Types of loan: matter and pattern

Jeanette Sakel (p. 15-29 in Matras & Sakel, eds. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic
perspective)

1. Introductioni
A central concern of contact linguistics has long been to categorize the ways in which
elements are borrowed from one language into another. For this purpose Matras and Sakel
(2004) introduced the terms matter (MAT) and pattern (PAT) in the questionnaire on which
the sample of contact situations in this book is based (cf. also subsequent publications on the
issue, such as Matras & Sakel 2007). In the present chapter we will re-visit the definition of
MAT and PAT, as well as address what this distinction could mean in phonology. We will
furthermore give an overview of the overall distribution of MAT/PAT in the languages of the
sample in order to address the validity of a MAT/PAT distinction in the categorisation of
contact situations.

2. Definitions
MAT and PAT denote the two basic ways in which elements can be borrowed from one
language into another. We speak of MAT-borrowing when morphological material and its
phonological shape from one language is replicated in another language. PAT describes the
case where only the patterns of the other language are replicated, i.e. the organisation,
distribution and mapping of grammatical or semantic meaning, while the form itself is not
borrowed. In many cases of MAT-borrowing, also the function of the borrowed element is
taken over, that is MAT and PAT are combined. ii In other instances, MAT and/or PAT are
borrowed, but deviate considerably in their form or function from their original source. In
some categories, making a distinction between MAT and PAT does not make much sense.
For example word order changes will invariably be PAT. In other areas, such as phonology,
the MAT/PAT distinction applies only in a restricted way, as MAT and PAT are primarily
defined as functioning above the morpheme level. The concept behind MAT and PAT is well-
grounded in the literature, but only rarely figures in the categorisation of contact situations.
One exception is Heath (1984: 367), who bases his approach to language contact on this
opposition, distinguishing between ‘direct transfer of forms from the other language’ and
‘structural convergence’. Other approaches to language contact mention similar distinctions,
often with very different terminology, such as Haugen’s (1950) ‘importation’ for outright
borrowing and ‘substitution’ for loanshifts or calques. Likewise, Weinreich ([1953] 1966: 7)
distinguishes ‘transfer of elements’ and ‘interference without outright transfer’, which re-
appears in Weinreich’s distinction between ‘source’ and ‘recipient language’ for MAT-
borrowings, and ‘model’ and ‘replica language’ for PAT-borrowings. The distinction is
mentioned in many subsequent approaches to language contact, such as Gołąb’s (1956, 1959)
‘form’ versus ‘substance’, Johanson’s (1992) ‘global copying’ and ‘partial copying’, Nau’s
(1995) ‘material borrowing’ and ‘loan-meaning, loan-translation’ and Treffers-Daller &
Mougeon’s (2005: 95) ‘borrowing, code-switching’ versus ‘transfer’. Many other studies of
language contact pay only minor attention to this matter, such as Thomason and Kaufman
(1988), who do not include the distinction in their influential borrowing scale (1988: 74).
Some approaches to contact focus almost exclusively on either MAT or PAT. In this
manner, approaches to substrate influence and contact-induced grammaticalisation (Siegel
1997; Keesing 1991; Heine and Kuteva 2005) focus mainly on PAT-type loans. Likewise,
linguistic areas have often been described as zones in which PAT-borrowing appears. On the
other hand, much of the early literature on code-switching primarily addresses contact
phenomena of the MAT type, while more recently PAT has been integrated into frameworks
of code-switching (cf. Savić 1995, Bolonyai 1998 and Myers-Scotton 2002: 21–2). There are
reasons why some approaches seem to favor either MAT or PAT: when studying linguistic
areas or substrate influence, focus is often on PAT because a major part of the loans in these
situations are of this type and indeed areas and substrate influence are often defined as
displaying mainly pattern-loans. On the other hand, when stuyding situations of code
switching, MAT is often very prominent.

