Scribd
Upload
50 views

Psycholinguistically Conditioned Code

Bilingualism and code-switching are common worldwide. Code-switching involves alternating between languages in sentences or conversations, which incurs cognitive costs like slowed comprehension. Research investigates the mechanisms behind these switch costs and their precise locus. Code-switching can occur psycholinguistically without intention, promoted by "trigger words" at the intersection of two language systems that cause speakers to continue in the other language. Discourse markers frequently borrowed from a dominant language also trigger code-switching. While code-switching serves various functions, intentions are subject to pragmatic and interactional constraints that differ between bilingual communities and proficiency levels. Further research is needed to clarify the linguistic and psycholinguistic factors influencing language

Uploaded by

Sarah Baylon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views

Psycholinguistically Conditioned Code

Bilingualism and code-switching are common worldwide. Code-switching involves alternating between languages in sentences or conversations, which incurs cognitive costs like slowed comprehension. Research investigates the mechanisms behind these switch costs and their precise locus. Code-switching can occur psycholinguistically without intention, promoted by "trigger words" at the intersection of two language systems that cause speakers to continue in the other language. Discourse markers frequently borrowed from a dominant language also trigger code-switching. While code-switching serves various functions, intentions are subject to pragmatic and interactional constraints that differ between bilingual communities and proficiency levels. Further research is needed to clarify the linguistic and psycholinguistic factors influencing language

Uploaded by

Sarah Baylon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

 Bilingualism is a facet of nearly every country in the world and code-switching is a widespread

characteristic of bilingual speech

Speakers familiar with more than one language often alternate languages between or even within
sentences, particularly in the company of other bilinguals (Scotton & Ury, 1977). It is now widely
accepted that such code-switching incurs cognitive costs, such as a slowdown in comprehension or
production when stimuli involve mixed languages, particularly when the input language changes
unpredictably (Dalrymple-Alford, 1985; Grainger & Beauvillain, 1987; MacNamara & Kushnir,
1972; Meuter & Allport, 1999; Soares & Grosjean, 1984; Thomas & Allport, 2000; von Studnitz & Green,
1997). The present study follows a long tradition of experimental research investigating the precise
locus of these switch costs, and the nature of the underlying mechanisms.

Psycholinguistically conditioned code-switching, or non-functional code-switching, is nonintentional, it


just “happens” in the conversation of bilinguals and is promoted by so-called triggerwords, which are
defined as “words at the intersection of two language systems, which, consequently, may cause
speakers to lose their linguistic bearings and continue the sentence in the other language” (Clyne 1991:
193). Those lexical items can usually be identified as belonging to more than one language (of the
bilingual speaker or the entire bilingual speech community). However, it has to be stressed that these
kinds of lexemes are not the result, but the cause of code-switching (cf. Clyne 2003: 162). This means
that the trigger word should not itself be regarded as a code-switched item, because it is part of the
language of interaction. It is a lexeme that is shared by both languages. The simple fact that it is at the
same time part of the ‘other’ language as well can cause the switch (= triggering effect). In other words:
this specific item subsequently elicits more ‘other’-language material. In the remainder of this chapter I
shall list the different types of trigger-words following the classification posited by Clyne (1991: 193ff,
modified in 2003: 162ff).

Proper nouns In almost all bilingual speech communities proper nouns usually have no translation
equivalent in the other language, but are used in both languages in a phonologically identical form:

Lexical transfers The second and even larger group of trigger-words is lexical transfers that are
phonologically unintegrated (or integrated at a low level only) in the language of interaction:

Bilingual homophones A third category mentioned by Clyne (1967ff) is bilingual homophones, words
that sound the same or nearly the same in the two (or more) languages (or language systems) of the
speaker. Homophones occur for the most part in genetically closely related languages, but they happen
to appear also in less closely related languages. Thus in Russian German the discourse particle no (a
dialect variant of Standard German nun ‘well’) is phonologically identical to the Russian adversative

