| In this dissertation, I investigate the dichotomy between internal and external factors in historical linguistics, a dichotomy that has been a hallmark of mainstream approaches at least since the time of Saussure. The study takes as its starting point the view that this dichotomy has often led investigators to propose differences between internal and external change that do not really exist, in terms of either synchronic structures produced or diachronic processes involved. Underlying the dichotomy has been a tacit assumption that changes (putatively) arising from within a single speech community are normal, while those arising out of contact between different communities are not. It is the primary assertion of this study that such a marginalizing view of contact has less to do with observable linguistic phenomena than with the fact that, because of the very nature of most contact situations, speakers of “contact-based” varieties have historically been at the subordinate end of unequal social relationships.; The focus of the study is on two markers of grammatical aspect in “contact” varieties of English: pre-verbal imperfective DUH in Gullah and progressive BE+V-ING in Indian English. Both of these features make interesting case studies, as they are disproportionately singled out for their alleged synchronic and diachronic peculiarities in relation to “non-contact” Englishes. The results of this study suggest, however, that the synchronic patterning of these two markers is not as anomalous as previously imagined, and that this patterning derives rather unsurprisingly from the nature of the early contacts and the specific linguistic varieties that went into producing Gullah and Indian English. Specifically, in the case of Gullah DUH, historical texts and early dialect grammars reveal the feature to be straightforwardly descended from periphrastic DO constructions in southwestern British dialects. And, in the case of Indian English BE+V-ING, an examination of early colonial contacts and a comparison of modern corpus data suggest that the feature was selected quite ordinarily from the “standard” varieties of English that served as inputs. The study concludes with a brief look at the role of language contact in the development of periphrastic DO and BE+V-ING in “standard” English itself. |