3. Integration of MAT and PAT loans

Let us now look at how grammatical MAT/PAT-loans are integrated into the recipient
language. In many cases of MAT or PAT-borrowing, not the entire function or form is taken
over, but the borrowed elements differ from their original source. Take for example the way
in which Domari copies Arabic aspect marking (Matras, this volume); Domari borrows
Arabic auxiliaries as MAT, but it does not simultaneously make use of a subjunctive verb
form as in Arabic because it has its own subjunctive. Hence, not the entire construction of
aspect marking is taken over, but only parts of it. In Otomí the functions of a borrowed form
are extended: the shortened form ko from Spanish ‘como’ is used in a number of
constructions, also expressing ‘made of’, a function it does not have in Spanish (Hekking &
Bakker, this volume). Hence, when MAT-elements are borrowed, their functions are not
necessarily the same as in the source language; sometimes only parts of the function are
borrowed, sometimes the functions are extended and the loans are rarely mere copies of those
of their counterparts in the source language. Also the forms of loans are frequently adjusted,
for example by phonological integration of MAT-loans into the recipient language, which in
some cases makes them difficult to identify as loans without a careful analysis. In the same
way, PAT-loans inherently involve a process of grammaticalisation, often leading to different
patterns as those in the source language (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2005). PAT-borrowing is
facilitated by a pivot common to both languages (Matras and Sakel 2007). Such cases of
PAT-adjustment in the sample include the shift in grammatical meaning of native Yiddish
elements to correspond to Slavic aspectual markers (Reershemius, this volume).

4. MAT and PAT in phonology

How could the distinction between MAT and PAT-loans be employed in the phonology? In
most contact situations, MAT-loans involve phonological changes that can go in two
directions:

1. a MAT-borrowed element is phonologically integrated into the recipient language;

e.g. Mosetén ishkweera for Spanish escuela ‘school’.
2. a MAT-borrowed element is not integrated and may introduce new phonemes into the
recipient language; e.g. in Jaminjung, where loan-phonemes have risen to phoneme
status within the language and are now used with native words (Schultze-Berndt, this
volume).

Only the latter strategy (2.) involves phonological borrowing in which elements from the
source language are transferred into the recipient language. One could argue that loans in 2.
are MAT-loans if they introduce a new phone, and PAT-loans if they introduce a new
phoneme. The loss of certain phonological distinctions would possibly be a case of PAT,
since no new material is introduced, and a change in the stress patterns could be counted as
PAT as well, since it involves the overall patterning rather than actual forms. A change in
tone, on the other hand, could be MAT-borrowing if it occurred in isolated loanwords and
PAT if it affected the whole language. A cautious attempt to classify the phonological contact
phenomena found in the sample is the following:

1. Borrowing of individual phonemes that are also used in native elements is found in
Vietnamese, Indonesian, Jaminjung and Paraguayan Guarani. This type of loan would
probably best be classified as MAT, since it involves borrowing of phonological
material without a major disruption of the phonological system.
2. Borrowing of a series of distinctions is common. K’abeena, Rumungro and Kildin
Saami have borrowed a palatal series. K’abeena has furthermore borrowed ejectives,
while Tasawaq gained pharyngealization and Vietnamese had a retroflex series
 introduced by contact. These would be MAT-loans in the sense that elements are
borrowed and PAT-loans in the sense that a whole series of phonemes within the
phonological system is affected by the contact.
3. Adaptation of stress, syllable structure, prosody or tone systems would classify as
PAT-borrowing in phonology since they affect the system, rather than individual
elements. Stress patterns are adjusted in Western Neo Aramaic, Yiddish, Hup,
Manange, North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic and Paraguayan Guarani. The syllable
structure is adapted due to contact in Yiddish and Indonesian, allowing consonant
clusters. Prosody is affected in Hup and Jaminjung, while tone has undergone
contact-induced changes in Vietnamese and Manange.

Hence, MAT and PAT could be used to classify contact phenomena in the phonology, even
though the strength in having this MAT/PAT distinction makes most sense in loans from the
morpheme-level upwards.iii

5. The MAT/PAT distinction in grammar: findings from the sample

We will discuss the data from the sample by looking at the following cases: 1. situations with
overall MAT-borrowing, 2. situations with overall PAT-borrowing and 3. hierarchical
relations between contact languages. When talking of ‘overall’ contact phenomena, we
deliberately do not quantify loans in contact situations to avoid sampling problems, but rather
only look at cases where the overwhelming majority of the loans are of either type.

