Themes in the study of code-switching

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
1
Themes in the study
of code-switching BarbaraE.Bullock
and
Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
1.1 Introduction
Of all of the contact phenomena of interest to researchers and students of
bilingualism, code-switching (hereafter CS) has arguably dominated the
field. Broadly defined, CS is the ability on the part of bilinguals to alternate
effortlessly between their two languages. This capacity is truly remarkable
and invites scientific and scholarly analysis from professionals, but, at the
same time, generates a great deal of pointed discussion that reflects pop-
ular misperceptions of the nature of CS in particular and bilinguals more
generally. While CS is viewed as an index of bilingual proficiency among
linguists, it is more commonly perceived by the general public as indica-
tive of language degeneration. This disparity can be best understood by
reference to notions of grammar. Most laypeople define grammar as a
set of statements about how we should correctly use our language. Such
an understanding of grammar is properly called prescriptive, because it
attempts to mandate or prescribe the way language should be used.
Linguists, who study language objectively, are more interested in descrip-
tive grammars, which represent speakers’ unconscious knowledge of their
languages as manifested in their actual linguistic behavior. Bilinguals in
language contact situations commonly use forms that integrate their two
languages to some degree, a behavior that is disparaged by language
purists, who insist that each language maintain its integrity according to
prescribed norms. For the linguist, on the other hand, CS provides a
unique window on the structural outcomes of language contact, which
can be shown to be systematic rather than aberrant. Further, the act of CS
can be studied as a reflection of social constructs and of the cognitive
mechanisms that control language switching. From the perspective of
linguistics, then, CS is worthy of study for a variety of reasons.
The significance of this phenomenon in illuminating bilingual cognition
and behavior cannot be underestimated, first and foremost because CS is
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
2
B A R B A R A E . B U L L O C K A N D A L M E I D A J A C Q U E L I N E T O R I B I O
exclusive to bilinguals. Nevertheless, many controversies exist in the study
of CS, in large part because the phenomenon has been approached from
different disciplinary perspectives, and as a consequence has evaded a uni-
form definition and explanation. The purpose of this chapter is to present
an overview of CS from the perspective of linguistics, with a view towards
defining CS, identifying who engages in CS and for what purposes, and
delineating the various approaches to the study of CS. The overarching goal
of the chapter is to set out why the study of CS is important, and by so doing
to dispel misconceptions regarding language alternation among bilinguals.
1.2 What is code-switching?
All speakers selectively draw on the language varieties in their linguistic
repertoire, as dictated by their intentions and by the needs of the speech
participants and the conversational setting. Even monolinguals are capable
of shifting between the linguistic registers and the dialects they command
and, as such, there are parallels that can be drawn between monolingual
and bilingual language use. For convenience, we can refer to such mono-
lingual behavior as style shifting. In turn, bilinguals have available not only
different registers and dialects of one language, but of two. As is true of
monolingual style shifting, it is not uncommon for bilinguals to segregate
their languages, speaking exclusively in one language in certain domains
(e.g. at home, with friends) while shifting to another in other contexts (e.g.
school, work), a bilingual behavior commonly referred to as language shifting.
Given the appropriate circumstances, many bilinguals will exploit this
ability and alternate between languages in an unchanged setting, often
within the same utterance; this is the phenomenon understood as CS.
CS comprises a broad range of contact phenomena and is difficult
to characterize definitively. First, its linguistic manifestation may extend
from the insertion of single words to the alternation of languages for larger
segments of discourse. Second, it is produced by bilinguals of differing
degrees of proficiency who reside in various types of language contact
settings, and as a consequence their CS patterns may not be uniform.
Finally, it may be deployed for a number of reasons: filling linguistic
gaps, expressing ethnic identity, and achieving particular discursive
aims, among others. Given these factors, it is not surprising that there
exists debate in the literature concerning the precise characterization of
CS and how various kinds of language contact varieties are to be classified.
