Sociolinguistics Soziolinguistik An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft 2nd completely revised and extended edition 2., vollstandig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
Edited by / Herausgegeben von Ulrich Ammon . Norbert Dittmar Klaus 1. Mattheier . Peter Trudgill
Volume 1 / 1. Teilband
Offprint I Sonderdruck
Walter de Gruyter . Berlin· New York 70. Code-Switching 589
70. Code-Switching/Sprachwechsel
1. Linguistic manifestations of language conjunctions and their conjuncts), but these contact were soon met with a host of counter- 2. Theories of CS examples. 3. Fitting theory to data The first general account of the distribu- 4. The data of cs tion of stemmed from the observation 5. Community strategies for CS es 6. Summary that es is favored at the kinds of syntactic 7. Literature (selected) boundaries which occur in both languages. The Equivalence Constraint (Poplack 1980) states that switched sentences are made up 1. Linguistic manifestations of of concatenated fragments of alternating language contact languages, each of which is grammatical in the language of its provenance (see also Code-switching (eS) is but one of a number Lipski 1978; Muysken 2000; Pfaff 1979). of the linguistic manifestations of language The boundary between adjacent fragments contact and mixing, which variously include occurs between two constituents that are borrowing on the lexical and syntactic levels, ordered in the same way in both languages, language transfer, linguistic convergence, ensuring the linear coherence of sentence interference, language attrition, language structure without omitting or duplicating death, pidginization and creolization, among lexical content. others. There is little consensus in the litera- That general principles, rather than atom- ture over which aspects should be subsumed istic constraints, govern es is now widely under the label code-switching. In this ar- accepted, though there is little consensus as ticle, es refers to the utterance-internal jux- to what they are or how they should be rep- taposition, in unintegrated form, of overt resented. Many theories assume that the linguistic elements from two or more lan- mechanisms for language switching are di- guages, with no necessary change of inter- rectly predictable from general principles of locutor or topic. (monolingual) grammar. As extensions of Mixing may take place at any level of lin- the formal linguistic theories successively in guistic structure, and a long research tradi- vogue, these tend to appeal to such abstract tion has grown up around questions of lan- grammatical properties as inter-constituent guage choice and language negotiation relationships (e.g., government, case assign- among interlocutors in bilingual contexts ment) andlor language-specific features of (Gumperz 1976/1982; Heller 1982). But the lexical categories (i.e., subcategorization of combination of languages within the con- grammatical arguments, inherent morpho- fines of a single sentence, constituent or logical features). even word, has proved most intriguing to Di Sciullo et al. (1986), for example, ident- linguists. This article surveys the treatment ified the relevant relations as C-command in the literature, linguistic and social, of and governme;nt: es cannot occur where a such intra-sentential es. government relation holds. Replacement of the function of government in standard the- 2. Theories of CS ory by the notion of feature agreement led to a parallel focus on feature matching in es First dismissed as random and deviant (e.g., studies. The Functional Head Constraint Weinreich 1953/1968) intra-sentential es (Belazi et al. 1994) adds language choice t6 is now known to be grammatically con- the features instantiated in functional and strained. The basis for this is the empirical lexical categories, prohibiting es where a observation that bilinguals tend to switch mismatch occurs. MacSwan's (1999) C:ldap- intra-sententially at certain (morpho )syn- tation of the Minimalist proposal restricts tactic boundaries and not at others. Early CS at structural sites showing cross-lan- efforts to describe these tendencies (e.g., guage differences in monolingual features. Gumperz 197611982; Timm 1975) offered The distinction between lexical and func- taxonomies of sites in the sentence where es tional categories is a hallmark oftheories in- could and could not occur (e.g., between voking the complement structure of individ- pronominal subjects and verbs or between ual1exica1 items to characterize permissible 590 IV. The Social Implications of Levels of Linguistic Analysis