Discourse markers Discourse markers that had been borrowed from the contact language constitute a
special type of trigger-words that Clyne also counts as bilingual homophones (cf. Clyne 1991: 194). I wish
to consider them here under a separate label, because throughout my corpora these elements turned
out to be the most frequent trigger of language transversion. This is due to the fact that in all language
contact situations these kind of lexemes are borrowed at an early stage, because they are easily
detachable.11 According to Matras (1998), there are three possibilities for borrowing: either the system
of discourse markers of the recipient language or the donor language can be used for both languages, or
a mixed system can emerge (using discourse-marking devices from either language, and that have
pragmatic functions differing from those in their language of origin). The frequency of this kind of
borrowing is due to the fact that discourse markers are elements used to organize the communication
process and are therefore pragmatically detachable from the language system: they are perceived as
“gesture-like, situation-bound devices” and that makes them “detachable from the content message of
the utterance” (see Matras 1998: 309). Thus, in many bilingual speech communities, discourse markers
from only one of the speaker’s languages (generally from the dominant language) become part of the
interactional system of the speaker, irrespective of the language in use. The more “gesture-like” these
elements appear and the less their lexical or content-relation is, the more likely they are to be
integrated into the recipient-language system. According to Matras’ definition, “the less content an
expression has and the less analyzable it is to the speaker, the more gesture-like and situation-bound it
is likely to be” (1998: 310). 12 For instance, in the English-German bilingual speech communities, a
discourse marker such as

Although codeswitching serves a variety of discourse functions, intentions to


codeswitch are likely subject to pragmatic, and interactional
constraints. Poplack (1987) compared codeswitching behaviors of Spanish-
English Puerto Ricans living in New York City to those of French-English
bilinguals in Ottawa-Hull, Canada, and observed differences in how the
communities engaged in codeswitching. While Puerto Ricans adopted an open
discourse mode, opportunistically threading together words and phrases from
each language in order to convey the intended meaning, Ottawa-Hull
bilinguals maximized the salience of switch points to fulfill rhetorical
functions such as contrast and emphasis (see also Myslín and Levy, 2015, for a
similar observation with Czech-English bilinguals). Importantly, these
findings suggest that bilinguals may plan speech differently as a function of
their communicative goals (Gardner-Chloros et al., 2013).

Codeswitching patterns are also constrained by bilingual ability. Whereas


highly proficient bilinguals typically favor complex intra-sentential
codeswitches and exhibit greater consistency of codeswitching occurrences,
less proficient bilinguals tend to limit switching to freely movable constituents
(e.g., tag items such as “I mean” or “you know”; Poplack, 1980), and show less
voluntary control of their switching behavior (Lipski, 2014). This observation
is particularly relevant for bilingual speech planning because it shows that
“fluent bilinguals codeswitch because they can, and not because they cannot
speak any other way” (Lipski, 2014, p. 24). It follows that a better
understanding of the processes that mediate codeswitching requires the
consideration of bilinguals’ habits of language use as well as the interactional
demands of their language environment.
he research we have reviewed suggests that language accessibility may be the key factor in code
switching. Bilinguals switch languages whenever a word in a base language is not currently accessible. At
issue is whether or not this switch is timeconsuming. Although some evidence suggests that language
switching is strategic and occurs only when bilinguals have enough time to select the appropriate
lexicon, empirical research is needed to clarify the linguistic as well as the psycholinguistic factors
influencing this language switch. Although significant progress has been made in formulating models of
bilingual memory, it is unclear how these models can be applied to code switching. Theoretical work is
needed to explain how the bilingual’s two linguistic systems interact. For example, why is it that
bilinguals experience interference

One major weakness of this view is that it does not allow for the possibility that code switching is due to
failure to retrieve the correct word. This inability to remember is reminiscent of the classic tipof-the-
tongue (TOT) phenomenon, in which people are sometimes unable to remember information that they
know. For example, one of us experiences this every time he tries to remember the Spanish word for
estimate (”presupuesto”). The reason for the difficulty is not that he does not know the correct word,
but that he does not use this word frequently. Switching to English makes it easier and faster to retrieve
the word. Thus, code switching may be a problem of retrieval affected by a combination of closely
related factors such as language use and word frequency.

Finally, the notion that people code-switch as a strategy in order to be better understood is another
plausible alternative. Some ideas are better communicated in one language than another. For example,
the Spanish word “cariño” implies a combination of liking and affection. Neither of these English words
alone truly conveys the meaning of the Spanish word. Thus, two Spanish-English bilinguals conversing in
English would achieve a greater level of understanding by using this Spanish word if they wanted to
refer to this concept.

The research we have reviewed suggests that language accessibility may be the key factor in code
switching. Bilinguals switch languages whenever a word in a base language is not currently accessible. At
issue is whether or not this switch is timeconsuming. Although some evidence suggests that language
switching is strategic and occurs only when bilinguals have enough time to select the appropriate
lexicon, empirical research is needed to clarify the linguistic as well as the psycholinguistic factors
influencing this language switch.
these switches are not arbitrary since they may depend on the situation of the conversation, the topic of
the conversation, the emotional aspects involved, the language preference of the speaker and the need to
express the own identity. Bilingualism and especially code-switching were long considered as “a sign of
linguistic decay” (Appel & Muysken 1987: 117).

You might also like