An incontrovertible example of CS is to be found in the English–Spanish
bilingual title of Poplack’s (1980) seminal article:
(1)
Spanish–English
Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish [sic] y termino en espan˜ol
“ . . . and I finish in Spanish.”
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
Themes in the study of code-switching
3
Note that there are readily identifiable constituents from English and
Spanish and that their combination here does not violate the grammar
of either language. This type of language alternation has been termed
Classic CS (Myers-Scotton 1993a) or alternational CS (Muysken 2000), but
is most widely known as intra-sentential CS (Poplack 1980). This contrasts
with inter-sentential CS, as in (2), where alternation occurs at clause
boundaries.
(2)
Swahili–English
That’s too much. Sina pesa.
“ . . . I don’t have [much] money.”
(Myers-Scotton 1993a:41)
Like intra-sentential CS, inter-sentential switching requires an advanced
level of bilingual proficiency as it often entails the production of full
clauses in each language. However, the former, but not the latter, can
offer insights into the ways in which the two grammars of the bilingual
interact at the sentence level.
Muysken (2000) advances a typology of CS patterns, suggesting that
bilinguals employ three distinct strategies: alternation, where the two lan-
guages remain relatively separated in an A–B configuration, as exemplified
in (1) and (2) above; congruent lexicalization, in which the two languages
share a common grammatical structure that can be filled with lexical
elements from either language, as in (3); and insertion, which involves the
embedding of a constituent – usually a word or a phrase – in a nested A–B–A
structure, as in (4).
(3)
Dutch–Sranan
wan heri gedeelte de ondro beheer fu gewapende machten
one wholepart cop under control of armed force
“One whole part is under control of the armed forces.”
(Bolle 1994:75, cited in Muysken 2000:139)
(4)
Persian–Swedish
xob pas falsk-an pesa-aˆ
well then false-cop3pl boy-pl
“Well then boys are false.”
(Naseh Lotfabbadi 2002:101)
Congruent lexicalization is most prevalent between languages that
are closely related typologically (Sranan in (3) is a Dutch-based creole).
Alternations such as in (3) have been analyzed as constituting a composite
matrix language (Myers-Scotton 2003), which arises “when speakers pro-
duce structures for which the source of structure is split between two or
more varieties (2003:99).” Myers-Scotton further maintains that composite
structures arise in contexts of language shift. For this reason alone, con-
gruent lexicalization differs from Classic CS, i.e. intra-sentential CS, for
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
4
B A R B A R A E . B U L L O C K A N D A L M E I D A J A C Q U E L I N E T O R I B I O
which it is assumed bilinguals fully maintain both language systems.
Insertion, as in (4), can also arguably be viewed as distinct from intra-
sentential CS, as it has much in common with lexical borrowing, which
does not necessitate bilingual proficiency. Similarly, tag-switching may
also occur among bilinguals with limited abilities in one language, as it
is defined by the insertion of a formulaic expression from language B
(e.g. so, well, d’accord?) into an utterance in language A, primarily for
pragmatic effect, as in (5).
(5)
Frenchville French–English
Les autres pourraient [sic] parler franc¸ais comme lui, ya know
“The others could speak French like him, . . . ”
(Bullock fieldnotes)
In brief, although all of the above forms can be classified as CS, it is
Classic or intra-sentential CS that may reveal the most about language
structure. Consider, again, the example in (1). Because Spanish and English
have similar surface structures for this expression, the lexemes can be
aligned more or less in a one-to-one fashion. Thus, numerous other CS
patterns should be possible. However, consider the hypothetical examples
in (6):
(6)
a. *Sometimes yo will empezar a oracio
´ n in ingle
´ s and termino in
espan˜ol.
b. *Sometimes I’ll empezar una oracio
´ n en ingle
´ s y I finish in Spanish.
c. *A veces yo will start a sentence in English and I termino en espan˜ol.