CS sites (e.g., Joshi 1985 and its sequel, the predictions of the theory with the data of the Null Theory of CS (SantorinilMahootian actual bilingual behavior. 1995); see also BentahilalDavies' Subcat- egorisation Constraint (1983)). Perhaps the 3.1. CS vs. borrowing most detailed mo-del involving the contrast It is uncontroversial that CS differs from the between lexical properties and functional other major manifestation of language con- (or "system") morphemes is the Matrix tact: lexical borrowing. Despite etymological Language Frame model (Azuma 1993; identity with the donor language, estab- Myers-Scotton 1993). Here, structural con- lished loanwords assume the morphological, straints on CS result from a complex inter- syntactic, and often, phonological, identity action between a dominant matrix language of the recipient language. They tend to be -and the prohibition against embedding "sys- recurrent in the speech of the individual and tem" morphemes from the "embedded" lan- widespread across the community. ,The stock guage in matrix language structure. of established loanwords is available to The assumption that bilingual syntax can monolingual speakers of the recipient lan- be explained by general principles of mono- guage, along with the remainder of the re- lingual grammar has not been substantiated. cipient-language lexicon. Loanwords further While such formal theories at grammar may differ from CS in that there is no involve- account well for monolingual language ment of the morphology, syntax or phonol- structure (including that of the monolingual ogy of the donor language. fragments in CS discourse), there is no evi- dence that the juxtaposition of two lan- 3.2. Borrowing vs. nonce borrowing guages can be explained in the same way. As Recent research on borrowing as a syn- described in ensuing sections, bilingual chronic process (e.g., the papers in Poplackl communities exhibit widely different pat- Meechan 1998a; Poplack et al. 1988) has terns of adapting monolingual resources in shown it to be far more productive than its their code-mixing strategies, and these are result (established loanwords) would imply. nQt predictable through purely linguistic Crucially, the social characteristics of recur- considerations. The equivaltmce constraint, rence and diffusion need not be satisfied, re- as formalized by Sankoff (1998a; 1998b; sulting in what has been called, after Wein- Sankoff/Mainville 1986; Sankoff/Poplack reich (195311968), nonce borrowing (Sankoff 1981), is a production-based explanation of et al. 1990). Like its established counterpart, the facts of CS, which incorporates the no- the nonce borrowing tends to involve lone tions of structural hierarchy and linear lexical items, generally major-class content order, and accounts for a number of empiri- words, and to assume the morphological, cal observations in addition to the equival- syntactic, and optionally, phonological iden- ent word order characterizing most actual tity of the recipient language. Like CS, on switch sites. These include the well-formed- the other hand, particular nonce borrowings ness of the monolingual fragments, the con- are neither recurrent nor widespread, and servation of constituent structure, and the nonce borrowing necessarily requires a cer- essential unpredictability of CS at any po- tain level of bilingual competence. Distin- tential CS site. guishing a nonce borrowing from CS of a lone lexical item is conceptually easy but 3. Fitting theory to data methodologically difficult, especially when this item surfaces bare (i.e., morphologically Which of these competing (and often con- uninflected, or in a syntactic slot shared by flicting) models offers the best account of both languages), giving no apparent indi- bilingual CS? Testing the fit of theory with cation of language membership. the data of CS should be a straightforward The classification of such lone other-lan- matter; however, disparate assumptions, guage items is at the heart of a fundamental goals and domains of application have thus disagreement among CS researchers over 1) far hindered such efforts. Assessment of the whether the distinction between CS and bor- descriptive adequacy of a theory of CS rowing should be formally recognized in a requires that at least two methodological is- theory of CS, 2) whether these and other sues be resolved. One Involves identification manifestations of language contact can be and principled classification of language identified in bilingual discourse, and 3) mixing phenomena, the other, confronting criteria for determining whether a given 70. Code-Switching 591
