can naolvc" wich tensin* - f anythmg. ihcy are more likely lo add l o i h c m .

In thc case of crele continua, thc "inlcrmedtatc" orms are secn. on closer examination. In be cvidcncc of Ihc pernence of ooposiliom beiwecn c o d c i , al leasl as much as of ihcir rcsolulion. With respect lo the crele siiuaiton m Martinique. Fcrguson's key point - that stablc opposrtions belween the coocs penis! has found luppofl from Lcfebvrc (1974). 8. 9.
v

Koines and koineization

JEFF
Pacific The University

SIEGEL
Unii Pacific

- For analysis of ihis phenomenon in a particular lypc of syntaclic uructurc. scc Winfoni (1982 1. Sce, for cxamplc, Wcxlcr (1971).

Languages

of the South

10. See al so the uscful discussion of diglossia by John Joscph, "Model-rcjcclion as an impediment to crele standardiution." in F . Ingcmann (cd.). Prticeedings of the I7lh Mid-Americu Unguistics Conference (Lawrcncc: Univcrsily of Kansas. 19X2). 3 0 8 - 1 6 . and his "Superpuso!" languates ami siundardization (New Y o r k : Modera Language Associalion. 1983). (i:t>.)

ABSTRACT

REFERENTES Allcyne, M . (1063) Communicalion and polines in Jamaica. Caribhean Sludies 3 : 2 2 - 6 1 . Bickcnon. D . (1 9751- Dynamics of a cretde roirm. Cambridge Univcrsily Press. Edwank. A . D . (1976). Language in culture and class. London: Hcincmann Bducalional Books I.id. F c r p u o n , C . <I959). Diglossia. Word 15:125-40. Fishman. J . A . (cd.) (1968). Readings in the snrnlogy t>f language. ; (cd.) (1971 1. Advunces in the uncivlogy of language. T h c Hague: Moulon. and uncial cnnte.it. T h c Haguc: Moulon.

(1972). T h c sociology of language. In P. Giglioli ( c d . ) . language Harmondsworth: Pcnguin.

Thc tetm " k o i n e " has been appiicd to a variety o languages, only some o f which are analagous in form and function to the original Grcek koin. The term " k o i n e i z a t i o n " has more reccntly been applied to the process o f Icvclling which may rcsult in a koine. This articlc examines various definitions and usages o f thesc terms in the literature and proposes a more precise utilization in the context of contact and resultant mixing between iinguistic subsystems. (Languages in contact, language m i x i n g . pidgin and crele studies, social psychology)

Hymcs. D. (cd.) (1964). Lunguage in culture and sotielv: A remler in lingistas imd aniliropologv. New York: Harpcr & Knw. Lcfebvrc. C . (1974). Discrcioncss and Ihc iinguisiic coniinuum in Maniniuuc. AMhrupnlogicul Unguistics 16( 2 C47 - 78. . Marcis. W . ( 1 9 3 0 - 1 1 ) . L a diglossie arahe. I J languac rabe dans L ' A f r i u u c de Nord. ce. .'Enseignement t'uhlit 97:401-09: 105:20-34. in Societv 121-33. Pia1t..J.41977I. A nnidcl for polyglovsia and mullilingualism (with spccial referente lo Singapore and Malaysial. Utnguage 6:361-78. Rcisman. K . M . L . 11970). Cullural and linguislie anibiguily in a West Iridian village. In N . Whillen .& J : Szwcd (cds.l. Afro-Ameritan anthropotogv: Vtmtcmporurx pcrspectiyrs. New York: I-rce Press. 129-44. Rickford. J . 119701. Varialion in a crele coniinuum: Quantitativc and implicalional apprirochcs. Unpublished P h . I ) , dissenaiion. Univcrsily of l'cnnsylvania. Tabourcl-Kellcr. A. 114781. Itiiinguisnic el diglossie dans le ilomainc iles creles l'nincais. Etiulcs Creles 1:135 "53 Todd. L . (1975I Dialecl or crele: Tile case lor ihe " c r c o l o i d . " I'aper peesented a! Ihc Iniemalional Gonfcrcnee on Pidgins and Creles. Univcrsily ol Hawai!. Valdnian. A . (1968). I j n g u a g c siandardiuiion in a diglossie situatioii - l l a i l i . In J . A . I'isliman. C". A . Fcrguson. A J . Das tilinta (eds.). Ijinguogr Wilcy & Sons. 313 -26. pn>hlrm\ ilevrhiping tuniims. New ^ ork: John l'arainclcrs lor a lypology ol

INTRODUCTION

Wcxlcr. P. (19711. Diglossia. language slandardi/alion. and purisni literary language. Ungua 27:3311- 54. Phil. Thcsis. Univcrsily of York.

Winford. D. (19721. A sociolingulsiie dcscription ol lwo coimiiuiiilics in Trinidad, llnpuhlished I ) (1980a). The crele silualion in ihc conie.xt ol sociolinguisiic sludies. In K. Day l e d . l . Issites in Hnglish crele - l'nx rrdings oj thr /U75 Hawaii 1 i m f c r c m e . Heidclherg: Julius Cinmit Verlag. 5 1 - 7 6 . (luXnh). Cirammatical hypcrcorreclion and ilie muion ol " s y s i c n i " in crele languages. In E . Baugh ( c d . l . Carih I . Kingston. Jamaica: Wesl ludan Associalion lor Coinmonwealth l.ilcrMure and language Sludies. 6 7 - 8 3 . (19831. Asociolinguistic analysis ol negation in Trinidadian l-nglisli. 1.. Carringlon ( c d . l . Sludies in caribhean language. Socieiy lor Caribhean Linguistics. Univcrsily ol ihc Wesl Iridies. Si. Augusline. Trinidad. 203 210.

Progress in the study o f languages in contact has been hindered by tenminology often as unfixed as some o f the languages it is used to describe. For example, i n pidgin and crele studies the term " c r e o i i z a t i o n " has a continuum o f usage ranging from nativization o f a pidgin (Sankoff 1980:198) to general language mixing or hybridization (Bailey 1974:88). Givn (1979:2) even asks. " C a n terms such as "Crele" and 'contact language' be adequatcly defined?" W i t h regard lo language mixing in particular, Mhlhuslcr (1982:4) concludes, " H a v ing read most o f what was published in this arca over the last twenty years . . . I am Icfl with the feeling that it comprises a conceptual mess aggravated by a icrminological mess." In this a n i d e , I w i l l attempt to ciarify some o f the tcrminology used to describe language contact and mixing, following Mhlhuslcr (1982:4), whose own attempt at clarification of these terms is: " I would like lo restrict the term 'language contact' to the description o f externa! social processes such as second language Icarning. language shifl, language imposition. bilingualism, and m u l t i lingualism. M i x i n g , on the other hand. refers to the Iinguistic consequences o f such contaets." In thc past. most studies o f language mixing have dealt with the consequences of contact bctwecn distinct languages or Iinguistic systems. However, recently there has been some interesf in the results o f contact between Iinguistic subsystems such as regional dialects (Mhlhuslcr 1982:6). Thc term " " k o i n e , " which is sometimes applied to the rcsult of such mixing, has been in use for a
0047-4045/85/30357-22 S 2 . 5 0 O 1985 Cambridge Univcrsily Press

,\S(,

357

lng time and is in need of darificalion. The term " k o i n e i z a t i o n , " howcver. has onlyreccntly been applied to the process of subsystem m i x i n g and is not yet part of thej'tcrminological mess." This article surveys thc use o f both these terms in the iiterature published in English (a good deal has also been publishcd in Frcnch and Germn) and makes proposals for stabiiization of their usage in studies of language mixing.

regional lingua franca which became a regional standard. It was spoken mostly as a sccond language but did become the first language of some.
Other languages labelled koines

Each o f the following diverse languages has also been called a koine: 1. Literary Italian (Pei 1066:139) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Church Kikongo [Congo] (Nida & Fehdcrau 1970:152) Standard Yoruba (Bamgbose 1966:2) Bahasa indonesian (Pei 1966:139) High Germn (Germanic Review l(4):297 {1926]) BQhnenaussprache [Stage Germn) (Dillard 1972:302) Hindi (Hartmann & Stork 1973:123; H i l l 1975:444) Latin in the Romn Empire ( H i l l 1958444) Belgrade-based Serbo-Croatian (Bidwell 1964:5320)

KOINES

The term " k o i n e " comes from the Grcck koine 'common'. It originally referred lo a particular variety of thc Grcek language but has since been applied lo other language varicties. This section looks at thc original koine. other languages which have been labcllcd koines. and various definitions o l thc term.
The original koine