In (6a), the alternation between English and Spanish occurs at every
other word. In (6b, 6c), the switching is less frequent, allowing for longer
stretches of English and Spanish. Significantly, though, none of these
sentences would be attested nor accepted among Spanish–English bilin-
guals because each is in violation of core principles of CS.
Clearly, CS is not the random mixing of two languages, as is popularly
assumed. Nevertheless, this misperception endures, as evidenced by the
various metaphors and terms ascribed to bilingual speech varieties. For
instance, metaphors whereby contact varieties are likened to a mix of
grains are common (e.g. trasjanka for mixed Russian–Byelorussian speech,
literally “hay and straw,” and surzhyk for mixed Ukranian–Russian, literally
“wheat and rye”). Also common are portmanteau creations such as finng-
lish, inglen˜ol, franglais, portingleˆs, and so on. While these terms are playful
they often carry pejorative connotations that the speech varieties they
reference are nothing but a linguistic hodgepodge and that the speakers
who use them are uneducated and incapable of expressing themselves in
one or the other language. However, a significant body of research has
amply demonstrated that CS does not represent a breakdown in commu-
nication, but reflects the skillful manipulation of two language systems
for various communicative functions. This is articulated through a
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
Themes in the study of code-switching
5
different – and to our mind, more apt – metaphor offered by Valde´s: “[I]t is
helpful to imagine that when bilinguals code-switch, they are in fact using
a twelve-string guitar, rather than limiting themselves to two six-string
instruments (1988:126).”
1.3 Distinguishing CS from other contact phenomena
CS is to be distinguished from other types of contact phenomena, although
it is not always the case that clear-cut distinctions can be drawn. For
instance, as noted above, insertional CS can be equated with borrowing.
However, the term borrowing has been used to describe many different
forms, from the transfer of structural features (e.g. phonemes, suffixes) to
that of whole clauses. Lexical borrowing normally involves the morpho-
logical and phonological integration of a single lexeme, as in the Japanese
word basubaru, from English “baseball,” which is fully established in the
monolingual Japanese lexicon. But unassimilated loan words, also called
nonce borrowings (Poplack et al. 1988), can occur spontaneously in the
speech of bilinguals, blurring any boundary that can be drawn between
these contact forms on structural criteria alone. It is evident that nonce
borrowing is akin to CS because both are attested in the speech of bilin-
guals and unlikely to be found in that of monolinguals; hence some
researchers (e.g. Treffers-Daller 1991; Myers-Scotton 1993a) view borrow-
ing and CS as falling along a continuum (see Bullock, Treffers-Daller, this
volume).
Other contact forms are more easily differentiated from CS, although
they too implicate the transfer of material from one language into the
other (see Treffers-Daller, this volume, on the relation between transfer
and CS). Loan translations or calques, as in (7), involve the importation of
foreign patterns or meanings with the retention of native-language mor-
phemes (see Backus and Dorleijn, this volume). Also attested in bilingual
speech are cross-linguistic semantic extensions, where a word from lan-
guage A takes on additional meanings that are modeled by language B,
as in (8).
(7)
a. US Chicano Spanish
escuela alta “high school”
literally “school high”
(cf. Spanish secundaria)
b. US French
e´tudiant gradue´ “graduate student”
literally “student graduated”
(cf. French e´tudiant de troisie`me cycle)
(8)
a. US Spanish
mayor [madʒor] “mayor”
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
6
B A R B A R A E . B U L L O C K A N D A L M E I D A J A C Q U E L I N E T O R I B I O
literally “older”
(cf. Spanish alcalde)
b. US French
enregistrer “register (for a course)”
literally “check a bag”
(cf. French s’inscrire)
CS is also distinct from mixed languages, which are contact varieties that
derive components of their grammatical systems from diverse genetic
sources. For example, Media Lengua, spoken as a native language in the
highlands of Central Ecuador, has been described as a prototypical mixed
language (Muysken 1988, 1996). The general properties of Media Lengua
include Quechua morpho-syntax combined with Spanish lexical stems, as
shown in (9).
