code switch

8/13/2019 Code Switch

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/code-switch 1/43

Structured Variation in Codeswitching:Towards an Empirically Based Typologyof Bilingual Speech Patterns

Margaret Deuchar

ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice,University of Wales, Bangor, UK

Pieter Muysken

Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Sung-Lan Wang

School of Linguistics and English Language, University of Wales,Bangor, UK

This paper aims to accomplish two things: first, to develop precise criteria toestablish profiles for bilingual speech, following the typology of insertion,alternation and congruent lexicalisation developed in Muysken (2000); and second,to test these criteria on specific data sets. A first set involves Welsh

English

bilingual data analysed by Deuchar, a second set comprises Tsou

Mandarin Chinesedata collected and analysed by Sung-Lan Wang, and a third set involves Taiwanese

Mandarin Chinese data, also collected and analysed by Sung-Lan Wang. We

conclude that it is indeed possible to establish more precise quantitative profileswhich capture the intuition that different data sets show different codeswitchingproperties, but that there are a number of conceptual and methodological issues that

require further investigation.

doi: 10.2167/beb445.0

Keywords: bilingual speech, codeswitching, Chinese, Mandarin, Taiwanese,Tsou, Welsh

Introduction

In many bilingual communities there is bilingual speech involvingextensive codeswitching or codemixing (we will adopt the first term here),as has been shown in recent studies such as Clyne (2003), Muysken (2000),

Myers-Scotton (1993, 2003) and Poplack (1980); see also Sankoff et al. (1990).Many studies of codeswitching are based on the collection of corpora of bilingual speech. Those corpora typically manifest very diverse ‘languageinteraction’ phenomena, ranging from lexical borrowings to phonetic inter-ferences, and from semantic calques to mixed sentences and wholesalelanguage switching.

Some authors treat the corpora collected primarily as the potential sourcefor individual codeswitching examples, meant to confirm or argue against aparticular ‘model’ or ‘constraint’ for codeswitching in general. In this case the

1367-0050/07/03 298-43 $20.00/0 – 2007 M. Deuchar et al.The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007

298



This paper has the following structure. In the next section we briefly surveyearlier attempts to characterise bilingual speech corpora, and then we outlinethe approach taken by Muysken (2000). In the fourth section we propose a

quantitative implementation of Muysken (2000). Here we describe the way wewill define the criteria used to establish the profile, and in the fifth sectionwe illustrate how this would work with reference to Welsh English (thefirst subsection), Tsou Mandarin (the second subsection) and Taiwanese

Mandarin (the third subsection) data. In the sixth section we consider theproblems raised in applying the proposed implementation to data, and con-sider an alternative approach using a rigorous decision tree model. We illustratethis with reference to some of the examples analysed in the fifth section. In thefinal section we conclude and make suggestions for further research.

Earlier Attempts to Characterise Bilingual Speech CorporaIt is important to situate our own research in the codeswitching researchtradition, in which a number of attempts have been made to characterise bilingual speech corpora. It should be kept in mind that not all researchersexplicitly acknowledge this to be an important task; if the corpus is simplyviewed as the source for interesting individual examples of codeswitching, theneed to characterise the overall corpus is of secondary importance. Theattempts to characterise a corpus can be classified under various headings:

The absolute use of different languages. The most basic information, of course,concerns the use of both languages: e.g. roughly how much French is spoken,

and how much English, etc. Strikingly few studies actually provide this type of information in detail, partly because it is often the case that only the portionsof the corpus showing extensive codeswitching were transcribed. The sameholds for analyses counting turns in the different languages used.

Number of loans and/or single word switches . A second measure concerns theabsolute number of loans or single word switches in the corpus. Thisinformation is present in many descriptions of corpora, at least for the partsshowing extensive language interaction phenomena and hence transcribed.

Categorisation of different phenomena and number of different types of multiword

switches. Many studies contain quantitative information about the nature of the constituents switched (noun phrases, verb phrases, etc.). There is amoderate amount of variation in the categories employed.

Directionality of switching . Most studies address this issue explicitly, and fromalmost all studies basic information about directionality can be gathered,although not all authors think directionality is crucial (it does not play a role inthe findings in Poplack’s 1980 New York study).

Typology of language interaction phenomena. Yet another dimension concerns aqualitative typology of language interaction phenomena, used as a cover termhere for codeswitching, borrowing, interference, etc. What types of distinctions

300 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism



T a

b l e 1 C h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n o f a n u m b e r o f c o r p o r a i n t e r m s o f t h e q

u a n t i t a t i v e t r e a t m e n t o f l a n g u a g e i n t e r a c t i o n p h e n o m e n a

A u t h o r a n d

d a t e

L a n g u a g e s a n d

l o c a t i o n

A

b s o l u t e u s e /

o v e r a l l

l a n g u a g e

c h o i c e

N u m b e r o f l o a n s /

s i n g l e - w o r d

s w i t c h e s

C a t e g o r i s a t i o n o f

p h e n o m e n a

D i r e c t i o n a l i t y o f

s w i t c h i n g

T y p o l o g y o f

l a n g u a g e

i n t e r a c t i o n

p h e n o m e n a

L

i k e l i h o o d

o

f s w i t c h e s

a

t d i f f e r e n t

s i t e s

[ P o p l a c k ,

1 9 8 0 ] ;

[ S a n k o f f &

P o p l a c k ,

1 9 8 1 ]

S p a n i s h E n g -

l i s h .

N e w Y o r k

N

o t g i v e n

S i n g l e - w o r d

s w i t c h e s i n b o t h

l a n g u a g e s

D i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n

t a

g - a n d i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l

s w

i t c h e s ; l i s t s o f s w i t c h e d

c o

n s t i t u e n t s

E x p l i c i t l i s t i n g i n

b o t h

d i r e c t i o n

s

O n l y

c u r s o r y

i n f o r m a t i o n

Y e s

[ N o r t i e r , 1 9 8 9 ]

M o r o c c a n

A r a b i c

D u t c h .

N e t h e r l a n d s

O

n l y p a r t o f

t h e m a t e r i a l

t r a n s c r i b e d

( b e c a u s e o f

s w i t c h e s )



l a n g u a g e s

I n

t e r - , e x t r a - ,

i n

t r a s e n t e n t i a l , c o o r d .

S ,

a d

v ,

i n s i d e V P , m a i n /

s u

b o r d .

S , a p p o s i t i o n /

d i s l o c a t e d e l e m e n t . ,

P P ,

i n

s i d e N P , P / N P ; n , a d v , a d j ,

c o

n j , v , p r e p o s i t i o n , p r o n ,

n u m

E x p l i c i t l i s t i n g i n

b o t h

d i r e c t i o n

s

S o m e b r i e f n o t e s

N o t

a v a i l a b l e

[ M y e r s -

S c o t t o n ,

1 9 9 3 ]

S w a h i l i E n g -

l i s h .

K e n y a

G

e n e r a l

i n d i c a t i o n o f

S

w a h i l i a s

o

v e r a l l

l a n g u a g e

T a b l e w i t h

s i n g l e E n g l i s h

f o r m s p e r

c a t e g o r y

C o p u l a V P - c o m p l e m e n t s ;

P P ; t i m e a d v e r b i a l s ,

N ,

c o

p u l a V P - c o m p l e m e n t s ;

s e

t e x p r e s s i o n s ; m a i n

c l a u s e s ; c o m p l e m e n t c l a u s e s ;

m

i s c e l l a n e o u s

C l e a r l y S w a h i l i

E n g l i s h

D i s c u s s i o n a b o u t

b o r r o w i n g s

N o t

a v a i l a b l e

[ G a r d n e r -

C h l o r o s ,

1 9 9 1 ]

F r e n c h

A l s a t i a n .

S t r a s b o u r g

S

u r v e y d a t a :

o

v e r a l l u s e o f

F

r , A l s , a n d

s w i t c h i n g



l a n g u a g e s

n , v , a d j , a d v , c o n j ,

g r e e t i n g s / i n t e r j e c t i o n ;

i n

d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e ,

d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e ,

i n

t r a c l a u s e ,

d i s j o i n t e d

e l e m e n t

N o t i n d i c a t e d

M u l t i p l e w o r d

s w i t c h e s

N o t

a v a i l a b l e

Structured Variation in Codeswitching 301



are made? Most studies distinguish inter- from intrasentential switching(giving some kind of criterion for distinguishing the two), and possibly also acategory like ‘exclamations’, tag-switching, etc. However, the corpora tend to

be underdescribed as far as phenomena beyond lexical switching areconcerned, such as pronunciation and intonation, interference and calques,semantic borrowings, etc. (but see Clyne, 2003).

Likelihood of switches at different sites. This is a little studied topic, but Sankoff and Poplack (1981) tried to quantify the likelihood of switches at particularsyntactic boundaries, as compared to those same boundaries in monolingualcontexts; this involved extensive analysis of monolingual syntactic contexts,and hence, potential switch sites. Others have quantified switches in terms of where they occur and/or type of switch, but have not to our knowledgecontrasted the occurrence versus non-occurrence of switches quantitatively.

In Table 1 a few of the studies are summarised in terms of these headings,which help profile each bilingual corpus. It is clear that the sources divergewidely in terms of the quantitative profiling provided.

The Approach Taken by Muysken (2000)

Muysken (2000) suggests that there are three main codeswitching patternsthat may be found in bilingual speech communities: insertion, alternation andcongruent lexicalisation. One pattern will usually dominate, though notnecessarily to the exclusion of other patterns. In the insertion pattern, one

language determines the overall structure into which constituents from theother language are inserted: this is illustrated in Figure 1, based on Muysken(2000: 7). This pattern is assumed by the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) theoryproposed by Myers-Scotton (e.g. 1993). It can be illustrated in (1) by aSwahili English example1 (English in bold) from Myers-Scotton (1993: 86):

(1) a-na-ku-l-a plate m-bili z-a murram3SG-PRS-NFIN-eat-IND CLM 10-two CLM 10-of maize‘He eats two plates of maize.’