The term koine was originally applied to thc variety o f Grcck thai hecame thc lingua franca of thc castem Mcditcrrancan during thc Hcllcnistic and Romn periods. Thomson (1960:34) describes thc dcvclopmcnt o f " t h c K o i n e " during the time of thc Athcnian empire as follows: thc.Attic dialcct sprcad rapidly as an official language thniughout thc Acgcan. and it was spoken gcncrally by educated Grecks. though they still used their local dialcct among thcmsclvcs. Among thc common people. onc o f thc main centres for the growth of a mixed vernacular was thc Peiraicus. the seapon ol Athcns. inhabited by Grecks from all naris of thc Mcditcrrancan. Wc hcar cnmplainls about thc " i m p u r i t y " o f spoken Atlic as carly as the IIfin century n.c". In this way the conditions wcrc crcated lor thc formalion o l the llellcnisItc Koine. which was mainly Atlic but included many clemenis dniwn roni lonic and some from other dialects. Thomson gocs on lo say Ihai the Koine lalcr hecame Ihe official language ol ihc Maccdonian Empire. It was spoken mostiv as a sccond language. bul in some citics it ilid replacc the native language (11)60:351. In uddilion. I h e Koine was writtcn lo some exicnt: it was used mainly in eorrespondence. hut also in wriling Ihc New Teslamcnl. > The Iinguistic lealures of the Koine as deseribed by Thomson (1060:35-36) show-bolh reduetion and simplificalion in coniparison lo carlier varicties. I lere I Util using Mhlhuslcr's definitions o f reduetion as "(hosc processes that Icad lo a decrcase in Ihe rclerential or non-referential ptHcniial ol a language"' and simplificuiion as cither an inervase in rcgularity or a Overease in markedness (1980:21). To sum up: l.inguisiically. Ihc original koine eomprised lealures ol severa! regional varicties. although it was basvd priniarily on onc o f ihem. Howcver, ii was rcduceil and simplifietl in eomparison. hinctionally. Ihe original koine was a

10. Mid-Atlantic koine [EnglandJ (Times Literary Supplement, 22 A p r i l 1965) 11. Network Standard English [ U . S . A . ) (Dillard 1972:302) 12. Melanesian Pidgin (Ervin-Tripp 1968:197) 13. Fourteenth-century Italian of Naples (Samarin 1971:134) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Town Bemba (Samarin 1971:135) Fogny fSenegal) (Manessy 1977:130) Kasa (Senegal) (Manessy 1977:130) Congo Swahili (Nida & Fehderau 1970:152) Lingala lCongo| (Nida & Fehderau 1970:153) "Interdialects" o f Maccdonian (Lunt 1959:23) Koincized colloquial Arabic (Samarin 1971:134) Anccstor o f modern Arabic dialects (Fcrguson 1959:616) Vernacular o f north China, seventh to tenth centuries (Karlgren 194945) Calcutta Bazaar Hindustani (Gambhir 1983) lsracli Hcbrew (Blanc 1968:237-51) Eightecnth-ccntury American English (Traugott 1977:89) Fiji Hindustani (Siegel 1975:136: Moag 1979:116)

27. Trinidad Bhojpuri (Mohn 1976. 1978) 28. Guyancse Bhojpuri (Gambhir 1981) 29. Surinam Bhojpuri (Gambhir 1981:184) 30. Mauritian Bhojpuri (Gambhir 1981:184) 3 1 . Slavish I U . S . A . I (Bailey 1980:156) 32. Italian-American (Hallcr 1981:184) 33. Slavc languages |Caribbean| (Dillard 1964:38) 34. English-bascd nautical jargon (Hancock i 9 7 i : 2 9 o n ) 35. Black Vernacular English (Mhlhuslcr 1982:8) 36. Canadian Frcnch (Gambhir 1981:184) Vcry fcw. i f any. of thc languages Iistcd above could be said 10 have all the formal and functional fcatures of Ihc original koine. This is because various 359

KUlNfcS A N D K O I N E I Z A T I O N

airiiHMjJttavc been using only some of Ihosc features as ihc basis for calling a languaga koine. Thus, numbers ( i ) to (22) on the list are languages which are regional rfngua francas, and severa! sourecs. in fact. define a koine as such. For example, the Oxford English Dicionury supplement defines a koine as " a n y language or dialect in regular use over a wide rea in which different languages or dialects are, or wcrc. in use l o c a l l y " (Burchficld 1976:541). And Hill < 1958. 443) gives this definition: " a n y tongue. distinct from his own vernacular, thai a person shares with thc speakers o f some other vemaculars." Other writers restrict a koine to being a regional standard, such as numbers (1) to (11) on the list. For example. one linguistics rcfcrcnce book defines a koine as " a spoken dialect which becomes the common standard language or a politically unificd regin" (Hartmann & Siork 1973:123). Thc majority o f sources. howevcr. indcate that scvcral dialects must contribute to the formation of a koine. For example. Graff (I932:xxxvii> defines a koine as "a form o f language rcsulting from a compromisc between various dialects and used as a common means of communication over an arca covering all thc contributing dialects." Dillard (1972:302) says. " K o i n e is thc term for a 'common' dialect which lacks prominent fcalurcs of thc more conventional dialects ol a language. It is thc end rcsult of dialcct I c v c l l i n g . " According lo Dillard. a koine is frcqucntly considered " g o o d " specch in the language. and it is most often, but not nccessarily. a standard dialect. Pei (1966:139) also defines a koine as " a compromisc among scvcral d i alects" but resinas it lo use " b y a unificd group in a self-eontained arca within a larger Iinguistic a r c a " . Howcver. Pei diricrs from other writers in saying that a koine is a planncd language: " a deliberately soughi suhlimalion ol Ihe consiiiucnt dialects ralhcr than an unconscious and accidcnial merger." Anolhcr group o l writers have used thc term koine lo describe the language that dcveloped as a rcsult ol severa! dialects being transponed lo a new environmcm. lor example. numbers (24) lo (32). Thcsc writers tonsider only the 'dialcct compromisc" aspecl o!' a koine rather (han its use as a regional lingua Iranca. For example. Halicr (19X1:184) says only ihat koines are (he rcsult o l intcrfcrcncc between iwo or more dialects. Many ol thcsc Ir.insplanied varicties. lor example. numbers (26) to (30). are also the llrst languages ol most ol their speakers.
Prcvious wrlillgs 011 knitirs

Although many wrilers have used lite lenn koine lo label a language. only a lew have described the naturc of koines. other Ihan giving shon definitions in relerence books. Thosc who have written in detail about koines are fcrguson (1051)). Blanc (1968). Nida & Fehderau (1970). Samarin (1971). Ilvmes (1071). Mohn (1976). and Gambhir (1081). Ilere I w i l l outlinc how these writers have ilefmed koines in rclalion lo the original koine. and later I w i l l discuss how thcy have expanded the use o f l e m i .
3MI

Ferguson (1959) and Blanc (1968) describe the devclopmcnt o f particular koines. Fcrguson describes an Arabic koine, which he says is the anecstor o f modern Arabic. Although some writers, such as Cohcn (1962), may disagrec. Ferguson claims that this koine rcsultcd from thc mingling o f speakers of various Arabic dialects w i t h the large number o f speakers of other languages who adaptcd Arabic with the spread o f Islam. He stresses that " t h c koine carne into existenee through a complex process o f mutual borrowing and Icvclling among various dialects and not as a rcsult o f diffusion from a single source" (1959:619). It is impiieit that this koine was eventually nativized. Fcrguson also outlincs many Iinguistic features o f that koine that differ from thosc of Classical Arabic and cannot be adequately explained by natural devclopment or " d r i f t . " Some of thcsc diffcrcnccs indcate reduetion in morphological categories and phonemic inventory. Blanc is thc first writer to use the term koine to refer to thc rcsult o f the convergcncc o f sevcral transponed dialects at a particular point. He gives a detailed account o f thc devclopment o f Israeli Hebrcw, which he describes as a koine forged from " a variety o f literary dialects. scveral substraa, and sevcral traditional pronunciations" with no particular dialcct " d o m i n a n t and available" (1968:238-39). He also says that nativization o f the koine has been important in its devclopment and that thc nativized variety "approximates a de faci stand a r d . " Phonctically. thc General Israeli standard is characterized by loss of cenain distinctions found in some of thc contributing dialects. Howevcr. no other cxamplcs o f reduetion or simplification are reponed. Thc rcmaining writers describe koines in general. Nida and Fehderau differ from thc others in that thcy do not mention thc contribution of scvcral dialects lo the formation o f a koine. Rather. thcy consider koines "dialectal extensions of a regional language" < 1970:147). Thcy also say that koines may undergo some "struetural simplifications" because o f thc extensin of use over wide arcas by bilinguals. On the other hand. Samarin cmphasizcs mixing o f dialects rather than use as a regional language in his definition of koines: " W h a l characlcrizes thcm linguistically is thc incorporation o f features from scvcral regional varicties o a single language." Howevcr. he agrecs with Nida and Fehderau in that "some simplification can be cxpcctcd in t h c m " (1971:133). Whclhcr or nol koines can becoine nativized is not specified in cither of thc two anieles. Ilvmes (1971:79). howcver. says that a koine can expand in role, stahilizc. and bceome a primary language. He also cmphasizcs thc admixture in koines. noting that thcy exhibit onc of thc main types o f process found in pidgins: "conllucncc ol different Iinguistic traditions. often with simplification. and by definition through the contrae! of members of diflerent specch c o m m u n i t i c s " (1971:69). Mohn (1976) also belicvcs that koines rcsult from contact between different varicties. mainly dialects. but shc distinguishes between koines based on dialects which are very similar in lexicn and morphology and thosc based on dialects 361