5.1. Situations with overall MAT-borrowing

In the sample, Jaminjung, Biak and Vietnamese stand out in having predominantly MAT-
loans.
Jaminjung is in contact with Kriol, a creole which is likely to have been influenced by
the native languages of the area (cf. Schultze-Berndt, this volume). The patterns of Kriol are
in many ways similar to those of Jaminjung possibly due to substrate influence from the
languages of the area on Kriol during its development. For this reason, Schultze-Berndt chose
not to include PAT-loans in her overview to avoid circularity and in this particular case the
explanation for the predominance of MAT-loans is hence merely methodological.
Biak, on the other hand seems to have a preference for MAT-loans. Biak word order
is highly fixed, which means that in many cases MAT-loans are easier to integrate than a
change in word order or re-modelling of existing material (cf. van den Heuvel, this volume).
For example due to Indonesian pressure negation is expressed by a sentence-initial adverb. A
native element in Biak could have been adjusted as a PAT-loan, but the pressure against the
change in word order this would involve was higher than that of borrowing new material.
Vietnamese has had substantial contact influence from Chinese. While most other
situations involve bilingualism and language contact in the spoken language, Chinese
influence on Vietnamese has predominantly been through written materials. The types of
loans encountered are mostly MAT. This can be attributed to the type of contact situation, as
without oral bilingualism pattern copying is difficult, and MAT-loans prevail. This rather
trivial fact makes sense in the current discussion since it is directly related to the types of
loans encountered. MAT-loans can appear even in cases of monolingualism, such as in the
Muran language Pirahã (not discussed further in this volume), which has exclusively MAT-
loans from Portuguese due to very rudimentary bilingualism.
Concluding, there are both structural reasons for MAT-loans, as in Biak, where PAT
is not preferred as it would lead to changes of a highly fixed word-order, as well as reasons
found in the type of contact situation linked to the degree of oral bilingualism, as in the case
of Vietnamese.

5.2. Situations with overall PAT-borrowing

Likewise, a number of languages in the sample show an overall majority of PAT-borrowing.
These are K’abeena, Hup, Macedonian Turkish and Khuzistani Arabic, most of which are
also part of well-established linguistic areas.
 K’abeena is discussed for its participation in the Gurage linguistic area (cf. Crass, this
volume) and exhibits areal patterns of varying sources. Not surprisingly, most of the contact
phenomena found in K’abeena are PAT-loans. K’abeena has a number of MAT-loans as well,
part from lexical elements, it has borrowed a few markers of temporal and causal clauses,
discourse markers and interjections. These belong to the category of function words,
comprising conjunctions, discourse markers and other elements detached from the main
proposition of the clause (cf. Matras 1998).
Hup is part of the Vaupés are in the North-Western Amazon. Epps (this volume)
focuses on the contact situation between two of the languages from this area, Hup and
Tukano. Hup borrows a vast number of PAT-features from Tukano, while there are only few
MAT-loans. The reasons for this are strong cultural restrictions in the Vaupés region against
MAT-loans. These can nonetheless be overridden, as is the case in MAT-loans from Tukano,
including an adverbial particle ‘until’, a negative emphasis marker and a disjunction marker.
Again, these belong to the category of function words and the only MAT-loans outside this
category in Hup are numerals.iv
Macedonian Turkish, which is spoken in the Balkan linguistic area and displays a
large number of areal features that can be established when comparing the language to its
neighbourng Balkan languages and Standard Turkish. While most loans are PAT, some of the
discourse markers, as well as the phrasal conjunctions ama ‘or’ and i ‘and’ are MAT-loans
from Macedonian. Matras & Tufan (this volume) draw the conclusions for Macedonian
Turkish that MAT structures are probably new additions since the change in hierarchical
structures between the languages, while PAT-borrowing must have occurred earlier as a
means of ‘utterance-organising strategies’.
A similar picture emerges in Khuzistani Arabic, which has a majority of PAT-loans,
and again the only MAT-loans are found in categories such as discourse markers, fillers, tags
and focus particles where they have an interaction-qualifying function (cf. Matras and
Shabibi, this volume). The reason why Khuzistani Arabic has many PAT-loans could be its
status in the contact situation, which is similar to that of Macedonian Turkish in that both
languages are spoken across the border from areas where they are majority languages. The
variants discussed here are dominated, but the speakers are frequently exposed to the standard
languages, for example through television and visits. Speakers may have a wish to keep the
two languages apart as they attribute equally high status to them in the different contexts of
use. This restricts MAT-loans and leads to mainly PAT-loans, while in the category of
function words the two systems collide, very similar to what we found in Hup and K’abeena.
The fact MAT-loans of function words are frequent in these languages appears to confirm
Matras’s (1998) hypothesis that bilingual speakers will have greater difficulties keeping their
linguistic systems apart around such markers than for other domains of functions.

