Mixed language in flux? The various impacts of multilingual contact on Lánnang-uè’s wh -question system

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

What exactly happens to a mixed language’s system in a multilingual contact setting? This study aims to investigate the interactions between speakers’ exposure to, frequency of, and proficiency in four languages (English, Tagalog, Hokkien, and Mandarin) and their influences on the why-fronting only wh-question system of Lánnang-uè, a mixed language used by the metropolitan Manila Lannangs. It also aims to test the validity of the assertion that symbiotic mixed languages are more likely to be in flux.

Methodology:

The Lánnang-uè speakers participated in production and acceptability experiments.

Data analysis:

Likelihood to front (production) and responses to a 7-point Likert-type scale (acceptability) were the dependent variables for several Bayesian linear mixed-effects models with age, frequency of language use, and language proficiency as primary fixed effects, sociolinguistic factors (e.g., attitudes, identity) as covariates, and participant (and when appropriate, item) as a random effect.

Findings:

Both production and acceptability results showed that the effects of contact are numerous and far from homogeneous. They vary depending on the source language, wh-phrase type, and degree of consciousness. They corroborate the widely held belief that mixed languages are less stable in symbiotic contexts. However, this paper goes an extra step to show that this “instability” or variability is not always a consequence of contact-induced transfer. It demonstrates that when the source languages influence the stability or development of the mixed language, the effects can be diverse, encompassing aspects such as identity processes, language attitudes, structural transfer, and/or other sociolinguistic innovations.

Originality:

This article is one of the first studies to examine the effects of contact between multiple languages on a mixed language variable using both production and acceptability experimental data in a five-language context. It is one of the very few variationist works in the Philippines that considers the effects of multilingualism on variation and change.

Keywords

Language variation and change sociolinguistics language contact multilingualism mixed languages Bayesian regression identity language attitudes and ideologies Lánnang-uè Philippines

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldridge

(2002). Nominalization and wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 393–426.

Ang See

. (1990). The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and perspectives (Vol.1). Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran.

Bakker

(2003). Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Matras

(Ed.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (pp. 107–150). Mouton de Gruyter.

Bao

(2005). The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 41(2), 237–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003269

Benmamoun

Montrul

Polinsky

(2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.

Biblical Seminary of the Philippines. (2011). The Amoy Audio Bible Project. Biblical Seminary of the Philippines. https://bsop.edu.ph/the-amoy-bible-project/

Bürkner

P.-C.

(2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01

Cheung

C.-H.

(2014). Wh-fronting and the left periphery in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23, 393–431.

Chuaunsu

(1989). A speech communication profile of three generations of Filipino-Chinese in Metro Manila: Their use of English, Pilipino and Chinese languages in different domains, role-relationships, speech situations and functions [Master’s thesis]. University of the Philippines.

10.

Doeppers

(1986). Destination, selection and turnover among Chinese migrants to Philippine cities in the nineteenth century. Journal of Historical Geography, 12(4), 235–260.

11.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2016). Trilingual code-switching using quantitative lenses: An exploratory study on Hokaglish. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 47, 106–128.

12.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2017). Language contact in the Philippines: The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective: The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective. Language Ecology, 1(2), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.2.04gon

13.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2018). Philippine Hybrid Hokkien as a postcolonial mixed language: Evidence from nominal derivational affixation mixing [Master’s Thesis]. National University of Singapore.

14.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2021). Filipino, Chinese, neither, or both? The Lannang identity and its relationship with language. Language & Communication, 77, 5–16.

15.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2022a). Interactions of Sinitic languages in the Philippines: Sinicization, Filipinization, and Sino-Philippine language creation. In Ye

(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Chinese Language Studies (pp. 369–408). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0924-4_31

16.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2022b). “Truly a Language of Our Own” A Corpus-Based, Experimental, and Variationist Account of Lánnang-uè in Manila [Ph.D. dissertation]. University of Michigan.

17.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2023a). Spread, stability, and sociolinguistic variation in multilingual practices: The case of Lánnang-uè. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2199998

18.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

(2023b). Variability in clusters and continuums: The sociolinguistic situation of the Manila Lannangs in the 2010s. Asia-Pacific Language Variation, 9(1), 83–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.22009.gon

19.

Gonzales

W. D. W.

Starr

R. L.

(2020). Vowel system or vowel systems? Variation in the monophthongs of Philippine Hybrid Hokkien in Manila. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 35(2), 253–292.

20.

Grafmiller

Szmrecsanyi

Hinrichs

(2018). Restricting the restrictive relativizer. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 309–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0015

21.

Jin

(2014). Contradiction, why-questions and complex islands in Chinese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 21(1), 1–8.

22.

Labov

(2002). The anatomy of style-shifting. In Eckert

Rickford

J. R.

(Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (1st ed., pp. 85–108). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613258.006

23.

Levshina

(2016). When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0054

24.

Lipski

(2020). Reconstructing the life-cycle of a mixed language: An exploration of Ecuadoran Media Lengua. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(2), 410–436.

25.

MacKenzie

(2020). Comparing constraints on contraction using Bayesian regression modeling. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 58. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00058

26.

Makowski

Ben-Shachar

M. S.

Chen

S. H. A.

Lüdecke

(2019). Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767

27.

Matras

Bakker

(Eds.). (2003). The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. Mouton de Gruyter.

28.

McElreath

(2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press, Taylor and Francis.

29.

Meakins

Stewart

(2022). Mixed Languages. In Mufwene

Escobar

A. M.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language contact (1st ed., pp. 310–343). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316796146.016

30.

Meyerhoff

(2018). Introducing sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Taylor and Francis.

31.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

32.

Poa

(2004). From quadrilingual to bilingual: On the multilingual teaching in the Chinese schools in the Philippines. In Dai

(Ed.), Bilingual studies (Vol.2, pp. 96–107). Minzu Chubanshe.

33.

R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org

34.

Sankoff

(2006). Age: Apparent time and real time. In Brown

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 110–116). Elsevier.

35.

Sato

(2013). Wh-questions in colloquial Singapore English: Adaptive traits from vernacular Malay and typological congruence. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 28(2), 299–322.

36.

Schachter

Otanes

F. T.

(1972). Tagalog reference grammar. University of California Press.

37.

Smith

(2000). Symbiotic mixed languages: A question of terminology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(2), 79–99.

38.

Sonderegger

(2022). Regression modeling for linguistic data (1st ed.). Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/pnumg/

39.

Tan

S. V.

(1993). The education of Chinese in the Philippines and Koreans in Japan. University of Hong Kong.

40.

Thomason

(2007). Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact, 1(1), 41–62.

41.

Thomason

Kaufman

(1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Univeristy of California Press.

42.

Uytanlet

J. L.

(2014). The Hybrid Tsinoys: Challenges of hybridity and homogeneity as sociocultural constructs among the Chinese in the Philippines [PhD dissertation]. Ashbury Theological Seminary.

43.

Vasishth

Nicenboim

(2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas—Part I: Statistical methods for linguistics—Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(8), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12201

44.

Vasishth

Nicenboim

Beckman

M. E.

Kong

E. J.

(2018). Bayesian data analysis in the phonetic sciences: A tutorial introduction. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.008

45.

Vehtari

Gelman

Simpson

Carpenter

Bürkner

P.-C.

(2021). Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved Rˆ for assessing convergence of MCMC (with Discussion). Bayesian Analysis, 16(2), 667–718. https://doi.org/10.1214/20-BA1221