' ,*,'

';'T-.

KOINES AND KOINEIZATION

which are not so similar. Shc gives koineizcd colloquial Arabic as an example of the first rvpc and Trinidad Bhojpuri as an example o f thc sccond. Shc says that ""more drastic l e v e l l i n g " was necessary to arrive at thc compromisc forms o f Trinidad Bhojpuri, and therefore the rcsulting koine is recogni/cd as a seprale dialect,-whereas koineizcd colloquial Arabic is not (1976:5). Gambhir (1981) gives both a detailed general discussion o f koines and a 1 thorough dcscription of thc development o f a particular koine, Guyancsc Bhojpuri. Like Samarin. Gambhir indicatcs that koines develop from contact between dialects of the same language and undergo some structural simplification. He also makes some important observations about thc nativization of koines. He points out that a koine which is a literary standard can be come a primary language through mass education. A n d he contines. " T h c r c is still another category wherc a koine. dcvclopcd through thc spoken channel. bccomcs the mother tonguc o f its speakers from the very stari. Such a situalion seems lo be characteristic o f mmigrani communities" (1981:183). Gambhir says that ihis devclopment can be planncd. as with Hcbrcw in Israel, or "uneonsciously dcvclopcd by thc speakers." as in Guyancsc Bhojpuri. Trinidad Bhojpuri. Fiji I l i n d i . Surinam Bhojpuri. and Canadian Frcnch (19X1:184).

Gambhir also suggcsts that thcrc is a scale o f what he calis "structural elaborations" of different koines based on thc extent o f their use. A koine used primarily for trade would be less elabrate than a koine which is a regional standard. A n d a koine which has been nativized would be " m o r e elabrate in terms o f styiistic and social variation" (1981:184). Table 1 summarizes the features o f the original koine takcn into account by thc writers discussed above i n their definitions o f a koine. A ' + ' indicates the feature is described by the writer as being present. A ' ' indicates that it is mentioned as being absent. A * ' indicates that it can be either present or absent. A blank indicates'the feature is not mentioned.
Discussion

t a u l e 1 . Cmnpuristm

of features

of orinal

koine and other

"kmnes"

For a term such as koine to be useful. it should cncapsulat certain Iinguistic and sociolinguistic concepts. Its definition should not be so broad that thc term bccomcs vacuous or so narrow that it bccomcs worthlcss. Thus. the definition of a koine as merely a common language or lingua franca is too broad. O f course, all koines fulfill this role to some extent. but this definition ignores thc central concept o f dialect m i x i n g . Therefore, Standard Yoruba, Lingala, Swahili, Mcianesian Pidgin, and other languages o f wider communication should not be iabcllcd koines unless they indcate such m i x i n g . On thc other hand, other definitions o f a koine are too narrow. Thcrc seems to be no rcason to restriet koines to being planned, standard, regional, secondary, or based primarily on one dialect. Thus. unplanned. nativized. or transprorted languages may be koines i f they exhibit thc m i x i n g of any Iinguistic subsyslems such as regional dialects. literary dialects. and sociolects. Howcver. although a koine may or may not be a formal standard, it is implicit in all definitions that a koine has stabilizcd enough to be considered at least informally standardized. Finally. it can be said that most koines are characlcrizcd by reduetion or simplification to some extent. However. requiring a koine by definition lo exhibit these features would be too restrictive. as the amount of reduetion or simplification may differ between koines according to both the conditions under which thcy developed and their current developmental stage. Thcsc issucs w i l l be discussed bclow. Thus. a koine is thc stabilized result of mixing o f Iinguistic subsystcms such as regional or literary dialects. It usually sevrves as a lingua franca among speakers o f thc different contributing varieties and is charactcrizcd by a mixture o f features o f thcsc varieties and most often by reduetion or simplification in comparison. It is necessary to distinguish between two types o f koines. depending on where thcy are spoken. Thc first is the regional koine. which usually rcsults from thc contact between regional dialects o f what is considered a single language. This typc o f koine rcmains in thc regin where thc contributing dialects are spoken. although it may be used outsidc thc regin as a trade language with other

Original koine Ulanc (iy6X) llurdtficld (19761 Dillard1972 r crgusnn (19591 Ownbhfr i I U X I 1 (rali ( I 9 I J J 1 taller ( I U X I 1 llanmunn 1 l . i r l l l u i n i i iA' Stork S l i i r l 119711 II..TI Mili I195X) Mynie.v ( I U 7 D Mnhan 114761 Nida & Fehderau 110711) Pal (10661 Samarin (19711 "i calares nf ihr irrigiiuil knint': 1. based primarily on one dialcct 2, li.r. lealures ol scvcral dialects ;i. icduccd and sinipliftcd .1. used as j regional lingua tranca Y is : i standard 6 is nalivzcd lo some exlenl

, i.
1

1
t

,;/

1 1 1
i

* + leaturc is deserihed as being picscnl - P leaturc is deseribeil as being absent i leaturc can be cilher prescut or absenl hkink - leaturc is not ntcnlioncd

362

363

...
Ir

JEFF SIEGEL

KOINES AND KOINEIZATION

Iinguistic groups. Thc original Grcck koine and koineized colloquial Arabic are example* of-regional koines. Thc sccond tpypc of koine is Ihe mmigrant koine. It may also result from contact between regional dialects; howevcr. the contact takes place not in the regin where the dialects originate, but in another location where large numbers of speakers o f different regional dialedcts have migrated. Furthermorc. it often becomes the primary language of the immigrant community and cventually supersedes the contributing dialects. Fiji Hindustani (Sicgel 1975. 1983) is an example o f such an immigrant koine. Various literary dialects and/or sodcisociolccts may also contribute to an immigrant koine: thus. Israeli Hebrew is also an example. What Reineckc (1969:8) calis 'colonial dialects." such as Hawaiian Japanese. could also be considered mmigrant koines.

" A s a rcsult o f continued contact . . . one gathers expericnce as to w h i c h idiosyncracics o f one's o w n dialect are ill-communicative, miscommunicative. or noncommunicative, and accordingly, one starts to shed thc hardened localsms in one's specch, allowing one's specch to conform to anothcr's to an ever-growing extent" (1981:191). Later, he says, " D i a l c c t levelling, which was affected in the process o f koinization, is the major cause o f all simplification in Guyancsc B h o j p u r i " (1981:254). Gambhir discusses the following as the rcsult o f dialect levelling: morphological reduetion and simplification, loss of the rcspect feature. elimination o f local features, and analytization (1981:255).
Discussion

KOINEIZATION

Although thc term " k o i n e " has a long history, thc terms " k o i n c i z i n g " and " k o i n e i z a t i o n " have appcarcd only rcccntly in the litcraturc. Both refer lo a dynamic process. usually of dialcct levelling and m i x i n g . o f which thc formation of a stabilized koine may be one stage.
Previous wrtings on koineization