5.3. Relations between languages and MAT/PAT borrowing

Let us now look at the data from another perspective, namely whether the relations between
the languages in contact have an impact on the types of loans encountered.
In the sample, most borrowing appears from hierarchically higher – or dominant –
languages into lower, dominated languages. Dominance is here broadly defined: a language is
dominant when used for administration, as a lingua franca, and when it has to be learnt by the
speakers of the dominated language, which in return is usually not used for any of the above
or which is used in less official environments. A language can be dominant in one contact
situation, while dominated in another. For example, Shaba Swahili is dominant in being the
lingua franca of the region but dominated by French, which is the official and administrative
language of the country. Apart from one-to-one borrowing situations, some of the languages
in the sample belong to well-established linguistic areas. Table 1 summarizes the contact
situations treated by authors of the chapters. Many of the languages in the sample are also part
of linguistic areas, but where this is not immediately discussed in the chapters I left it out of
the current discussion. X marks the main focus of the contribution to this volume, Y marks
another contact situation which is not the main focus of the chapter.
Table 1: types of contact situations and hierarchical status in contact situation
dominated areas dominant
(treated here)
1 Indonesian, Shaba Swahili X Y
2 K’abeena X
3 Biak, Domari, Imbabura Quechua, Khuzistani X
Arabic, Kurmanji Kurdish, Manange,
Mosetén, North Eastern Neo Aramaic, Otomi,
Paraguayan Guarani, Purepecha, Rapanui,
Saami, Tasawaq, Western Neo-Aramaic,
Vietnamese, Yaqui, Yiddish
4 Hup, Jaminjung, Likpe, Nahuatl, Rumungro, X Y
Macedonian Turkish