item was switched or borrowed. Researchers parallels to those of their counterparts in the who classify lone other-language items as recipient language, while at the same time CS tend to posit an asymmetrical relation- differing from relevant patterns in the donor ship, in which one language dominates and language, the lone other-language items can other-language items are inserted (e.g., Joshi be considered to have been borrowed, since 1985; Myers-Scotton 1993). On the other only the grammar of the recipient language hand, for those who focus only on the class is operative. If they pattern with their of (unambiguous) multiword CS, both lan- counterparts in the monolingual donor lan- guages are postulated to play a role (Belazi guage, while at the same time differing from et al. 1994; Sankoff 1998a; 1998b; Woolford the patterns of the unmixed recipient lan- 1983). Muysken (2000) admits the possibil- guage, the. lone other-language items must ity of both strategies. result from CS. 3.3. Identifying the results of language 3.3.2. Bare forms contact Even where lone other-language items sur-. Quantitative analyses of language mixing face bare, the comparative method can de- phenomena in a wide variety of language termine their status. Bare forms have figured . pairs have now established that such lone prominently in the formulation of code-mix- other-language items are by far the most im- ing theories, where they are frequently cited portant - in some cases, virtually the only! - as examples of exceptional or ungrammatical component of mixed discourse (e.g., Backus ways of incorporating foreign material (Jakel 1992; Berk-Seligson 1986; Budzhak-Jones Myers-Scotton 1997; Picone 1994). Quanti- 1998a; Nortier 1989; Pfaff 1979; Poplack tative analysis of actual CS discourse, in 1989; Poplack et al. 1987; Treffers-Daller contrast, shows that bare other-language 1994). In comparison, CS of multiword forms occur overwhelmingly in just. those other-language fragments, other than tags contexts where they are permitted in the re- and other frozen forms, while frequent in cipient language, and more strikingly, at the some communities, is in the aggregate same rate (Budzhak-JoneslPoplack 1997; Eze relatively rare. 1998; Ghafar Samar/Meechan 1998; San- Both CS and borrowing are based on prin- koff et al. 1990; Turpin 1998). cipled combination of elements of the mono- Indeed, code-mixed structures that appear lingual vernaculars of the bilingual com- exceptional when compared with an idealized munity. Recent research suggests that the version of the source language generally turn structure of these source vernaculars can re- out to conform closely to counterparts in the veal whether a code-mixed element is behav- spoken vernaculars of the bilinguals under ing like one or the other. Focussing on the study. Lack of productivity in the recipient structural variability inherent in CS qua oral language may also explain apparently un- phenomenon, PoplacklMeechan (1998b) de- usual morphological strategies for incorpo- veloped a method, adumbrated in Sankoff et rating lone other-language items (Poplackl al. (1990), to compare bilingual structures Meechan 1998). Where the status of bare with the monolingual source languages of forms is pursue? systematically, they are seen the same speakers. Making use of the frame- to mirror productive use in the recipient lan- work of linguistic variation theory (Labov guage. 1969; Sankoff 1988), the variable patterning Empirical analyses of lone other-language of such forms is discovered, and used to de- items, marked and bare, with their source- termine their status. The method involves language counterparts (Adalar/Tagliamonte cross-linguistic comparison, on a given diag- 1998; Budzhak-Jones 1998a; Eze 1998; Gha-- nostic criterion, of the ambiguous lone far Samar/Meechan 1998; PoplacklMeechan item, with its counterparts in 1998; Turpin 1998) confirm their quanti- both the donor and recipient languages, as tative parallels with dictionary-attested well as with established loanwords and un- loanwords. And both pattern like their' un- ambiguous CS. mixed counterparts in the recipient lan- guage, regardless of the typological proper- 3.3.1. Morphological measures ties of the language pair.. This is evidence If the rate and distribution of morphological that most lone items are borrowed, if only marking andlor syntactic positioning of the for the nonce. The same method shows CS, lone other-language items show quantitative on the other hand, to pattern like donor-Ian- 592 IV. The Social Implications of Levels of Linguistic Analysis
