21 2. Overall framework of contact phenomena the dying language’s speech community” (Thomason 2001: 228; quoted in Chruszczewski 2006: 59). That is why Thomason states that “[…] the main emphasis in research on attrition is on loss of structure – mainly phonology, morphology, and syntax, but also discourse structure” (2001: 228). In this situation, Chruszczewski notices that “[…] the society which undergoes such gradual changes may be ‘depriving’ themselves of their original stylistic resources in the presence of a ‘stronger’ or perhaps more ‘aggressive’ culture” (2006: 59). Most factors which lead to language attrition are caused by humans; some are imposed by natural forces, often with brutal suddenness, such as the tsunami which struck the shorelines of the Indian Ocean in 2005, or a volcanic eruption (like the one in Pompeii). Other immediate reasons for language loss are epidemic diseases (which may decimate communities) or soil erosion (which forces communities to disperse and change their livelihood). Soil erosion can be caused by urbanization or by industries seeking new lands to build factories. These are all causes of language dissolution. However, as Moseley notices, “[t]here are many pitfalls in trying to generalize on global scale about what causes language attrition” (2007: ix). Every case of language loss should be treated individually. Chruszczewski makes the same observation based on the example of the Ma’a-speaking groups (see 2006: 60), whose lexicon is extremely mixed and reaches the conclusion that “[…] there is a whole gamut of factors influencing (or not) language change, and it is very often quite impossible to state conclusively why certain phenomena are more influential than others” (Chruszczewski 2006: 61). The last language-death mechanism is what can be called c h a n g e - l e s s n e s s , meaning “no loss of structure, not much borrowing” (ibidem). Chruszczewski divides this category into two subtypes: (1) one is when “when users of a particular language die out so quickly that there is no time for attrition or grammatical replacement” (Chruszczewski 2006: 60); (2) the second is exemplified by Chruszczewski (on the basis of the research results presented by Thomason 2001) by using Montana Salish, which has about sixty remaining speakers. People speaking Montana Salish have borrowed almost nothing from English even though there has been intensive contact and pressure from English (Chruszczewski 2006: 61; after Thomason 2001: 236). Chruszczewski agrees with Thomason that what may kill Montana Salish is the omnipresent American culture. Languages also die for political reasons. The unification of the nation-state means minority languages disappear, as is happening in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific: “[c]olonial languages are used as a political tool to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE5NDY5MQ==