Codeswitching Code Switching -- How

Codeswitching

Code Switching -- How many grammars?

Language Contact

Lexical Borrowing

Code Switching

Types of Code Switching

Grammar of Intrasentential Code Switching

Theory of One Grammar

Theory of Two Grammar

Theorie of Three Grammar

According to Winford (2003:2) "Whenever people speaking different languages come into contact, there is a natural tendency for them to seek ways of bypassing the communicative barriers facing them by seeking compromise between their forms of speech." While these forms of compromise might be seen as language deficits by some, Winford (2003:2) suggests that they are actually creative ways for speakers of different languages to effectively communicate. MacSwan (2000:37) asks the question, "How does the mind represent two (or more) languages?" And suggests that "the answer to this basic question has implications for linguistics, education, developmental psychology, and the general cognitive sciences."

This article is organized as follows. I begin with an explanation of language contact and the types of language mixing which include lexical borrowing and code switching. I will then continue with a more in depth explanation of the types of code switching -- tag-switching, intersentential switching and intrasentential switching. The various theories of the grammar of code switching are then discussed. I conclude with implications for further research.

2. Language Contact

The interaction of two or more languages or language varieties is known as language contact. Whenever different languages come into contact they will, in all probability influence each other. "Such contact can have a wide variety of linguistic outcomes," from lexical borrowing to "the creation of entirely new languages." (Winford 2003:2). This chapter will give a short overview of different types of language mixing, all of which involve language maintenance. Maintenance calls for small changes of the language, while "the various subsystems of the language -- the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and core lexicon -- remain relatively intact." (Winford 2003:12).

2.1 Lexical Borrowing

One possible result of language contact is the integration of words from one language into a second one. "The borrowing language may be referred to as the recipient language and the foreign language as the source language "(Winford 2003:12). Lexemes of the source language are grammatically integrated into the recipient language and become part of the standard lexicon. Rather than a mix of two different languages lexical borrowing defines the establishment of lexical elements (Wiegand 2004:53). "Despite etymological identity with the donor language, established loanwords assume the morphological, syntactic, and often, phonological, identity of the recipient language"(Poplack 2001:2063). Lexical borrowing normally begins with speakers who are familiar with the source language. They (often consciously) adopt the new word when speaking the borrowing language, because it most exactly fits the idea they are trying to express. At first the speakers may use the word only with other individuals who are familiar with the source language; however, as the loanwords are completely integrated into the host language borrowing is not restricted to multilingual speakers only, but can be found in the speech of monolingual speakers as well (Poplack 2001:2063).

In fact, Winford (2003:2) adds that lexical borrowing may occur without requiring speakers of different languages to actually come into contact with one another. Lexical borrowing results "through book learning by teachers, writers, lexicographers, and the like who pass on the new vocabulary to others via literature, religious texts, dictionaries, and so on" (Winford 2003:2). Gradually the word permeates the language and becomes familiar to more people. Eventually speakers of the borrowing language adapt the sound and other characteristics of the word to the borrowing language. This process is called conventionalism.

English Imperialism and the immigration of people from around the world into the United States have placed English speaking people in contact with many other languages, resulting in the English language borrowing many words from other languages. Many of these words are from European language such as: the French - ballet, champagne, quiche, bastion, cavalry, and garage; Spanish - armadillo, bravado, guitar, and tortilla; and the Italian - broccoli, casino, piano, opera, and umbrella. Additionally, English has borrowed words from: Sanskrit such as avatar and yoga; Hindi such as cummerbund and juggernaut; Chinese such as ginseng and kowtow; as well as Japanese words such as karaoke and sushi. This is but a small sampling of the impact that borrowed words have had on the English language.

2.2 Code Switching

Perhaps the most extraordinary result of language contact is known as Code Switching (CS). Cantone (2005:478) quoting Meisel, defines CS as 'the ability to select the language according to the interlocutor, the situational context, the topic of conversation, and so forth, and to change languages within an interactional sequence in accordance with sociolinguistic rules and without violating specific grammatical constraints'. According to Winford (2003:14) CS "involves the alternate use of two languages (or dialects) within the same stretch of speech, often within the same sentence." In other words: "The speaker stops using language A and uses language B, so that syntactic connections are now with items from the speaker's language-B system." (Clyne: 740).