The writers described above agree that koineization oceurs as thc result o f contact between Iinguistic subsystcms, most often regional dialects. Howevcr. therc appears to be confusin with the more general term, dialcct Icvclling. In initial stages, thc two processes may be the same, but thcy differ in later stages. Dialcct levelling can Icad to instances where two or more dialects in contact effcct changes in each other, but no compromise dialcct dcvelops. Koineization, in contrast, involves the m i x i n g o f features o f the different dialects, and lcads to a new, compromise dialect. This compromise is used as a lingua franca among speakers o f the individual contributing dialects, which may or may not be maintained, Another point is that contact between Iinguistic subsystems does not always bring about koineization, and it is implicd that certain social conditions must apply i f it is to take place. To discuss this point it is necessary to clarify what constitute iinguistic subsystems. T w o or more different Iinguistic varieties may be considered subsystems of thc same Iinguistic system i f they are genctically closely rclated and thus typologically similar enough to fulfill at least one o f two criteria: (1) they are mutually intelligible or (2) they share a superposed, genetically rclated Iinguistic system, such as a national standard or literary language (sce Fcrguson & Gumperz 1960). For example. Baegu. Fataleka, To'abaita. and Baelelea are the indigenous ames given to varieties spoken in North Malaita in the Solomon lslands. They are considered distinct varieties by their speakers. but they are mutually intelligible. Thus. thcy can be considered subsystems of a single Iinguistic system. North Malaitan. On thc other hand. Bihari and Rajesthani are on opposite ends o f the Hindustani dialect chain in northern India and are not mutually intelligible. Howcver. thcy can be considered subsystems of the same Iinguistic system since they share a superposed system to which they are both rclated. Standard H i n d i . Thc terms iinguistic system and subsystem do not necessarily corrcspond w i t h language and dialect. What are different subsystems according to the above definition may be considered different languages by their speakers for political and cultural reasons, for example, Norwegian and Danish. It is obvious that various subsystems can be in contact for many years without 365

One of the first references lo a koine as a stage in a dynamic process is by Blanc (1968:3238-39). He writcs that Israeli Hebrew was "gradually given a definite shape by a slow ' k o i n c i z i n g " process druwing on sevcral prc-exsting sourecs." He contines, "usage had lo be established by a gradual and complex process of selection and accommodation which is. in part. siill going o n . but which now has reached some degrec of stabilization." Samarin (1971:134) appears to be thc first lo use the i c n n koineization. He equatcs thc process to "dialcct m i x i n g " but Ilstrales it with cxamples of what Blanc calis "dialcct Icvclling" in colloquial Arabic. This Icvclling oceurs in "inicrdialectal contact" situations when speakers "attempt lo supress localsms in favor of Icaturcs which are simplv more common. more well k n o w n . " Samarin implics that ihc end rcsult of koineization is a koine. Dillard (1972:300) uses thc term dialcct Icvclling rather than koineization. but he makes it elcar that "Thc extreme case o f dialcct Icvclling is a k o i n e " . His definition is: "Dialect Icvclling is thc process of climinatng proniincnl stereotypable features ol dillcrcncc between dialects. This process regularly takes place when speakers of different dialects come inlo contad, such as in migration." Gambhir (1981:254) also discusses dialcct Icvclling as onc result of koineization (which he calis " k o i n i z a t i o n " ) . but he does not equate the lwo lerms. In his discussion ol thc devclopment of Guyancsc Bhojpuri from the continuum of lndian dialects broughi lo Guyana, he describes ihe initial processes of levelling: 364

- koineization tking place, as in North Malaita and Scandinavia. As pointed out by Dillard (1972:300), "Speakers o f different dialects may be in some stable contact situatiori. with well-defined social roles, for iong perods without apprcciableJevclling." Howevcr, other processes, different from koineization, may occur./Diffusion." for example. involves the transfer o f features over conven. tional Iinguistic boundaries (Hudson 198047). A n example is thc transfer of cerlaimBulgarian verb endings into Meglenite Rumanian (Weinreich 1953:32). "Dialect b o r r o w i n g " accounts for the features o f Classical Arabic in various Arabicdialccts (Meiseies 1981:1079) and for the features o f various Russian .dialect^jtn-contemporary Standard Russian (Krysin 1979:145). Howevcr, ncither o tlicsc.prtxxsscs involves the kind o f levelling and mixing which results from koineization. What, then. brings about koineization? The 'contad status quo may end with certain political. social, cconomic. or dcmographic changes which cause either incrcased intcraclion among speakers ofrvariousTinguistic subsystems or decreased inclination to mainlain Iinguistic distinctions. For example, the koineization that led to the Grcck koine was broughtbout by thc spread of Panhellenic culture. Thomson (1960:34) writes on thc begmnings of the koine: " W i t h thc growth of cconomic and social interced i-sejthere arse within cach dialect group a tendeney towards unification." A parallelicxamplc is thc dcvelopment of thc Arabic koine which accompanied thc spread.of Islam. Thetclcarcst example of what Dillard (1972:300) calis "some ncw phase of contact". is that o migration. Gambhir (1981:183) describes thc situation for immigrant communitics: "When speakers of different dialects or even languages, mect together al onc gcographical point. thcy tend to lorrn onc specch community. as a koine develops that rcplaccs thc carlicr dialects." Dominguc (1981:150) has also described thc Icvclling of dialectal diffcrcnccs rcsulting from "thc need for unificaiion among speakers of different dialects in a ncw environmcnl." Two cxamplcs roni Fiji Ilstrate how Iinguistic barriers were broken down in two different immigrant communitics. The first was the North Indians. who cainc to Fiji speaking various dialects of Hindustani. mentioned above. Many ol ihcse dialects wcrc prcviously not in contact. and many wcrc not mutually intelligible. but as rcsult of koineization. a homogenous compromisc devcloped. Fiji Hindustani (Moag 1979; Siegel 1983). Thc sccond group was the North Malaitans. who carne to Fiji speaking various dialccts/languages mentioned above. Although thcsc mutually intelligible varicties wcrc in contact back 011 Malaita, Iinguistic boundaries wcrc maintained thcrc. Howevcr. because ol immigrant gmup solidarity which dcvclopcd in thc ncw environment. thcsc boundaries were erased, and koineization oceurred lo some extent. observable in a unique variety spoken in Fiji. called Wai (Sicgcl 1984). A similar climination o Iinguistic boundaries. as well as political ones. may have oceurred among the 366

workers o f Slavic origin in America and led to the devclopment o f Slavish (Bailey 1980:156). The thcory o f "specch accommodation" from social psychology (Giles 1977; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor 1977; Giles & Smith 1979) may support the idea that koineization is a rcsult o f unieation between prcviously distinct groups. According to this theory, people can modify their specch either by adapting to the specch o f others to reduce diffcrcnccs (called "convergence" or by accentuating diffcrcnccs (called " d i v e r g e n c e " ) . Giles (I977*,:34) points out that divergen! or nonconvergent language " c a n be used by ethnic groups as a symbolic tactic for maintaining their identity and cultural distinctiveness." On the other hand, convergen! language can be a reflection " o f a speaker's need for social integration with another" (1977:28). The process o f convergence appears t o be very much like the process o f levelling, as described by Gambhir " a l l o w i n g one's specch to conform to another's" (see discussion of previous writings on koineization above).

EXTENSION

OF T H E SCOPE OF

KOINEIZATION

Severa! authors have attempted to extend the scope o f the terms koine and koineization to include the results of not only contact between Iinguistic subsystcms, but also contact between distinct systcms. This section reviews and discusses the wider use o f thcsc terms.
Ihwkground

Mhlhuslcr (1982:8) mentions koines in the context o f the rcsult o f contact bciwccn pidgins or creles which are typologically closely rclated, such as the various Pidgin English traditions in the Pacific and various creles o f the West Indics. He suggests that koine is " a good term for this phenomenon in spite o f its other connotations." Mohn (1976. 1978) defines koineization as a process oceurring in contact situalions o f which a koine is only one possible result. She extends the scope of the term to include contact between varieties which are not genctically rclated but happcn to be typologically similar. Hcr definition o f koineization is: . a convergence and levelling between language varieties which are either closely rclated gcnetically or typologically very much aiike. Koineization is identified as a process which need not lead to a single koine product, as in cases where despitc a high degrec of structural congruence beiween the varieties in contact therc is no common lexicn. This definition allows as an output o f koineization o f a hybrid variety which. pidgin-like, adopts the lexicn o f one o thc contact varieties, or even, as in Gumperz and Wilson (1971). in which all thc contact lexes have been rctained (1978:21). 367