In this example the word order is as in Swahili, including the phrase platem-bili ‘two plates’, and all the inflectional morphology is from Swahili. The

A B C

....a.… ....b.… ....a.…

Figure 1 The insertional codeswitching pattern19




asymmetry between the two languages involved in the insertional pattern is

captured in the MLF by labelling the main language the ‘matrix’ language andthe other the ‘embedded’ language.

In the alternation pattern, both languages occur alternately, each with theirown structure, as illustrated in Figure 2 based on Muysken (2000: 7).

This type of codeswitching is assumed in Poplack’s work (e.g. 1980) and iswell represented in her Spanish English data (English shown in bold) inexamples like (2) (Poplack, 1980: 594):

(2) si tu eres puertorriquen o, your father’s a Puerto Rican,if PRO.2SG be PRS.2SG Puerto-Rican

you should at least de vez en cuando, you know,from time to time

hablar espanolspeak.NFIN Spanish

‘If you’re Puerto-Rican, you’re father’s a Puerto Rican, you should at leastsometimes speak Spanish.’

In this example the pattern of alternation is particularly clearly representedin the switch between the clauses si tu eres puertorriquen o and your father’s aPuerto Rican as well as in the way the language material switches back and

forth from Spanish to English to Spanish to English and finally back toSpanish.

In the third type of codeswitching, congruent lexicalisation, ‘the gramma-tical structure is shared by languages A and B , and words from bothlanguages a and b are inserted more or less randomly’ (Muysken, 2000: 8).This is illustrated in Figure 3 based on Muysken (2000: 8). Muysken proposesthis type with reference mainly to standard variety/dialect mixing. This typecan be illustrated by Example (3) from the Ottersum dialect (in bold) andstandard Dutch:

(3) ja maar bij ouwe mensen komt dat gauw-er tot stilstand alsyes but with older people comes that quick-er to-a halt than

A B

…a…. …b….

Figure 2 The alternation pattern




bij jonge mense wawith younger people eh

‘Yes but with older people that comes to a halt more quickly than withyounger people.’

(Muysken, 2000: 130, citing Giesbers, 1989: 147)

In this example the fragments from each variety apparently do not formgrammatically coherent chunks.

We have so far illustrated the three types on an impressionistic basis, usingexamples containing several switches and assuming that all these switches fallinto the same category. However, this assumption could easily be challengedwith Example (4) (from Poplack, 1980: 589), where the first English Spanish

switch (sentarse atra´ s pa’ que) looks more representative of congruentlexicalisation, as its first two elements sentarse atra s belong to the previous

clause, and its second part pa’ que to the second clause, while the secondswitch ( pa’ que se salga) is a case of alternation, as it involves a coherentpurposive complement clause at the end of the utterance.

(4) Why make Carol sentar-se atras pa’ que everybody has to movesit.NFIN-REFL at_back for that

pa’ que se salga?for that REFL get_out.SUBJ

‘Why make Carol sit in the back so that everybody has to move for her toget out?’

We shall argue below that we need to focus on individual switches, once wehave defined what these are, in order to arrive at a more rigorous analysis.

Muysken (2000) suggests that the type of codeswitching that is prevalent ina corpus can be identified by the use of a set of diagnostic features. Each typecan be associated with a set of specific values for those features, and the set of

A/B

…a… …b… …a… …b…

Figure 3 The congruent lexicalisation pattern




Table 2 Diagnostic features of the three patterns of codemixing

Insertion Alternation Congruent lexicalisationConstituency

Single constituent 0 0

Several constituents - 0

Non-constituent - -

Nested a b a - 0

Not nested a b a -

Element switched

Diverse switches - 0

Long constituent - -

Complex constituent - -

Content word - -

Function word - -

Adverb, conjunction - -

Selected element -

Emblematic or tag - 0

Switch site

Major clause boundary 0 0

Peripheral 0 0

Embedding in discourse 0 0

Flagging - -

Dummy word insertion 0 -

Bidirectional switching -

PropertiesLinear equivalence 0

Telegraphic mixing - -

Morphol. integration -

Doubling - -

Homophonous diamorphs 0 -

Triggering 0 0




values for a specific corpus can be expected to match one of the three patternsmore than the others. This works because each proposed feature has a valueassociated with each type of codeswitching. The features, together with thevalues associated with each codeswitching type, are listed in Table 2, based onMuysken (2000: 230, Table 8.1).

As shown in Table 2, the features are grouped under four headings:constituency, element switched, switch site and properties of the switch. Thefeatures will be considered in more detail in the next section, but for themoment we can focus on how different feature values are expected fordifferent codeswitching patterns. For example, we can see in Table 2 that thefeature ‘content word’ has a ‘ ’ in the column relating to the insertion pattern, but a ‘-’ in the column relating to the alternation and congruent lexicalisationpatterns. This means that if a particular switch is a content word and thus hasa positive value for this feature, it is more likely to reflect the insertion patternthan the other two. If a switch is not a content word, however, and has anegative value for this feature, this would be indicative of either thealternation or the congruent lexicalisation pattern. Of course the featurescannot be considered in isolation: the entire set must be applied to each switchinsofar as is possible.

Muysken (2000: 231) provides a list of those features that have a positivevalue for each codeswitching type. For example, ‘content word’ and ‘singleconstituent’ have positive values for insertion, ‘several constituents’ and ‘longconstituents’ for alternation, and ‘non-constituent and ‘function word’ forcongruent lexicalisation.

Muysken goes on to illustrate how his features might be used to test specificpredictions about the predominant codeswitching type to be found in variouscorpora of existing data. For example, he suggests that Pfaff’s (1979)Spanish English data may be more ‘insertion-like’ than Poplack’s (1980)Spanish English data because of a lesser diversity in the grammatical categoryof switches and a higher proportion of noun phrase switches. In relation toNortier’s (1989) data he suggests that the insertional pattern is dominant butthat all three patterns occur. He reaches this conclusion on the grounds thatthere are frequent occurrences of switches with specific features associatedwith the insertion pattern: ‘single constituent’, ‘nested a b a’ (see next sectionfor discussion of this feature), ‘selected element’, ‘major clause boundary’,‘morphological integration’. On the other hand, he also finds switches havingfeatures associated with the other two patterns, such as ‘several constituents’and ‘peripheral’ (associated with alternation) and ‘linear equivalence’ and‘non-constituent’ (associated with congruent lexicalisation). Muysken (2000:

Table 2 (Continued )

Insertion Alternation Congruent lexicalisation

Mixed collocations 0 -

Self-corrections - -

, indicative of a specific pattern; -, counterindicative of a specific pattern




238) lists the relative frequency of switches with these features using termssuch as ‘frequent’, ‘often’, ‘some cases’ and ‘few cases’.

In the next section we will outline our first attempt to develop a rigorous

quantitative method to apply Muysken’s features to both individual switchesand entire corpora, in order to determine what the predominant codeswitch-ing pattern is and whether there are any minor patterns.

Before we do this we need to outline the extralinguistic dimension of Muysken’s proposal. Whereas previous approaches to codeswitching pre-dicted that a specific model would account for all patterns to be found in anyspeech community, Muysken (2000: 8 9) proposes that the pattern will varyaccording to both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. The way in which hesuggests this might work is summarised in Table 3. In this table we see that, interms of linguistic factors, insertion and alternation are favoured by typolo-gical distance between the languages involved, whereas congruent lexicalisa-

tion is seen to be more likely when the two languages are typologically similar.Although both insertion and alternation are predicted by typological distance,the two patterns are associated with different extralinguistic factors. Forexample, insertion is predicted to be more likely in colonial settings2 andwhere there is asymmetry in the speaker’s proficiency in the two languages,whereas alternation is predicted in stable bilingual communities where there isa tradition of language separation in the sense that people believe that the twolanguages should generally be kept separate. Where there is no such tradition,however, and the languages are typologically similar, congruent lexicalisationis more likely.

As indicated in the previous section, the three main patterns of codeswitch-

ing are not expected to be either watertight or static, however. More than onepattern of codeswitching may be found in a corpus of data, though it is likelythat one will be predominant. It is also possible that the predominant patternof codeswitching may change over time. Muysken (2000: 249) suggests thatprolonged language contact may lead to a change of pattern, and that inparticular, an insertional pattern may change to one of either alternation orcongruent lexicalisation, again depending on both linguistic and extralinguis-tic factors. He suggests that alternation will be favoured by strong norms,language competition and typological distance, whereas congruent lexicalisa-tion is more likely in the case of non-rigid norms of correctness in speech, balance between languages and structural parallels.

Muysken’s (2000) Framework: A QuantitativeImplementation

In the previous section we outlined Muysken’s (2000) proposal for atypology of codeswitching, including predictions for the identification of codeswitching type in specific data sets as well as in communities that could becharacterised by particular combinations of structural linguistic and extra-linguistic features (see Table 3). As in the examples described above, thepredictions presented for specific data sets made use of some, but not all, of Muysken’s proposed linguistic features as set out in Table 2. In this section weshall describe an initial attempt to make use simultaneously of all the proposed




features by means of a quantitative implementation that involves calculatingthree scores for each switch in a corpus: an insertion score, an alternation scoreand a congruent lexicalisation score. The higher the score, the better the matchto the pattern in question. So if a switch scores 4 on insertion, 10 on alternationand 2 on congruent lexicalisation, for example, we may conclude that itmatches the alternation pattern best. Adding up the three scores for all switchesin a corpus will allow us to determine, on the basis of which score is highest, thepattern that is matched best in the corpus as a whole. This allows for thepossibility that there may be a secondary pattern also.

What is a switch?