(9)
Media Lengua
Unu fabur-ta pidi-nga-bu bini-xu-ni
one favor-acc ask-nom-ben come-prog-1sg
“I come to ask a favor”
cf. Quechua: Shuk fabur-ta man˜a-nga-bu shamu-xu-ni
one favor-acc ask-nom-ben come-prog-1sg
cf. Spanish: Vengo para pedir un favor
I-come for ask-inf a favor
(Muysken 1981:68–69)
Media Lengua is structurally distinct from Quechua and Spanish and is
not intelligible to monolingual speakers of those languages. Unlike
mixed languages, CS does not constitute a composite or hybrid system.
However, it is conceivable that mixed languages may have arisen within
communities where bilingual CS was prevalent; indeed, this is explicitly
argued to be the case for at least one mixed language, Gurindji Kriol,
spoken in the Northern Territory of Australia (McConvell and Meakins
2005). However, the origins of most mixed languages are not well under-
stood and whether CS lies at their source remains an issue of debate
within contact linguistics.
Finally, CS should not be confused with diglossia. Diglossia describes a
community where languages or language varieties are functionally com-
partmentalized. Within such a situation, each language form is associ-
ated with a particular social function. A well-cited example is the
functional distribution of languages in Paraguay, where Spanish is used
in official and institutional contexts, and Guaran´ı is relegated to informal
domains. In diglossic settings, the selection of which language to use is
not free, but determined by community norms; that is, diglossia is
socially imposed. In contrast, CS is understood as an individual phenom-
enon wherein a speaker chooses when, why, and how to alternate
between languages.
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
Themes in the study of code-switching
7
1.4 Who engages in CS?
Any healthy individual who speaks more than one language has the
capacity to select the appropriate language in a given situation. Only in
certain instances of brain damage is language selection impaired with
pathological switching as a result (see Kutas et al., this volume). CS, in the
normal case, is under the conscious control of the speaker and, signifi-
cantly, not all bilinguals are observed to engage in CS. Thus, a relevant
domain of inquiry is to examine the individual, discursive, and social
conditions under which a bilingual deploys both languages simultane-
ously. Since CS is manifested only in the speech of the bilingual it is also
necessary first to ask, who is a bilingual?
1.4.1 CS and bilingual proficiency
“Bilingual” is a cover term that encompasses speakers who fall along a
“bilingual range,” a continuum of linguistic abilities and communicative
strategies (Valde´s 2001). As a consequence, there may be a relationship
between a speaker’s place in the bilingual continuum and the quality
and quantity of CS attested. Therefore, a careful consideration of how a
bilingual is defined is in order. The layperson’s definition holds that a
bilingual is an individual who has native-like control of two (or more)
languages (a definition also offered by the linguist Bloomfield in 1933).
Specialists, too, have employed terms such as balanced bilingual, true bilingual,
and symmetrical bilingual to describe such a person. But consider what this
would involve: no accent, no non-target word selection, and the ability to
converse on any subject with any interlocutor at any time in either lan-
guage. Such a bilingual would be like the putative “two monolinguals in
one,” a metaphor made current by Grosjean (1998). However, monolingual-
like control of two languages over all aspects of linguistic knowledge and
use within all domains is rare, if possible at all. Most bilinguals show
disparate abilities in their component languages, for a myriad of reasons,
including age of second language acquisition, the quality of linguistic input
received, the language most used, and the status of the language in the
community.
Speakers who have been exposed to two languages from birth or early
childhood – simultaneous or early bilinguals – and who have maintained the
use of their languages throughout their lifespan most closely approximate
what is meant by true bilingual. These speakers possess advanced linguis-
tic and communicative abilities in both languages, and are able to deploy
each as required. The examples in 10, taken from Ko¨ppe and Meisel
(1995:285), show the language alternations of Ivar (age 2;05), as he inter-
acts with a French-speaking interviewer (F) and a German-speaking inter-
locutor (G).