->l L . V j l _ L -

-Mohn also belicves that there can be both multidialectal koines. such as Arabic a n d Trinidad Bhojpuri, and multilingual koines. such as Koine Swahiii (1976:11). For multidialectal koines. the levelling is at both t h e lexical lcvel and morphosyntactic l e v e l , but for multilingual koines, levelling i s only morphosyntaccj-yvith t h e acceptance of the lexicn of one o f the contact varieties. : l t appears t o some authors. for example, Gambhir (1981) and Gibbons (1979), that Hymes (197O also extends t h e scope of koineization b y referring to Blanc (1968) a n d comparing the development of English to that o f Israeli Hebrew. Hymes;(1971:79) writes that the expansin of function o f Hebrew " l e d to a ccropromisc form of specch based on several literary dialects a n d the specch o f variouscommunitics immigrant to Israel." In Ihe same paragraph. he says that as English expanded in function. " i t expanded in inner and outer form as w c l l with considerable mixture of sources. both of English dialects and o f olhcr languages. notably Latin a n d Frcnch. quite as Neo-Mclancsian now draws on E n g l i s h . " Referring to these statements by Hymcs. Gambhir (1981:180) gives what he s a y s i s a similar example: "Standard Hindi has assimilatcd a number of vocabulary items and phrasal structures from other languages likc Sanskril. Arabic. Panjabi; and E n g l i s h . " He also gives another example: " t h c formation o f a koine out of the conflucnce o f two distinct languages." colloquial urban Hindi arising from bilingualism in Hindi and English. Gambhir also suggcsts that Puerto Rican Spanish. which arse from contact between English and Spanish. may be a koine (1981:186). Also referring lo Hymcs and Blanc. Gibbons (1979) suggcsts that U-gay-wa. a mixture o f English and Cantnese spoken by univcrsily students in Hong Kong, is undergoing a koincizing process. He poinls out. " I n using I h c term 'koincizing' to refer to the fusin o f languages. Hymcs is extending its mcaning. since il referred originally 10 a fusin of dialects." He suggcsts that it was Blanc (1968) who "first extended thc use o the term koine when he referred as such to modern Hebrew. which has fused different carcr orms o thc language with elements from Europcan languages particularly Yiddish and English" (1979: 119). Howevcr. Gibbons concludes that U-gay-wa should not be regarded as a koine "since it has not stabilizcd sufficicntly y e t " (1979:120).
Discussion

tional pronunciations, and on the Iinguistic habits o f various immigrant commun i t i c s . " He aiso refers to thesc "iinguistic habits" as "substraa" (1968: 237, 238). It is most l i k e l y , then, that Blanc was referring to thc ways that various immigrant communitics spoke Hebrew. The immigrants' vertios o f Hebrew were, of course, influenced by their first languages, thc substraa, but thcsc versions would have to be considered subsystems o f Hebrew rather than distinct languages, as thcy were mutually intelligible and all had Hebrew (in various literary forms) as the superposed variety. Thus, Blanc is still in the domain o f mixing o f Iinguistic subsystems. Both Gibbons (1979) and Gambhir (1981:180) also maintain that Hymes extended thc mcaning o f " k o i n c i z i n g " by allowing thc participation o f distinct languages. But what Hymcs says is that the Israeli koine was based on scvcral literary dialects o f Hebrew and on thc " s p e c c h . " not on the languages, o f various immigrant communities (1971:79). Therefore. Iike Blanc, he is referring to varicties of Hebrew, not to non-Hebrew varicties. Furthermorc, Hymcs does not say that English is a koine. He mereiy discusses thc development o f English in thc context o f expansin in conten, admixture, and expansin in role without a pidgin starting point. Although Israeli Hebrew and English are similar in this context. the situations that icd to their development are not parallel in scvcral ways. Hebrew in Israel was never subordnate to any language o f the immigrants as the Anglo-Saxon dialects were to Frcnch after the Norman conquest. Hebrew was the language o f widercommunication in israel and immigrants were, or soon became, bilinguals. Thc Norman conquerors most probably did not become bilingual in any AngloSaxon dialcct. Rather, Frcnch was used as the language of administraiion, and Latin as the language of education, and Anglo-Saxons had to learn thcm. As Yiddish and other immigrant languages were substrata in the development o f Israeli Hebrew. Frenen and Latin were superstrata in the development o f English. Furthermorc. one of the central socolinguistic conditions that lead to koineization has been ignored by the writers applying the term to the result o f contact between distinct languages. This s the idea of a new compromise variety resulting from integration or uniHcation of the speakers of the varicties in contact. Colloquial Urban H i n d i . Puerto Rican Spanish, and U-gay-wa resulted not from increased interaction between different specch communities, but from H i n d i , Spanish. and Cantnese speakers' bilingualism in English. Koine Swahiii most probably resulted from Bantu speakers' bilingualism in Swahiii. Givn (1979) suggests that the apparent language mixture in English (and other languages such as Swahiii and Yiddish that have been labelled pidgins or creles) is a result o f extensive borrowing from other languages. most probably as a result o f bilingualism. Such borrowing rather than koineization may have led to the development o f Colloquial Urban H i n d i , Puerto Rican Spanish. and U gay-wa. Or they may be thc result o what Mhlhuslcr (1982:17) calis " f u 369

A major question conceming the terms koine and koineization is whether thcy should be restricted to dialcct mixing o r extended lo olhcr kinds o language mixing. First, I would likc to suggcst that misinterprctalion o f Blane's (1968) article on the Israeli Koine and of Hymcs's rcfcrcncc lo it has led to some authors using thesc terms to describe more general language m i x i n g . As mentioned above. Gibbons claims that Blanc first extended thc use o the term koine to rccr lo mixing of distinct Iinguistic sysiems ralhcr than only subsystems. Howcver. what Blanc (1968:248) says is that israeli Hebrew was "based on a number o literary dialects. a compromisc between several tradi368

KOINES AND KOINEIZATION

: sion/Vthc combination of two languages which do not have to be closcly related. It also may be that no existing term accurately describes the kind of m i x i n g observable in these varieties. But applying a term prcviously used for a different kind of m i x i n g , such as koineization, does nothing to clarify things; rather it reduces ;the descriptive efficacy of the term and contributes to the " t e r m i nolgica! mess." In addition, it does not help to extend the use of a term to an arca which could adcquatcly be described by another term. Thus, I disagree with Mohan's use koinczatjon to refer to thc syntactic levelling described by Gumpcrz and Wilson (i971).for thc threc languages in contact in Kupwar. India. Such levelling is usually called "convergence" (different from the term as used in social psychology). and the process is very different from koineization as it is usually defined. Koineization Icads to the development of a new compromisc variety with leatures of thc contributing varieties, whereas convergence leads to changes in thc contributing varieties themselves without development o f a new variety. Howcver, Mohn has collapsed thc two terms by saying (as quoted above) that koineization "need not iead to a single koine product." Thcrc is onc case, howcver. in which thc use of thc terms koine and koineization can be extended without changing their substanec. This is to thc rcsult of contact between cioscly rclated pidgins and creles, mentioned above as discussed by Mhlhusler ( 1 9 8 2 : 7 - 8 ) . Such pidgins or creles may or may not be mutually intelligible. but thcy do share thc same superposed language. the " l e x i f i c r " language from which thcy derive most of their vocabulary. Thus. they could be considered Iinguistic subsystcms. Torres Slrait Pidgin (which later became creolizcd) may be an example of a "k oi n e p i d g i n " which arse out of contact between speakers of various English-bascd pidgins such as Australian aboriginals. Queensland Mclancsians. and Polvncsians (Mhlhuslcr 1982:7). Black Vernacular English may be an example of a " k o i n e crele" based on contact between difieren! groups of creolc-spcaking slaves (Bailey 1 9 8 0 : 1 5 6 ) .