Previous work on codeswitching has not always made it very clear what isto be identified as a switch. As Treffers-Daller (1994: 203) points out ‘Manyresearchers in the field concentrate on switch points, and define as precisely aspossible between which elements switching is (im)possible’. However,Muysken’s approach pays attention not only to the switch site but also tothe characteristics of the element switched. We shall continue to pay attentionto both here, so that a ‘switch’ should be understood as indicating switchedmaterial. It is the definition of switched material that can be tricky. In a bilingual sequence consisting of ABABAB, for example, where A and B

represent two different languages, the switch site is relatively easily identifiedas the point of transition between A and B. It is more difficult, however, todecide how to identify the element switched. Should we take a sequentialapproach, saying that the first occurrence of ‘B’ in the string AB ABAB is aswitch because it involves a change of language from A to B? If so, does thesecond occurrence of ‘A’ in AB ABAB count as a switch too, because it involvesa change of language from B to A? Or do instances of ‘A’ not count as switches because the utterance started with ‘A’? In this case only the instances of ‘B’ inABAB AB would count as switches. But given that language is hierarchical,involving constituency, as well as sequential, a purely sequential approachdoes not seem satisfactory. This is because it leads to either treating virtuallyall stretches of bilingual discourse as switches or to deciding on a fairly

Table 3 Muysken’s view of the relation between codemixing patterns and extra-linguistic factors

Codemixing

pattern

Linguistic factors

favouring this pattern

Extralinguistic factors favouring

this pattern

Insertion Typological distance Colonial settings; recent migrantcommunities; asymmetry inspeaker’s proficiency in twolanguages

Alternation Typological distance Stable bilingual communities;tradition of language separation

Congruentlexicalisation

Typologically similarlanguages

Two languages have roughly equalprestige; no tradition of overtlanguage separation




arbitrary (purely sequential) basis which language in an utterance counts asswitched and which does not. In the analysis to be illustrated in the nextsection, we work on a clause-by-clause basis. Each clause is first identified as

bilingual or monolingual, depending on whether it contains material takenfrom one or two languages. If it is bilingual we identify the ‘matrix’ languageof the clause on the basis of word order and subject verb agreement, insofar asthis is possible. If the matrix language can be identified in this way then anycontinuous material in the clause which is in another language counts asswitched material and is analysed as such. This can be illustrated by the clausefrom the Welsh English data (English in bold) shown in (5):

(5) oedden nhw mor desbrad though [MEP130] be.3PL.PST PRO.3PL so desperate‘They were so desperate though.’

In this example the word order is VSO as in Welsh, rather than English, andsubject verb agreement is in Welsh. We thus conclude that the matrixlanguage is Welsh, and thus the material in the non-matrix language, English,though , counts as a switch. We would of course have identified the samematerial as a switch if we had adopted a sequential approach, but we shall seefrom some examples reported below that this would not always be the case.

Sometimes it is not possible to determine the matrix language of the clause,as in the example in (6) where there is no verb and the word order Negative

NP could equally well be English or Welsh:

(6) dim AIDS [MEG177]NEG‘Not AIDS’

In this type of case we resort to a sequential approach, identifying thematrix or basic language as the first occurring one, Welsh in this case. AIDS isthus treated as the switched material.

A sequential approach is also taken for interclausal switching, which wouldotherwise have to be left out of our analysis. So in a sequence of clauses whereone clause is in language A and a following one (following either in the sameturn or across turns) in language B, the clause (or sequence of clauses) inlanguage B is treated as an interclausal switch. The same treatment is appliedto a clause which has B as its matrix language but which includes material

from A as well. This is illustrated in Example (7), which includes utterancesfrom two speakers (normal type indicates Welsh, bold English):

(7) Speaker 1: oedden nhw-’n meddwl bod gynni be.3PL.PST PRO.3PL-PRT think.NFIN be.NFIN with.3SG.F

lais bendigedigvoice wonderful‘And they thought that she had a wonderful voice.’

Speaker 2: beauty is in the eye of the beholder ngwas ilad POSS.1SG

‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my dear.’




The clause spoken by speaker 2, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ngwas i , is treated as switched material following an interclausal (and in fact,interturn) switch. This switch involves a change of matrix language from

Welsh to English. It so happens that the switched clause itself contains anintraclausal switch, ng was i ‘my dear’: this is separately analysed.

In discussing the question of what counts as a switch, we also need todistinguish switches from loans. Loans are words that have been borrowedfrom one language into another, like the English word restaurant, originallyfrom French, and which would be found in a dictionary of the words of therecipient language. Where dictionaries are available for the languagesconcerned (e.g. Welsh, Mandarin) we have excluded from our identificationof switches any other-language words found in the dictionary of thoselanguages. This dictionary criterion is trickier with a minority languagelacking a dictionary, like Tsou, and the criteria for distinguishing loans from

switches in this case will be discussed in the next section. Of course evenwhere dictionaries exist they may be conservative and not record all loans,which means that we may have mistakenly identified some loans as single-word switches. However, in the next section we shall report on analyses thatminimise this possibility by focusing on multiword switches and excluding allsingle-word switches.

Within the clause, the significance of using a clause-based rather than asequential approach can be demonstrated by considering examples which aresimilar to (7) in that there is both an interclausal switch and an intraclausalswitch, but the intraclausal switch comes at the beginning of the clause. Thiswould be the case if we had recorded the version of (7) shown below in (8):

(8) ngwas i beauty is in the eye of the beholderlad POSS.1SG‘My dear beauty is in the eye of the beholder.’

In this imagined example, we are assuming that the material before (8) isthe first speaker’s turn as in (7) and is in Welsh. A purely sequential approachwould presumably identify beauty is in the eye of the beholder as an intraclausalswitch while no interclausal switch would be identified. However, this seemscounterintuitive as almost all the clause is in English.

An additional, actually occurring example is provided by the utterance in(9), by a speaker who is bilingual in Taiwanese and Mandarin (square brackets

show clause boundaries, normal type Mandarin and bold Taiwanese)(9) [zhe-li you xi-gua ne] [xi-gua in-ma zo gui

here have watermelon EXCLAM watermelon now very expensive

ne.]EXCLAM

‘Here are some watermelons! Watermelons are very expensive now!’

We would analyse the first clause as having Mandarin as its matrixlanguage but as involving an intraclausal switch to Taiwanese (ne). Under asequential approach xi-gua in the second clause (xi-gua jin-ma zo gui nei )




would presumably count as an interclausal switch to Mandarin, but in ourclause-based approach we consider the whole clause and count it as aninterclausal switch to Taiwanese, which is the language providing the majority

of the material in the second clause. Within this second clause, however, thereis an intraclausal switch to Mandarin in the form of the inserted xi-gua.

Having outlined our approach to identifying switches or switched materialfor the purposes of analysis, we now go on to explain how each switch in acorpus can receive three scores that will indicate which codeswitching patternit approximates most closely: insertion, alternation or congruent lexicalisation.In Table 4 we provide the same list of features as in Table 2, but we alsoindicate, with an example, how a sample switch can receive three scores oneach feature according to whether or not the value of that feature matches theexpected value for each of the three patterns. The general principle, which can be coded3 on a spreadsheet, is that a score of 1 is given where the feature value

is as expected for that type, -1 where it is the opposite of that expected, and 0where the feature value is neutral for that pattern. In Table 4 the illustrativematerial is camouflaged , as taken from the Welsh English Example (10):

(10) mae o-’n reit camouflaged yn dydi [MEW50] be.3SG.PRS PRO.3SG-PRTquite PRT NEG.be.3SG.PRS‘He’s quite camouflaged isn’t he?’

In Table 4 the first four columns are as in Table 2, except that we haveunderlined features that always apply. The other features apply only whencertain conditions are met, to be outlined below. Features without underliningalways apply, although we should note that three features, DIVERSE SWITCHES ,

BIDIRECTIONAL SWITCHING

and HOMOPHONOUS DIAMORPHS

,4

only apply to adataset or corpus as a whole. These features are given in Table 4 in upper caseto remind us of that fact. In the fifth column of Table 4 we show the featurevalues for the switched material analysed, camouflaged in this case, and in thelast three columns we show the three scores that this switch would give rise to.

Column 5 in Table 4 shows that camouflaged has been assigned the value‘ ’ for the feature ‘single constituent’.5 A single constituent is a string of oneor more words that can be plausibly parsed as forming a single exclusiveword group together, like ‘noun phrase’ or ‘prepositional phrase’. Thismatches the expected value of ‘ ’ for the insertion pattern, so the switchreceives a score of ‘1’ on the insertion pattern as shown in column 6. Columns

3 and 4 show that the value of the feature ‘single constituent’ is neutral orirrelevant for the alternation and congruent lexicalisation patterns, so a scoreof 0 for this feature on these two patterns is noted in columns 7 and 8. Inrelation to the next feature, ‘several constituents’, camouflaged receives aminus value. This matches the expected value for the insertion pattern, sothat a score of ‘1’ on this pattern is noted again in column 6. This value isopposite to the positive value expected for the alternation pattern (shown incolumn 3) and so a score of ‘-1’ is recorded for the alternation pattern incolumn 7. The value of the feature is neutral for congruent lexicalisation, so ascore of 0 is recorded for this pattern in column 8. Although one mightconsider that the existence of two contrasting features, ‘single constituent’and ‘several constituents’, could introduce redundancy, we see here that both




T a

b l e 4 A n a l y s i s o f d a t a u s i n g q

u a n t i fi c a t i o n o f M u y s k e n ’ s f e a t u r e s

C o l u m n 1

C o l u

m n 2

C o l u m n 3

C o l u m n 4

C o l u m n 5

C o l u m n 6

C o l u m n 7

C o l u m n 8

M u y s k e n ’ s f e a t u r e s

I n s e

r t i o n

A l t e r n a t i o n

C o n g r u e n t

l e x i c a l i s a t i o n

E x a m p l e : c a m o u f l a g e d S c o r e o n I N S S c o r e o n A L T S c o r e

o n C O N

S i n g l e c o n s t i t u e n t

0

0

1

0

0

S e v e r a l c o n s t i t u e n t s

-

0

-

1

- 1

0

N o n - c o n s t i t u e n t

-

-

-

1

1

- 1

N e s t e d a b a

-

0

1

- 1

0

N o n - n e s t e d a b a

-

-

1

- 1

- 1

D I V E R S E S W I T C H E S

-

0

T y p e o f s w i t c h :

p a s t p a r t i c i p l e

L o n g c o n s t i t u e n t

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

C o m p l e x c o n s t i t u e n t

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

C o n t e n t w o r d

-

-

1

- 1

- 1

F u n c t i o n w o r d

-

-

-

1

1

- 1

A d v e r b , c o n j u n c t i o n

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

S e l e c t e d e l e m e n t

-

1

- 1

1

E m b l e m a t i c o r t a g

-

0

0

0

0

0

M a j o r c l a u s e b o u n d a r y

0

0

-

0

- 1

0

P e r i p h e r a l

0

0

-

0

- 1

0




T a

b l e 4 ( C o n t i n u e d )

