SLE Workshop: Matter borrowing versus pattern borrowing in morphology

This workshop was offered for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zurich, 10­­­–13 September 2017 and was  organized by members of the URPP research group  Areal Morphology.

When languages are in contact, the morphology of one language can influence the morphology of another. There are two fundamentally distinct ways in which this can occur. Speakers of a recipient language can borrow from a source language either morphological material, that is, actual morphemes, or morphological techniques, that is, structural patterns but no forms. These fundamental types are frequently referred to as ‘matter borrowing’ as opposed to ‘pattern borrowing’ (Sakel 2007; Matras & Sakel 2007).

As is generally acknowledged, morphology is relatively resistant to borrowing (Gardani et al. 2015a). This fact makes the study of morphological borrowing a valuable heuristic tool in investigations of the genealogical relatedness of languages or language groups (good examples are Law 2013, 2014; Robbeets 2015). While the topic of morphological matter borrowing has recently received slightly more attention in contact linguistics (Gardani 2008, 2012; Gardani et al. 2015b; Seifart 2013, 2015), the phenomenon of morphological pattern borrowing and in particular, its cross-linguistic diffusion and areal dimensions, are still largely understudied. The workshop matter borrowing vs pattern borrowing in morphology endeavors to fill this gap and aims to provide a cross-linguistic survey of matter borrowing and pattern borrowing, in order to seize their global extension and incidence in the evolution of morphology. We are especially interested in the following questions (but potential contributors should not feel restricted by them):

1. Which areas of morphology are more frequently affected by which type of borrowing?
2. What are the conditions that promote or inhibit the spread of which type of morphological borrowing?
3. Are the processes that underlie pattern borrowing the same that underlie contact-induced grammaticalization (Heine & Kuteva 2003)?
4. To what extent are abstract paradigmatic structures, such as morphomes (Maiden 2005), borrowed?
5. How can the study of pattern borrowing relate to phylogenetic patterns and contribute to the study of areal patterns in morphology?

September 12 

September 13