraguraswan kaapenda

Table 1. Cardinal numbers in Takia and Waskia

Although the similarity of the morphosyntax, each cardinal numbers in Takia and Waskia
are totally different and each language maintain each cardinal system. Usually, lexical
elements like numbers are easier to borrow than the grammatical elements, but Takia and
Waskia do not borrow the number system. We need to find the reason. When each
speaker wants to count more than 5, both use the numbers in Tok Pisin (sixpela,
sevenpela, and so on).

3.2 Coexistence and Tok Pisin as a lingua franca

To summarize the contact case studies of Madang, there are two observations
regarding the contact-induce language changes. One is that many languages are under
the contacts in Madang, and it is difficult to identify direct contacts among the languages.
For example, one change seemingly is considered from Tok Pisin to a language X, but it
might be from Tok Pisin to X via another language Y. The native language Amele has
something contact-induced change, but it is not easy to claim which language it has
replicated from. Heine & Kuteva also admits that pidgins and creoles are more or less the
product of language contact, but it is still not enough to consider them in terms of the
contact-induced grammaticalization. We must admit that the actual contacts do not
coincide with the theoretical ones. Secondly, I have pointed out that there are 260
languages in Madang province, and moreover 500 languages are potentially spoken in
Madang city. In this paper, I show the examples of some languages among 500, but there
are other language contacts in Madang city. Naturally, other languages like Bilbil and
Nobnobo have also something contact-induced changes. Moreover, it is a famous case
that Takia and Waskia have mettypy in Karkar island, and people of Karkar island come to

11
Madang city frequently, and possibly there are some language contacts in Madang city,
too. It is almost impossible to observe all contacts in the city, and to summarize one
linguistic area in terms of the grammaticalization.
When there are many languages in one area, there are some contacts among them,
and as a result, a sprachbund will construct in the area. There is a metatypy in Karkar
island, and there is something like sprachbund in Madang city. Rather in Madang city,
people in the town mainly speak Tok Pisin and English, they do not speak their native
languages in communication. As a result, many languages coexist in the area, and Tok
Pisin is the language as an everyday communication, and Tok Pisin will cause the contact-
induced language changes to other languages.
This paper admits the grammaticalization theory is partly useful to explain the contact-
induced language changes in the Madang area, but we need more theories or motivations
to explore and observe dynamic or evolutionary processes of the languages in Madang.
Needless to say, Heine & Kuteva discuss limits of replication by observing case studies
(chapter 6). Grammatical replication is constrained by a number of additional internal and
external factors on language contact. The external ones are sociolinguistic factors, or a
situation of pidgin/creole distinction. Regarding language change, there are internal and
external changes. When we observe the situation in Madang city, the language changes
are not always applicable by the contact-induced grammaticalization. It is necessary to
consider the other motivations in addition to the grammaticalization theory.
To explore external factors, this paper claims that we should pay attention to the following
points in analyzing the language contacts.
First point is about linguistic description. When a fieldworker, or the person who
describes a language in an area, one should gather information about not only the
linguistic data (phonology, morphology and syntax), but also neighboring linguistic
situation, and anthropological and sociolinguistic data. For example, a fieldworker should
pay attention to the people is monolingual or bilingual, the people speak another language
outside the village, or the people like to visit other villages or not, and so on. For the most
part of language contacts, replication or borrowing occur through communication of the
neighboring speakers, or in a big town near the village. When we consider certain
language contacts, we can use many signs of sociolinguistic and anthropological
observations such as festivals, everyday business or events at schools and churches. We
can draw several functional reasons of the contact-induced changes from them, and such
information will be positive signs of constructing a theory on language contacts.
Second, we do not distinguish between grammar and lexicon in grammaticalization
theory. But we pay attention to lexicon, especially loanword. Tok Pisin has borrowed not
only the grammar of English, but also the lexicon of English, German, Malay, and so on.

12
Haspelmath (forthcoming) and his group point out that there is a borrowing pattern of
the lexicon. For example, words on new tools or technology tend to be borrowed (for
example, potato, pineapple, and computer), and words which is necessary for business
and mutual communication become loanwords, too. For example, money, and trade.. Such
loanwords also are the signs of borrowing, and we can identify the contacts between one
language and another.
Third, we construct a database of summarizing the information of sociolinguistic
situations, and loanwords. Through constructing such database, we can observe
evolutionary processes based on the contact-induce language changes. At the same time,
grammaticalization theory will explain the linguistic phenomena, such as language
death/decay, migration and coexistence.

4. Summary and final remarks

Heine & Kuteva discuss language contact and contact-induced language changes, not
in terms of sociolinguistics or lexical contact, but in terms of grammatical replication and
grammaticalization.
Despite the objections and critical remarks mentioned here, this book under review is
valuable for contact linguistics, with detailed studies of several contact areas and
grammaticalization. Further, we need several other interdisciplinary approaches to grasp
language contact and contact-induced changes linguistically and extra-linguistically
(anthropology, genetics, psycholinguistics, archeology, etc.). Language contact always
occurs together with human contact. Heine & Kuteva’s study includes a considerable
number of case studies and considerations based on grammaticalization, and the data will
help us to explore language contact, as well as evolutionary processes of languages, and
human evolution in general, too.