It is uncontroversial that CS differs from the other major manifestation of language contact: lexical borrowing. Despite etymological identity with the donor language, established loanwords assume the morphological, syntactic, and often, phonological, identity of the recipient language. They tend to be recurrent in the speech of the individual and widespread across the community. The stock of established loanwords is available to monolingual speakers of the recipient language, along with the remainder of the recipient language lexicon. Loanwords further differ from CS in that there is no involvement of the morphology, syntax or phonology of the donor language (Poplack 2004)

The act of switching between two, or more, languages within a single sentence sometimes calls for a highly proficient speaker. MacSwan (2005:37) suggests that CS occurs most often with individuals who are simultaneously bilingual, meaning they learn both languages from infancy. Different from borrowing, either "morphology, syntax or phonology of the donor language" (Poplack 2004:3) is involved; nevertheless switched sentences do not include ungrammatical sentence fragments. The phenomenon of code switching therefore is said to mostly occur in the speech of competent bi-, or multilingual speakers. Winford (2003:14) explains that CS frequently occurs in bilingual communities and provides the following example from a 9-year-old Puerto Rican girl from Spanish Harlem, New York City. (The Spanish items are italicized).

Hey Lolita, but the Skylab, the Skylab no se cayo pa (-ra) que se acabe el mundo. It falls in pieces. Si se cae completo, yeah. The Skylab es una cosa que (e-)sta rodeando el moon taking pictures of it. Tiene tubos en el medio. Tiene tubos en el medio. It's like a rocket. It's like a rocket.

(Hey Lolita, but the Skylab, the Skylab ("didn't fall for the world to end"). It falls in pieces. ("If it falls whole"), yeah. The Skylab ("is something that's going around the") moon taking pictures of it. ("It has tubes in the middle") [repeated]. It's like a rocket [repeated]. (Winford 2003:14)

Winford (2003:14) explains that the girl switches the languages both between and with clauses. This represents inter- and intra- sentential code switching.

2.2.1 Types of Code Switching

Depending on 'where' and 'how' the switch occurs within the sentence CS can be classified into various types. The most prominent and commonly referred classification derived from Poplack's 1980 study. She identified three types of code switching: tag-switching, intersentential and intrasentential code switching.

Inserting a word or chunk of words of one language into an otherwise monolingual speech of another language is called Tag-Switching. Those words or utterances may include interjections, fillers, tags, and idiomatic expressions. All of which can be produced in L2 with only minimal knowledge of the grammar of that language (Poplack 1980:605). Without underlying many grammatical restrictions these utterances can occur at several points within a sentence. The phenomenon of tag-switching can therefore often be found among less proficient speakers of the second language.

If the speech alternates between two languages at sentence boundaries only it is defined as Intersential Code Switching. This means the switch can only occur between two sentences or sentence fragments, each of which is entirely produced in one language, namely the recipient language. Since a speaker must be able to recognize possible boundaries little more language skills are required if compared to tag-switching. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of Intersential CS occurs among speakers of all proficiency levels. (Poplack 1989)

Intrasentential Code Switching defines the alternate use of two or more languages within a single sentence, sentence fragments or even within a single word. The switch could possibly occur at any point within the utterance; yet, the important thing to note is that it does not seem to occur randomly. Several grammatical restrictions define where a switching of languages is allowed and where not. This kind of switching requires highly proficient language abilities and is almost exclusively found among bi- or multilingual speakers. "[T]he speaker must (…) know enough about the grammar of each language, and the way they interact, to avoid ungrammatical utterances" (Poplack 1980:605).

Figure number 1 illustrates how the two languages interact with each other if switched according to Poplack:

Figure 1: Types of Code Switching (Poplack 1980:615)

Furthermore Poplack found in her 1980 study that the categorized types are related to language ability. The most proficient language users, namely bilinguals, favor inter- and intrasentential CS which "require most knowledge of both languages" (Poplack 1980:606) whereas tag-switched sentences are preferred by less proficient and non-bilingual speakers who, in comparison to their first language, are less competent in their second language.