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
8
B A R B A R A E . B U L L O C K A N D A L M E I D A J A C Q U E L I N E T O R I B I O
(10) Iv (to G):
oh der kann nich fahr(en) der auto
“Oh this one can’t move the car.”
F:
qu’est-ce qu’elle a fait l’auto la voiture?
“What has it done the auto the car?”
Iv:
peut peut pas rouler
“can can not move”
As demonstrated in (10), Ivar is clearly able to separate his languages yet, at
the same time, he is also reported to code-switch. Veh (1990) and Meisel
(1994) report a high rate of language mixing for Ivar until around the age
of 2;05, mostly between deictic elements and nouns (11a) and between
verbs and nouns (11b). In (11c), Ivar uses translation equivalents, a com-
mon strategy for emphasis among bilinguals.
(11)
a. das bateau (2;00,02)
“this boat”
(Ko¨ppe and Meisel 1995:291)
b. sent fu¨be (2;04,09)
“smell feet”
(Ko¨ppe and Meisel 1995:291)
c. j’ai trouve´ – i gefunden diese! (2;08,15)
“I have found – I (have) found these.”
(Schlyter 1990:114)
CS, then, is not indicative either of the bilingual’s inability to separate
his languages or of a lack of proficiency. Rather it is an additional commu-
nication resource available to bilinguals. CS also speaks to a bilingual’s
competence in each of the two languages. Various researchers have dem-
onstrated that the ability to switch at the intra-sentential level correlates
with increased mastery of linguistic structures. In particular, Genesee and
his colleagues in Canada and Meisel and his colleagues in Germany have
charted the language patterns of bilingual children and demonstrated
that development in each language proceeds independently and that as
the acquisition of the syntax of their component languages progresses,
their language mixing patterns become more adult-like (see Mu¨ller and
Cantone, Miccio et al., this volume).
Simultaneous bilingualism is frequently encountered in immigrant and
guest-worker communities. Such communities also give rise to second
generation, or heritage, bilinguals who, unlike their parents, may be dom-
inant in the majority language. As their contact with the majority language
increases, their use of and exposure to the home language may become
more restricted. Thus, in addition to CS, their productions may also
demonstrate features that are typical of language attrition including loan
translations or calquing, semantic extensions and convergence (see Sebba,
Bolonyai, this volume). It is usually the case that by the third generation
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
Themes in the study of code-switching
9
the descendants of immigrants will have shifted to the dominant lan-
guage, retaining only residual, formulaic traces of the heritage language
in their speech. Oftentimes, this may be reflected in their CS patterns,
which have been reduced to lexical insertion and/or tag-switching. In
this respect, heritage speakers’ linguistic forms come to resemble those
attested among second language learners.
Second language acquirers or late bilinguals are those who have a linguistic
system fully in place when their exposure to the second begins. Clearly,
under this definition, we find a vast range of patterns of acquisition and
outcomes. Naturalistic or folk bilinguals who learn a second language without
formal instruction (e.g. immigrants and guest-workers) will differ greatly
from so-called elite bilinguals whose language learning is primarily class-
room based. Not only do these two types of bilinguals differ according to the
context of second language learning, but they may also differ in terms of
motivation. For many naturalistic bilinguals, second language learning is a
necessity, as they cannot function easily in the dominant society without
such knowledge. Elite bilinguals, on the other hand, often choose to learn a
second language for personal or professional gain. Among speakers of both
groups, particularly in the early stages of acquisition, CS results from an
inability to produce a target form. Due to temporary or permanent lapses in
knowledge, learners may switch to the native language, a process referred
to as crutching. But as their proficiency develops, CS among second language
learners and folk bilinguals, if attested, will resemble that of more fluent
bilinguals. Thus, even among incipient bilinguals, CS patterns may be used
as a measure of bilingual ability, rather than deficit. In fact, the degree of
language proficiency that a speaker possesses in two languages has been
shown to correlate with the type of CS engaged in. Poplack (1980)
observes that adult bilinguals who reported to be dominant in one lan-
guage tended to switch by means of tag-like phrases; in contrast, those
who reported and demonstrated the greatest degree of bilingual ability
favored intra-sentential switches. Similar patterns were attested among
the school-age children studied by McClure (1981), who concludes that
. . . just as the monolingual improves his control over his verbal resources
with age, so too does the bilingual. Further, just as there is a developmental
pattern in the monolingual’s syntactic control of his language, so too may
such a pattern be found in the bilingual’s control of the syntax of code-
switching, which begins with the mixing of single items from one code
into discourse in the other and culminates in the code changing of even
more complex constituents (1981:92).