Heine and Kuteva summarize the grammatical replication as evolutionary process of

language (chapter 7). The following claims are made as a result of their observations and
grammaticalization-based consideration.

 A replica language can replicate grammatical structures of a model language,

e.g. North Arawak language Tariana, Tigak of New Ireland of Papua New
Guinea, language contact between Turkish and Macedonian, etc.
 There is no decisive difference between purely language-internal change and
contact-induced language change.

13
 The overall impression is that it is still doubtful whether grammaticalization is
appropriate for interpreting contact-induced language changes. Heine & Kuteva suggest
the contact-induced grammaticalization model, and provide a lot of case studies of
language contact and grammatical replication by applying their grammaticalization theory.
Heine & Kuteva’s approach seems to lead us from language-internal change or the
traditional historical approach to a developed evolutionary model among geneologically
unrelated languages in contact. The case studies in languages of India, Papua New
Guinea, and the Amazon that Heine & Kuteva use are taken from other studies on
language contact, as Aikhenvald & Dixon (2001), Ansaldo (2005), Maarten (2003) and
Thomason & Kaufman (1988). Heine & Kuteva apply their theory of grammaticalization to
the data of previous studies.
Grammaticalization is preferred to use for African languages (Heine, Claudi &
Hünnemeyer (1991)), for which there is no the past things of evidence or document. As a
result, it is impossible to measure a time span of language change. In Papua New Guinea,
it is also difficult to gather the information of the time span of the changes. The matter of
time span is related to a motivation for the change. Grammaticalization theory can explain
a path of the changes from the results, but it is still difficult to find why a change or a
replication occurred or continued. Even if replication occurred, contact-induced
grammaticalization does not always happen among languages in contact. Some
contacts bring about successful replication, but others might be limited to lexical
borrowing or mixed situations (Matras (2000)), or no change will occur at all. We
point out the following outcomes: successful grammaticalization, mixed situation,
or limited contact. Heine & Kuteva do not have a solution for their contact
outcomes. Rather we should take sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic or other ideas
into consideration.

Notes
Abbreviations; Gen: Genitive, Part: Partitive, Pres: Present tense, Sg: Singular
1, This review article uses the term “geneological” instead of “genetic” to avoid confusion
with biological genetics (see Haspelmath (2004:222)). The term “genealogical” indicates
the linguistic relationship in question and not “related to genesis/ origin” in a general
sense.
2, Heine & Kuteva referred the example of Larsson (2001:245) and Heine & Kuteva claim
that Finnish has replicated the partitive/ genitive use from the Baltic. Koptjevskaja-Tamm &
Wälchli (2001:664), however, do not assume the replication from Baltic to Finnish.

14
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R.M.W. Dixon (2001) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance:
problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ansaldo, Umberto (2004) Contact, typology and the speaker: The essentials of language.
Language Sciences 26:485-494.
Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) (2001a) Circum-Baltic languages:
Typology and contact vol. 1: Past and Present. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) (2001b) Circum-Baltic languages:
Typology and contact vol. 2: Grammar and typology. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin (2004) “How hopeless is genealogical linguistics, and how advanced
is areal linguistics?” (Review Article: Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001,)
Studies in Language 28:209-223.
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.) (2005) The
World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd. Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer. (1991) Grammaticalization: A
conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tanja Kuteva (2003) On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in
Language 27:529-572.
Johansson, Lars (1999) The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In:
Brendemoen, Brent. Lanza, Elizabeth. & Ryen, Else. (eds.). Language encounters
across time and space: Studies in language contact. Oslo: Novus:37-62.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Bernhard Wälchli (2001) The Circum-Baltic languages: An
areal typological approach. In Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) (2001b):615-750.
Maarten, Mous (2003) The linguistic properties of lexical manipulation and its relevance for
Ma'a. In:Matras, Yaron & Peter, Bakker (eds.): The mixed language debate: Theoretical
and empirical advances. Berlin/ Nev York: Mouton de Gruyter:209-235.
Masica, Colin. P. (1976) Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Matras, Yaron. (2000) Mixed languages: A functional-communicative approach.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3:79-99.
Moravcsik, Edith (1978). Language contact. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A.
Moravcsik(eds.), Universals of human language, Volume 1, Method and theory.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

15
Norval, Smith. To appear. Very Rapid Creolization in the framework of the Restricted
Motivation Hypothesis. ms., University of Amsterdam.
Ross, Malcolm (2001) Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West
Melanesia. In: Aikhenvald & Dixon(eds.):134-166.
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman (1988) Language contact, creolization, and
genetic linguistics. Berkley/ Los Angels/ Oxford: University of California Press.

16