3. Grammar of Intrasentential Code Switching

As already mentioned in chapter 2.2.1 the switching of languages within a single sentence is no random occurrence. As many researchers observed that "bilinguals tend to switch intra-sententially at certain (morpho) syntactic boundaries and not at others" (Poplack 2004:1). According to Poplack (2004:1) the government of grammatical constraints on CS has become a largely accepted fact. "Though, there is little consensus on what they are or how they should be represented" (Poplack 2004:1). The question arises in which way two separate grammars merge to one grammatically correct sentence and which grammar governs the switching. The following chapter gives an overview of the most prominent theories of CS grammar.

3.1 One Grammar

MacSwan (2000:42) asserts that all theories which try to impose grammatical constraints on CS have conceptual and empirical shortcomings. However, two common threads emerge which should be mentioned. According to MacSwan (2000:42) "Poplack (1980) and Belazi et al. (1994) share an intuition that a basic conflict in the requirements of the mixed grammars is responsible for ungrammaticality in code switching, an appealing idea, which, as I will try to illustrate below, could prove extremely fruitful in the analysis of code switching data." Additionally, MacSwan (2000:42) explains that "Mahootian (1993) and Belazi et al. (1994) have both insisted that there are no constraints which operate on code-switched constructions which do not also operate on monolingual constructions, a suggestion which goes back at least as far as Woolford (1983). Despite this, both frameworks proceed to formulate arbitrary limits on the range of grammatical apparatus relevant to bilingual code switching (namely, the complement relation). In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to limit the range of grammatical relations that interact with code switching. In fact, data considered so far constitutes strong evidence that this relation alone cannot account for all of the facts of language mixture."

The basic premise of the One Grammar or Minimalist theory of CS grammar is: "Nothing constrains code switching apart from the requirements of the mixed grammars" (MacSwan 2000:43). In other words, all of the facts of code switching may be explained just in terms of principles and requirements of the specific grammars used in each specific utterance.

Therefore, MacSwan (2000:43) presents a Minimalist Program "whose basic mechanisms consist not in the operation of rules of grammar which apply specifically in code switching contexts, but in a principled consideration of ways in which discrete components of the grammar are allowed to interface in bilingualism." Thus a minimalist approach to code switching (which adheres to the agenda) might posit that lexical items may be drawn from the lexicon of either language to introduce features into the numeration, which must then be checked for convergence in the same way as monolingual features must be checked, with no special mechanisms permitted. In this lexical approach, no control structure or code switching-specific rules are required to mediate contradictory requirements of the mixed systems. The requirements are simply carried along with the lexical items of the respective systems. Thus, it makes sense to formalize the grammar used for code switching as the union of the two lexicons with no mediating mechanisms.

MacSwan (2000:43) describes two central components to the Minimalist Model: "CHL, a computational system for human language, which is presumed to be invariant across languages, and a lexicon, to which the idiosyncratic differences observed across languages are attributed." Additionally MacSwan (2000:43) suggests that "phrase structure does not vary across languages; surface differences in word order relate only to the re-arrangement of elements in the syntactic tree as the result of movement operations, triggered by lexically encoded morphological features."

MacSwan (2000:43) describes this as the Select, Merge, Move operation. According to MacSwan (2000:43): "An operation, which may be called Select, picks lexical items from the lexicon and introduces them into the numeration, an assembled subset of the lexicon used to construct a derivation. Another operation, Merge, takes items from the numeration and forms new, hierarchically arranged syntactic objects (substructures). The operation Move applies to syntactic objects formed by Merge to build new structures."

Therefore, in the Minimalist Program, phrase structure trees are built derivationally by the application of the three operations Select, Merge and Move, constrained only by the condition that lexically encoded features match in the course of a derivation. (Seite 85).

Figure 2 represents the Minimalist Framework, according to MacSwan (2000:44):

Figure 2: The Minimalist Framework

MacSwan (2000:44) further asserts that, "A very important aspect of minimalism is that all learning is lexical, and all parameters are microparameters associated with individual lexical items. This makes a rather different conception of bilingualism possible, since it is no longer necessary to regard grammars as compartmentalized in some way in the language faculty. In the minimalist framework, CHL is invariant across languages, and the Lexicon does not need to be privy to sociopolitical distinctions like Spanish, Nahuatl, and Chinese."