C o l u m n 1

C o l u

m n 2

C o l u m n 3

C o l u m n 4

C o l u m n 5

C o l u m n 6

C o l u m n 7

C o l u m n 8


I n s e

r t i o n


C o n g r u e n t


E x a m p l e : c a m o u f l a g e d S c o r e o n I N S S c o r e o n A L T S c o r e

o n C O N

E m b e d d i n g i n d i s c o u r s e

0

0

0

0

0

0

F l a g g i n g

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

D u m m y w o r d i n s e r t i o n

0

-

-

- 1

0

1

B I D I R E C T I O N A L

S W I T C H I N G

-

S w i t c h i n t o E n g l i s h

L i n e a r e q u i v a l e n c e

0

0

1

1

T e l e g r a p h i c m i x i n g

-

-

-

- 1

1

1

M o r p h o l o g i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n

-

-

- 1

1

- 1

D o u b l i n g

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

H O M O P H O N O U S

D I A M O R P H S

0

-

-

T r i g g e r i n g

0

0

0

0

0

0

M i x e d c o l l o c a t i o n s

0

-

-

0

1

- 1

S e l f - c o r r e c t i o n s

-

-

-

1

- 1

1

T o t a l s c o r e

1 1

- 7

4




features are necessary given that ‘single constituent’ is neutral for thealternation pattern, but that ‘several constituents’ is significant (see column3). The third feature, ‘non-constituent’, contrasts with both and has different

expected values for all three patterns (see columns 2, 3, 4). Camouflaged iscoded as ‘-’ on this feature (see column 5) with the consequences for the threescores shown in columns 6, 7 and 8.

The next two features, ‘nested aba’ and ‘non-nested aba’, only apply toswitches that have other or matrix language material both before andafterwards. They do not apply to interclausal switches. Thus camouflaged hasWelsh material before and after it, but if it had not been, then ‘0’ would have been noted in column 5, indicating that the feature does not apply. ‘Nestedaba’ and ‘non-nested aba’ differ in that the material before and after the switchis grammatically related in the ‘nested’ case: that is, the material before andafter the switch is clearly part of the same clause. This is the case6 with the

material before and after camouflaged , so it receives the value ‘ ’ on ‘nestedaba’ and ‘-’ on ‘non-nested aba’.

The next group of features relates to the nature of the element switched. Asthe feature ‘diverse switches’ applies to the whole corpus rather thanindividual instances, we merely note in column 5 the grammatical categoryof camouflaged , which is a past participle. This can then be used to determinethe overall diversity of switches afterwards. A high diversity of switcheswould favour the congruent lexicalisation pattern, whereas low diversitywould be indicative of the insertion pattern as shown in columns 2 and 4. Thisfeature is neutral with regard to the alternation pattern (column 3).

Camouflaged receives a negative value for ‘long constituent’, which we can

see in Table 3 gives it a score of ‘1’ on insertion and congruent lexicalisation,and ‘-1’ on alternation. Exactly the same value and scores are noted for‘complex constituent’, which refers to constituents with a hierarchical internalstructure involving various lexical heads. We assume the feature ‘contentword’ to apply only to monomorphemic words or multimorphemic words(‘apple’) and phrases (‘apple tree’) of which all the constituents could bedescribed as content words. There is room for discussion about whether thisfeature applies to camouflaged , which could be analysed as being made up of a( content) verbal stem and a (-content) inflectional affix. However, we haveanalysed it as a ( content) adjectival participle. This value matches theinsertion pattern but not the others, so this has the effect of resulting in a score

of ‘1’ for insertion and ‘-1’ for the other two patterns. On similar grounds tothose outlined for ‘content word’, the feature ‘function word’ will not alwaysapply, but if the feature ‘content word’ applies, then the feature ‘functionword’ should do so also. In the case of camouflaged we have given it a negativevalue, leading to scores of ‘1’ for insertion and alternation and ‘-1’ forcongruent lexicalisation. Another feature whose applicability should be in linewith that of ‘content word’ and ‘function word’ is ‘adverb, conjunction’.Although many analysts might consider an adverb to be a content word and aconjunction to be a function word,7 this feature is needed in addition to‘content word’ and ‘function word’ because a positive value for it is indicativeof the alternation pattern as shown in Table 3. Camouflaged receives a minusvalue on ‘adverb, conjunction’ resulting in the scores shown in columns 6 8.




‘Selected element’ always applies: it receives a positive value if the switch isan object or complement, otherwise a negative value. It is positive in the caseof camouflaged . The feature ‘emblematic or tag’ involves the mixing in of tags

or interjections (Muysken, 2000: 99). We have assumed that it does not apply toa switch that has a positive value for any of the features ‘long constituent’,‘selected element’ or ‘morphological integration’ (see below). As camouflagedhas the value ‘ ’ for ‘selected element’, then this feature does not apply and ismarked ‘0’. This has the consequence of a score of ‘0’ on all three patternsshown in columns 6 8.

The third group of features relates to the switch site involved. Interclausalswitches are the main type that will receive a positive value for the feature‘major clause boundary’; however camouflaged receives a negative value as itoccurs mid-clause. This has an impact only on the score for alternation, whichis shown in column 7 as ‘-1’. The feature ‘peripheral’ will receive a positive

value if the switch is peripheral to the clause; but in the case of an item likecamouflaged, which is a selected element, it will receive a minus value, againimpacting only on the score for alternation, which will be ‘-1’.

‘Embedding in discourse’ applies only to switches that occur at the end of aturn: it receives the value ‘ ’ if the next turn begins in the same language asthis switch, and ‘-’ if not. This feature does not apply to camouflaged as it doesnot occur at the end of the turn. ‘Flagging’ refers to mixing that is highlighted by the insertion of a discourse marker, a pause or a repair (see Muysken, 2000:101); and is indicative of the alternation pattern. It receives a negative value forcamouflaged, however, resulting in a score of ‘1’ for the insertion and congruentlexicalisation pattern and ‘-1’ for alternation. ‘Dummy word insertion’ refers to

the insertion of semantically empty elements such as ‘like’, ‘thing’ or ‘do’ (cf .Muysken, 2000: 105): this receives a negative value for camouflaged .As ‘bidirectional switching’ applies only to the whole corpus, we note in

relation to this feature the direction of the switch, which in the case of camouflaged is to English. At a later stage the percentage of switches occurringin each direction will be calculated. A roughly equal proportion of switches ineach direction will be indicative of the alternation or congruent lexicalisationpattern, whereas a predominance of switches in one direction rather thananother will favour the insertion pattern.

The next feature, ‘linear equivalence’,8 is taken to refer to whether theswitched material occurs in the same position in the clause, sequentially, in

which it would have appeared in the matrix language. It receives a positivevalue in relation to camouflaged , as predicative adjectives in Welsh appear afterthe verb, as do predicative adjectives and adjectival participles in English.This leads to a score in favour of the alternation and congruent lexicalisa-tion pattern. In our analysis we have assumed that the feature ‘linearequivalence’ does not apply to interclausal switching. ‘Telegraphic mixing’occurs where elements have been omitted that should have been present inone or both of the languages involved. This is not the case with camouflaged ,which thus receives a ‘minus’ value, which again favours the alt and congpatterns. ‘Morphological integration’, which is also indicative of congruentlexicalisation, occurs where one of the languages determines the overallgrammatical framework, and where items switched from the other language




are morphologically integrated into the main or matrix language. We haveassumed this feature does not apply where the possibility of morphologicalintegration does not arise, e.g. where there is no bound morpheme that could

be replaced by a bound morpheme from the matrix language. In the case of camouflaged, morphological integration does apply because mutation9 of theinitial consonant from [k] to [g] would be expected but does not occur.‘Doubling’ applies where the semantic value of the switch is the same as thatof another morpheme in the original language also found in the utterance, ase.g. when plurality is marked twice, as in the doubly marked Welsh Englishplural in llwynogods10 ‘foxes’ (Welsh llwynog ‘fox’, -od Welsh plural, -s Englishplural). This does not apply in the case of camouflaged , which thus receives aminus value for this feature.

The feature ‘homophonous diamorphs’ applies to pairs of words that arephonetically similar in both varieties: in transcriptions coding the language of

each word11

these words are shown as language-neutral. For this reason,however, they do not count as switches and so cannot be scored like otherswitched material. We have therefore assumed in the analyses reported in thenext section that this feature does not apply to the switches we have identified.However, Muysken suggests that a high frequency of homophonousdiamorphs would indicate the congruent lexicalisation pattern. In the nextsection we will indicate the frequency of homophonous diamorphs in theWelsh English data as a separate analysis.

The next feature, ‘triggering’, arises from a phenomenon identified byClyne (e.g. 1967) and applies only to multiword switches. It is an interpretationof a multiword switch where the choice of one of the words in the switch may

have led to other words being switched as part of a longer string. It isindicative of the congruent lexicalisation pattern. This feature appears toinvolve more subjective interpretation than the others, but we have applied ithere as carefully as possible. In Table 4 we can see that ‘triggering’ does notapply to camouflaged : this is because it is not a multiword switch.

