Gardner-Chloros: Code-Switching (2)

Gardner-ChlorosCode-SwitchingChapter 2: Code-switching and language contact1. Introduction- CS occurs in contact situations of many types- occurs among immigrant communities, regional minorities and native multilingual groups- Gumperz/Hernandez: contact between minority language groups and majority language groups in situations of rapid social change- others: feature of stable bilingualism in communities where most people speak both languages- sociolinguists have treated CS mostly as spoken genre (long history)- CS is also found in written texts (script-switching)2. Code-switching as a symptom of different/opposite tendencies- code-switching arises in a variety of different contexts2.1. Covergence vs. preserving distinctiveness- each variety does not preserve its character- no one-to-one correlation between CS and language change/shift- Thomason: CS is not a major mechanism in contact-induced change; one of the principal mechanisms of borrowing- varied and heterogenous sources for language change- language change often takes place when the language of the majority is adopted by the minority- but: the language of the elite (minority) is often adopted by subordinate groups- Backus: description of the complexity of the relationship between CS and structural change- hypothesis: structural change is directly brought about by code-switching- methodological and conceptual problems, e.g. How can CS be distinguished from calques in code-switchers' idiolects?2.2. Studies which show code-switching to be bound up with shift or change- intergenerational comparison. there is often a correlation between the speakers' age and the type of CS they use- CS is an important component of change2.3. Counter-examples- CS takes place in a context where there is shift in progress rather than constituting the shift (occurs in the context of language shift, but it does not accelerate the shift)- it is the more balanced bilinguals who switch most2.4. A sign of doom or of vitality?- CS can arise in situations of widely varying stability- can be a feature of stable bilingualism and it can become implicated in language shift- the shifted and the shifted-to varieties are necessarily in contact- change can be fast or slow (several generations or within one generation), can affect all aspects of language- can occur with heavy linguistic symptoms (morphological loss) or without- languages may die without their morphology having altered at all- Auer (1999): CS as the first point in a chronological progression along a continuum next stage: language mixing (use of the overall switching mode carries significance); "unmarked choice" (Myers-Scotton, 1993) third stage: fused lects (stabilized mixed varieties) definition of code-switching: the juxtaposition of two languages perceived and interpreted as locally meaningful by participants definition of language-mixing: the combination of varieties gives rise to global meanings (no conversational purpose) definition of fused lects: fully conventionalized mixed variety this process is unidirectional (opposite direction is "prohibited"), social circumstances cannot be put into reverse may never be completed (bilingual communities may stabilize)- decreolization: if two varieties are between CS and code mixing they could split or become more similar to one variety- different kinds of CS can co-exist in the community at the same time- circumstances where contact-induced change does not proceed smoothly through all stages (code-switched variety assumes distinct functions of its own; formation of creoles)- stabilization of CS varieties arises when these varieties assume an identity function- often characteristic of young second-generation immigrant communities (pride in mixed identity; intra-community variety)- Sebba (1993): types of CS can occur with symbolic or discourse-related functions (creole: we-code function, CS: insider activity), ex: Zadie Smith' White Teeth- increasing number of singer and bands who use code-switching (e.g. Ricky Martin, Manu Chao)- ludic: prescriptive rules of a language are deliberately and playfully broken- CS can occur in situations of decline and as a mechanism of vitality- more comparative research is needed!3. Code-switching in language interaction- short research history- traditional view: change followed universal, language-internal principles (e.g. simplification)- CS has not always been considered an aspect in language change- CS is viewed as the most likely source of borrowing- the exact role of contact for language change is still a matter of discussion3.1. Code-switching, interference and borrowing- single-word code-switches (loans) are the commonest form of CS possible explanation: accessible to bilinguals with any degree of competence - any aspect of a language, also structural ones, can be borrowed- common nouns are the most frequently borrowed items possible explanations: reflects size of grammatical category; nouns are freer of grammatical restrictions than other word classes (language internal factor)- there is no reliable way to distinguish synchronically between loans and code-switches- loans must start life as code-switches and then generalize themselves- loans may go through different processes of integration ending up looking quite different in the receiving language- Sankoff (2001): CS is the "royal road" to borrowing; but: essential distinction between the two (borrowing as preferred categorical phenomenon)3.1.1. Grammatical category- all grammatical categories are potentially transferable- hypothesis: the more CS there is overall, the smaller proportion single-word switching represents 3.1.2. Morphophonemic integration with the surrounding language- borrowed/code-switched verbs often take the morphology of the borrowing variety3.1.3. Native synonym displacement- common conversational function of CS is to repeat what one just said in the other language- breaks up monotony of repeating the sentence in the same language- soften or reinforce statements- other language might contain the more accurate term- word becoming a loan depends on linguistic and sociocultural factors- in a given corpus loans and code-switches may be clearly distinguishable3.2. Code-switching and pidginization/ creolization- contributes to the convergence and divergence of different varieties- Gumperz (1964): close relationship between CS and creolization (often co-occur, derive from similar social factors, may lead to similar outcomes)- recent trend: emphasize difference between creolization and CS- presence or absence of CS seems to be largely a function of the prestige of the pidgin- CS involves shifting at particular linguistic levels rather than a whole transition from one variety to another- CS is sometimes more symbolic than real- bilingual compound verbs show the fine line between creolization and CS show features of creolization: grammatical convergence; analytic approach to vocabulary- pidgins and creoles: arise as lingua frances in situations involving contact between several languages (no common language!)- mixed languages: widespread bilingualism, serve as marker of ethnic group identity3.3. Code-switching and mixed languages- limited and marginal group of languages spoken in very specific contexts- outcome of particular cases of bilingualism- appear to represent a kind of fossilization of CS - grammar of one language and lexis of another - some mixed languages show much more specific and regular patterns than CS- most languages are mixed to some extent- motivation: linguistic expression of a dual identity4. Structural vs. social influences- many aspects of language change are due to contact- often due to processes such as inter-dialect accommodation, imperfect learning and koineizaton - Thomason/Kaufmann: social factors determine fundamental aspects of language change outcomes of contact: 1) borrowing: adoption of lexical elements 2) structural borrowing: requires intensive bilingualism 3) interference through shift: sounds, syntax and morphology (absence of full bilingualism)- asymmetric quality of contact (social context)- contact-induced change can result in simplification of the contact-receiving language, but the reverse can also be the case- minority language is likely to be significantly influenced by the majority one resulting CS reflects imbalance in power/status - Johanson (2002): "code copying" (neither a clear switch nor a fusion) some linguistic features are more "attractive" than others (social factors determine attractiveness)- interplay of social/socio-lingustic and structural factors (further systematic comparison necessary)- CS is an unstandardized form of speech- idiolectal factors intervene: internal variation and/or inconsistency- likely shift from a low-vitality language to a high-vitality language (contact-induces shift)- imperfect learning of the target language results in alteration to that language of a mainly structural nature the outcome is often a hybrid construction- sociolinguistic factors can be seen to override the structural closeness/distance between languages2.5. Conclusion- CS is one of the possible outcomes of contact between two (or more) varieties- often co-exists and overlaps with other outcomes- can adopt a huge range of linguistic guises - has often been overlooked- is not neat and tidy (CS can have a rule-breaking behavior, language change, convergence)- Toribio: semantics-pragmatics interface is crucial for convergence bilinguals select the sparest grammar that serves both languages - sociolinguistic factors are the key to understanding individual cases of CS- often different types of CS within the same community- social: CS may be seen as the product of a power struggle between two varieties- individual: reflects varying bilingual competences; discourse-structuring device- CS is not a passive victim of linguistic forces