guage counterparts, in terms of the same lin- ing CS must be obtained from enough com- guistic criteria. Thus a first imperative in munity members in quantities sufficient to developing a theory of CS capable of ac- detect recurrent patterns of speech behaviour. counting for the data of CS is to determine It is in these steps, prior to any linguistic the status of the linguistic elements in- analysis, that social, political, historical and volved. demographic knowledge of the community Most of the voluminous literature on are most pertinent. These characteristics intra-sentential CS, however, especially of could then be related to its members' lin- the <"insertional" type (Muysken 2000), is guistic production to arrive at a community based on data which represents" properly profile, or "social meaning" of CS. speaking, lexical borrowing. It follows that Curiously, however, although the last three -many of the theories applying to both types or four decades of research have produced a of language mixing (e.g., Mahootian 1993; wealth of data from a wide range of bilingual Myers-Scotton 1993) are more properly the- interactions world-wide, relatively little is ories of borrowing. This in turn explains on known of the bilingual norms of the commu- the one hand, why some seem to account for nities from which they are drawn. Nor is it many of the facts of code-mixing (since most clear how the social forces typically described of the mixed items are in fact borrowings), in such detail (Backus 1996; Gardner- and on the other, why their handling of Chloros 1991; Nortier 1989) shaped those (multi word) CS may appear unwieldy and/ norms, let alone the structural form of the or descriptively inadequate (e.g., Myers- language mixes, beyond the fact that two or Scotton 1993 and many others). three languages ended up being spoken. As detailed below, in most bilingual commu- 4. The data of CS nities empirically studied, one or another manifestation of language contact is (inex- The data of CS are relevant both to evaluat- plicably) prefen:ed to the detriment of others; ing theories and to understanding the social thus the social "meaning" of the languages, role of CS within the community. With re- individually or in combination, reveals little spect to evaluation, the literature on CS is about the differential use of linguistic re- largely characterized by the "rule-and-ex- sources in the social life of a given commu- ception" paradigm. Despite the onslaught nity. This is because the patterning of utter- of counter-examples provoked by successive ances containing elements from more than CS theories, as of this writing, few have been one language is not predictable from com- tested systematically against the data of munity or language. typologies. It emerges spontaneous bilingual usage. Instead, both only from systematic examination of how the the theories and assessments of their appli- languages are used by community members. cability tend to be based on isolated exam- ples, drawn from judgements, informant 5. Community strategies for CS elicitation, linguist introspection or the pub- lished literature. The relation between such When two languages are combined in a examples and the recurrent and systematic single sentence, various problems of incom- - patterns of everyday interaction is tenuous patibility may arise. The most obvious de- or non-existent. rive from word-order differences, but incom- In many bilingual communities, speakers patibilities may affect any level of linguistic conventionally make use of both languages structure, especially in typologically distinct with the same interlocutors, in the same do- language pairs. Nonetheless, it has been mains, and within the same conversational observed repeatedly in systematic studies of topic. To understand the social role of CS in bilingual communities that speakers tend to such communities, the analyst must observe, circumvent these difficulties, producing bi- uncover and document those conventions, as lingual structures which are felicitous for instantiated in everyday situations, in which the grammars of both languages simulta- spontaneous CS is a discourse norm. This neously. This