Social ecology and language history in the northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence

This study describes and explains the paradox of related languages in contact that show signs of both linguistic divergence and convergence. Seventeen distinct languages are spoken in the northernmost islands of Vanuatu. These closely related Oceanic languages have evolved from an earlier dialect network, by progressive diversification. Innovations affecting word forms – mostly sound change and lexical replacement – have usually spread only short distances across the network; their accumulation over time has resulted in linguistic fragmentation, as each spatially-anchored community developed its own distinctive vocabulary. However, while languages follow a strong tendency to diverge in the form of their words, they also exhibit a high degree of isomorphism in their linguistic structures, in the organisation of their grammars and lexicons. This structural homogeneity, typically manifested by the perfect translatability of constructions across languages, reflects the traditions of mutual contact and multilingualism which these small communities have followed throughout their history. While word forms are perceived as emblematic of place and diffuse to smaller social circles, linguistic structures are left free to diffuse across much broader networks. Ultimately, the effects of divergence and convergence are the end result, over time, of these two distinct forms of horizontal diffusion. Full address: Dr Alexandre FRANÇOIS Linguistics School of Culture, History and Language Australian National University ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Social ecology and language history in the northern Vanuatu linkage A tale of divergence and convergence 1 Sister languages in contact: Divergence or convergence? The present study examines the processes of divergence and convergence which characterise the historical evolution of a group of closely related languages spoken in northern Vanuatu. I will argue that these two conflicting tendencies operate on different areas of these languages‟ systems: divergence typically affects word forms, whereas convergence mostly takes place among linguistic structures. I will propose to associate this twofold evolution with two sociolinguistic factors playing a major role in the region: social group emblematicity, and language contact. 1.1 Divergence and convergence between languages The reconstruction of historical relationships between languages potentially involves two types of processes: processes of divergence, whereby languages become less similar over time; and processes of convergence, whereby languages become more and more similar. Linguistic divergence and convergence are typically observed in different contexts, involving different sets of languages. For example, within a given language family, the process whereby a proto-language split into a number of descendant languages is essentially conceived as a process of divergence (Bossong 2009). If genetically related languages have long been separated from one another, their comparison will highlight the various processes which have made them different, as each descendant went through its own linguistic innovations. Conversely, research on language contact demonstrates how multilingual speakers tend to make their languages more and more similar over time. The story then told is one of convergence. The majority of studies in language contact involve languages which are genetically diverse; this genetic diversity is often emphasised as a typical ingredient in the observation of contact phenomena – e.g. in this definition of linguistic areas: “A linguistic area is generally taken to be a geographically delimited area including languages from two or more language families, sharing significant traits.” (Aikhenvald & Dixon 2001: 11, my emphasis) Social ecology and language history in Vanuatu 3 Admittedly, this perspective offers the most spectacular view on convergence phenomena, as languages can be seen narrowing the gap that used to separate them. However, contact phenomena are not limited to that particular configuration; and it is equally legitimate to observe contact among languages which are closely related. This configuration underlies a number of studies dealing with various parts of the world: see, inter alia, the papers in Braunmüller & House (2009); and also Trudgill (1986) and Labov (1991) for English dialects; Chappell (2001) for Sinitic languages; Enfield (2001) for Eastern Mon Khmer; Toulmin (2009) for a subgroup of Indo-Aryan; Donohue (2002) for Skou languages; within the Oceanic subgroup, see in particular Geraghty (1983) for Fijian dialects, and Ross (1988; in prep.) for Western Oceanic. The reason why this case – related languages in contact – is special lies therefore not in its rarity, but rather in the potential contradiction it entails. For a group of languages to be genetically related means that they have diverged from a common ancestor, so as to become distinct languages over time. But processes of language contact between them typically entail the diffusion of linguistic traits, and would be expected to result in some form of linguistic convergence. This raises the question of how these two contradictory tendencies interact, and what outcome results from their interference. 1.2 Divergence of forms, convergence of structures This study proposes to observe a group of 17 languages spoken by the 9400 inhabitants of the Banks and Torres Islands, in the northernmost parts of Vanuatu. These languages are all related: first, they all belong to the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian family; second, they form a “linkage” (Ross 1988), insofar as they descend from an earlier dialect network (see Section 3). Yet despite their common origin, three millennia of linguistic change have made these languages mutually unintelligible. While both processes of divergence and convergence are at play in the history of these languages, they have affected different dimensions of their systems. In a nutshell, processes of divergence have been particularly intense with respect to linguistic FORMS, whether this concerns sound change or lexical replacement. By contrast, languages show much more areal homogeneity as far as their STRUCTURES are concerned – whether in the syntactic and combinatorial properties of words, the semantic organisation of the lexicon, or phraseological strategies. (The contrast I draw between the forms of words and their structures, or structural properties, will be presented in more detail in §5.1.) This particular alchemy has brought about an intricate situation, where languages show relative diversity in the forms of their words, but also a strong isomorphism in the structural organisation of meaning. Table 1 illustrates the configuration that typically obtains, by showing the 17 translations of a sentence chosen randomly (meaning „They don't know our language very well yet‟).