In this article the author argues that the language contact situation between Pirahã (Muran) and Portuguese can best be explained in a framework combining the theoretical approaches to language contact and transfer. In this contact situation, Portuguese elements are readily incorporated into Pirahã, while the society remains largely monolingual. Only some speakers have a limited command of Portuguese, which they employ when communicating with outsiders. The author refers to these speakers as gatekeepers, usually middle-aged men taking over the communication with the outside world. Their speech is lexically Portuguese, but shows considerable interference from Pirahã. This could be due to their limited proficiency in Portuguese, forcing the speakers to draw heavily on the structures of their L1 (the transfer perspective). On the other hand, it could also be analysed as heavy borrowing of Portuguese lexical elements into a Pirahã frame (the language contact perspective). The result of both perspectives is an interlingual variety, used for the purpose of communicating with outsiders. Focusing on expressions of quantities in the language of the gatekeepers, the author argues for a combination of the borrowing or transfer frameworks in the analysis of this contact situation.
AikhenvaldA. (2002). Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AikhenvaldA. (2006). Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In AikhenvaldA.DixonR. (Eds.), Grammars in contact (pp. 1–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BackusA. (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another?International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 307–340.
4.
BakkerP. (2009, October). Creoles versus languages with little morphology. Conference presentation at Morphologies in Contact, Bremen, Germany.
5.
BermanR.OlshtainE. (1983). Features of first language transfer in second language attrition. Applied Linguistics, 4, 222–234.
6.
CampbellL.GrayN.MeletisZ.AbbottJ.SilverJ. (2006). Gatekeepers and keymasters: Dynamic relationships of access in geographical fieldwork. The Geographical Review, 96, 97–121.
7.
ClyneM. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CookVIarossiE.StellakisN.TokumaruY. (2003). Effects of the L2 on the syntactic processing of the L1. In CookV. (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 193–213). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
9.
CostaA.ColomeA.GomezO.Sebastian-GallesN. (2003). Another look at cross-language competition in bilingual speech production: Lexical and phonological factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 167–179.
10.
CroftW. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
11.
DewaeleJ.VeroniqueD. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 275–297.
12.
DulayH.BurtM. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.
13.
EverettD. (1986). Pirahã. In DerbyshireD.PullumG. (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages I (pp. 220–326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
14.
EverettD. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 76, 621–646.
15.
EverettD. (2009). Pirahã culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms. Language, 85, 405–442.
16.
FrankM.EverettD.FedorenkoE.GibsonE. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819–824.
17.
FriesC. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18.
Gardner-ChlorosP. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GogliaF. (2009). Communicative strategies in the Italian of Igbo-Nigerian immigrants in Italy: A contact-linguistic approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung/ Language Typology and Universals, 62, 224–240.
20.
GordonP. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.
21.
GrosjeanF. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
HaspelmathM.TadmorU. (2009). Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
23.
HaugenE. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.
24.
HeineB.KutevaT. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HolmJ. (1988). Pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JarvisS. (1998). Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.
27.
JarvisS.PavlenkoA. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
28.
JohansonL. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Richmond: Curzon.
29.
KeesingR. (1991). Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In TraugottE.HeineB. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization – Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 315–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
KellermanE. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.
31.
KöpkeB.SchmidM.KeijzerM.DostertS. (2007). Language attrition, theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
33.
LadoR. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
LefebvreC. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LewinK. (1952). Group decision and social change. In SwansonN.Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459–473). New York: Henry Holt.
36.
MatrasY. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36, 281–331.
37.
MatrasY. (2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 505–528.
38.
MatrasY. (2007). The borrowability of grammatical categories. In MatrasY.SakelJ. (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 31–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
39.
MatrasY. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MatrasY.SakelJ. (2007a). Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language, 31, 829–865.
41.
MatrasY.SakelJ. (Eds.). (2007b) Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
42.
MoravcsikE. (1978). Universals of language contact. In GreenbergJ. (Ed.), Universals of human language (pp. 94–122). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
MufweneS. (2008). Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London: Continuum.
44.
MuyskenP. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Myers-ScottonC. (2006). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
46.
NevinsA.PesetskyD.RodriguesC. (2007). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. LingBuzz article archive. Retrieved from http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000411
47.
NevinsA.PesetskyD.RodriguesC. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85, 355–404.
48.
OdlinT. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
OdlinT. (2005). Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.
50.
OdlinT.JarvisS. (2004). Same sources, different outcomes: A study of Swedish influence on the acquisition of English in Finland. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 123–140.
51.
OtheguyR.GarciaO. (1993). Convergent conceptualizations as predictors of degree of contact in U.S. Spanish. In RocaA.LipskiJ. (Eds.), Spanish in the US: Linguistic contact and diversity (pp. 135–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
52.
PavlenkoA. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 209–230.
53.
RingbomH. (2007). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning: Comprehension, learning and production. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
54.
SakelJ. (2007). Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In MatrasY.SakelJ. (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing (pp. 15–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
55.
SakelJ. (2010a). Grammatical borrowing from Spanish/Portuguese in the native languages of Latin America. In BakkerD.AnsaldoU. (Eds.), Languages in contact with Spanish. Special issue of Language Typology and Universals, 63, 65–78.
56.
SakelJ. (2010b). Language contact and recursion: A study of complexity in Pirahã. Manuscript under review.
57.
SakelJ.StapertE. (2009). Pirahã – in need of recursive syntax? In van der HulstH. (Ed.), Recursion and human language (pp. 3–16). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
58.
SebbaM. (1997). Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
59.
SiegelJ. (2008). The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
SjöholmK. (1995). The influence of crosslinguistic, semantic, and input factors on the acquisition of English phrasal verbs: A comparison between Finnish and Swedish learners at an intermediate and advanced level. Åbo: Åbo Academy University Press.
61.
ThomasonS.KaufmanT. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
62.
VéroniqueD. (1994). Naturalistic adult acquisition of French as L2 and French-based creole genesis compared: Insights into creolization and language change. In AdoneD.PlagI. (Eds.), Creolization and language change (pp. 117–137). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
63.
WeinreichU. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
64.
WinfordD. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
65.
YangL. (2007). The human in human information acquisition: Understanding gatekeeping and proposing new directions in scholarship. Library and Information Science Research, 29, 103–123.