is achieved through parti- requires first identifying a community in cipation in prevailing community norms, re- which such situations regularly arise, and lating to both the overall rate and type of characterizing its social structure in terms of language mixing. In what follows we detail language knowledge and language use. Sec- four empirically established community- ond, samples of sustained discourse includ- wide strategies for. combining languages 70. Code-Switching 593 intra-sententially: smooth code-switching at conversations seem to be entirely confined to equivalence sites, flagged code-switching, a switch-signalling function. The distribu- constituent insertion and nonce borrowing. tion of case-marking and discourse flagging of English-origin single nouns shows that 5.1. Equivalence-based CS these are in near complementary distribu- The New York Puerto Rican community, tion. In contrast to the functional flagging with a high degree of Spanish-English bilin- in the typologically similar French-English gualism, favours smooth intra-sentential pair, in the Finnish-English materials, flag- CS, grammatically constrained by the equiv- ging is associated with production difficul- alence constraint (Poplack 1980). Charac- ties, despite the fact that all the informants teristics of smooth CS include copious oc- are fluent first-generation speakers of Finn- currences, smooth transitions between ish, as well as of English. In their bilingual languages, and lack of rhetorical effect. Also community, however, neither nonce borrow- documented· as a norm in other Spanish- ing nor CS (whether smooth as in the Span- English bilingual communities (e.g., Pfaff ish-English case, or flagged as in the French- 1979), this pattern is sometimes attributed English case) is a discourse norm. to the many typological similarities enjoyed by the Spanish-English pair. However, the 5.3. Constituent insertion operation of the equivalence constraint has The role of particular community history is been empirically verified in communities even more apparent in the case of Moroccan featuring such typologically distinct lan- Arabic-French bilinguals. NaH M'Bareki guage pairs as Finnish-English (Poplack et Sankoff (1988) documented a large number al. 1987), Arabic-French (Natt M'Barek/ of bidirectional switches at equivalence sites, Sankoff 1988), Tamil-English (Sankoff et al. as well as many unidirectional borrowings 1990), Fongbe-French and Wolof-French from French into Arabic. By far the most fre- (MeechaniPoplack 1995), Igbo-English (Eze quent type of intra-sentential language mix- 1998), French-English (Turpin 1998) and turehere, however, is insertion of a French Ukrainian-English (Budzhak-Jones 1998a). NP, including at least determiner and noun (both inflected for person, number and 5.2. Flagged CS gender) and optionally other elements, in a It is logical that typologically similar lan- syntactic slot for an Arabic NP. There are ten guage pairs should be particularly propitious times as many NP insertions in all as there are to intra-sentential CS, but its occurrence in switches at the equivalence site between them is by no means a foregone conclusion. Arabic determiner and French noun. (That The French/English situation in the bilin- the process responsible for these patterns is gual Ottawa-Hull region of Canada is a constituent insertion rather than the equival- case in point. Instead of engaging in smooth ence switching predominant in the New Y0rk intra-sentential· CS at the many available Puerto Rican community is further confirm- equivalence sites, French-English bilinguals ed by a clear statistical tendency for a switch prefer to flag CS and use them for specific back to Arabic after the French noun, pro- rhetorical purposes (Poplack 1985). Flagged viding the latte,r is in NP-final position.) This switches are marked at the discourse level pattern was independently documented for by repetition, metalinguistic commentary, the same language pair by Bentahila Davies and other means of drawing attention to the (1983). On the other hand, in the structurally switch. One result is the interruption of the identical Lebanese Arabic/French language speech flow at the switch point, rendering a pair, constituent insertions were almost en- grammaticality requirement irrelevant. Al- tirely absent! Nor were they reported for Mo-- though an explanation was originally sought roccan Arabic in contact with Dutch (Nortier in data collection strategies (Poplack 1981), 1989). Tliis