We can usually see layers of different types of contact in languages that belong to more than
one contact situation. This is visible in the first group of languages in table one, i.e. languages
that are dominant in some situations but dominated in others. In this way, Shaba Swahili has
only few MAT-loans, most of which are of French numbers and discourse markers. The loans
from the substrate languages are PAT, apart from three MAT noun-class markers. If we
would expect substrate-influence only leading to PAT-borrowing, this would be exceptional.
We can see reasons for why these markers have been borrowed in this way by looking at the
system. De Rooij (this volume) shows that many of the Swahili noun class markers
correspond in form and function to those of the substrate languages. The differences – in
particular the three markers in question – were borrowed to assimilate Shaba Swahili’s system
of noun classification to that of the substrate languages. We are therefore not dealing with a
mere MAT-loan of three markers in isolation, but with a general adjustment of two systems
that are already largely identical. In the same way we find MAT-loans from current substrate
languages in Indonesian. Indonesian is the dominant language in contact with other languages
spoken in Indonesia, such as Javanese but it has also been dominated by a range of other
languages, in particular Sanskrit, Chinese and some European languages. The loans from the
dominant languages are both MAT and PAT and have, for example, led to a number of
changes in the sound system of Indonesian. The influence from substrate languages is
astonishingly likewise MAT and PAT. MAT-loans from Javanese include collective particles,
a 3rd person plural pronoun, some interrogative markers, a focus marker and modal particles.
If Javanese was a substrate language at the time of borrowing, these MAT-loans would be
exceptional in the light of general preconceptions that substrate-influence is mainly PAT.
However, we can explain there MAT-loans from Javanese: being a substrate language today,
it used to have a different status in the past, described by Tadmor as a ‘quasi-symbiosis’
between Indonesian and Javanese. The MAT-loans may have entered Indonesian during this
time.
The only language in the second group, K’abeena, has been discussed in the previous
section for its prevalence of PAT-loans. When looking at the few attested MAT-loans, these
are also from languages that take part in the area: (Ethio-) Semitic lexical elements are used
as adverbial clause markers (time, reason, cause), an adjectival suffix is borrowed form
Amharic and a number of interjections have the same forms as in other languages of the area.
Apart from the adjective suffix these fall under the category of function words. Even though
this is only one example, it shows that MAT-loans in the category of function words do
appear in linguistic areas.v
The majority of the languages in the sample are in a contact situation with a dominant
language. These are listed as group 3 in table 1. In these languages both MAT and PAT loans
are common in most categories, while there is heavy borrowing of function words, which are
overwhelmingly borrowed as MAT. The contact phenomena encountered in these languages
are in general very similar, independent of whether the languages are spoken by small
minorities or whether they are major national languages. In this way, the major South
American indigenous languages Paraguayan Guarani and Imbabura Quechua (cf. Rendon, this
volume) borrow heavily from Spanish and have comparable contact phenomena to the small
indigenous languages Mosetén (cf. Sakel, this volume) and Purepecha (cf. Chamoreau, this
volume). Stolz & Stolz (1996, 1997) come to similar conclusions comparing a range of
languages in contact with Spanish. They argue that the similarities in contact phenomena are
found within the same categories. Take the following example: most languages in contact
with Spanish borrow an element out of the category of temporal adverbial clause markers,
such as hasta ‘until’, desde ‘from’, cuando ‘when’, but which ones of these markers are
borrowed, and which functions they assume in the recipient language, is language-specific
(cf. Stolz & Stolz 1996, cf. also Sakel’s 2007 description for Mosetén). Similarities in contact
phenomena have also been attested for languages in contact with Russian as the dominant
language. Riessler (this volume) discusses how Russian contact phenomena in Kildin Saami
resemble those in other contact situations with Russian as the dominant language, referring to
Majtinskaja (1978–9). The reasons for this have to do with universals of borrowing, rather
than individual languages. Comparing the contact phenomena in the sample, we find that
similar principles apply for all contact situations of the same type, independent of the source
language. Indeed, when comparing the situations where Spanish is dominant to those where
Russian or other languages are dominant, elements within the same categories are taken over,
and often these are MAT-loans of function words. This also includes dominant languages that
are not Indo-European, such as Arabic in contact with Western Neo-Aramaic. These
situations are similar due to general principles of contact, rather than language-specific ones. vi
The built-up of the system and availability of certain structures in Spanish and Russian may
nonetheless play a role in a few cases, since they have similar typological profiles.
The final group of languages in table 1 comprises Hup, Jaminjung, Likpe, Nahuatl,
Otomi, Rumungro and Macedonian Turkish. For these languages the authors of the individual
chapters discuss different layers of contact in both one-to-one borrowing situations and
linguistic areas. The general results are that the languages display PAT-loans from the areas
they are in, as well as MAT/PAT loans from their particular one-to-one borrowing situations.