‘Mixed collocations’ occur where two elements of an idiomatic collocationfrom one of the languages are from different languages, e.g. mynd on ‘go on’ inWelsh English conversations. Camouflaged is not part of a mixed collocationand receives a negative value for this feature. Finally, ‘self-corrections’ areswitches that involve repetition of similar material in the other language, oftenafter a hesitation. A good example can be found in Poplack (1998: 53), where a

speaker is relating in French a conversation he had in English (note that wehave indicated the self-correction by underlining): J’ai dit ‘you don’t swim.’ Ildit, ‘sure’ il dit, ‘I can swim’. Il dit ‘sure’. ‘Well, I says j’ai dit ‘show it to me’.(‘I said, ‘you don’t swim.’ He says, ‘sure’ he says, ‘I can swim’. He says ‘sure’.‘Well, I says I said ‘show it to me’.’) This example involves interclausalswitching from French to English followed by the insertion of material inFrench as a self-correction. Our example, camouflaged , however, is not a self-correction and so receives a minus on this feature.

After this procedure has been completed scores can be assigned for each of the three patterns. In the case of our example camouflaged we can see from thelast row of Table 4 that it receives a score of 11 on insertion, -6 on alternationand 3 on congruent lexicalisation, which we interpret as indicating that




insertion is the dominant pattern for this switch. The scores also show thatcongruent lexicalisation is a secondary pattern. As we shall show in the nextsection, the scores for a set of switches can be added together so that we

achieve an overall score on each pattern for the whole set of data.

Case Studies: Welsh

English, Tsou

Mandarin andTaiwanese

Mandarin

In this section we illustrate how the quantitative method outlined in theprevious section can be applied to actual data. We shall apply it to a sample of switches from three data sets: Welsh English, Tsou Mandarin and Taiwanese Mandarin. These data were based on recordings of spontaneous conversa-tions.12

Welsh

English data

Several hours of conversational data were collected from Welsh English bilinguals in North-west Wales, and can be found on the Talkbank13 website.One transcript was selected for analysis. This conversation was recorded by anative speaker of Welsh at a social gathering to which she invited somecolleagues. All of the seven participants in the conversation are female, nativeWelsh speakers who are bilingual in Welsh and English. (Aside from infants,monolingual Welsh speakers are virtually nonexistent, given the extent of exposure to English at home (at least in the media), school and in thecommunity, where monolingual English speakers are to be found in all areas,

to a greater or lesser extent.) Six of the women are in their 30s while one is inher 50s. The first hundred switches were coded as in the case of the example,camouflaged, illustrated in the previous section. Examples (11) and (12) will beused in addition to (7) and (10), shown previously, to further illustrate themethod of analysis.

(11) Speaker 1: . . . mae-’n bwysig. be.3SG.PRS.PRT important‘It’s important’.

Speaker 2: ply them with alcohol gynta.first

‘Ply them with alcohol first.’

(12) ti-’n gwybod gwestai crand, pam bod ’naPRO.2SG.PRT know.NFIN hotels grand why be.NFIN thereddim handy andies efo dy toothpicks di?NEG Handy Andies with POSS.2SG POSS.2SG

‘You know the grand restaurants, why aren’t there any handy andieswith your toothpicks?’

In Example (12) we have analysed toothpicks as a single-word switchin an otherwise Welsh clause ( pam bod na ddim handi andies efo dy toothpicks di ).In Example (11), however, we consider Ply them with alcohol gynta to




T a

b l e 5 A n a l y s i s o f s i x W e l s h E

n g l i s h e x a m p l e s


( 1 ) c a m o u f l a g e d

( 2 ) b e a u t y i s i n t h e

e y e o f t h e b e h o l d e r ,

n g w a s i

( 3 ) n g n g w a s

i ( ‘ m y d e a r ’ )

( 4 ) p l y t h e m w

i t h

a l c o h o l g y n t a

( 5 ) g y n t a ( ‘ f i r s t ’ )

( 6 ) t o o t h p i c k s



-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-

N e s t e d a b a

0

0

0

0


-

0

0

0

0

-

T y p e o f s w i t c h

P a s t

p a r t i c i p l e

C l a u s e

A d d r e s s

t e r m

C l a u s e

A d v e r b i a l

N o u n p

h r a s e


-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-


0

0

0


-

0

0

0

-

-


-

0

0

0

-


-

-

-

-


0

0

0

-


-

-

-

-

P e r i p h e r a l

-

0

0

-




T a



( 1 ) c a m o u f l a g e d

( 2 ) b e a u t y i s i n t h e

e y e o f t h e b e h o l d e r ,

n g w a s i

( 3 ) n g n g w a s

i ( ‘ m y d e a r ’ )

( 4 ) p l y t h e m w

i t h

a l c o h o l g y n t a

( 5 ) g y n t a ( ‘ f i r s t ’ )

( 6 ) t o o t h p i c k s

E m b e d d i n g i n

d i s c o u r s e

0

-

0

0

F l a g g i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-

D u m m y w o r d

i n s e r t i o n

-

-

-

-

-

-

D i r e c t i o n o f s w i t c h

E

n g l i s h

E n g l i s h

W e l s h

E n g l i s h

W e l s h

E n g l i s h


0

0


-

-

-

-

-

-

M o r p h o l o g i c a l

i n t e g r a t i o n

-

0

0

0

0

-

D o u b l i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-

H o m o p h o n o u s d i a m o r p h s

S e e e n d n o t e ( 4 )


S e e e n d n o t e

( 4 )

S e e e n d n o t e (

4 )



T r i g g e r i n g

0

-

-

-

0

0


-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-




be an interclausal switch to a clause with English as its matrix languageinstead of Welsh, the matrix language of the previous clause. This clausethen contains an intraclausal switch, gynta. Thus we treat Ply them withalcohol gynta and gynta as two switches, one interclausal and the otherintraclausal.

The results for the coding of the switched material in these examples areshown in Table 5. If the feature values as reported in Table 4 are then used tocalculate scores on the three different codeswitching patterns as outlined in the

previous section, the scores will be as shown in Table 6. The bottom row inTable 6 shows the dominant pattern for each switch.

Table 6 shows the results for just six sample switches, but to arrive at anoverall result for the sample of 100 switches we need to add up the individualscores. If this is done for the first 100 switches in the sample, then our resultsare as shown in Table 7.14

Table 7 shows that the dominant pattern for this set of data is insertion, withcongruent lexicalisation as a secondary pattern. There are three features notconsidered until now that apply to the whole corpus: ‘diverse switches’,‘direction of switch’ and ‘homophonous diamorphs’ (see previous section). If we examine diverse switches and bidirectional switching, we find that the

Table 6 Scores on codeswitching patterns for Welsh English examples

SCORES ON MIXING

PATTERNS

(1)camou-

flaged

(2)beauty is in

the eye of the

beholder,ng was i

(3)ng was i

(‘my dear’)

(4) ply them

withalcohol gynta

(5) gynta

(6)tooth-

picks

Insertion 11 -1 0 1 5 11

Alternation -7 2 3 3 3 -7

Congruentlexicalisation

4 1 4 2 1 4

Dominantpattern

Insertion Alternation Congruentlexicali-sation

Alternation Insertion Insertion

Table 7 Results of classifying 100 switches

Scores on Switching Patterns TOTAL MEAN

Insertion 710 7.1

Alternation -385 -3.85

Congruent lexicalisation 434 4.34

Dominant Pattern Insertion




overall results are compatible with the insertion pattern. Sixty-four percent of the switches are either single nouns or noun phrases, which makes foran overall low diversity of switch types, and matches the negative value of this feature for the insertion pattern shown in Table 2. As for directionalityof switching, 96% of the switches are from Welsh to English rather thanEnglish to Welsh, which indicates a lack of bidirectionality, also matching thenegative value of this feature for insertion shown in Table 2. The feature‘homophonous diamorphs’ is not relevant for the insertion pattern, but arelatively high proportion would be compatible with the secondary codes-witching pattern indicated in Table 7, congruent lexicalisation. In the samplewe have examined there is a totalx of 746 homophonous diamorphs out of a total of 6515 words (excluding names), or 11%. However, it remains tocompare this with other corpora to see whether or not this is a relativelyhigh proportion.

In the previous section we discussed the difficulty of distinguishing loansfrom switches and indicated that we would conduct analyses that helped tominimise the effect of mistakenly identifying loans as single-word switches. Itcould be argued that including an inflated proportion of single-word switchesin the data would unduly favour the insertion pattern. In the case of theWelsh English data we therefore recalculated the total score for the sampleexcluding all examples of single-word switches. The results are reported inTable 8.

As shown in Table 8, we still find that insertion is the dominant pattern, thatcongruent lexicalisation is a secondary pattern and that alternation iscounterindicated.

Table 3 summarised Muysken’s (2000) view of the relation betweenlinguistic factors, extralinguistic factors and codeswitching patterns. From alinguistic point of view, we might have expected the typological distance between English (an SVO language) and Welsh (a VSO language) to predicteither the insertion or the alternation pattern. From an extralinguistic point of view, a colonial setting might have favoured insertion, whereas a tradition of language separation might favour alternation. It can be argued that Wales has been a colony of England since it was conquered in 1284, the Welsh language being excluded from legal use after the Acts of Union in 1536 and 1542. (Thissituation did not change substantially until 1942: see Thomas, 1982: 87.) Atleast in informal situations, however, language separation does not seem tohave applied for Welsh English bilinguals, and this has led to language

Table 8 Results of classifying 50 multiword switches


Insertion 291 2.91



Dominant Pattern Insertion




contact over a long period of time. This prolonged contact has doubtless led tosome structural approximation between the two languages e.g. in the form of calquing. This is beyond the scope of this paper, but could explain why

congruent lexicalisation, a pattern more typical of closely related languages,appears to be a secondary pattern in our data.

Tsou

Mandarin data

About nine hours of conversational data were recorded. Ten old people(age 55 70), including seven males and three females, were selected as thesubjects. All participants were fluent bilingual speakers of Mandarin andTsou. (A ‘Tsou village’ is one primarily inhabited by members of the Tsouethnic minority who speak Tsou, a VOS Austronesian language, which isstructurally very different from Chinese.15) The recordings were conducted by one of the subjects in a small restaurant in a Tsou village in Taiwan:Tapangu. The data were transcribed using the Chinese phonemic pin-yin16

system for Mandarin and the IPA for Tsou. The first one hundred switchestranscribed were used for the analysis reported here. Below we giveexamples of switches in (13) (16), which we shall then use to illustratehow the quantitative method outlined in the previous section was applied.(Tsou material is shown in normal type while Mandarin material is shown in bold.)