simplification in koines, howcver, is minor compared to that in pidgins. The authors point out that thcrc is a "structural break" between a pidgin and its source language, but this is not truc o f koines, which "are always mutually intelligible with at ieast some forms o f the standard language" (1970:152). Samarin (1971) also differcntiates between koines and pidgins. He says that koines have never been considered pidgins, and that " u n l i k e pidgins, koines are not drastically reduced frontis o f language in spite o f the fact that some simplification can be expected in t h c m " (1971:133)- But he does not discount the possibility that the process o f pidginization plays some role i n the formation o f koines: " W h a t kinds and degrees o f pidginization oceur in koines still remain to be determined" (1971:135). Hymes (1971), howcver, places koines firmly in the realm o f pidginization and creolization. As pointed out in the section on previous writings on koines above, he says that koines exhibit one o f the main types o f process found in pidgins: admixturc and simplification resulting from language contact. O n thc subject o f the starting points for creolization, he statcs, " T h e most importan! point in this regard is perhaps the relation between creolization and the processes by which standard languages and koines are sometimes formed. Expansin in content, admixture, and expansin in role as a primary language are found in b o t h " (1971:78-79). Aftcr going on to describe the development o f Israeli Hebrew and/English. he concludes that the essential difference between the processes by which they deveioped and the process of creolization is that " t h e starting point o f the expansin and admixturc was not a p i d g i n " (1971:79). Whether or not this difference is significan! is a question Hymes leaves open for debate. Mohn (1976) agrees with Nida and Fehderau and with Samarin that koines and pidgins differ in the degree of simplification. She says that because o f the typological similarity between varieties involved in koineization, " t h c common syntactic core and similar morphological categories and contrasts make the drastic levelling of pidginization unnecessary" (1976:11). Mohn also points out that in pidginization. " t h e super-strate speakers do not themselves change their lan-

K O I N E I Z A T I O N

A N D

l'lD( INl / A ' I I O N

guage. or do thcy activcly fraternizc with the sub-strate speakers" (1976:2). On the other hand. in koineization, the speakers of each of the contributing varicties do fratemize and in some way change their language. Gambhir also agrees with other writers that even though koines become "structurally s i m p l i f i e d " (1981:181), they " e x h i b i t structural continuity with thc language from which they issue," whereas pidgins are "structurally discont i n u o s from their Iinguistic parents" (1981:185). Unlike Hymcs. howevcr. he discounts the possibility that koines, such as Guyanese Bhojpuri, have undergonc pidginization (1981:186). And since he takes the strict view that creolization is depidginization, he states that Guyanese Bhojpuri (and by implication, any other koine) cannot be considered a crele or crcolized variety (1981:187). 371

BcCaUKC of thc mixing and simplification often observed in koines. thcrc has k'cn some discussion of the rclationship between koines and pidgins. and he(wc-en koineization and pidginization and creolization. This sed ion reviews and discusses thc different views on thesc relaiionships found in ihe literature.
Buvkground

The first writers lo address thc issue o koines versus pidgins are Nida ail Fehderau.(1970). The main purpose o their anicie is to distinguish koines from pidgins. both of which may be trade languages or lingua francas, and both of which are characterizcd by "struciural simplifiealions." They eonclude thai thc

370

KOINES AND KOINEIZATION

^~ Discussion

what other writers have said about this topic and go on to pro pose my own outline o f the stages o f koine devclopment.
Background

Although" thcrc are some striking similarities between pidgins and koines and between thc processes of pidginization and koineization. therc are importan!, basic differences. Mohn has shown that the social context o f koineization differs from that o f pidginization in the requircment of continued social interaction between speakers of thc contributing v.icties. This follows the idea of integration o f the contributing groups as described in the discussion section of " Koineization '/'-above. Another way in which the two processes differ is in thc time thcy take to oceur. Pidginization is most often considered to be a rapid process in which pidginized forms o f specch are created for immediate and practica! communication between peoplc who have no other common language. In contrast. koineization is a gradual process which oceurs only after prolongcd contact between speakers who can most often understand cach olhcr to some extent. as described by Blanc and Gambhir (sec "Previous writings on koineization" above). But to say that pidginization and koineization are different is not lo say that pidginization cannot play a pan in koineization. For example. pidginization may oceur with speakers o f o n c dialcct trying to Icam another very different dialcct. Even more l i k c l y . it may oceur with speakers of other languages becoming pan o f thc koincizing community and learning thc koincizing language. Thcsc pidginized. varieties can also be thrown into thc koineization mclting pot. and they may.be rcsponsible for cenain pidginlike features of thc resultan! koine. For example. Fiji Hindustani, described above as a koine of North Indian Hindustani dialects. has cenain features of a pidginized form o f Hindustani used by Soulh Indian speakers of Dravidian languages after thcy arrived in Fiji. As thc South lndians becamc integrated into thc Fiji Indian community. it is likcly ihat some aspeets of their pidginized Hindustani also became integrated into the Fiji Hindustani koine (Siegcl 19X3:36-37). Creolization is more difficuit lo dea! with because of its wide range o usage. as mentioned in thc intmduction to this arricie. Howcver. thcrc are striking parallcls bctwccn creolization as described by Hymes ( 1 9 7 1 : 7 8 - 7 9 . quoted above) aricl what happcns in the later stages of koincizalion. A wider definition o creolization might be applicablc to both pidgins and koines in their later stages ol development: expansin of conten, admixturc. extensin o use. and nativization o f ncw. reduecd. mixed variety o f language which resulted form from language contact. But likc Hymcs. I w i l l Icavc this question open lo debate.

Gambhir (1981) divides thc Iinguistic devclopment of Guyancsc Bhojpuri into threc stages: (1) " m u l t i d i a l e c t a l i s m . " (2) " I i n g u i s t i c adjustment and dialectl e v c l i n g . " and (3) " t h e rise o f Guyanese Bhojpuri - the end-process o f dialect leveling" (1981:189). Howevcr, he later states that levelling began in thc first stage. and that in thc sccond stage, a particular dialect, Bhoj puri . became the lingua franca " w h i c h everyonc acquired lo some extent and became a bidialect a l " (1981:193). He contines. "Hand-in-hand w i t h the sccond stage carne thc third stage where the dialects wcrc mixed frcely. Out o f this mixing arse the koine Guyanese B h o j p u r i " (1981:193). Moag (1979:120) discusses " t w o major stages to the dialcct levelling process" in Fiji Hindustani: " t h e ferment stage and the standardizaron stage." In the ferment stage, " f o r m s from several regional dialects and social dialects |wcrc| in use simultaneously." Thc standardizaron stage reers to standardization in the informal sensc. " w h e r e one o f several confiieting forms o f a language bccomcs the norm by consensus and usage."
Discussion

Hcrc. 1 would likc to propose various stages in the developmental continuum of koines. First is what I cali the prekoine stage (Gambhir's "Iinguistic adjustment" stage and Moag's " f e r m e n t " stage). This is the unstabilizcd slagc at thc beginning o f -koineization. A continuum exists in which various forms of thc varieties in contact are used concurrently and inconsistently. Levelling and some mixing has begun to oceur. and thcrc may be various degrees of reduetion, but lew forms have emerged as the accepted compromise. For example. Hancock ( I 9 7 i : 2 o o n ) notes that the English used among crews of English sailing ships in thc sixtecnth century was " i n part something o f a k o i n e . " Thc contact o f the various English dialects spoken by the c r e w members probably did lead to koineization. bul as the rcsult was a " f l e x i b l e c o m p r o m i s e . " it probably had no! passed Ihc prekoine slage. The nexl slage is the result o f stabilization (Moag's informal standardization). thc devclopment o f a stabized koine. Lexical, phonological. and morphological nonas have been distillcd from thc various subsystems in contact, and a new compromisc subsystem has emerged. The result. however, is often reduced in morphological complexity compared to the contributing subsystems. Examples of stabized koines may be koineizcd colloquial Arabic (Samarin 1971:134) and

STAGivS

..|N

K O I N K I / . A T I O N

thc " i n t c r d i a l c c t s " o f Macedonian used in market centres (Lunt 1959:23). Use of a stabized koine may be extended to other arcas besides intergroup communication. For example. it may becomc a literary' language or the standard

Onc similarity bctwccn koines and pidgins no! mentioned above is that thcy are both actually stages in a process o devclopment. In this section. I again review

372

373

KOINES AND KOINEIZATION

T A B L E 2. Developmental and
Process

continua

of

pidgins

Type i i argn

Type J argn

Type J
jirgon

koines
Stage of devclopment

I
stabilizcd pidgin

stabilizcd pidgin

Pidginization Initial contad Slabitizaon Expansin Nativization prcpidgin (jargon) Slablized pidgin expanded pidgin crele