confirms that these patterns are it is now clear that community norms oflan- dependent on the particular commupity, guage mixing are the overriding factor. rather than on community (or language) ty- Flagging is also a hallmark of the Finn- pology. ish-English community studied by Poplack, et al. (1987). Here, English-origin material 5.4. Nonce borrowing tends to be associated with a disproportion- Lone other-language items are widely docu- ate rate of pauses, hesitation phenomena, mented as the most prevalent type of code- ratification markers and flags, which in some mixing in a wide variety of communities 594 IV. The Social Implications of Levels of Linguistic Analysis
world-wide. Despite their controversial status over and above the grammatical constraints in much of the literature (owing in part to which constrain the location in the sentence their inherent ambiguity in isolation), there of the CS. These require little recourse to is now little doubt as to their classification deep theorizing. as a set. Whatever the linguistic properties One recurrent, and perhaps overriding, of the language pair examined, ranging from factor is bilingual ability: those with greater typologically distinct to nearly identical, proficiency in both languages not only and the diagnostic employed - phonologi- switch more, they switch more intra-senten- cal, morphological or syntactic, lone other- tially, and at a wider variety of permissible language items overwhelmingly surface with CS sites (Berk-Seligson 1986; PoplackI988;. the patterns of the language in which they Poplack et al. 1988; Treffers-Daller 1994). '. are incorporated (Adalar/Tagliamonte 1998; Those who are less proficient in one of the Budzhak-Jones 1998a; Eze 1998; Ghafar two languages,· on the other hand, do not Samar/Meechan 1998; Poplack/Meechan eschew CS altogether, as might be the case 1998b; Turpin 1998). This is true not only of were CS not the eminently social tool that it the grosser linguistic structures, but more re- is, but rather restrict their CS - in number, markably, of the fine details of the quanti- type and/or discourse location- according tative conditioning of lingUistic variability. to their bilingual ability. The less-proficient Such parallels can only be construed as evi- thus favor switch sites and types requiring dence that they have been borrowed, despite little or even no productive knowledge of the the lack of dictionary attestation of diffu- other language, such as tags, routines or sion across the community. frozen phrases. Bilingual proficiency is in Other attested community preferences in- no . way causative of CS. Rather, given the clude the prevalence of lone other-language appropriate discourse and social circum- items in the Moroccan-Dutch community stances, speakers who engage in the most (Nortier 1989), the dearth of tag switches in complex type ·of intra-sentential CS gen- Igbo-English (Eze 1997), the preference for erally turn out to be the most proficient in flagging in Ukrainian-English (Budzhak- both of the contact languages. Jones 1998b), and for constituent insertion in Another recurrent factor is prestige, in- Fongbe-French (PoplackiMeechan 1995). In stantiated at the community level by group some bilingual communities (e.g., the Finn- membership (often correlated with social ish-English community in Canada (Poplack class). In contrast to language proficiency, et al. 1987) or the Ukrainian-English com- whose effect seems to be universal, the con- munity in Pennsylvania (Budzhak-Jones tribution of the prestige factor varies from 1998b», CS is simply not a community norm. community to community and may act to promote or inhibit CS: its effect must be es- 6. Summary tablished on a case-by-case basis. In one community CS per se may not constitute The intriguing facts of CS have incited much prestigious behavior, though bilingual dis- theorizing, linguistic and social, but less at- play, appropriately flagged, may be. In an- tention has been paid to confronting the te- other, the opposite may hold true. nets of the theories with bilinguals' use of Why is it that after so many decades of re- two or more languages in context. Success- search attention by practitioners of so many ive linguistic theories of CS have reflected fields (including linguists of all stripes, soci- the monolingual theories in vogue, and so- ologists, anthropologists, educationalists and cial theories are following the same route psychologists), so much controversy continu- (Heller 