(13) moso gao-zhuang do lao-ban ?o Basuya.PST.AG. [ VIS] tell-tales OBL b oss NOM.[ VIS] name

‘Basuya told tales on someone to his boss.’

In this example we consider Tsou to be the matrix language on the basis of its VOS word order, which is characteristic of Tsou, and on the basis of theTsou subject verb agreement and case-marking. We assume that there are twoMandarin switches, gao-zhuang and lao-ban respectively, which are (1) and(2) in Table 9.

(14) [o-suko c?o gan-jue [ta zai na-bian]]PST.[ VIS].2SG only feel he in there‘You felt he (is) there.’

In Example (14) of a complex structure, with a main clause containing asubordinate clause (shown by square brackets inside other brackets), weconsider the main clause to have Tsou as its matrix language because of theTsou subject verb agreement. However, there is an intraclausal switch toMandarin, gan-jue ta zai na-bian (switch no. 3 in Table 9), which also containsan interclausal switch to Mandarin as the matrix language in the subordinateclause ta zai na-bian (switch no. (4) in Table 9).

(15) magci moso no shang-diao ne?why PST.AG OBL hang Q‘Why did (he) hang himself?’




In (15) the Mandarin materials shang-diao ne is a switch (no. (5) in Table 9)in a clause which has Tsou as its matrix language (because of the Tsou case-marking).

(16) Basuya, Avai, hai-you Fa?e de ba-ba cai ai-yu-ziname name and name POSS father pick plant.name

yone shi-san-xiin place name‘Basuya, Avai, and Fa?e’s father picked ai-yu-zi in Shi-san-xi.’

Finally, Example (16) has Mandarin as its matrix language (as it followsMandarin word order) with an inserted preposition in Tsou, yone . The resultsof the analysis of the six switches illustrated above are given in Table 9, andTable 10 shows the total scores for each of these switches.

Unlike Mandarin and Taiwanese, Tsou has an abundance of inflectionalmorphology and its word order (VOS) is different from the Chinese SVO order.This is illustrated by the monolingual Examples (17) and (18).

(17) ba-ba chi xiang-jiao. (Mandarin SVO)father eat banana.‘Father ate a banana.’

(18) mo bonu to tacumu ?o amo. (Tsou - VOS)PST-AG eat OBL banana NOM father‘Father ate a banana.’(Zeitoun, 1992: 15)

Hence, for the Mandarin Tsou data, we adopted the quantitative methodoutlined in the previous section without any adjustment. To illustrate how aswitch is defined in a Tsou Mandarin bilingual clause, see Example (13),which is repeated as (19) below. As the word order is VOS as in Tsou and theinflectional morphology is also provided by Tsou, we therefore identify Tsouas the matrix language and the elements in Mandarin as the switches.

(19) moso gao-zhuang do lao-ban ?o Basuya.PST-AG tell-tales OBL boss NOM name‘Basuya told tales on someone to his boss.’

Table 11 shows that our sample of 100 Tsou

Mandarin switches appears tohave two dominant patterns, insertion and congruent lexicalisation, withinsertion just receiving the higher score. Referring to Table 3, this result inTable 11 can be explained in terms of both linguistic and extralinguistic factors.The linguistic factor is typological distance, as the word order of Mandarin isSVO while that of Tsou is VOS. As for extralinguistic factors, the indigenousminority Tsou group can certainly be described as existing in a colonial setting.

The secondary pattern of congruent lexicalisation cannot at first sight beaccounted for by the linguistic factor in Table 3 of typological similarity.However, it is possible that some structural convergence of Tsou towardsMandarin has occurred during a period of intense language contact since 1945.Since Tsou speakers are numerically, politically and socioeconomically a




T a

b l e 9 A n a l y s i s o f s i x T s o u M a n d a r i n e x a m p l e s

M u y s k e n

’ s F e a

t u r e s

( 1 )

g a o - z h u a n g

( 2 ) l a o - b a n

( 3 ) g a n - j u e t a z a i n a - b i a n

( 4 ) t a z a i

n a - b i a n

( 5 ) s h a n g - d i a o n e (

6 ) y o n e


-

-


-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

N e s t e d a b a

0

0

0


-

-

0

0

0

-


V e r b

N o u n

V P

C l a u s e

V e r b

p a r t i c l e

P r e p o s i t i o n


-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-


0

0

-


-

-

0

-

0


-

-

0

-

0

-


-

-

-

-

-


-

-

0

0

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

P e r i p h e r a l

-

-

-

-

-


0

0

0

0

0

0

F l a g g i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-




T a


M u y s k e n

’ s F e a

t u r e s

( 1 )

g a o - z h u a n g

( 2 ) l a o - b a n

( 3 ) g a n - j u e t a z a i n a - b i a n

( 4 ) t a z a i

n a - b i a n

( 5 ) s h a n g - d i a o n e (

6 ) y o n e


T t o M

T t o M

T t o M

T t o

M

T t o M

M t o T


-


-

-

-

-

-

-


0

0

D o u b l i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-


0

0

0

0

0

0

T r i g g e r i n g

0

0

0


-

-

0

0

0

-


-

-

-

-

-

-




T a

b l e 1 0 S c o r e s o n c o d e - s w i t c h i n g p a t t e r n s f o r T s o u M a n d a r i n e

x a m p l e s

S c o r e s o n m

i x i n g p a

t t e r n s ( 1 ) g a o - z h u a n g ( 2 ) l a o - b a n

( 3 ) g a n - j u e t a z a i n a - b i a ( 4 ) t a z a i n a - b

i a n

( 5 ) s h a n g -

d i a o n e

( 6 ) y o n e

I n s e r t i o n

1 2

1 2

0

- 7

3

7


- 8

- 8

1

4

- 1 0

- 5

C o n g r u e n t l e x i c a l i s a t i o n

4

4

4

0

8

7

D o m

i n a n

t p a

t t e r n

I n s e r t i o n

I n s e r t i o n

C o n g r u e n t



C o n g r u e n t


I n s e r t i o n & c

o n g r u e n t





minority, Tsou people have to speak Mandarin in their work places. Inaddition to that, all Tsou people have to receive their education through themedia of Mandarin. Mandarin is currently replacing Tsou as the main

language for daily communication in Tsou villages, and Tsou is graduallylosing its speakers.

There are three features that we have not yet applied to the entireTsou Mandarin corpus, namely ‘diverse switches’, ‘direction of switch’ and‘homophonous diamorphs’. If we examine diverse switches, we find that 30%of the switches are nouns or noun phrases, 14% are verb or verb phrases, 22%are adjectives (or adjective phrases), prepositions, etc., and the remaining 34%are non-constituents. This result suggests a high diversity of switch types,which contradicts the negative value of this feature for the insertion patternshown in Table 2, but matches the value for congruent lexicalisation, which wehave also seen to be an important pattern. When we look at direction of switch,we find that the majority of the switches (67%) are from Tsou to Mandarin.This relative lack of bidirectional switching matches the negative value of thisfeature for the insertion pattern shown in Table 2. Finally, no homophonousdiamorphs are found in our Tsou Mandarin corpus, but the value of thisfeature is not relevant for the insertion pattern (see Table 4).

In the previous section, we raised the question of how to distinguishswitches from loans, and suggested that words found in dictionaries can beconsidered to be loans. However, there is no reliable Tsou dictionary, so thatwe had to use our own judgement in distinguishing Tsou loans from switches.To guard against the possibility that we may have mistakenly identified some

loans as single-word switches, we followed the same procedure as for ourWelsh English data described in the previous subsection, that is, werecalculated the total score for the Tsou Mandarin data excluding single-word switches. The results are shown in Table 12.

Table 12 shows that congruent lexicalisation is the dominant pattern for thissubset of data, scoring higher than insertion in this analysis. As single-wordswitches would tend to favour the insertion pattern and are yet excluded inthis analysis, the result would suggest that the ‘truly’ dominant pattern inthese data is congruent lexicalisation. According to Muysken’s (2000) predic-tion as shown in Table 3, this is a pattern likely to occur when the twolanguages are typologically similar, unlike Tsou and Mandarin. However, the

dominance of congruent lexicalisation may be explained in terms of the

Table 11 Results of classifying 100 Mandarin Tsou switches


Insertion 543 5.43



Dominant pattern Insertion




possible structural convergence suggested as an interpretation of the results inTable 11 also.

Taiwanese

Mandarin data

About 4.5 hours of conversational data were recorded in the Department of Environmental Protection of Tainan County, Taiwan. There were 10 speakers(aged 50 60): three males and seven females.

They all worked in this department and were fluent speakers of bothMandarin and Taiwanese. The recordings were conducted by one of theparticipants. The data were transcribed using the Chinese phonemic pin-yinsystem for Mandarin and the IPA for Taiwanese.17 The first 100 switches in thetranscription were analysed using the quantitative method outlined in theprevious section.

Defining switches As outlined in the Taiwanese Mandarin data in the previous section, we

worked on a clause-by-clause basis for the analysis, and tried to identify the‘matrix’ language of a clause by checking the word order and subject verbagreement. However, these criteria are problematic for Taiwanese Mandarindata. Taiwanese (also known as Hokkien and South Min) is one of the dialectsspoken in southern China and Taiwan, and it shares most of the syntacticstructures with Mandarin, or standard Chinese. The major differences betweenthese two languages are their phonology and lexicons, and the wordorder remains the same. This is illustrated by the two monolingual sentencesin (20).

(20) a. ta jing-zhui zhang yi ke zhong-liu. (Mandarin)his neck grow one CLF tumour‘There is a tumour on his neck.’

b. i am-gun-na son i liab pai-mi. (Taiwanese)his neck grow one CLF tumour‘There is a tumour on his neck.’