In some cases area and borrowing situations overlap, as in the case of Hup in contact with
Tukano, both of which are part of the Vaupés area. In other cases, there are clear differences
between the contact influence from the area and the borrowing situation, as in Nahuatl, which
is part of the Meso-American area (as proposed by Campbell et al. 1986), as well as being
part of a one-to-one borrowing situation with Spanish. Comparing the contact phenomena in
the latter case between a one-to-one borrowing situation and an area, these are very different:
the areal phenomena are predominantly PAT, while Spanish loans are very similar to other
situations in which indigenous languages of the Americas are in contact with Spanish as the
dominant language and include many MAT-loans.
Concluding, MAT-loans appear in dominated languages in 1 one-to-one borrowing
situations, but also PAT-loans are frequent in this cases. While linguistic areas and situations
of substrate influence display mainly PAT-loans, MAT-loans are very frequent in the
category of function words and indeed appear in all languages of the sample (cf. also Matras’s
chapter on borrowability of categories, this volume). This suggests that function words are
borrowed easily and relatively early on in contact situations. We can see this in layers of
contact, for example, in the variant of North Eastern Neo Aramaic (cf. Khan, this volume)
whose speakers have all immigrated to Israel. The original contact situation with Kurdish as
the dominant language has been replaced by the new situation with Hebrew as the new
dominant language. Indeed, the loans from Hebrew are primarily found in the lexicon and
function words. More evidence for this comes from Romani (Elšík, this volume, cf. also Elsik
& Matras 2006). Also other sample languages show early borrowing of function words: all of
the sample languages show some degree of MAT-borrowing, even in those languages where
all or most other loans are PAT, such as Hup and K’abeena. vii In many cases MAT-loans of
function words have been on a long journey, being borrowed from one language into another.
For example, some Kurdish discourse markers and connectors are of Arabic origin and have
entered the language through contact with Turkish (Haig, this volume). Likewise, some Hup
function words of Portuguese origin have most likely entered the language via Tukano (Epps,
this volume).
6. Conclusion
We have shown that the distinction between MAT and PAT is very useful for classifying
contact phenomena. For contact theory in general this means that the distinction between
MAT and PAT-borrowing should be included in attempts to categorize contact situations.
We can conclude the following for the regularities behind MAT/PAT borrowing: We
have found that hierarchical relations between languages have an impact on the types of loans
encountered. For example Arabic is a dominant language in some contact situations and a
dominated language in others: it is dominant in contact with Domari and Western Neo-
Aramaic, while Khuzistani-Arabic is dominated by Persian. In the first case, the dominant
languages incorporate many MAT-loans from Arabic, while in the second case, MAT-loans
are from Persian.viii Hence, the direction of types of contact phenomena (in this case MAT-
loans) depends on the hierarchy between the languages. Furthermore, when a dominant
language has high status, MAT-loans into a dominated language are often easily accepted. For
example many MAT-loans from Spanish appear in Purepecha, Nahuatl and Yaqui, for which
Spanish is a highly dominant and high-status language. In the same way, MAT-loans can be
shunned from contact situations, such as in areas with social constraints against pattern-
replication in the Vaupés, as discussed for Hup above, and also in other areas such as parts of
Papua New Guinea (Ross 1996). Also the degree of bilingualism plays a role in the way
elements are borrowed. Without bilingualism, patterns are usually not copied and MAT is
only borrowed in a restricted sense. The type of contact influence is likewise closely related
to degree of (oral) bilingualism. For example Vietnamese has experienced massive contact
influence from Chinese, though this was mainly through written materials and rarely through
oral transmission involving bilingualism, leading to a majority of MAT-loans.
All languages of the sample display MAT-loans of function words, even those that
have a majority of PAT-loans. This suggests that reasons for borrowing function words as
MAT are stronger than other constraints in contact situations. Such reasons include the
detached nature of function words, which makes them easily borrowable, as well as their
function as discourse structuring devices (cf. Matras 1998). It could furthermore point at a
general change of contact situations across the world towards situations with one dominant
language that is used in administration, television and general communication in a highly
mobile, globalised world. This does not mean that dominant languages did not exist in the
past, cf. the influence of Chinese on Vietnamese or e.g. Sanskrit influence on Indonesian. In
those cases, however, contact was prevailing in some communities – e.g. among the elite,
while in other communities or at other times contact was less intensive. In today’s globalised
world, however, some languages, often former colonizers’ languages, have impact on entire
speech communities. Television, schooling, trade, mobility, indigenous organisations, health,
developmental organisations and other ways of communicating with the ‘outside’ world have
lead to the rise of these already highly dominant, major languages through increased
bilingualism. Many contact situations in the sample show this tendency. For example in Hup,
area-internal restrictions such as taboos against MAT-borrowing have been overridden by
overwhelming influence of Tukano and eventually Portuguese as administrative languages
(cf. also discussion by Aikhenvald 2002).