According to MacSwan (1997: 174) "the central, leading aim of Chomsky's (1995a) minimalist program is the elimination of all mechanisms that are not necessary and essential on conceptual grounds alone; thus, only the minimal theoretical assumptions may be made to account for linguistic data, privileging more simplistic and elegant accounts over complex and cumbersome ones." Therefore, theories of code switching which make use of independently motivated principles of grammar are favored over those which posit rules, principles or other constructs specific to it (MacSwan 1997: 174).

3.2 Two Grammars

An alternate explanations for how grammar combines in CS is the theory of two grammars. Under this model, "the grammars of the two languages are not altered in any way; no hybrid rules of any sort are created. The two grammars operate during code-switching just as they do during monolingual speech, except that each grammar generates only part of the sentence" (Wooford 1983: 522). Figure 3 provides partial representation of a model of how two monolingual grammars co-operate to generate codeswitching sentences.

Figure 3 (Woolford 1983:523).

According to Woolford (1983:523) phrases that occur in the overlap cannot be distinguished grammatically as either of the contributing languages (Spanish and English in this case, but actually simultaneously belong to both grammars. Woolford (1983:523) explains that, "This area of overlap between the two phrase structure components should be thought of as a sort of space warp that allows one speaker to be in two universes, or two grammars, at once. The lexicons and word formation components of the two grammars remain entirely separate from each other. That is, English lexical items fill terminal nodes created by English phrase structure rules; likewise, the Spanish lexicon inserts lexical items into terminal nodes created by Spanish phrase structure rules."

Woolford provides several examples:

(1) I put the forks en las mesas. (McClure (1977))

'I put the forks on the tables.'

"Example (1) is a syntactic construction common to both English and Spanish; it is generated entirely by common phrase structure rules from the area of intersection of the two phrase structure components" (Woolford 1983:524).

(2) Todos los Mexicanos were riled up. (Pfaff (1979))

'All the Mexicans were riled up.'

"In (2) the subject NP is filled entirely in Spanish (although the structure is common to both languages), while the rest of the sentence is in English" (Woolford 1983:524).

(3) No van a bring it up in the meeting. (Pfaff (1979))

'They are not going to bring it up in the meeting.'

"In (3) the sentence begins in Spanish, switching to English in the embedded VP" (Woolford 1983:524).

(4) El hombre who saw the accident es cubano. (Gingras (1974))

'The man who saw the accident is Cuban.'

Example (4) involves two code switches. The embedded clause is English, but the rest of the sentence is Spanish. (Woolford 1983:524).

(5) En Puerto Rico he would say que cortaba cania, even though tenia su negocio, you know. (Sankoff and Poplack (1980))

'In Puerto Rico he would say that he cut cane even though he has his own business, you know.'

Example (5) involves switches at several major constituent breaks.

Poplack (1979) establishes that there is no word-internal code-switching, and pro-poses a surface structure constraint to this effect. The impossibility of word-internal code-switching follows directly under this model from the fact that the autonomous word formation components remain separate and do not interact in any way. The two monolingual grammars cooperate in the production of code-switched utterances, but none of the rules of either grammar are altered in any way. Phrase structure rules are drawn freely from both grammars during the construction of constituent structure trees, but the lexicon of each grammar is limited to filling only those terminal nodes created by phrase structure rules drawn from the same language. Nevertheless, in the event that there are phrase structure rules common to both languages, such rules belong simultaneously to both languages. Lexical items can be freely drawn from either language to fill terminal nodes created by phrase structure rules common to both languages. During lexical insertion, the lexical sub-categorization frames of the items inserted must be satisfied in a hybrid sentence just as they are in a monolingual sentence. The word formation processes of the two grammars remain entirely separate and do not interact in any way. Transformations and rules of semantic interpretation that are common to both languages apply freely to hybrid trees, but there are restrictions on the application of rules unique to one language.