Moreover, Chinese is well known as an isolating language in which there islittle inflectional morphology, as shown in (20a) and (20b). Therefore, it is not

possible to clearly identify the matrix language of a Taiwanese Mandarin

Table 12 Total scores excluding Mandarin Tsou single-word switches

Scores on switching patterns Total based on 64 switches

Insertion 219 (mean 3.42)

Alternation -284 (mean -4.44)

Congruent lexicalisation 343 (mean 5.36)

Dominant pattern Congruent lexicalisation




bilingual clause by using the two criteria of word-order and agreement. Wetherefore used additional criteria to identify the matrix language in these data,including the assumption that the language of any classifier was the matrix

language for that clause. This is illustrated in Example (21), where theclassifier liab is in Taiwanese. We therefore assume that the matrix language of (21) is Taiwanese, and that the items jing-drue ‘neck’ and zhong-lio ‘tumour’are switches into Mandarin.

(21) i jing-zhui son i liab zhong-liu. (Taiwanese Mandarin)his neck grow one CLF tumour‘There is a tumour on his neck.’

Another criterion used to identify the matrix language of a clause in theabsence of other relevant criteria was the language of the majority of items inthe clauses, for example, in (22) there is only one item in Mandarin ( gu-li)

while the rest of the material is in Taiwanese. We therefore assume thatTaiwanese is the matrix language of this clause and gu-li is a switch.

(22) an-na gu-li in e. (Taiwanese Mandarin)how encourage them EVAL‘How to encourage them?’

Further examples showing how we identified switches are given in (23) (27).

(23) da-go wu da-go e qu-yu a!everyone have everyone POSS area AF‘Everyone has his/her own responsible area!’

Here Taiwanese is the matrix language and the Mandarin materials qu-yu ais a switch.

(24) [li gin-la-li na gon [mei-you chu-fa] [mei-you fen qu-yu]you today if say NEG punishment NEG divide area

[bo wo gon.]]NEG word say.

‘If, today, there is no punishment and no responsible area being divided,then I have nothing to say.’

Taiwanese is again the matrix language of this complex clause, whichincludes an interclausal switch to Mandarin: mei-yo chu-fa mei-yo fen chu-yu .

(25) [er-qie zhe ge dong-xi hon] you jiang jiu you fa.also this CLF thing REP have award then have punishment‘Also, (when dealing with this kind of thing), you have to punishthem, and sometimes give them an award.’

Here the matrix language of the subordinate clause in the brackets isMandarin, for the classifier ge is from Mandarin, and the Taiwanese discourseparticle hon is a switch.




(26) wa ma lon bo iE-dio yu-jin ne.I also all NEG use bath-towel INFOR‘I don’t use a bath towel at all, either.’

In (26), Taiwanese is the matrix language and the Mandarin material yu-jin isa switch.

(27) ying-gai ma e-daE a-no- i la!Probably also can like.this AF‘Probably, (it) can also be like this.’

Example (27) is similar to (26) in that Taiwanese is the matrix language andthe Mandarin material ying-gai is a switch.

Table 13 shows how these six switches were analysed. Table 14 lists thedominant patterns of these six switches and the scores they receive for eachpattern. Table 15 shows the overall result of analysing the 100 Taiwane-se Mandarin switches. We can see that congruent lexicalisation receives ascore of 638, which is the highest score among these three patterns. Insertionreceives the second highest score of 494, while alternation receives the lowestscore of -449. We did a separate analysis of the three features (i.e. ‘diverseswitches’, ‘direction of switch’ and ‘homophonous diamorphs’) that are notincluded in the analysis in Table 15. As for diverse switches, we find that34% of the switches in our Taiwanese Mandarin corpus are nouns and nounphrases, 37% are non-constituents and the remaining 29% are others (verb

7%, CP 9% and etc). This result shows that there is a high diversity of switches, and matches the positive value of this feature for the congruentlexicalisation pattern shown in Table 2. As for direction of switch, we findthat 77% of the switches are from Taiwanese to Mandarin rather thanMandarin to Taiwanese. This result shows that there is a relative lack of bidirectional switching, which contradicts the positive value of the featurefor congruent lexicalisation shown in Table 2. Finally, we found a total of 22homophonous diamorphs (all sentence final particles) out of a total of 634words18 (3.4%) in our Taiwanese Mandarin corpus. Referring to Table 2, thisrelatively low proportion would seem to be at odds with the congruentlexicalisation pattern.

In addition, we did a separate analysis to exclude all the single-wordswitches. The result is shown in Table 16. We can see that congruentlexicalisation is still the dominant pattern, again receiving the highest score.The insertion pattern still comes second but receives a lower mean score thanin Table 15, confirming the dominant pattern to be congruent lexicalisationonce the single-word switches have been removed from the analysis.

One possible interpretation for this result would be linguistic. As illustrated by the examples in (20), the grammatical structures of Mandarin andTaiwanese are almost the same. In other words, they are typologically similarlanguages. This means that switches can occur almost anywhere as illustratedin the congruent lexicalisation pattern shown in Figure 3.

Another explanation for the predominance of the congruent lexicalisationpattern would be extralinguistic. According to Muysken (2000): 9), ‘congruentlexicalization may be particularly associated with second generation migrant




T a

b l e 1 3 A n a l y s i s o f s i x M a n d a r

i n T a i w a n e s e s w i t c h e s

M u y s k e n

’ s F e a

t u r e s

( 1 ) q u - y u a

( 2 ) m e i - y o c h u - f a

m e i - y o f e n q u -

y u

( 3 ) b o w o

g o n

( 4 ) h o n

( 5 ) y u - j i n

( 6 ) y i n g - g a i


-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-


-

-

N e s t e d a b a

0

0

0

0

0


0

0

0

0

-

0


N o u n

p a r t i c l e

C l a u s e

C l a u s e

D i s c o u

r s e p a r t i c l e

N o u n

A

d v e r b


-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-


0

0

-


0

0

-

-

-


0

0

-

-

-


-

-

-

-


-

0

-

-

0

-


-

-

-

P e r i p h e r a l

-

-

-

-


0

0

0

0

0

0




T a

b l e 1 3 ( C o n t i n u e d )

M u y s k e n

’ s F e a

t u r e s

( 1 ) q u - y u a

( 2 ) m e i - y o c h u - f a

m e i - y o f e n q u -

y u

( 3 ) b o w o

g o n

( 4 ) h o n

( 5 ) y u - j i n

( 6 ) y i n g - g a i

F l a g g i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-


T t o M

T t o M

M t o T

M

t o T

T t o M

T



-

-

-

-

-

-


0

0

0

0

0

0

D o u b l i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-

T r i g g e r i n g

0

0

0


0

0

0

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-




T a

b l e 1 4 S c o r e s o n c o d e s w i t c h i n

g p a t t e r n s f o r s i x M a n d a r i n T a i w a n e s e e x a m p l e s

S c o r e s o n m

i x i n g p a

t t e r n s

( 1 ) q u - y u a

( 2 ) m e i - y o

c h u - f a

m e i - y o f e n q u - y u

( 3 ) b o w o

g o n

( 4 ) h o n

( 5 ) y u - j i n

( 6 ) y

i n g - g a i

I n s e r t i o n

0

- 3

3

1

1 2

7


- 5

0

- 4

- 5

- 8

1

C o n g r u e n t l e x i c a l i s a t i o n

8

7

8

1 0

5

2

D o m

i n a n

t p a

t t e r n

C o n g r u e n t


C o n g r

u e n t


C o n g r u e n t


C

o n g r u e n t


I n s e r t i o n

I n s e r t i o n




groups, dialect/standard and post-creole continua . . .’. The relation of Taiwanese to Mandarin can certainly be considered that of a dialect to astandard.

As Table 15 shows, insertion receives a score of 494, which is the secondhighest. According to the predictions summarised in Table 2, insertion will be

favoured by the linguistic factor of typological distance and by variousextralinguistic factors including that of colonial settings. Linguistic factorsclearly do not account for the relatively high insertion scores as Mandarin andTaiwanese are typologically quite close. However, an extralinguistic explana-tion may be provided by the quasicolonial relationship between Mandarin andTaiwanese. During 55 years of rule by the nationalist party (KMT), theTaiwanese government implemented strict language policies (1945 1987), andMandarin had very high prestige compared to other languages spoken inTaiwan (Liao, 2000). The use of languages other than standard Mandarin (e.g.Taiwanese or Tsou) was not allowed in schools, mass media or any otherpublic places (Chen, 1998). Such a situation resembles the colonial settings in

which one language has very high prestige, while other languages are in aninferior position. As Table 2 suggests, insertion is often associated withcolonial settings. The high score for the insertion pattern may thus reflect thequasicolonial situation in Taiwan.

Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, the results of analysing our Welsh English, Tsou Mandarinand Taiwanese Mandarin data suggest that no data set can be exclusivelycategorised by one of Muysken’s (2000) three CS patterns. There is always amore or less strong secondary pattern. However, there are clear preferences,

Table 15 Results of classifying 100 Mandarin Taiwanese switches

Scores on switching patterns Total Mean

Insertion 494 4.94




Table 16 Total scores of excluding Mandarin Taiwanese single-word switches

Scores on mixing patterns Total based on 65 switches

Insertion 153 (mean 2.35)

Alternation -237 (mean -3.65)

Congruent lexicalisation 465 (mean 7.15)





which may be related to grammatical or extralinguistic factors. Thus theinsertion pattern in the Welsh English and in the Tsou Mandarin data may be related to divergent typological features as well as to the extralinguistic

factor of a colonial setting. The congruent lexicalisation pattern in theTaiwanese Mandarin data, on the other hand, may be related to thetypological similarities between these languages. In this pair, however,we have suggested that the relatively high score achieved for the insertionpattern may be explained in terms of extralinguistic factors, in particular thestandard variety-dialect relation between the two. However, some methodo-logical and conceptual issues remain.