6. References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2002 Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolonyai, Agnes
1998 ‘In-between languages: language shift/maintenance in childhood bilingualism’. International
Journal of Bilingualism 2 (1): 21-43.
Elšík, Viktor and Yaron Matras
2006 Markedness and language change: The Romani sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gołąb, Zbigniew
1956 The concept of isogrammatism. Buletin Polskiego Towarzystwa Jezykoznawczego 15: 1–12.
1959 Some Arumanian-Macedonian isogrammatisms and the social background of their
development. Word 15 (3): 415–435.
Haugen, Einar
1950 The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26 (2): 210–231.
Heath, Jeffrey
1984 Language contact and language change. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 367–84.
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania
2005 Language Contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johanson, Lars
1992 Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Keesing, Roger M.
1991 Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In Elizabeth C. Traugott
and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and
methodological issues, 315–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Majtinskaja, K.E.
1978–9 Zaimstvovannye elementy, ispol’zuemye v finno-ugorskih jazykah pri obrazovanii form
naklonenij [Borrowed elements, used in inflectional forms in Finno-Ugric languages]. Études
Finno-Ougriennes 15: 227–231.
Matras, Yaron
2000 Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of
Bilingualism 4 (4): 505–528.
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel
2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in
Language 31 (4): 829–865.
Myers-Scotton, Carol
2002 Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nau, Nicole
1995 Möglichkeiten und Mechanismen kontaktbewegten Sprachwandels — unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Finnischen. Munich: Lincom.
Ross, Malcolm D.
1988 Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Sakel, Jeanette & Yaron Matras
2004 Database of convergence and borrowing. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Savić, Jelena M.
1995 ‘Structural convergence and language change: Evidence from Serbian/English code-
switching’. Language in Society 24: 475-492.
Siegel, Jeff
1997 Mixing, leveling, and pidgin/creole development. In Arthur K. Spears and Donald Winford
(eds.), The structure and status of pidgins and creoles, 111–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stolz, Cristel and Thomas Stolz
1996 Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika, Spanisch-Amerindischer Sprachkontakt.
Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49 (1): 86–123.
1997 Universelle Hispanismen? Von Manila über Lima bis Mexiko und zurück: Muster bei der
Entlehnung spanischer Funktionswörter in die indigenen Sprachen Amerikas und
Austronesiens. Orbis 39 (1) [1996–1997]: 1–77.
Thomason, Sarah and Terence Kaufman
1988 Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Treffers-Daller, Jeanine and Raymond Mougeon
2005 The role of transfer in language variation and change: Evidence from contact varieties of
French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8: 93–98.
Weinreich, Uriel
1966 Reprint. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton, 1953.
i
I would like to thank Yaron Matras and Kristine Hildebrandt for comments on earlier versions of this paper.
ii
MAT-borrowing without any PAT will not be discussed in this chapter as it is very rare and mainly occurs in the
lexicon; i.e. usually MAT is taken over with at least part of its original PAT. An example of MAT-only borrowing in
the lexicon is the noun handy ‘mobile phone’ in German, which does not have this meaning in the source language
English.
iii
Yaron Matras made the useful comment that just like the shape of morphemes can combine with a certain meaning
and appear in a certain organisation pattern, so can a phone acquire meaningfulness as a phoneme, and combine with
certain patterns of prosody, tone, or permissible combinations of sounds. Rather than define a perfect match for MAT
and PAT in phonology, we can simply remain conscious of the layered structure of phonological representation and the
fact that contact-related change may affect one level without affecting another.
iv
Numerals are very frequently borrowed as MAT in many contact situations.
v
One could speculate that the reasons for this could be temporal dominance of the source language.
vi
These principle are anchored in the role of categories in processing discourse, and the way that operating in a
bilingual setting influences language processing; see contribution by Matras.
vii
We find similar loans in Indonesian, where some function words are taken from dominant languages in the history,
e.g. Sanskrit, Arabic, Creole Portuguese and Persian Other function words in Indonesian were borrowed as content
words and then grammaticalised, such as ‘and’ from the Sanskrit word for ‘company’.
viii
There are mainly PAT-loans in Khuzistani Arabic for reasons discussed above. Also, Arabic is still a dominant
language in some religious contexts in Iran, which skews the picture somewhat.