From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 19947
Date: 2003-03-17
----- Original Message -----
From: <x99lynx@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] areal and genetic groupings
> I realize that linguists often use "contact" with a different meaning. But wouldn't contact rather than geographical closeness be the real criterion?
Areal effects are contact phenomena, but not all cross-linguistic influence counts as areal. We are talking about typological and structural _convergence_ (involving phonological inventories, morphological systems and syntax), not merely about loanwords (which are easily propagated at great distances along trade routes). Grammatical convergence is normally possible (or at least was normally possible before the advent of global communication media) if the languages in question remain geographically close for a long time (preferably several centuries) and if biligualism is sufficiently widespread to lead to occasional code mixing.
Piotr