The first of the methodological issues is that in the analyses reportedabove we have treated all of the features as if they had equal weight.However, it may be that some features should be treated as more importantthan others. Second, there is some redundancy in the system that we have

not taken account of, such as where the value on a particular feature willdetermine the value on another. For example the value ‘-’ on the feature‘long constituent’ will predict ‘-’ on the feature ‘complex constituent’. Itmight be possible to refine the analysis further if we were to adopt a modelwith dependent binary choices, but the development of such a model willhave to await further research. Third, we have seen that not all featuresapply to all the switches. For instance, the feature ‘morphological integration’was not applicable if morphological integration of the switch was notpossible, as in Mandarin and Taiwanese. Because of these problems, thescores for each switch are not directly comparable although we have treatedthem as though they were.

From a conceptual point of view, one issue is that although our frameworkseems to work well in identifying the insertion and congruent lexicalisationpatterns, this does not seem to be true of alternation. The results show thatalternation receives considerably lower scores across these three sets of datawhen compared to the other two patterns, to the extent that all our alternationscores are negative. This may be because we have not chosen data sets thatreflect alternation, or perhaps because the framework identifies alternation asdominant only if we restrict our analysis to interclausal switching.

Another possible explanation is that typological distance plays a moreimportant role than we have acknowledged in determining which of the threepatterns appears to be dominant. Table 2 represents typological distance asfavouring insertion and alternation while typological similarity favourscongruent lexicalisation. Another way of looking at it would be thattypological distance favours one of two patterns, either insertion or alterna-tion, while typological similarity gives rise to just one pattern, congruentlexicalisation. This would be compatible with our findings that insertion wasdominant for Welsh English and Tsou Mandarin, where typological distancewas involved, but that congruent lexicalisation was dominant for Taiwanese Mandarin, where typological similarity prevailed. Another way of viewingthe relationship between the three patterns is thus that the contrast betweeninsertion and alternation is neutralised in the form of congruent lexicalisationwhere typological similarity occurs.




A final conceptual issue to be mentioned here is that of how to define aswitch. The clause-based approach that we outlined in the subsection ‘What isa switch?’ may have been a factor in the apparent non-occurrence of the

alternation pattern in our data, and to develop a different analysis wouldrequire a whole new set of diagnostic criteria. The clause-based approach ineffect assumes an asymmetry between the languages which the alternationpattern does not, and thus may bias the analysis towards the insertion andcongruent lexicalisation patterns. We suggest that future research couldattempt to dispense with the notion of a switch altogether, replacing it withthe notion of ‘language-specific chunk’. The diagnostic features in Table 2would then be applied not just to switches, but to the entire data, divided intochunks or stretches of same-language material. The overall results for eachlanguage (i.e. the set of language-specific chunks from a particular language)could then be compared in terms of constituency, category (instead of ‘element

switched’, cf. Table 2), switch site (focussing on the site of the beginning of thelanguage-specific material) and properties of language-specific chunk (instead of ‘properties of switch’). On this basis a new typology of codeswitching orlanguage alternation patterns might be developed.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the following for their comments on an earlier version of this paper: Marika Fusser, Helena Halmari, Mark Sebba, and to audiences atoral presentations of this work given in Manchester, Nijmegen and York. Weshould also like to thank all those bilingual speakers in Taiwan and Wales whokindly gave permission for their conversations to be recorded.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Margaret Deuchar,School of Linguistics and English Language, University of Wales, Bangor,Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK ([email protected]).

Notes

1. Note that we have used the Leipzig Glossing Rules (http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/files/morpheme.html, see also Croft, 2003: xix xxv; Lehmann, 1983) in theglosses for all examples. This has sometimes involved changing the glossingconventions of cited published examples or inserting our own glosses.

2. We have interpreted ‘‘colonial settings’’ as referring to situations where thelanguage of the majority can be considered to be a colonial language which co-exists with a minority language that is associated primarily with the colonised.

3. For example, the formula ‘ IF(OR($E$30,0,E350,0),0,IF(E35$E$3,1,-1))’ is based on the Microsoft Excel ‘IF(logical_test,value_if_true,value_if_false)’. Theexample given indicates that if the value for a particular feature in relation to aparticular switch is 0, then the score will be 0 on the particular pattern being scoredin this cell. If the value matches that found in E3 (where the expected value for thatpattern is coded), the score will be 1, if not -1. So if the value ‘ ’ is found in E3 andE35, the score will be ‘1’, but if ‘ ’ is found in E3 and ‘-’ in E35 then the score will be ‘-1’.

4. As explained later in the text, homophonous diamorphs do not count as switches because they are language-neutral and therefore they cannot be scored like otherswitched material. However, the frequency of homophonous diamorphs can be




calculated in order to determine which codeswitching pattern this criterionindicates.

5. Muysken (2000: 129 130) provides examples of the switching of several constitu-ents and of a nonconstituent in his examples (12) and (13) respectively.

6. We have assumed that the tag yn dydy is part of the same clause, a decision thatcould possibly be challenged. If the material following camouflaged were clearlypart of a new clause, then the switch would receive the value ‘-’ on nested aba and‘ ’ on non-nested aba . Although there might appear to be some redundancy in theexistence of these two features, which are the converse of one another, we can seein Table 3 that both features are necessary as their values on the three possiblecodeswitching patterns are not simply a mirror image of one another.

7. See also chapter 6 of Muysken (2000).8. See Muysken (2000) for considerable discussion of the relation between linear and

categorical equivalence and the relative importance of the two notions.9. Mutation is a morphophonological process that applies to certain initial consonants

in Welsh under certain conditions: for more information see e.g. Thomas (1992: 34).10. We are grateful to Winifred Davies for this example.

11. See e.g. Bangor data at http://talkbank.org/data/LIDES.12. A rough idea of the frequency of switching in these data can be obtained by

calculating the proportion of words in each language in the dataset. In theWelsh English data analysed, 80% of the words were unambiguously Welsh, 8%were unambiguously English and over 11% could belong to either language. In theTsou Mandarin data analysed, approximately 62% of the words were unambigu-ously Mandarin, 37% of words were Tsou and 1% were either Taiwanese or Japanese. In the Taiwanese Mandarin data analysed, 32% of the words wereunambiguously Mandarin, 67% of words were Taiwanese and approximately 1%could belong to either language.

13. See Bangor data at http://talkbank.org/data/LIDES.14. We are grateful to Marika Fusser for assisting with this analysis.15. The population of the Tsou ethnic group is 6149 (Taiwan National Institute of

Educational Resources & Research: http://3d.nioerar.edu.tw/2d/native/course/course_0101. Accessed 31.03.07). Tsou is spoken by an unknown proportion of theTsou ethnic group. It is estimated that the number of the speakers of Tsou isapproximately 3000 3500.

16. Hyphens in the representation of both Mandarin and Taiwanese indicate adjacentChinese characters.

17. Hyphens in the representation of both Mandarin and Taiwanese indicate adjacentChinese characters.

18. Unlike the Welsh English data, we only transcribed the utterances that containswitches in our Taiwanese Mandarin corpus.

19. Cf. Muysken (2000: 7): ‘In this situation, a single constituent B (with words b fromthe same language) is inserted into a structure defined by language A , with wordsa from that language’.

References

Backus, A. (1996) Two in one. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in theNetherlands. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, Nether-lands: Tilburg University Press.

Bakker, P. (1997) A Language of Our Own. The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree FrenchLanguage of the Canadian Me tis . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, M.R. (1998) The Review and Future Development of The Language Policy in Taiwan .Kaohsiung: Fu Wen Publisher Ltd.

Clyne, M. (1967) Transference and Triggering . The Hague: Nijhoff.Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact. English and Immigrant Languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Croft, W. (2003) Typology and Universals (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Deuchar, M. (2006) Welsh English code-switching and the Matrix Language Framemodel. Lingua 116 (11), 1745 2022.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991) Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Giesbers, H. (1989) Code switching tussen dialect en standaardtaal. Doctoral Disserta-tion, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen.

Halmari, H. (1997) Government and Code-switching. Explaining American Finnish .Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Lehmann, C. (1983) Directions for interlinear morphemic translations. Folia Linguistica16, 193 224.

Liao, Ch.Ch. (2000) Changing dominant language use and ethnic equality in Taiwansince 1987. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 143, 165 182.

Muysken, P. (2000) Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching .

Oxford: Clarendon Press.Myers-Scotton, C. (2003) Contact Linguistics. Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical

Outcomes . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nortier, J. (1989) Moroccan Arabic and Dutch in contact. Code-switching among

Moroccans in the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam[published in 1990 by Foris, Dordrecht].

Pfaff, C. (1979) Constraints on language mixing. Language 55, 291 319.Poplack, S. (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Espanol.

Linguistics 18, 581 618.Poplack, S. (1998) Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In

P. Trudgill and J. Cheshire (eds) Sociolinguistics Reader (Vol. 1) (pp. 44 65). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Sankoff, D. and Poplack, S. (1981) A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in

Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 14 (1), 3 45.Sankoff, D., Poplack, S. and Vanniarajan, S. (1990) The case of the nonce loan in Tamil.

Language Variation and Change 2, 71 101.Thomas, C. (1982) Registers in Welsh. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35,

87 115.Treffers-Daller, J. (1994) Mixing Two Languages. French Dutch Contact in Comparative

Perspective . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Wang, S.-L. (2007) Evaluating competing models of code-switching with reference to

Mandarin/Tsou and Mandarin/Southern Min data. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of Wales, Bangor.

Zeitoun, E. (1992) A syntactic and semantic study of Tsou Focus System. MADissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.

Appendix

List of glosses

3P etc. third person plural etc.3S etc. third person singular etc.AF affirmative particleAG agentiveCLF classifierCLM class markerEVAL evaluative particleEXCL exclamative particle




F feminine genderIND indicativeINF infinitive

INFOR informative particleNEG negationNFIN non-finiteNOM nominativeOBL obliquePO possessorPR presentPRO pronounPRT sentence particlePST pastQ question particle

REF reflexiveREP particle of reportingSUBJ subjunctiveVIS visible


code switch

Documents