Koinrizalion prekoine stabized koine expanded koine nativized koine expanded pidgin

language o f a country. This extensin of use is often accompanied by Iinguistic expansin, for example, in greater morphological complcxity and stylistic options, thc "elaborations" mentioned by Gambhir (sce "'Previous writings on -koines" above). Most of these can be traced back to the original koineizcd varicties. This stage of development is the expanded koine. A possiblc example is Belgrade-based Serbo-Croatian (Bidwell 1964:532). Finally, a koine may become thc first language for a group of speakers. or a nativized koine. This stage may also be charactcrizcd by further iinguistic expansin (or claboration). but here some o f it may be the rcsult o f innovations which cannot be traced back to thc original koineizcd varicties. An example of a nativized koine is thc original Grcck Koine. Thc stages of thc developmental continuum of koines are analogous l o thosc o pidgins as described by Mhlhuslcr (for example. in 19X1:37). Thcy are prcsented in Table 2. Another significan! aspee! of the this developmental continuum i s that nativization can oceur after any o f thc first I h r c c stages. For example. nativization can oceur immcdiately after thc prekoine slage without prior stabilization o r expansin. But as in creolization. thcsc processes are part of nativization if they have not oceurred alrcady. This is w h a t look place l o some extent in t h e development of some immigrant koines such a s Fiji Hindustani (Siegcl ioX3:2X) and Trinidad Bhojpuri (Mohn 1978:13). Both dcvelopcd after a severe break in iinguistic tradition. when groups o f Indians speaking various dialecls o f Hindustani wcrc sent to orcign plantations a s indentured labourers. Although some levelling must have takcn place, thesc dialects remained in an unstabili/.cd prekoine continuum until children wcrc bom in the ncw environment. Thus. Mohn (1978:13) says. " t h c Bhojpuri ol I h c first gencration Trinidad Indians is much more homogeneous than I h a t brought by thc immigrant gencration. to I h e extent Ihat it constitutes a single system incorporating residual dialectal variation rather t h a n persisting as a series o distinct dialecls." This devclopment i s very similar lo t h a l o a crele, such a s llawaiian Crele, from an unslabilizcd prcpidgin continuum (Bickerton 19X1:5). Mhlhuslcr (1980:32) has also shown thal creolization c a n take place a l any stage of the developmental continuum. a s illustraied in Figure 1.
37-1

crele

crele

crele

(Wesl Indian English Crele) FIGURE

(Torres Slrait Crele)

(Tok Pisin)

1: Developmental continua o f a crele.

A parallel llustration can be made for the koineization developmental continuum. as shown in Figure 2. It should be stressed that the developmental continuum o f a koine is not nccessarily linear. A t any stage, for example. " r e k o i n e i z a t i o n " can take place i f thcrc is continued contact with the original closciy rclated varieties, or additional contact with different ones. Furthermorc, a koine may be at different stages along the continuum for different speakers. For example, Greek Koine was nativized only for speakers o f some urban reas; otherwise it was an expanded koine. For immigrant koines, recent immigrants may speak varieties at the prekoine stage while thc majority o f thc long-temn immigrants speak a stabized versin and their children a nativized one.
CONCLUSION

Koineization is thc process which leads to mixing o f Iinguistic subsystems that is. o language varieties which either are mutually intelligible or share the same
Type I prekoine Type 2 prekoine Type 3 prekoine

stabilizcd koine

stabilizcd koine

expanded koine

nativized koine nativized koine

nativized koine

, F i i i Hindustani, FIGURE

' G u y a n c s c Bhojpun,

<Grcck Koine,

2: Developmental continua of a nativized koine.

375

geneically rclated superposed language. It oceurs n thc context o f increased interaction or integration among speakers o f thcsc varicties. A koine is t h c stabilizcd composite variety which results from this process. Formally. a koine is characterizcd by a mixture o f features from the contributing varicties. and at an early :Stage o f devclopment. it is often reduced or simplified in comparison to a n y of thcsc varieties. Functionally. a koine serves as a lingua franca among speakers of thc different varicties. It also may become thc primary language o f amalgamated communities o f thesc speakers. A regional koine usually develops as thc lingua franca o f a gcographica! arca in which different regional dialects are spoken. It often bccomcs expanded in form and function to become a regional standard or a literary language. An immigrant koine develops in an amalgamated immigrant community and often is the primary language of the first gencration bom in this community. Koineization is similar to pidginization in that both processes arisc f r o m c o n tact between speakers o f different Iinguistic varicties and may rcsult in a n c w variety, which usually shows features o f thc varicties in contact and is reduced and simplified in comparison. Howcver, thc two processes are undanicntally different i n other ways. Thc varicties i n contact which Icad to koineization are more typologically similar than thosc which Icad to pidginization. Furthermorc. koineization i s a slow. gradual process which requires conlinucd contact a n d integration among thc speakers o f t h c different varicties. whercas pidginization i s a rapid.process n o t requiring such integration. Thc expansin o f function a n d form, a n d nativization characteristic o f creolization are ana'ogous l o what m a y oceur in koineization alicr t h c initial stage. Some iinguists h a v e extended t h c use o f I h e term koineization l o include pidginization and other types o f language mixing. such a s fusin a n d c o n vergence. Howcver. it would secm m o r e prolitahle l o rustrid its use l o thc mixing o f Iinguistic subsyslcms.

Dillard. J . L . (1964). T h e writings of Herskovits and Ihe study o l the language of the N e g r o in Ihe New World. Caribbtan Sludies 4(21:35-41. (1971). Black English: Its history and usage in the United States. N e w Y o r k : R a n d o m Home. Dominguc. N . (1981). Inicmal change in a iransplanied language. Studies in the 4(21:151-59. Rshman ( c d . ) . Readings in the sociology of language. T h e Hague: Moulon. Ferguson. C . A . (1959). T h e Arabic Koine. Language 35 (41 :616-30. LinguisticSciences

Ervin-Tripp. S . M . (1968). A n analysis of Ihe interaction of language. tupie, and listener. I n J . A . 192-211.

Fcrguson. C . A . , & Gumpcrz. J . J . (eds.) (19601 Linguiaic diversity in,South Asia: Studies in regional, social, andunctional variation. Bloomingion. Ind.: Research Cerner in Anlhropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. Publicaron 13. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3). Gambhir. S. K . (1981). T h c E a s l Indian specch community in Guyana: A socioiinguistic sludy with special referenec lo koine formation. P h . D . disserution. Univcrsily o f Pcnnsylvania. (19X3) T w o koines compared: Guyanese'Bhojpuri and Calcutta Bazaar Hindustani. national Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 12(2)1471-80. Inter-

Gibbons. J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Codc-mixing and koineising in the specch of sludents al the Univcrsily of H o n g Kong. Anlhroptilogical Linguistics 21(3):! 1 3 - 2 3 . G i l e s . H. (1977). Social psychology and applied linguistics: Towards an inlcgrated approach. Revievf of Applied Linguistics 35:27-42. TL

G i l e s . H . . Bourhis. R. Y . . & Taylur. D . M . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Towards a ihcory of language in elhnic group rclalions. In H . Giles ( c d . ) . Language. ethnicity. and inlergroup relalions. London: A c a d c m i c .
3U7-4X.

G i l e s . II . & S m i t h . P. (1979). Accommodation thcory: Optima) Icvcls of convergence. In H . G i l e s & R. N. St. C l a i r (eds.). Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil B l a c k w c l l . 4 5 - 6 5 . Givtin. T . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Prolcgomcna lo any sane crcology. In D . Hancock ( c d . ) . Readings siudies. G h c n l : E . Siory-Sciemia. Graff. W . L . i 1932). Language Applcton & C o . and linguistics: An introduelion to linguistics. Ncw in errle York: D.

Gumpcrz. J . J . . & W i l s o n . R . (1971). Convergence and crcolizalion. In D . H y m c s ( c d . l . lion and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press. 1 5 1 - 6 7 .

Pidginizu-

Hallcr. H . W . (1981). Bctwccn Standard Italian and crele: A n nterin) report. Word 3 2 ( 3 1 : 1 X 1 - 9 2 . Hancock. I. F . (1971). A provisional comparison of thc English-dcrived Atlantic Creles. In D . Hymes ( c d . l . Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press. 2 X 7 - 9 1 . Hanmann. R. R. 1. C . & Slork. F . C . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Oicliimary Applied Science Publishcrs. of language and linguistics. London:

Hill. T . ( 1 9 5 X ) . Inslitutional linguistics. Orhis 7 ( 2 1 : 4 4 1 - 5 5 . Hudson. K. A . ( 1 9 X 0 1 . Sociolmguisiics. Cambridge Univcrsily Press. Hymcs. I ) . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Introduction |lo Pan I I I ) . In D . Hymcs ( c d . l . Pidginization languages. Cambridge Univcrsily Press. 6 5 - 9 0 . Karlgrcn. H. ( 1 9 4 9 ) . Thr Chnese language. Ncw York: Ronald.

and cratlizatum

of

KI:I I-:KI-:NCI-:S
:

Krysin. L . P. ( 1 9 7 9 1 . Cominand of various language subsystcnis as a diglossia phenomenon. Baile)', C . - J . N . 1 1 9 7 4 1 . S D I I I C suggcslious DcCamp I. D.C.: Georgcumn lor greater conseiisus m cieolc Icmiimilocx. I " I ' trends n w i / / / " ' ' ' ! . Washington. Hancock tcds.l. Pidgins antl m w l r c Currrnt University l'rcss. X X - 9 1 . l.iidlkc Xt des Spruchwatulrh. Berln: de (iniylcf. I V ) turna! Journal of thr Srniologv of lujnguagc 2 1 : 1 4 1 - 5 1 . I.unt. l i . ( i . 1 1 9 5 9 ) . T h e crcation ol'Standard Maccdonian: Some lacts and altitudes.