1.4.2 Why bilinguals code-switch
Despite the fact that CS has been shown to index bilingual linguistic and
communicative skills rather than shortcomings, CS remains largely
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87591-2 - The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio
Excerpt
More information
10
B A R B A R A E . B U L L O C K A N D A L M E I D A J A C Q U E L I N E T O R I B I O
stigmatized. Nevertheless bilinguals do choose to code-switch, a decision
that is influenced by a number of social and discursive factors (see
Gafaranga, Gardner-Chloros, Khattab, this volume). At the community
level, the persistence of CS may reflect the covert prestige ascribed to
this linguistic behavior. In particular, CS may serve as a marker of group
membership and solidarity. Importantly, bilinguals only code-switch with
other bilinguals with whom they share a dual language identity. For many,
CS is a speech form that allows for the expression of their membership
in two cultures: the dominant and the minority. Within some strata of
bilingual communities, CS carries overt prestige. For example, Sankoff
(1980) reports that in some areas of lowlands New Guinea, villagers are
trilingual in Buang, Tok Pisin, and Yabem, and switching among them is
the most prestigious form of public-speaking and is expected of persons
in possession of power. In other instances, switching into a particular
language may confer status on a speaker. For example, in Bulgaria, trilin-
gual Muslim Roms who speak Romani, Bulgarian, and Turkish will code-
switch into Turkish, as it has higher prestige than the other languages they
command (Kyuchukov 2006).
There are also discursive functions that motivate the presence of CS
in bilingual conversation. These pertain to the speaker’s communicative
intentions. Gumperz, in his seminal work on bilingual discursive strat-
egies (1976, 1982a), describes many important functions served by
CS. The premise underlying his and subsequent studies is that CS is a
conscious choice on the part of the speaker, used to mark quotations,
emphasis, realignment of speech roles, reiteration, and elaboration,
among others. In (13), from Romaine (1995:162), a girl from Papua New
Guinea inserts an English quotation from a cartoon into a Tok Pisin
utterance. In (14), from Frenchville, PA (USA), the speaker uses English
for translation/repair of an ill-formed French sentence that he is quoting.
In (15), from Zentella (1997:94), the speaker switches from Spanish to
English to mark a role shift. Finally, in (16), a Japanese–English bilingual
uses Japanese to introduce the discourse topic (Nishimura 1985a, cited in
Romaine 1995:163).
(12)
Tok Pisin–English
Lapun man ia kam na tok, “oh you poor pusiket,” na em go insait.
“The old man came and said, . . . , and then he went inside.”
(13)
Frenchville, PA, French–English
Elle m’a dit, “il pleuve [sic] maintenant.” It’s raining now. That’s not
good French, is it?
“She said to me ‘it’s raining now [cf. il pleut]’ . . . ”
(14)
Spanish–English
Mi nombre es Lourdes. Now we turn to my sister.
“My name is Lourdes . . . ”
© Cambridge University Press
www.cambridge.org

---