1995; Milroy/ Wei 1995; Myers-Scot- es to reign over such basic facts as who code- ton/Bolonyai 2001). But although the desir- switches, where and why? We suggest that the ability of linking individual instances of CS current impasse is directly linked to prevail- to the wider context of language use in the ing methodologies in the study of CS (both community has become a leitmotif in recent linguistic and social), which favor theorizing work, this goal is rarely pursued. And, des- and post-hoc interpretation of the meaning pite the proliferation of linguistic and social of isolated code-switches of uncertain prov- categories, which have increased exponen- enance over systematic and exhaustive con- tially over the duration, empirical studies of sideration of actual code-switching behavior bilingual language use show only a few fac- in the speech of the individual in the context tors to correlate with the production of CS, of her community. 70. Code-Switching 595
The patterning of CS within a community -, (1998) "Lending credence to a borrowing is a historical development over time, but analysis: Lone English-origin incorporations in the actual structural form it takes is arbit- Igbo discourse", in: Poplack, S.lMeechan, M. rary. The literature implies that the type of 1998a, 183-201. social history (colonial, immigrant, border, Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991) Language Selection etc.) of the community explains the type of and Switching in Strasbourg, Oxford. CS observable in it. But even though a Ghafar Samar, Reza/Meechan, Marjory (1998) wealth of ethnographic and sociological in- "The Null Theory of code-switching vs.· the formation is now available, and even some Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis: Testing the fit in data counting, it has not yet elucidated why Persian-English bilingual discourse", in: Poplack, some communities prefer one pattern and S.lMeechan, M. 1998a, 203-219. others, in like circumstances, prefer another. Gumperz, John Joseph (1976/1982) "Conversa- tional code-switching", in: Discourse Strategies, Gumperz, J. J., ed., Cambridge, 59-99. 7. Literature (selected) Heller, M. (1982) "'Bonjour, hello?' Negotiations Adalar, NevinlTagliamonte, Sali (1998) "Bor- of language choice in Montreal", in: Language rowed nouns; bilingual people: The case of the and Social Identity, Gumperz, J. J., ed., Cam- "Londrah" in North Cyprus", in: Poplack, S.! bridge, 108-118. Meechan, M. 1998a, 139-159. Heller, Monica (1995) "Code-switching and the Azuma, Shoji (1993) "The frame-content hypo- politics of language", in: One Speaker, two Lan- thesis in speech production: Evidence from intra- guages, Milroy, L.lMuysken, P., eds., Cambridge, sentential code switching", in: Linguistics 31, 158-174. 1071-1093. Jake, Janice L.lMyers-Scotton, Carol (1997) "Co- Backus, Ad (1992) Patterns of Language Mixing: deswitching and compromise strategies: Impli- A Study in Turkish-Dutch Bilingualism, Wies- cations for lexical structure", in: International baden. Journal of Bilingualism 1,25-39. -, (1966) Two in One: Bilingual Speech of Turkish Joshi, Aravind K. (1985) "Processing of sentences Immigrants in the Netherlands, Tilburg, Nether- with intrasentential code-switching", in: Natural lands. Language Parsing: Psychological, Computatio- Belazi, Hedi M.lRubin, Edward J.lToribio, Almei- nal and Theoretical Perspectives, Dowty, D. R.I da Jacqueline (1994) "Code switching and X-bar Karttunen, L.lZwicky, A. M., eds., Cambridge, theory: The functional head constraint", in: Lin- 190-204. guistic Inquiry 25,221-237. Labov, William (1969) "Contraction, deletion, Bentahila, AbdeHlilDavies, Eirlys E. (1983) "The and inherent variability of the English copula", syntax of Arabic-French code-switching", in: Lin- in: Language 45,715-762. gua 59,301-330. Lipski, J. (1978) "Code-switching and the prob- Berk-Seligson, Susan (1986) "Linguistic con- lem of bilingual competence", in: Aspects of Bilin- straints on intrasentential code-switching: A gualism, Paradis, M., ed., Columbia, 250-264. study of SpanishlHebrew bilingualism", in: Lan- MacSwan, Jeff (1999) A Minimalist Approach to guage in Society 15, 313-348. Intrasential Code Switching, New York. Budzhak-Jones, Svitlana (l998a) "Against word- internal code-switching: Evidence from Ukrai- Mahootian, Shahrzad (1993) A Null Theory of nian-English bilingualism", in: Poplack, S.lMee- Codeswitching, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern chan,M. 1998a, 161-182. University. -, (1998b) Single-word Incorporations in Ukranian- Meechan, Marjory/Poplack, Shana (1995) "Or- English Bi
