Her paper “At a Loss for Words” has been reprinted in Natural History’s Annual Editions: Anthropology 10/11.

Title: On the development of nominal and verbal morphology in four lusophone creoles
Abstract

Marlyse  presented a paper entitled “Evolution of verbal and nominal morphology in four Lusophone Creoles” at the SPCL conference in Cologne, Germany in August 2009.  She  also participated in a panel on Fieldwork Ethics at the same conference.

Abstract:
A new mixed language, Light Warlpiri, has arisen in a remote community in northern Australia, systematically combining elments of Warlpiri (mostly nouns and nominal morphology) and Aboriginal English or Kriol (mostly verbs and verbal morphology). Grammatical relations are indicated in the two source languages by differing systems – Warlpiri uses case-marking in an ergative-absolutive system and AE/Kriol uses
SVO word order. Both systems operate in Light Warlpiri to some extent. Ergative marking is variably applied to A arguments and word order is mostly SVO, but also varies. Both adults and children use the ergative marker quantitatively differently in each language, and children are adult-like in how often they apply it in the two languages. But children mark postverbal agents ergatively more often than adults to. In doing so the children are regularizing a pattern found in adult speech.

Article title: Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages
Abstract:
Light Warlpiri and Gurindji Kriol are mixed languages which are spoken in northern Australia. They systematically mix the lexicon and morpho-syntax of a traditional Australian language (Warlpiri and Gurindji) and an Australian contact variety (Kriol), bringing systems from the source languages into functional competition. With respect to argument disambiguation, both Warlpiri and Gurindji use a case marking system, whereas Kriol relies on word order. These two systems of argument marking came into contact and competition in the formation of the mixed languages. The result has been the emergence of word order as the dominant system of argument disambiguation in the mixed language, the optionality of the ergative marker, and a shift in the function of the ergative marker to accord discourse prominence to the agentivity of a nominal.

2. Sally gave one of the four plenary talks at ICML XII, the 12th International Conference on Minority Languages in Tartu, Estonia.

WHAT IS LOST WHEN A LANGUAGE IS STANDARDIZED?

Abstract:

Enlightened governments all over the world are granting language rights to minority groups, a tendency that is presumably welcomed by everyone attending this conference.  The specific rights vary from country to country, from making one or more minority languages official to establishing a right to native-language instruction in schools.  An issue that arises very frequently concerns standardization: which variety of a minority language should be selected or (if necessary) developed for official purposes, including use as a medium of instruction?  The advantages of selecting a single variety are obvious, especially the financial advantages.  The disadvantages are perhaps less obvious.  The focus of this presentation is on the disadvantages of standardization, in particular the concomitant loss of dialect diversity.  The most important disadvantages are arguably sociopolitical; but the scientific disadvantages, from a linguist’s viewpoint, are nontrivial.  Understanding of the processes and results of dialect divergence and convergence contributes signficantly to our knowledge of human language as a social and psychological phenomenon. Moreover, some nonstandard dialects have unusual, and unusually interesting, structural features that are not found in the associated standard dialect.  I will not argue that standardization should not occur, but rather that nonstandard dialects should be documented as fully as possible while documentation is still possible.  Examples will be drawn from several European languages and from a gravely endangered Native American language which is currently undergoing standardization.

3. Sally also gave  one of the keynote talks at ISB7, the 7th International Symposium on Bilingualism, in
Utrecht.

Children vs. Adults as Agents of Contact-induced Language Change

Abstract:
This paper explores the relationship between bilingualism and contact-induced language change, focusing on the question of which contributions might be expected from children and which from adults. The issue is reflected in debates among historical linguists as to whether internally-motivated language change is initiated by children during first-language acquisition or by adults — or by both. In language contact studies, it is possible to identify changes, usually temporary ones, that are initiated by children, and it is also possible to identify changes that are initiated by adults. The conclusion, therefore, is that both adults and children are responsible for contact-induced changes, although perhaps not for the same kinds of changes: shift-induced interference, which is due to imperfect learning of a target language by members of a speech community, is likely to be almost exclusively an adult phenomenon, or at least not primarily initiated by young children during first-language acquisition. I will not address in detail the question of the role of adults vs. the role of children in the initiation and spread of linguistic changes more generally, but some implications of the results from contact-induced change will be discussed in the concluding section.

Congratulations, Anna!