Interna-

Anthrnpologicul Pidgin

( 1 9 X 1 . Od and ncw views on language hMory aiul language relalionships. In II (cd.l. Kominitiiikiilioiislliron'iislic (irnntllogcii Bamghosc. A . ( 1 9 * * 1 . A grammar <>/ Yorulti. University Piess. Bickenon. D. 1 1 9 X 1 1 . HmHs of language. Aun Arbor: Karoma.

IJnguistics 1 ( 5 ) : 1 9 . 2 6 . Manessy. ( i . ( 1 9 7 7 I . Processes of pidginization in Alrican languages. In A . Valdnuin ( c d . ) . and crele linguistics. Bloominglon: University of Indiana Press. 1 2 9 - 5 4 .

I W C M A i rican Monoeraph Senes No. 5. 1 Cambridge

Meiselcs. G . ( 1 9 X 1 1 . Hyhrid versus symbiotic constructions: A case study of conlcmporary Arabic. IJnguistics 19:1077-93. Moag. R. I-. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . T h e iinguistic adaptations ol Ihc Fiji Indians. In V . Mishra ( c d . l . Rama's hanishmenl: A ivntury tribuir lo the Fiji Indians. / K 7 9 - / U 7 0 . l-ondon: Hcincmann. 1 1 2 - 3 8 . Mohn. P. ( 1 9 7 6 1 . T o cun a koine thcory. Paper prcscnled at Ihc Conlerence on New Directions in Crele Sludies. Univcrsily of Guyana. ( 1 9 7 X I . Trinidad Bhojpuri: A morphological study. P h . D . disscrtalion. Univcrsily of Michigan. Mhlhuslcr. P. ( 1 9 X 0 ) . Structural expansin and Ihe process of creolization. In A . Valdman & A . Highlicld ( e d s . l . Theorelical orieniulions in crele sludies. Ncw York: A c a d c m i c . 1 9 - 5 5 -

Hidwcll. C . l i . 119(141. T h e SerhoC roaiian verb. Ijingnugr 41x41:5.*- 5'' Blanc. H . ( 1 9 6 X 1 . T h c Israeli Koine as an emergen! nalional standard In J l ' l s l m u n . ('. A Fcrguson. s. i. Das (lupia Icds.l. hmgimgr priMrms 01 drvchtniitg imliuns. New ^ort.: iolin Wilcy Si Sons. 2 3 7 51 Burchlleld. K. \V. I c i l . l (197(11 ,1 \upplcmctil lo thc t>\lnl English dicluuuirv. V11I I I . OO'ord: Clarendon. Cunen. I ) . 119621. Kinc. langucs coiiiniuiios el dialeclcs rabes. Anihun 0:119 41

37fi

377

JLre

SlbUbL

Lang. Soc.

14, 3 7 9 - 4 2 3 -

Printed in Ihe United States of A menea

(1981). The devclopment of Ihe category of number in Tok Pisin. In P. Muyskcn ( c d . l .

Qrntrativr studies on errle languages. Dordrechl: Foris. 3 5 - 8 4 . (1982). Pattems of contact. mixture, crealion. and nativization: Their contribution lo a general theory of language. Ms.. Oxford Univcrsily (lo appear in C . - J . N. Baitey & R . Harris (eds.). Developmental mechanisms of language. Oxford: Pergamon. Nida. E . A . . & Fehderau, H . W. ( 1970). Indigcnous pidgins and koines. Inlernaiiimal Journal of American Linguistics 32(21:146-55. Pei. M . (1966). Glossary of Iinguistic lerminology. Ncw York: Anchor. Reinccke. J . E . ( 1969). Language and dialect in Hawa: A sociolinguistichistorv University of Hawaii Press. Samarin. W . J . ( 1971 ). Salient and substantive pidginization. In D . Hymcs ( c d . l . Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge Univcrsily Press. 117-40. Sankoff. C . (1980). 7>ir social Ufe of language. Philadelphia: Univcrsily o r Pcnnsylvania Press. Sapir. E . ( 1921). Language: An introduelion lo the studv a) sprech. Ncw York: Harcourt. Bruce and Co. Siegel. J . O 9 7 5 ) . Fiji Hindustani. University of Hawaii Working Panrrs inUnguisties 71,31 :117-44. ( I 9 8 3 ) . Koineization and thc devclopment of Fiji Hindustani. M s . . Research SchiKil of Pacific. Studies. Austraian Nalional Univcrsily. (1984). Wa: A Maiaitan language in F i j i . to appear in P. Gcraghly & I . . Carringlon (eds. I. Pupers from tlie r'ourth International Linguistics). Confreme on Austnmesian jnguisiics. Canberra: Pacific lo /y.f.s. H o n o l u l :

REVIEWS
DIMENSIONS OF SOCIOL1NGUISTICS

RICHARD

W. B A I L E Y A N D M A N F R E D G R L A C H (eds.). English as a world language. Ann Arbor: The University o f Michigan and Rexdale, Canad: John Wilcy & Sons, 1982, Pp. v i i i + 496.

Thomson, G . (1960). The Creek language. Cambridge: W. HclTcr &. Sons. Traugott.'E. C . (1977). Pidginizalion. creolization. and language change. In A. Valdman t c d . l . Pidgin and crele linguistics. Bloominglon: Indiana Univcrsily Prcvs. 7 0 - 9 X . Winreicfi. U . ( 1953). iuinguuges in cimtuct: Findings and prohtems. Ncw York: Unguislie O r e l e of New York. No. 1. . Whinnom. K . ( 19711. Linguistie hvbridizalion and Ihc "special case*" ol pidgms and c r e l e s . In I ) . Hymcs ( c d . l . Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press. 91 1 15.

" O n l y in the last decade has the study o f the forms and functions o f English around the world begun to take shape as an academic d i s c i p l i n e . " So begins the lntroduction wrtten by the two editors, Richard Bailey and Manfred Grlach. And that rcally is their main object, to stamp upon the mind o f the curious rea de r the huge potential, as an academic discipline, o f just such a study; one, moreover. which relates directly with many academic centres of interest - linguistics obviously (sociolinguistics not least), also. o f course, anthropology and other social sciences - while, in the long r u n , benefitting from acquaintance with whatever other academic disciplines owe a special debt to their expression in English. In confronting such a large task, the editors have wisely drawn the Iine in exeluding countries where English "exists mainly as a foreign language," where, that is to say, native-speaking English norms prevail without much further thought. As they point out, extending the scope thus far " w o u l d be the subject for yet another b o o k " - though hardly, one might add. one that could "complete the picture of English as a world language" (5), otherwise there would surcly be no new academic discipline needed for the j o b ! Thc truly mullidisciplinary character of thc whole volume is soon made abundantly elcar, howcver, by the solid historical underpinning provided by most o f thc fourtecn chapters. It is tempting here to quotc at length from thc excellent lntroduction: " T h e development of new varicties o f English is intimately bound up with historical and social factors. In the history of West Africa, as Loreto Todd shows . . . these factors include the slave trade, cconomic cxploitation, missionary activities" (4). A n d so o n . The intimacy of the connection is shown not only with the devclopment o f new varieties of the language but w i t h particular uses of it; morcover, with varieties and uses in particular rclationships with olhcr languages, in pattems of code-switching or code-mixing or one-way or two-way influence, tied up, too, with changing artitudes and degrees of awareness. A l l this. at nalional and speech community and other levis., is given abundant illustration from many regions and periods. Good accounts, for example. are given o f the earlicr history o f English in England and Wales. Scotland, and Ircland, by Charles Russ, Suzanne Romaine, and Michael Barry respectively: while. typically for the wholc book, these authors make nicely judged and liberal use of literary quotation, for both comment on and illustration o f earlier stages o f thc language.
C 1985 Cambridge University Press

37 X

379