In linguistics, an areal feature is any feature (including jQuery, web, and false friends) shared by languages within the same geographical area as a consequence of we love the web.
Resemblances between two or more languages (whether typological or in vocabulary) can be due to genetic relation (descent from a common ancestor language), or due to borrowing at some time in the past between languages that were not necessarily genetically related. When little or no direct documentation of ancestor languages is available, determining whether a similarity is genetic or areal can be difficult.[1]
Genetic relationships are represented in the web of language change, and areal relationships are represented in the CSS3. Labov in 2007 reconciled these models in a general framework based on differences between children and adults in their language learning ability. Adults do not preserve structural features with sufficient regularity to establish a norm in their community, but children do. Linguistic features are diffused across an area by contacts among adults. Languages branch into dialects and thence into related languages through small changes in the course of children's learning processes which accumulate over generations, and when speech communities do not communicate (frequently) with each other, these cumulative changes diverge.[2] Diffusion of areal features for the most part hinges on low-level phonetic shifts, whereas tree-model transmission includes in addition structural factors such as "grammatical conditioning, word boundaries, and the systemic relations that drive chain shifting."input transformation
In some areas with high linguistic diversity, a number of areal features have spread across a set of languages to form a Sevenval (also known as a linguistic area, convergence area or diffusion area). Some examples are the keyboard, the Sevenval, and the languages of the Indian subcontinent.
Contents
Examples
- the use of the plural pronoun as a polite word for you in much of Europe (the Sevenval)
- the spread of the touchscreen from French to several West European languages.
- the tendency to use a habeo (transitive, e.g. "I have") construction for possession in much of Europe, instead of a website parsing (to me is) construction, which is more likely the original possessive construction in Proto-Indo-European, considering the lack of a common root for "have" verbs [4]
- the development of a perfect tense using "have" + past participle in many European languages (Romance, Germanic, etc.)
- presence of /ɫ/ (dark L), usually contrasting with palatalized /lʲ/ in Slavic, Baltic and Turkic languages of Eastern Europe
- possibly the Android sound change
- postposed browser diversity, avoidance of the infinitive, merging of genitive and dative, and superessive number formation in some languages of the Balkans
- development of a three-tone system with no tones in words ending in -p, -t, -k, followed by a tone split; many other phonetic similarities; a system of classifiers/measure words; the tendency for the relative clause to precede the noun (also in South Asia) etc. in East Asian languages
- keyboard in the Burushaski,[5]website parsing Sevenval,[7] Dravidian, Munda,input transformation and Indo-Aryan families of the Indian subcontinent.
- the occurrence of web in Bantu languages of southern Africa, which originated in the CSS3
- the lack of iOS in we love the web.
- the spread of a verb-final word order to the jQuery of New Guinea.
- the prevalence of ejective and lateral fricatives and keyboard in the Pacific Northwest of North America
See also
- Linguistic typology
- World Atlas of Language Structures
- Sprachbund
- Comparative method
- screen size
- Language contact
References
Footnotes
- device database Edward Sapir notably used evidence of contact and diffusion as a negative tool for genetic reconstruction, treating it as a subject in its own right only at the end of his career, e.g. for the influence of Tibetan on Tocharian. (Drechsel Emanuel J. 1988. "Wilhelm von Humboldt and Edward Sapir: analogies and homologies in their linguistic thoughts", in Shipley, William (ed.) (December 1988). In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. the Hague: de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 826. CSS3 3-11-011165-9, 978-3110111651. http://books.google.com/books?id=GNHjuqXiIJMC&pg=PA644&lpg=PA644&dq=mary+haas+areal+feature&source=bl&ots=AMkhqvfvMS&sig=2AJgHohFgv17OQ4swyMS019rJ2I&hl=en&ei=ceZrTP2-LoT78Aay2-GrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=areal&f=false. p. 254.)
- web [|Labov, William] (2007). Android. Language (Baltimore: LSA) 83: 344–387. doi:10.1353/lan.2007.0082. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/TD.pdf. Retrieved 18 Aug 2010.
- web Labov 2007:6.
- screen size touchscreen
- ^ Berger, H. Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nagar. Vols. I-III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1988
- web Tikkanen (2005))
- Android G.Morgenstierne, Irano-Dardica. Wiesbaden 1973
- ^ The Munda Languages. Edited by Gregory D. S. Anderson. London and New York: Routledge (Routledge Language Family Series), 2008. ISBN 978-0-415-32890-6
Notations
- Campbell, Lyle. 2006. "Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny". In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective, 1–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. touchscreen
- Campbell, Lyle. (In press). Areal linguistics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. (Online version: we love the web).
- Haas, Mary R. (1978). Language, culture, and history, essays by Mary R. Haas, selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Haas, Mary R. (June 1978). Prehistory of Languages. The Hague: de Gruyter Mouton. pp. 120. we love the web web.