Myers-Scotton, Car01lBolonyai, Agnes (2001) -, (1998b) "Introduction. How languages fit to- "Calculating speakers: Codeswitching in a rational gether in codemixing", in: Poplack, S.lMeechan, choice model", in: Language in Society 30, 1-28. M. 1998a, 127-138. Nait M'Barek, MohammedlSankoff, David Pop lack, Shana/Sankoff, David/Miller, Chris- (1988) "Le discours mixte arabe/fran9ais: des em- topher (1988) "The social correlates and linguistic prunts ou des alternances de langue?", in: Revue processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation", Canadienne de Linguistique 33, 143-154. in: Linguistics 26,47-104. Nortier, J. (1989) Dutch end Moroccan Arabic in Poplack, Shana/Wheeler, SusanlWestwood, Anneli Contact: Code-switching among Moroccans in the (1987) "Distinguishing language contact phenom- Netherlands, Ph.D. dissertation, Un\versity of ena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism", Amsterdam. in: The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, Lilius, P'/Saari, M., eds., Helsinki, 33-56. -Pfaff, Carol W (1979) "Constraints on language mixing", in: Language 55, 291-318. Sankoff, David (1988) "Sociolinguistips and syn- tactic variation", in: Linguistics: The Cambridge Picone, Michael (1994) "Code-intermediate phe- Survey, Newmeyer, EJ., ed., Cambridge, 140-161. nomena in Louisiana French", in CLS 30-1: -, (1998a) "A formal production-based expla- Papers from the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the nation of the facts of code-switching", in: Bilin- Chicago Linguistic Society, Volume I: The Main gualism: Language and Cognition 1,39-50. Session, Beals, KlDenton, J.lKnippen, R.lMelnar, L.lSuzuki, H.lZeinfeld, E., eds., Chicago, -, (1998b) "A production model for code-mixed 320-334. discourse", in: Proceedings of the 17th COLING Congress and 36th Meeting of the Association for Poplack, Shana (1980) "Sometimes I'll start a sen- Computational Linguistics, Montreal. tence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching", in: Lin- Sankoff, David/Mainville, Sylvie (1986) "Code- guistics 18, 581-618. switching of context-free grammars", in: Theoret- ical Linguistics 13, 75-90. -, (1981) "Syntactic structure and social function of code-switching", in: Latino Discourse and·Com- Sankoff, David/PQplack, Shana (1981) "A formal municative Behavior, Duran, R., ed., New Jersey, grammar for code-switching", in: Papers in Lin- 169-184. guistics: International Journal of Human Com- munication 14, 3-45. -, (1985) "Contrasting patterns of code-switching Sankoff, DavidIPoplack, ShanaNanniarajan, Swa- in two communities", in: Methods Papers from v.. thi (1990) "The case of the nonce loan in Tamil", the Fifth International Conference on Methods in: Language Variation and Change 2,71-101. in Dialectology, Warkentyne, H., ed., Victoria, 363-386. Santorini, Beatrice/Mahootian, Shahrzad (1995) "Code-switching and the syntactic status of ad- -, (1988) "Language status and language accom- nominal adjectives",. in: Lingua 96, 1-27. modation along a linguistic border", in: Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications Timm, L. A. (1975) "Spanish-English codeswitch- and Case Studies, GURT 87, Lowenberg, P., ed., ing: EI porque y how-not-to.", in: Romance Phil- Washington, D.C., 90-118. ology 28, 473-482. -, (1989) "Statut de langue et accommodation Treffers-Daller, Jeanine (1994) Mixing Two Lan- !angagiere Ie long d'une frontiere linguistique", guages: French-Dutch Contact in a Comparative Ill: Le Franrais Canadien Parle Hors Quebec: Perspective, Berlin. Aperru Sociolinguistique, Mougeon, R.lBeniak, Turpin, Danielle (1998) ""Le fran9ais c'est Ie last E., eds., Quebec, 127-151. frontier": The status of English-origin nouns in Poplack, Shana/Meechan, Marjory (1995) "Pat- Acadian French", in: Poplack, S.lMeechan, M. terns of language mixture: Nominal structure in 1998a,221-233. Wolof-French and FongbecFrench bilingual dis- Weinreich, Uriel (195311968) Languages in Con- course", in: One Speaker, two Languages, Milroy, tact, The Hague/Mouton. L.lMuysken, P., eds., Cambridge, 199-232. Woolford, Ellen (1983) "Bilingual code-switching -, eds., (1998a) Instant Loans, Easy Conditions: and syntactic theory", in: Linguistic Inquiry 14, The Productivity of Bilingual Borrowing; Special 519-536. issue, International Journal of Bilingualism. Lon- don/Kingston Press. Shana Poplack, Ottawa (Canada)